New Articles of Confederation

[Rose Garden]

https://ldsanarchy.wordpress.com/2015/0 ... ation-nac/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Preamble

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Whereas the Delegates of Fifty of the United States of America in Congress assembled at Liberty Bell, Independence National Historical Park, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand Fifteen, and in the Two Hundred Thirty-Ninth Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain new articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the sovereign, free and independent States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Florida, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, Nebraska, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, and West Virginia, in the words following, viz:

New articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Florida, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, Nebraska, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Alaska, Hawaii, and West Virginia.

[ajax]

What was wrong with the original AoC?

[Rose Garden]

My position is that these New Articles are simply another face on the same monster. Or perhaps it would be better to say, they are a new face on the same person, since really I don't believe the foundation of our country was too terrible.

The core problem is that people do not govern themselves. Therefore, the need for a government arises. While the government we have is sound in its foundation, the people of this nation have managed to mess it up because they do not want to govern themselves. For this reason, these New Articles are just as flawed as the old system because it is impossible to set up a government for a people who will not govern themselves. That said, it is certainly worth discussing the NAC at length in an attempt to identify the soundness of the principles upon which they are based.

To begin, I think it would be good to discuss the wisdom of having a Bill of Rights type of document. In our day when the government and people have all gone astray, it is helpful because at least we have some rights that many Americans are willing to fight for since they were outlined in the Bill of Rights. But the problem is that all rights ultimately belong to the people and so a Bill of Rights gives the impression that the government grants rights. The fact that the Bill of Rights clearly states that the rights not mentioned belong to the States and people clearly has not stopped people from believing otherwise.

A Bill of Rights is a document only useful for a wicked people. A righteous people would allow others to do as they feel is right and only use the force of government against them if they are trespassing on another's rights. The Bill of Rights presumes that people are going to infringe upon others' most basic rights. It presumes the people are wicked.

[Serragon]

Thanks to LDSA for putting these together. A lot of work, thought, and prayer on his part must have gone into this. Unfortunately, I think it is vain.

Words have power. Whoever controls the language and frame of the discussion determine the final outcome. The current US Constitution is an incredibly powerful document. It is still as powerful today as it was in the days of the founding fathers. The problem is that the words and language of the constitution are no longer controlled by the founding fathers, but by those who wish to be our masters. So now the Constitution says what it never said, and doesn't say what is written in clear text.

This new project will have similar results over time if adopted. The real issue is that as a people we value the safety of parental government over the risk of self-determination.

[Rose Garden]

As we discuss this, I am considering the need for written law. Law written down has no power over a person unless that person adheres to it. Unfortunately, the people of our land have twisted the law in order to do many terrible things.

The idea that the NAC will change people is interesting. I have read things that had the power to open me up to the Spirit and allowed me to be changed in that manner. The words themselves were plain and ordinary, the ideas nothing that I had not previously considered. The actual writing was unremarkable. However, the things the Spirit taught me changed my very being. Despite the experience I had with those words, others have read the same thing and were not affected the same way.

Reading the NAC did not make any of those sorts of changes. It did not open me up to the Spirit. It may be that debating it will cause some change, but then again, my personal experiences coupled with spiritual discernment have schooled me in law and justice, so I don't know if written words are necessary or will be helpful.

It has been said that it does not take a large number of people in a population to make changes. It takes a certain number of a certain type of people. It could be that the NAC would have power to help create some or all of those people and therefore could affect widespread change. I can't say for myself because I have never seen widespread changes and only have the scriptures to tell me it is possible. I have a hard time keeping hope in such a possibility.

[Rose Garden]

As I am pondering this topic, the importance of principles keeps coming to mind. Principles are the bedrock of character. Character determines your actions.

As I stated in the other thread, it seems to me that the NAC is simply another method of governance. I wonder if it would be wiser to put together a document outlining the principles of freedom instead of the method. I'm not sure what that would look like or how it would be implemented but it would fulfill Joseph Smith's maxim to teach the people correct principles and allow them to govern themselves. However, any time I ponder this, I am reminded that we have such a document, or documents, in the scriptures.

[Rose Garden]

To turn to a specific topic, I would love to discuss Article II Section 2 (13):

(13) the right to remain silent shall not be violated, and shall be self-executing, being claimed merely by refusing to speak or communicate, and no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself nor to communicate in any way;

In our current system, we require police to read a person's rights which includes the right to remain silent. This whole practice is a corruption. I could say quite a bit about it, but for now, I will focus on one key element.

The "right to remain silent" is a portion of the greater God-given right to not have your words used against you. When people use your words against you, it is hearsay. Hearsay is not permitted in court because it is easy to misinterpret a person's words. Only in a situation where a person can be questioned is it fair to use their words. In that case, any misunderstandings can be cleared up.

The only time a person's words should be used in court is in the case that the person purposely decided to have their words used in that manner. If the police question a person and then use their words in court, the police must use hearsay in order to testify. Rather than that, all questioning should take place in court where the person can answer any questions as to the meaning of their words.

I could not find any place in the NAC where it prohibited hearsay in court. It does not recognize the right that we have to not have our words used against us in court, only guarantees us the right to remain silent, which is a weak right in itself without recognizing the whole law.

[onandagus]

I like it for the most part. Good luck trying to convince most LDS that our constitution was not dictated word for word by God. I believe God inspired and helped the USA founders an approves of many freedom preserving principles embodied in the current constitution. He probably approved of many of the freedom preserving principles found in the Soviet constitution. As others pointed out no constitution, NAC or piece of paper can preserve freedom from wicked men, only a righteous well educated and well armed populace can.

I would prefer to see jury nullification codified.
I would prefer to see the house of representatives chosen by sortition.
Unless the society is small enough for the entire electorate to know all the candidates, elections are nothing more than shams.
Which will be controlled by media, unions, corporations or other special interests.

I have always wondered about the morality of political systems/social contracts being inherited by future generations.
I like Joel Skousens contract which all citizens must agree to at coming of age to be a citizen. It comes with added privileges voting ect however denizens still have protections and all natural rights.

[Rose Garden]

I agree that the right to remain silent should be self-executing, but if you don't understand the fullness of the law then that right can be and will be twisted unjustly. Why should it matter if you have a right to remain silent? Because of course, what you say can be used against you in court. But if what you say is used against you in court, it is hearsay.

Most evidentiary codes defining hearsay adopt verbatim the rule as laid out in the Federal Rules of Evidence, which generally defines hearsay as an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted. "Out-of-court" is shorthand for any statement other than one made under oath and in front of the factfinder (the jury, or the judge in a bench trial) during the same proceeding in which it is being offered in evidence.

Again, the problem with hearsay is that it is difficult to understand exactly what a person meant. Even if the hearsay could be quoted word for word, which is very unlikely unless it has been recorded, it still would fall short because the person presenting the words can only present their interpretation. Since a person cannot be compelled to be a witness against their own self, they should not have their words be brought into court by anyone other than their own self.

The bottom line is, hearsay is the issue. It's the main issue. It's the reason behind having a right to remain silent. And only by understanding that can you properly enforce the law.

Am I missing some other reason behind allowing someone the right to remain silent?

It is also important to understand why it is detrimental to justice for the right to remain silent to not be self-executing. In my perspective, it is because once a law enforcement officer has read you your right to remain silent, they then feel it is perfectly fine to subject you to all sorts of psychological abuse in order to get to you to say something. They also feel it is fine for them to take your words, twist them in any way they prefer, and present them in court.

You should have the right to remain silent, but you should also have the right to say whatever you would like. The only statements that should be accepted into court that were made outside the court, should be affidavits and other such documents. Then, if you want to confess to the police, you may do so. But otherwise, all your communications will be considered non-evidentiary and only your actions, witnessed and testified to by two witnesses, can be used against you in court.

[Rose Garden]

It is certainly a problem that silence is being used against people in courts. If you choose not to speak to the police, you are said to have something to hide. Of course, if you do choose to speak, your words could be twisted around and used to make you look guilty of something you are not. So you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

I don't see how the NAC solves this issue or the issue of hearsay. The fact that a person has the right to confront witnesses does not mean that hearsay cannot be admitted in court. Nor do I see any place in which it is mandated that silence cannot be presumed as evidence of guilt.

[onandagus]

Hi LDSA
Thanks for responding. I have enjoyed your blog for a few years.
I especially enjoyed the gemmtam posts/project.

I understand this would be for more than LDS, being an LDS themed forum I was just commenting that it would be an uphill battle.
I did like section 2, especially how it came in the beginning instead of as an afterthought.

"Jury nullification is morally wrong" Could you please explain this?
This is a interesting assertion. Its true from a legalist perspective or if we lived in a utopia where every law perfectly reflected the commandments of God and was never miss applied. Historically it has often been a last resort for individuals against tyranny and corrupt legal systems. Even the nephite laws based on God's commandments and codified by Mosiah later became corrupted by wicked judges.

I missed the appointed part for the House, the NAC makes more sense if I read carefully
Would any form of government be acceptable within states?
Maybe I missed this too, does the Confederacy recognize Native American tribes?

Also under the NAC why does a woman lack the ability to confer citizenship on a husband?
Does manus marriage protect heterosexual polygamy?
Your recent post:
"free to permit polygamy (by issuing a marriage license) or ban it (by refusing to issue a marriage license). But they are not free to restrict in any way man’s right to heterosexual marriage and are required to recognize such marriages, as governments did anciently."

The very gender specific rights given to men make me wonder:
Would a woman be free to have multiple husbands?
How would the NAC marriage articles affect gemmtam relationships?

[Rose Garden]

I don't see how the NAC solves this issue or the issue of hearsay. The fact that a person has the right to confront witnesses does not mean that hearsay cannot be admitted in court. Nor do I see any place in which it is mandated that silence cannot be presumed as evidence of guilt.

Okay, so it seems to me that your hearsay problem is not so much about the fact that the NAC, like the USC, provides a means to deal with hearsay, but that there are exceptions to the rule of hearsay in the courts. It sounds like you want the NAC, or some other law, to prohibit the exceptions altogether. Because you feel that the rule against hearsay shouldn't just be a rule, but that there is a right being violated. The NAC and the USC put forth (codify) the right to be confronted with witnesses (which puts forth the rule about hearsay), but you feel that it should go further than that, which violates your first utterance about there being no need for a Bill of Rights to begin with, and that such rights should be unwritten to begin with. So, we went from no rights should be written down to the written rights don't list enough.

At any rate, even there the NAC, and also the USC in this case, deal with that by saying that the enumeration of rights in the NAC "shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people". This should satisfy your "unwritten rights" rule, as these other rights are unwritten, but I have a sneaky suspicion that it will not. :p

Now, concerning silence, as long as the right to silence is self-executing, then it must be assumed that the person is exercising his or her right to silence, by his or her silence. No other presumption can be made, because the right is self-executing. So, there is no need to say anything more than "the right is self-executing." That mandates "that silence cannot be presumed as evidence of guilt."

SCOTUS ruling: Silence can be evidence as guilt
http://www.policeone.com/legal/articles ... -as-guilt/

Now, you may think that is a little thing, but it is HUGE. And the NAC deals with this tyranny head-on.

Consider your sneaky suspicion confirmed.

I have been through the court system several times now. I have been to juvenile court, family court, justice court, and am currently engaged in district court. What I have discovered is that the written word has little influence over what people actually do. The "law" is whatever the majority of the people uphold, or enforce. They can dismiss what is written down if enough people believe that something should be a certain way.

It's funny. People keep trying to fix problems by creating more laws or clarifying the old laws. Every year in the state of Utah, the legal code gets longer. And yet I go into court and find that the judge can look at things completely differently and because the police and other enforcers believe that is right, the judge's words are what will be upheld. I have discovered also that lawyers don't even study the legal code in school. They study case law because it's case law that direct the courts. If there is anything that is longer than the legal code, it's the thousands of cases lawyers need to study.

To further complicate things, what passes through courts isn't always exactly what the judge ruled. The court proceedings run their course, one of the lawyers is assigned to write up the findings and order, and then the judge signs the paper. In the process, it's possible for things that weren't ruled in court to make their way into the findings and order.

So anyway, the bottom line is that democracy rules. The words on a page only have power so long as the people read and understand them and then implement them into their lives. No document, no matter how well written, can rule a people. What is in their hearts is what rules them.

I realize you have invested a great deal of time in the NAC. I do think debating it can be helpful in increasing the level of understanding people have about government. But I don't believe it is the answer to our problems as a ruling document. There is another text that I believe would be more effective, but again, only if people read it, understand it, and implement it in their lives. You can find this text in 3 Nephi chapters 11-14 or Matthew chapters 5-7.

Democracy is an eternal law. The stronger individual will always get their way. Therefore, the only way to equalize government is to teach the stronger individual to submit to the weaker individual.

The sermon on the mount is the perfect ruling system. It is the system by which the stronger is meant to rule themselves. However, due to our fallen nature, the stronger individuals apply these laws not to themselves, but to those weaker than them. They demand the weak to turn the other cheek while they repeatedly slap it.

These principles are repulsive to us in our fallen state. Tell parents to turn the other cheek when their children hit them and the reaction will almost always be angry rejection. Treating a child that way is said to be teaching them that it is okay to hit. The evidence that is daily before the eyes of the parent tells a completely different story, but they can't see it because of their disbelief. Their disbelief is the result of not applying the laws to themselves. Children act the same way their parents treat them and yet the parent continues to expect them to act more virtuously than themselves.

Effective government will come about when people recognize natural leadership and then adhere to true leadership principles. The man who rules with an iron fist in his home is not going to go out and support laws that promote freedom. Each man needs to learn to turn the other cheek to his wife. Each wife needs to learn to turn the other cheek to her children. When they do, they will witness their children turning the other cheek to them and to each other and they will have learned the true key to peace on earth.

Creating more laws, more restraint on government, better description of government policy will have no effect whatsoever until men and women learn to lead in righteousness at home. Otherwise, they will continue to blindly support laws that restrict their neighbors in unrighteous ways. They will do so even as they believe they are making their world more free. However, once people have truly learned to respect liberty, the law becomes dormant and meaningless to them. The true law is written on their hearts and the law written with paper and ink will only reflect what they themselves have become.

Please forgive me for beating the same old horse. I don't think it is dead quite yet. I have, however, had my say on this matter generally. It took me this long to pull my thoughts together intelligently. I would love to continue discussing the NAC as long as you are willing to put up with me doing so.

I am also curious why jury nullification is morally wrong. And there's quite a bit of discussion that could be had about your position on why it is okay for a man to slap a woman, which is in your first post about the ongoing debate. But let's start with jury nullification first and go from there.

[Rose Garden]

Jezebel, as this is a debate, let's admit that the NAC won this one, on the point of the hearsay and silence. It showed itself superior to the USC, for under the USC, (using your own words) :

You are [possibly] damned [because of the exceptions to the rule against hearsay] if you do [speak] and [possibly] damned if you don't [speak].

But under the NAC:

You are [possibly] damned [because of the exceptions to the rule against hearsay] if you do [speak] ... [but not] damned if you don't [speak].

I am also curious why jury nullification is morally wrong.

See my comment immediately above this one.

And there's quite a bit of discussion that could be had about your position on why it is okay for a man to slap a woman, which is in your first post about the ongoing debate.

Those comments were said in the context of the right to defend:

Article II. Section 2.

(2) all men shall be justified in defending themselves, their wives, their children, their friends, their neighbors, their property, their homes, their lands, their country, their government, their rights, their privileges, their liberties, their religion and their all, and the all of their neighbors, even unto bloodshed, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded;

Given that the Mormon canon puts forth this very right, this shouldn't be such a big deal to Mormons.

My premise is that both fall short and therefore neither have won. I was debating the entire principle, not the difference between the two. There is no mention of the right to remain silent in the constitution, only an injunction that a person cannot be compelled to testify against themselves. However, in our society where the right to remain silent is such a prevalent notion nearly every man, woman, and child knows the phrase, we have the justice system mowing over that right at every turn and justifying itself at every turn.

So, how is the NAC going to ensure that people have the right to remain silent? How does it guarantee that silence isn't construed as guilt? If we cannot honor that right now when every arrest requires a recant of the law, how will the NAC assure it will be different?

In my opinion, it is better to lay out principles as simply as possible. Those who have hearts that are just will not take advantage of a lack of detail. They will know that putting pressure on people to talk, twisting people's words to make them look bad, and assuming guilt from silence is not just. They will be seeking truth, not a fall guy to pin the crime on. They will need only the principle. It is the wicked who need everything spelled out to them, but even then, they generally find a way to do their wicked works.

[Rose Garden]

Let me just say, if there is text that cannot be misconstrued then it can still be disregarded. What good is the self-executing clause if authorities choose simply to ignore it?

I have offered evidence that authorities can and will disregard the law even when it is spelled out clearly. If you want to research my claim, look up the definition for disorderly conduct in the Utah legal code yourself and ask a judge or attorney whether an incident in a private home can qualify. Also, explain why I was charged with a misdemeanor c when disorderly conduct is considered an infraction except if someone asks you to stop and you don't, which no where in my police report did it say I was asked to stop. I will provide you the report if you'd like. The only explanation is that authorities are able to simply disregard the law.

If you choose to overlook my evidence, and the evidence of hundreds of thousands of cases where the exact same thing has taken place, then you cannot say you truly understand law. And if you do not understand law, how can you claim you are capable of drafting a document that has the power to rule a nation?

I have made a claim and I have offered evidence to back up my claim. You have made a claim, but where is your evidence? Where have you proven that the fact that you write that a law will be self-executing, it merely is? Show me some evidence of your claim other than simply telling me I'm mistaken.

You have invited debate on this document and that is wise. However, in order for the debate to be of any value, you must allow it to help shape the document. My experience and perspective can strengthen this attempt, if it is taken into account. But if instead you insist on the NAC being correct without taking into consideration real life experience and human nature, it has no more chance of standing the test of time than any other nice idea.

[Rose Garden]

Is the debate over? Did I win?

If so, would anyone else like to debate the NAC and see if they can defend the U.S. Constitution (USC) and attempt to show that the USC is better than the NAC? (You won't be able to, but go ahead and try anyway...)

I got distracted. You haven't won until the elders of Israel have established the NAC as the law of the land.

[Rose Garden]

On jury nullification:

The problem I see with your reasoning here is that you expect the law to be spelled out in every point. In that case, it is wrong for a jury to make a decision against the law. It empowers the majority and weakens the individual. The constitution in many ways strengthened the individual.

In every situation, there are many nuances. As law makers try to cover all these nuances, they take away power from the enforcers of the law. Our country is in this condition right now, with law makers creating thousands of pages of law meant to cover every aspect of every situation. It shows a lack if trust in judges and in juries. This lack of trust, in my opinion, is warranted, but if we were wise, we would be placing judges and juries we can trust in the decision making seats.

The real problem is that we are not electing judges and juries who are qualified to make a wise decision. Juries are selected based on bias. They ought to be selected based on whether their life circumstances would best inform them of the correct decision in specific cases. Judges should have demonstrated that they have sufficient life experience to understand people, not simply obtained lifeless degrees that make them feel they are better than most others.

Juries should have power to nullify a law that is not fair for a specific individual. That way, individuals are not caught by laws that were set to address broad problems. It allows a better balance between the majority and the individual.

I should note that the essential element in seeking justice is trust in God. The founding fathers stacked the odds against the accuser because they wanted to make sure they weren't the ones perpetuating crimes. So many have been unjustly harmed by governments pretending to met out justice. The current society allows this problem to run rampant.

If you trust in God, you only punish a man if you are certain beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty. You trust God to take care of safety and justice issues if you are wrong. It is better to let a guilty man go free than to let an innocent man be punished.

This trust extends to the bias of juries. By allowing a situation where juries may let their prejudice free a guilty man, you are placing your trust in the Lord that he will be the ultimate judge. In the process, you are giving the individual a better chance of having his rights protected.

[Rose Garden]

I got distracted. You haven't won until the elders of Israel have established the NAC as the law of the land.

LOL.

So are you going to leave me hanging on the jury nullification issue? In case you missed it, see the first post on this page.

[Rose Garden]

Your opinion that the NAC has won the two points we debated is not shared with me. You have stated that those who debate the NAC would be persuaded to support it, but so far that has not been the case. You have not shown me how the NAC will ensure that people actually follow the law. Instead, you conceded the point that laws can simply be ignored.

I am not satisfied either on this subject. I have a bit more to say about it. The article you quoted helps support my perspective as well.

[Rose Garden]

If we are going to score this debate, then it ought to be scored based on the stated objectives if the debate, so that would be persuading me to accept it over the USC. In that case, the score stands at:
NAC-0 USC-2

You are, of course, free to count the score however you like, but if you continue to score it according to your opinion of how good your argument is, your stated purposes will fail. You will find yourself standing alone cheering yourself on. Of course, even if you accept my method of scoring, you still run the risk of finding yourself alone in the end, but you are much more likely in that case to have learned a thing or two in the process.

[Rose Garden]

So, more on jury nullification:

The argument that it could be used as a tool for secret combinations is, in my opinion, not a valid reason to dismiss it. The whole purpose of secret combinations is to negate the law and so there is no vehicle which cannot be hijacked for that purpose. You also run into the two wolves and a lamb situation when you give full sway to the majority. That is why it is essential to have safeguards for the individual.

[Serragon]

You have no moral responsibility to follow an unjust law. You have no moral responsibility to convict someone when the law is unjust.

Just like any other action, jury nullification can be moral or immoral depending upon how it is applied.

[Serragon]

"The Majority" is an abstraction. It can have no rights.

Tyranny by a mob is no more acceptable than tyranny by a king or president. When tyrants enact laws for their benefit at the expense of the natural rights of others, it is never immoral to nullify. It is immoral to nullify when it is clear laws protecting natural rights have been violated.

LDSA.. I understand the point you are making. I just disagree with it completely.

I apologize if I have derailed this thread as this is tangential to the main point.

[Rose Garden]

Your opinion that the NAC has won the two points we debated is not shared with me.

Well, it is not up to you or me to decide who wins the debate. Those that read the debate will decide who won.

But I have clearly shown that on point #1 (hearsay), the NAC equals the USC (contains the same language) but then goes farther at supporting the principle of freedom than the USC by including the right to silence in a self-executing form. That is a point for the NAC on that issue. It does MORE than the USC, showing it is BETTER than the USC. That gives it a point on issue #1.

The second issue (#2), on jury nullification, is not even an issue in the USC, nor in the NAC. In other words, it has nothing, whatsoever, to do with either the NAC or the USC, but you brought it up, so I addressed it, and I showed that the NAC puts forth a right to nullify laws by majority voice, something that the USC does not allow. Jury nullification is not allowed by the judges under the USC, and this is why the judges do not inform the juries. You don't like that, but that is how it is under the USC. I showed, though, that that doesn't matter one bit under the NAC, because the NAC puts forth a right of majority nullification, which is a moral and bona fide right, (unlike jury nullification.) This shows, yet again, that the NAC is superior to the USC, for the USC has no such mechanism for dealing with unjust laws. That wins yet another point for the NAC, with the USC still at 0.

That you want the NAC to deal with unjust judges doesn't show that it isn't superior to the USC. The USC also contains no mechanism for dealing with unjust judges. That you think that no written law is sufficient to deal with wicked rulers doesn't show that the NAC isn't superior to the USC. You are using a philosophy of "there is no good, better or best, because it is all bad or insufficient to deal with unrighteous rulers" to attempt to show that the NAC isn't sufficient, and you are entitled to your opinion, but it is just your opinion. Most people would not say that all written law is inherently insufficient. Also, your opinion doesn't show that the USC is better than the NAC. It is just your opinion.

You have stated that those who debate the NAC would be persuaded to support it, but so far that has not been the case.

Here is what I wrote concerning who would be persuaded:

Here is a list of people I think the NAC would appeal to: gun rights advocates; libertarians; anarchists; minarchists; marriage advocates; law enforcement; soldiers; war veterans; people who have lost loved ones in war; anti-feminists; men’s rights advocates; hard currency advocates; people who are tired of government debt; those who are against national banks; people who are against fractional reserve banking; people who are against invading other countries or foreign wars; people who are tired of war; people who are tired of federal taxation; tax protesters; people who are against spying on the American people; people who are against general warrants; people who are against secret combinations; people who advocate the right of secession; all of the Southern States who were in the Confederate States of America; all the Jesse Ventura’s and the Alex Jones’ and the Alan Watts'; all the Gerald Celente’s and Corbett Reports'; university students and students of all levels; homeschoolers; college professors; academics; YouTubers; gamers; the divorced; family advocates; Christians, Muslims, Mormons and other denominations; the border States; people who are concerned about immigration; traditionalists; non-traditionalists; those who are concerned about government corruption; people who are tired of having their rights violated; people who are tired of so many government regulations; those who are alarmed at how large and bloated and powerful the national government has become; pro-lifers; Native American advocates; homebirth advocates; white people; black people; Hispanic people and other races; foreigners who desire to live in America; foreigners who desire to become Americans; anyone in the world seeking to be free; and so on.

Who would not like the NAC? Anyone and everyone who is currently on the national government teat, who has some benefit or privilege to lose if the national government were suddenly to go *poof*; all nationalists who are for a national government because of a vested interest they have or stand to gain by there being a national government, namely, those who have historically controlled the national government (the Democratic and Republican Parties); would-be tyrants and despots who do not want a standing army to go away, nor the ability to trample on everyone’s rights; and finally, those who are fearful, who think that taking away government power and putting it back into the hands of the people is dangerous and risky, because they don’t trust their neighbors and would rather have a king, or a government exerting kingly power, telling them and everyone else, what they can and cannot do.

You have not shown me how the NAC will ensure that people actually follow the law. Instead, you conceded the point that laws can simply be ignored.

Neither the NAC nor the USC deal with unjust judges. Why? Because that is a State's issue. It would trample upon State rights for the NAC to give mechanisms for dealing with unjust judges. The people of each State must perform this themselves, on a State by State basis, not a law that deals with a Confederacy of States. It is the law, the judges and the police that ensure that people actually follow the law. The NAC deals with the police state, directly, eliminating the police state altogether, and also with the law, giving tools to the people that allow them to make sure the laws are just, but it remains silent on the judges, on purpose, so as not to trample on State rights.

If we are going to score this debate, then it ought to be scored based on the stated objectives if the debate, so that would be persuading me to accept it over the USC. In that case, the score stands at:
NAC-0 USC-2

You have not shown that the USC is superior to the NAC on the two points you brought up (hearsay and jury nullification). So, how can you say that the USC has two points and the NAC has none? This makes no logical sense whatsoever. The most you can claim is that neither document is sufficient on those points, making NAC-0 USC-0, but that can't be truthfully claimed either, since I have shown that the NAC actually is superior on those two points.

You are, of course, free to count the score however you like, but if you continue to score it according to your opinion of how good your argument is, your stated purposes will fail. You will find yourself standing alone cheering yourself on. Of course, even if you accept my method of scoring, you still run the risk of finding yourself alone in the end, but you are much more likely in that case to have learned a thing or two in the process.

Scoring should be based upon whether one document or the other has shown itself superior on any specific topic. Can you honestly state that on those two points the USC has shown itself superior to the NAC? If so, you have yet to demonstrate it. So, please, have at it. Show how the USC is better at the hearsay point than the NAC and how the USC is better on the jury nullification point than the NAC. I'm all ears (or eyes, since we are typing this out...)

So, more on jury nullification:

The argument that it could be used as a tool for secret combinations is, in my opinion, not a valid reason to dismiss it. The whole purpose of secret combinations is to negate the law and so there is no vehicle which cannot be hijacked for that purpose. You also run into the two wolves and a lamb situation when you give full sway to the majority. That is why it is essential to have safeguards for the individual.

You stated my point for me. If the "whole purpose of secret combinations is to negate the law," then nullification is a power that every secret combination desires to have, right? "Negate the law" = "nullify the law." Now, who should have power to negate the law, the minority (12 jurors) or the majority who installed the law? Why does king Mosiah say to observe and make it the law to do your business by the voice of the people? The voice of the people is the majority, which does not commonly choose that which is not right. While the minority more commonly chooses what is not right. Now, if the power to nullify is given to the majority, then a secret combination must convince more than half of the entire population to nullify a good law, a tall task indeed. But if the power to nullify is given to a minority, a SC must simply get the lawyers to select one or more evil people to be on the jury, and then these people can sabotage the process, through jury nullification.

Giving full sway to the majority is what we all do when we acknowledge these laws. The majority made the laws and we are bound to abide by them. Heck, it is even a Mormon law or belief that we are to sustain the law (AoF 12.)

Safeguards to the individual are given through the juries themselves. That's why we have juries of our peers. But their only task is, and should be, to determine whether we are innocent or guilty.

You have demonstrated here that you have misunderstood much of what I have said. I suspect your zealousness is to blame. Obviously you are concerned about the topic of liberty and eager to repair the problems in our society. Unfortunately, it is impossible to effectively debate when my best attempts at clear language are misunderstood.

Human nature dictates that I try again. The bottom line is, if this creation of yours is going to rule the people of the United States, you must persuade them to accept it. You must persuade them that it truly will ensure freedom better than the system that they have. Your opinion of whether or not it is better than the USC is superfluous to that cause.

Since I cannot convince you of my point with words, I will demonstrate my point with my actions. I am bowing out if this debate. I fit the description of those you believe will accept the NAC and do not fit the description of those you believe will reject it. In my case, you are wrong. I will, however, invite you to look over my posts again and take another stab at understanding me, and if you can, I'd be willing to give the debate another try.

Best of luck to you.

[Darren]

The Articles of Confederation as well as every New England Charter, every Germanic Styled Law Constitution are just an incorporation document, that puts Christ first.

Do you want to start afresh, with freedom and independence? Do as President David O. McKay told Cleon Skousen, quote, "Work together by the Law."

Work together as worshipful companies, just as your freeman ancestors did in the ancient city of London.

Your incorporation documents are the new Articles of Confederation.

And that is where to begin.

God Bless,
Darren