Introduction to the Problems with the Subsisting Charter System
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams, Letter to the Massachusetts Militia; October 11, 1798
Let Us Raise A Standard To Which The Wise And The Honest Can Repair; the event is in the hand of God.
— George Washington
With all due respect to the honorable reverence for the noble founding of the United States, it has become necessary to understand the relevance of the preceding anecdote attributed to George Washington during the early stages of the Philadelphia Convention to deliberate the United States Constitution.
There are inherent errors in our constitutional system, and there have been erroneous adjustments along the way that further skew the decision making game theory and commissioning of the security departments that lead to the partisan chaos that we all recognize in the federal government. The chaos trickles down causing the social disorderliness that we endure, and there is only one way to correct the problem - a complete overhaul of the entire three-level system. All subsisting government and corporate charters are inherently flawed, because they lack adequate standards of reliability for identifying and organizing the “checks and balances.”
Although, George Washington’s comment seems to indicate less than a complete overhaul, it is not difficult to understand that the suggestion was made in an effort to motivate the delegates who were frustrated by their awareness of the incomplete information necessary for designing proportional representation, and an expandable government, to meet the needs for the inevitably expanding nation. It would have been very awkward, and possibly counter-productive, for George Washington to have suggested anything other than that the founders efforts would duly serve the start-up of the government for those who would then be better informed by the evolution of the government and advancement in various complimentary technologies.
It requires the actual attempt to compose a charter to be able to recognize the complex aspects that would accommodate the evolution of an organization from simple start-up, to expansion, and then stable production. Very few people have the talent or skill to compose directive systems. Writing the rules for Tic-Tac-Toe would be difficult for most people, and is a good starting point for those who want to learn. It is very difficult for people to understand how difficult it is to do things that they do not understand, because they see the finished product and it appears to be very simple. They see organizations of people every which way they look, but do not understand how difficult it is to lead.
The balance of power and the checks thereof
The doctrine of "checks and balances" seems to be a valid theory, and a much popularized theory, but that does not mean that it works. It is not that difficult to recognize that the "balance of government power" is not guaranteed to be balanced - it was negotiated using incomplete information concerning government organization. The expansion of government security services is absolute proof of the founders lack of information concerning government organization. If they knew what was necessary then they would have detailed it to comply with the limited government doctrine.
If the “checks and balances” worked, then we would not endure corruption and flawed policy, because that is what the “checks and balances” are supposed to prevent. If it is because, “they are not following the Constitution,” that means the checks and balances do not work, because the checks and balances are supposed to prevent that, as well. The checks and balances do not work, and that is probably because the three-part separation theory is improperly deployed. The three-part separation theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in its deployment, then the distribution of government powers is probably not balanced, and the checks on power probably cannot work in accordance with expectations. It is very unlikely that the checks and balances are going to work correctly if the separation of government is not properly constructed.
The United States Constitution, and subsequent state constitutions, are not the products of divine revelation and incarnation of Blind Justice who virtuously allows nefarious persons to interpret and exploit indefinite aspects of the charters. The American charter system is of an antiquated design with indefinite terminologies, and was never secured by a practical system of checks and balances. “Fuzzy” is the term that we use to describe such vague rules, boundaries, and aspects of systems. It is the founders’ half-truth that they could not avoid, because although some of them could imagine the unfurling of some services, like a central bank, they did not have all of the information necessary for ordering a reliable charter, and the unformulated expansion of the government is proof of the lack of information.
The ambition of this publication is not to eliminate any of the principles of the American Founding. The ambition is to gather the information that the evolution of the government and subsequent society has revealed to correctly organize the operations to properly deliver the principles.
Please be advised; the principle mission to deliver domestic tranquility has been diverted, because the erroneous government charters guide the politicians away from the proper deliberation of social equilibrium.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Contrary to the popular rhetoric, the founders of the United States are not turning in their graves because of the misuse of the Constitution, but rather, because of the continued exercise of the inadequate formulation of the government that has been compounded by miscalculated adjustments over the course of two hundred and fifty years that has diminished representation and oversight of the government services in spite of the claim that the charter limits the government. They would certainly not insist that their centuries old design for a balanced three-part separation system of checks on power is working correctly. Perpetual corruption and relative social discontent indicate that the mission to deliver domestic tranquility has been skewed.
The founders would be very impressed by the advancement in technology and social diversity that the nation has evolved to, but they would probably be alarmed by the obvious partisan strategy schemes and subsequent social disorder; and they would not suggest that it was because the politicians’ are not defending the Constitution. If they were to blame anyone, it would probably be the scholars for their not recognizing the inadequacies of the Constitution to handle the expanded executive department services, and not even trying to deliberate a more reliable formulation of government separation.
Ask any mediocre law student and they will confirm that the founders’ proclivity would be very welcoming to consider a reformulation of the government.
Problems with the design of the subsisting federal government
Presented below is the subsisting published map of the federal government. The chart seems to be adequate - everything is listed.
First of all, the chart fails to delineate the committee system of the legislative branch that should align with the security departments of the executives branch, because they are supposed to be doing the oversight. And although they have hearings - it never works. It does not matter which party you may favor, the corrupt cronies in the bureaucracy are never prosecuted, and it is not because the congressmen are not following the almighty Constitution, it is because the Constitution is an inadequate design, and so, the checks and balances do not work.
The subdivision of the three parts lack continuity. But nobody is aware of the deficiency, because there has yet to be a presentation of an orderly organization of government. Continuity would lead a more informative chart to list the congressional committees as the subdivision of the legislature, and the committees would align with the executive security departments, which would align with the courts.
Unless the citizen knows exactly what they are looking for, the chart is not intuitive; which is something that our modern sophistication expects. - hierarchy systematization. The executive security departments and the list of congressional entities are listed in an alphabetical order and not in a hierarchical order, which is what we have a tendency to expect of a chart that maps an organization.
Yes, the Constitution is at the top, and then we have the three parts, but then it gets fuzzy, because the listing of entities is put in alphabetical order, because the government has been expanded without a reliable formulation to provide a hierarchy. It seems odd that entities like the FBI and CIA do not have their own box, considering that we hear these reports about the presidents being briefed by the federal narcs and international spies every morning.
The systematics is a mess, and the mess causes the bureaucratic (and partisan) chaos in Washington that trickles down causing the social chaos we endure. A more orderly system will lead to a more orderly society - guaranteed, just ask any social scientist or school principal.
Problems in Civics
Although, recent grievances suggests that primary schools are not teaching civics as in the past, and that that has adversely effected society, that is not exactly true. The problems we endure are due to the expectations that the system design is pure, and that it is cluttered by nefarious persons; and it is the obligation of honest people to maintain the security of the system. This expectation is proof that the three-part separation is inadequate, but because there has never been an offering of a more elaborate separation system, the average citizen is resigned to trust the subsisting system to prosecute the corruption that is eventually revealed.
Consequently, the United States State Department cannot provide reliable government charters for developing nations, because our deployment of the three-part separation theory is a product of adjustments incurred during the evolution of two hundred years; and works, because it is too big to fail.
Problems in the Electoral System
The mere fact that the Constitution(s) allow the legislatures to make their own rules is clearly a violation of modern sophisticated understanding of what a constitution is suppose to secure for the people - procedure rules. It is then the duty of the judiciary to enforce the procedure rules on the legislators; thus reducing the partisan stratigies that congest the processes and causes the social disorderliness that we endure.
Problems in Trust
Contrary to popular belief it is not the job description, nor the civic duty, for newspapers to investigate or reveal political corruption or government activity in general. Every once in a while a reporter gets lucky and can do the investigation, and cause official investigations; but for the most part, such investigations can be extremely dangerous. The incorrect expectation of the news media has been reinforced by popular opinion editors and broadcasters, some of whom are former judges, prosecutors, and legislators.
It is very odd that the former legal practitioners who gather their wages describing the corruption five days a week do not recognize the inadequacies of the government model - their analysis is very myopic. Almost all of the former government lawyers have written books, some with elaborate amendment systems, but none are creative enough to consider the possibility of redesigning the three-part government model. Imagine if engineers and inventors were content with the Seventeenth Century models for gravity and electricity - we would have to get on a horse to get to the water powered mill to barter for some flour to bake bread in our wood burning stoves.
It is amazing that the former (and practicing) lawyers cannot recognize that the Department of Justice needs to be separated from its subsisting subjugation to the President and Senate. It is not that difficult to imagine how to do it, now, since every state has an attorney general. What is so difficult about polling them to graduate the hierarchy and managing the subdivisions? It is not like they have a whole lot of work to do. State attorneys general do not litigate cases - they usually are not appointed by their state bar associations either, but that can be instituted by composing constitutional directives.
Problems in Documentation
Casual review of any of the contemporary charters that comprise the three-level government system will reveal that the charters are inconsistently formulated, lack reliable procedure rules, and then contain rambling passages that consequently explain why other nations cannot replicate the governing system that we "know and trust," why non-white people remain intimidated by "the system," and illustrates how our sophist legal practitioners and corporate entities exploit the ambiguous terms and obscure inadequacies.
Most likely, it will be the honest law practitioners who will recognize the inadequacies and corrective adjustments described in this publication. And it will be them, the sober and practical minded municipal police officers, judges, lawyers, doctors, scientists, and engineers, who will lead the campaigns for municipal, state, and the federal charter conventions to safeguard the honor of their careers in light of the emerging better government theory.