Abstract Description of a Six-part Government Separation Model

[$ecular#eckler]

dude - i am saying - tell me what you'd do. you have a blank sheet of paper to tell me how we fix this. im open to your suggestions - IF YOU'D GIVE ANY.

hopefully if we rewrite that bad boy, we have people with a far more open mind at the helm. and hopefully those people give ideas, not bullshit.

I am very confident that I am the open mind and the most advanced. The people who are inclined, talented, and skilled, for the effort will probably not be able to present anything that challenges my idea of a six-part separation model. At best they will provide ideas for advancing my model.

The separation model I present suggests that the separation of government is demarcated by the six partitions of law, and then those branches are subdivided by the traditional three processes of law.

The Administration is comprised of the six leaders of the legislative bodies and supreme court chief justice, and the executive officers of the security departments.

1. The President is nominated by the legislative factions (political parties), and appointed by general population referendum. The President is responsible for the orderly functions of the Intelligence Security Department, and appoints the director for the Intelligence Department. The Directer of the Intelligence Department is nominated by the Department personnel.
2. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is nominated by the court factions, and appointed by the President. The Chief Justice is responsible for the orderly functions of the Courts and the Military Security Department. The Commander of the Military is nominated by the Military personnel, and appointed by the President.
3. The Foreman of the Senate is nominated by the Senate of State Jurists, and appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Foreman of the Senate is responsible for the orderly functions of the Senate and State Security Department. The Ambassador of State is nominated by the State Department personnel and appointed by the President.
4. The Chairman of the Board of Commerce is appointed by the Board of Commerce and is responsible for the orderly functions of the Commerce Security Department. The Commissioner of the Commerce Department is nominated by Department personnel and appointed by the Chairman of the Board of Commerce.
5. The Attorney General is appointed by the League of States Attorneys General, and is responsible for the orderly functions of the Justice Security Department. The Attorney Advocate is nominated by the Justice Department personnel and appointed by the Attorney General.
6. The Speaker of the Network of Representatives is appointed by the Network of Representatives, and is responsible for the orderly functions of the Interior Security Department. The Custodian of the Interior Department is nominated by Department personnel and appointed by the Speaker of the Network.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Six-court Convention Series​

It does not require government authority to draft, write, or compose, a new constitution.

There is no law prohibiting any one, or organization of people, from composing, or drafting, a government charter. The only persistent law regulating social charters seems to be “consent of the governed,” which was established as an American ideal in the Declaration of Independence. And as any advanced civics student knows, the primary author of the Declaration was Thomas Jefferson and he suggested that social charters be reconsidered by every generation. “The dead should not rule the living,” is how he summarized it.

The publication I am writing is designed to guide those who are inclined, how to do a modern sophisticated government charter convention. The publication will be a template for organizing six-court conventions for ordering a charter for a six-part separation model for any level of government.

Although, no person is forbidden from writing a government charter, ratifying a charter at any level of government will require the subsisting governments’ cooperation for an orderly and peaceful transition. At the very least, charter candidates will require a ratification election, and subsisting governments behold overwhelming control of the people’s trust for securing such elections. Further compelling the people’s trust and securing the orderliness of procedures will probably require the subsisting judiciary.

Contesting templates and trying charter candidates to a validation presentation will probably require state or federal judges to supervise the convention courts’ litigation, deliberation, documentation, and publication of a validated charter, which will include the schedule for ratification, adoption, and commencement of the succeeding government.

There is no such thing as a runaway convention. There is way too much work to be processed to satisfy the evolved sophisticated expectations of the American citizenry.

Our American vision of a national gathering of people commissioned by state politicians is probably not going to happen as imagined. For example, Mark Meckler has been campaigning for a Convention of States to validate a list of amendments to the United States Constitution for almost ten years. Mr. Meckler’s ambition is permanently stalled, because he does not know how to organize the convention and he expects the state legislatures to do it for him, because that is the simplified message derived from Article V that prescribes that the Constitution can be amended.

Mr. Meckler is persistently challenged by several valid arguments from the John Birch Society, beginning with questioning the delegate qualification rules, which is not prescribed in Article V. And their best argument, “how is it to be expected that the federal government will enforce any amendments if the government is not enforcing what is already in promulgation?”

First of all, the John Birch Society does not realize that they are making the arguments that the checks and balances do not work correctly, and that Article V is incomplete for modern society.

What Mr. Meckler fails to recognize is that if he were to figure out an indisputable delegate organizational scheme and then process the list of amendment candidates to validation, then there would be a very good chance that the delegates could then confidently request their constituent state legislatures to sanction the delegates to validate the amendments they deliberated; and this would satisfy the Article V directive.

There is nothing that says that the state legislatures have to organize the convention, and as anyone who is following the Convention of States campaign, there are some simple rules that have yet to be settled; how many delegates will there be and what will the markup and voting processes be?

Political science scholars cannot figure that out, and so it stands to reason that you, novices, cannot figure that out either, and believe that Article V is complete and practical.

Convention of States organized a “mock convention,” one weekend and everybody knew it was make believe, and they did nothing but pretend. Ultimately, they all had to get back to the jobs that they are competent in by Monday. They did not deliberate the arguments of the amendments. It was just absurd, and they do not know to remove the embarrassing video from YouTube. And this is one of those things that happens because of the erroneous charter system; the partisan chaos trickles down causing the social disorderliness.

If Mr. Meckler were sincerely determined to amend the Constitution he could probably compose a request for federal funding and employment compensations to finance an actual convention. He is a smart lawyer in good standing with the courts, but he is not going to do so, because he never had any intention of an Article V convention. His ambition was only to threaten a convention and thereby prompting the federal legislature to do the amendments in accordance with the other Article V directive, which has been what has happened in the past.

The composers of Article V were aware of the simplicity of the directives, and they recognized that if anyone outside the federal government could organize and validate an amendment to the federal charter, then that would be the succeeding federal government. It is alarming that political science has not yet defined this for our civics instruction, but as my publication will reveal there are several misgivings in the political science discipline, and my publication will serve as the paradigm.

Again, political science scholars cannot figure that out. That is because they are not scientists. They are theologians, numerologists, and fortune tellers.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Transition Security​

Conventions will be orderly, deliberate, and peaceful.

000.61: Honorary Invitations
United States Medal of Honor recipients, Nobel Laureates, and foreign leaders of state, will be welcome to attend the conventions upon compliance with convention security.

000.62: Commercial Reporter Access
Commercial reporters will be permitted perimeter and gallery accommodations regulated by the convention leader, established building ordinances, and convention security.

000.63: Public Access
Public attendance will be regulated by delegate sponsorship, established building ordinances, and convention security. Relatively few spectators will be permitted to attend the litigation sessions. All civil protests, and contests, must be registered with the municipal police services identifying all necessary aspects of the civil assembly or artistic demonstration. Marching routes will be scheduled by the permits issued from the police to accommodate emergency and motorcade routes.

000.64: Persistence of Security Missions
All federal, state, and municipal security agencies are responsible for the continuation of their missions to protect the United States from foreign invasion and domestic disorderliness during the reconstitution process. Officers are to be confident that the obvious intentions of the security missions will not be altered by the terminology of any new charter, and any alterations will not be effective until the scheduled adoption and recommission of the security agency. All federal, state, and municipal appointments are responsible for their watches until properly relieved by the appointment process described in the succeeding charters. Prosecution of criminal law retains responsibility to protect the citizens during the transition. The courts and legal codes will not incur any adverse disruption of service during the transition, because new charters are initiated to correct the inadequacies of the electoral, legislative, and statutory law (bureaucracy systems), and not the regulatory, criminal, and common laws that are "already on the books." Any adjustments to such laws will not occur until after the adoption of the succeeding charter and promulgation of subsequent legislation effecting the previous regulations.

000.65: Prosecution of Interference
All evidence of interference, most notably, vandalism of documents necessary for the secure transition of the government, will be investigated and prosecuted as appropriate with subsisting state and federal law. All officials, past and present, contemplating their liability for their acts during the former administrations are advised to seek legal counsel. Contempt for the reconstitution process by any government official will be considered suspicious, and will be investigated for possible culpability of acts against the United States and subsequent state governments. Unlike the former governments, prosecution of law will be correctly diversified from factional governing, and will be able to process the workload unencumbered by any personal prejudice, political bias, or ethnic discrimination - the succeeding government will prosecute any and all crimes committed against the orderly progression of the United States’ approach to Justice.

000.66: Documentation
All records of petitioned and validated charters are to be properly archived by the constituent copyright states until secured by the succeeding federal government.