Discussions on the Model Constitution (16th in Series): Judiciary, Diversity

Why and How I am a Committed Radical (16th in a series): Judiciary, Diversity
by Frank Wynerth Summers III on Monday, April 23, 2012 at 11:14pm ·
This Note will be about the Second Section of Article Four in my Model Constitution. For those who want to see the Model Constitution I propose as a whole you can go to the following link:

https://franksummers3ba.wordpress.com/major-themes-of-this-blog/new-model-constitution-of-the-united-states-of-america
In his book Inside the Mind of the President: Obama on the Couch Justin A. Frank M.D. writes of Obama, “One Harvard Prpofessor called him the best law student he ever taught, first out of tens of thousnads of excellent students”. In regards to legal theory that puts President Barack Obama very near the top of the satus quo in our country and by the same measure I am about as close to the bottom as one can get and be in the game at all. In a sense that is one of th things that makes me by definition a true revolutionary despite many moderating and reforming tendencies. Obama and the government he represents and the law establishment he represents are almost entirely devoid of law, legal theory or true legitimate politics. What we have already lost is so great that even to describe the loss and chasm staggers the mind. What modern American law lacks is increasingly everything. It has an accelerating and horrific disease. The law itself in the grandest and fullest sense is diseased. However, when one has a sick friend one need not instantly choose to call someone like Jack Krevorkian. One may try to get the sick friend well and not kill it. This constitution does not abolish American law. It does not end the future of American social devlopment. Rather, it is an attempt to be amjor oart of healing and improving the living tradition of American Law.
I make this bold accusation without stating all the reasons why it is true or attempting to persuade all my readers here. This is a brief note and only deals with all the complexity of diversity in the American Judiciary. But diversity in our judiciary is a lense to the whole of our legal culture and system. That is the main point I could discuss here. But what is hard for some people to appreciate is that society can be tied to great ideals, to religion, to personal fulfillment but it can only do those things well if it is also rather similar to one of a few things. One of those few things is a game.
These rules of diversity are rules of a game. Games are not trivial. The games we mostly love are not trivial either — football, baseball and other games are valuable. But Constitutional Law and politics are a more important and better game. There is a place in this total Constitutional game even to recognize other games as we may see in time. However, there are larger and better games that include the Constitutional game.
The federal Judiciary can be moral teachers, scholars and guides but only if they are referees first. They can only be aware of law as more than a game if they are aware of law as a game in a way that is not merely cynical. There will be notes that are more detailed if this series continues through the end of the model Constitution and there may be more complicated and more awaited segments of the text but few of more importance. This constitution will do its work with more or less effect and to more or less good depending in large part on our understanding of how to divide up the fields in which people will operate in the various legal aspects of their lives.
What follows then is the text in the model constitution which deals with diversity in the laws and Judiciary.
**** ****** ******* ******** ****** *****
Section Two: Diversity
Subsection One: Limited Power of Initiative
Provision One: Not only in matters of diversity but in all matters the Judiciary shall have the presumed and general posture of being a referee and official of rules, a recorder of conflicts and transactions and an arbiter of dispute as well as an imposer of sentences and decree derived from certified verdicts. However, in this system there are times when the courts can take cognizance of the issues offending diversity which arise from any nuclues of operative fact or set of events being ajudicated by any party.
Provsion Two: These are the enumerated areas where the Judiciary shall have minor active police power to see that such violations of the constitution are impeded, foresworn are punished in ways that accord with the law:
1.No Constitutional Jurisdiction shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold, platinum, silver and copper Coin issued jointly with the federal Government or the Federal Coin and Currency a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility without approval of the Emperor and Empire within the limits and provisions allowed by this Constitution.
2. No Constitutional Jurisdiction shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exportswhich arrive in any way to a complete total of Jurisdiction imposed fees in excess of one mil of the value of a federally classified Gross Commodity, one half of one percent of the value of a federally classified Improved Good or two percent of the value of a federally classified luxury good. In services and intangible goods a Constitutional Jurisdiction may not lay any Imposts or Duties except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws. The imposts and duties charged for commerce within the Federal American EMpire of the United States must never be more than half that charged for imports from outside the Union and Empire. The net Produce of all Duties and Imposts after due administration of its inspecting and collecting authority shall be paid and a surcharge of three percent shall also be paid by those Jurisidictions whose authorities are rated as more expensive than average — these net produced fees shall paid by any Constitutional Jurisdiction into an annual Fund from Imports or Exports and disbursed as follows: One tenth shall be for the Use of the General Treasury of the United States, one Tenth shall go to the Imperial Transit Authority, one tenth to the Imperial Wellness authority, one tenth shall be divided equally among the Major Compacts and the Minor Compact to which the Constitutional Jurisdiction belongs, one tenth shall support the special fund of the Constitutional Jurisdiction’s Honor Guard’s police functions related to ports and points of entry the remainder shall go into the general treasury of the Constitutional Jurisdiction. No Constitutional Jurisdiction may refuse to collect the United States and Imperial duties and Impost created by their due authorities and all Laws regarding such collections of Federal and Imperial fees by Constitutional Jurisdictions shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.
3. No Constitutional Jurisdiction shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops outside the Constitutionaly Required Traditional Honor Guard as fully it won in the Empire, raise a militia except as a light armed Home Guard and net work of chartered guards coordinated by the Regular Militia which must participate in the National Guard Program of which the First Executive Vice-President is the Dux Bellorum in times of foreign war and grave Union crisis. The Home Guard section of the militia may keep no Ships of War, ballistic missiles, tanks or canon with a range of more than twelve miles in time of Peace. The Constitutional Jurisdictions may not enter into any Agreement or Compact with any other Constitutional Jurisdcitions except for those Major Compacts and Minor Compacts specifialy authorized in this Constitution. Constitutional Jurisdictions must send copies of all correspondence with a foreign Power to the Emperor along with a filing fee equal to twice the postage of a first class letter or the cost of the actual item of correspondence as it was posted to or from the foreign power. The Jurisdictions shall not drill their Home Guard or Traditional Honor Guard or networked Chartered Guards with foreign forces, agree to treaties that suggest sovereign and direct relations between the two powers on any matter other than minimal exchanges of ceremonial honors and courtesies related ot official hospitiality. The Constitutional Jurisdictions shall not engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay and then all due verification of operations and efforts at communication must be undertaken.
5. The Empire proper shall not create systemic and sustained interference with a proper exercise of constitutional authority of the Union in the Constitutional Jurisdictions.
6.The Union proper shall not create systemic and sustained interference with a proper exercise of constitutional authority of the Empire in the Constitutional Jurisdictions.
7. Neither the Union nor the Empire shall interfere with the right of Constituitonal Jurisdictions to regulate Domestic regimes, matters related to sex, matters related real property, matter related to insurance, matters related to race and ethnicity and matters related to architecture except where specifically delineated that such right are ceded to the Empire are Union in narrowly defined ways in this Constitution.
8. The Unique privileges of the Direct Imperial Government Jurisdiction within its own borders must be preserved as well as the unique powers of the Emperor, Empress and Imperial House therein.

Subsection Two: Legal Structure and Theory

There shall be a legal theory which is stated here and is part of the constitutional law of the Empire. That except for the list of rights, agencies and perogatives granted to the Emperor and royalist regime there should be areas where Jurisditional law must control by fleld and type as well as by origins and application of the Law. The States and the Direct Imperial Jurisdiction are to be the most privileged Constitutional Jurisdictions in this regard. The Jurisdictions shall always be presumed to have a right to have their law control and when excepted to have it control except for the exception in the following areas: Domestic Regimes, electoral regimes, racial identification, real property law, mineral law, insurance and occupational licenses. The Federal courts may however try cases under jurisdictional law when a party is diverse tot the normal venue or other parties and appeals for removal when it is a civil case of value greater than the average of three days wages in dispute in a reasonable comparison wage.

SubsectionThree: Direct Imperial Government and the Compact Zones
The Compact Zones shall all servethe Constitutional Jurisdictions as outlets and venues of Direct Imperial Government Judiciary venues and in general it is through attachment to them that parties may contract in and for civil use of the Empire’s DIG system rather than the US system. The other zones may grant such privileges or have them granted on a case by case basis. However, due to their small size, complex duties and the unique qualities of the Empire the Empire assures its own jurisdiction only to true citizens of the DIG Jurisdiction, those associated closelely with Empire institutions and to those who are citizens of a Constitutional Jurisdiction belonging to a Compact who seek are have placed upon them the demands of DIG Laws and and legal jurisdiction while in or involved directly and deeply with that Compact Zone.
Subsection Three: The US Supreme Court will always appoint a DIG Master of Procedure when hearing a diversity case tried by the DIG courts or involving the DIG or one of its entities as a party. The US Supreme Court is competent to hear almost any case which is not specifically withheld from its competence in this Constitution but there are many cases it ought not to hear.
**
**** ***** **** **** **** **** *** *** *** *** ***
If you have the energy to discuss this with friends that would be great. But the basic point here in this Section Two “Diversity” in Article Four ” Judiciary” is that for our system to work there must be an effective judiciary. This judicary will ahve to repsond federal, combined styles, mixed mixed government nature of our society and especially of the union and its role within the Union and Empire. This whole combination of Diversity of law, subject matter diversity, diverse citizenship of persons and diverse rights of joint sovereigns in a complex system of sovereignty constitute the field and concept of diversity. The courts must deal with the challenges of diversity within the rubrics and parameters of this constitution. Here there is laid out a plan for how complicated legal problems related to diversity arising from style of government, federalism and the civil tension of civil and common law can be worked out. There is also an enumeration of things which the courts are to prevent various parties from doing or see that they do in a very specific set of parameters. These enumerated forbidden activities include adaptations of acts prohibited to the States in the current constitution which are enumerated in the current Article related to and authorizing Congress under the 1790s Constitution. I place it here in the Judiciary in part because of changes that have already occurred and in part because of changes proposed in this Model Constitution. This already radical document is even more controversial because it is fairly technical and I am not a technical operator in that regard. However, in a radical or revolutionary change there will be such disruptions — they are inevitable.

I have tagged a few FB friends and I will in some or all my notes. Any kind of political radicalism at any time is a risk for those associated with it and so I am keeping the tagging to a minimum and while a great deal of endorsement will be needed to effect these changes there is no indication that someone tagged in a note in this series is actually endorsing the note. As always I am willing to respond to posted comments, chat and private messages.

Advertisements

One response to “Discussions on the Model Constitution (16th in Series): Judiciary, Diversity

  1. Pingback: About Work and Living | Franksummers3ba's Blog

Thank you for commenting if your comment does not appear in five days contact me by e-mail or Twitter

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s