Words in Favour of Republic, Freedom and Liberty

Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security. Benjamin Franklin

In a Republic the people retain supreme control – they remain sovereign – sovereign over themselves and sovereign over their government. What a word, sovereign. It simply means the one in control, the one who has jurisdiction or authority; a wonderful thing for people to have.

My first memory of the word where it was anchored in my mind comes from the movie, The Alamo, with John Wayne. Watch clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaPA8fGeRUc

Historians could write an interesting essay regarding the similarities between historical Rome and America. Rome went from a Monarchy to a Republic and then to an oligarchy and imperialism.  The United States (colonies) started as a Republic by those who wanted to rid themselves of the burden of a Monarchy and can now arguably be called an oligarchy that appears to be headed towards imperialism. An oligarchy is described as a form of government in which all power is vested in just a few people; government by the few. Imperialism can be defined as the policy of extending the rule or authority of the few over foreign countries. Somewhere during the history of both Rome and the United States the people lost the reins over their Republic. Somehow the few gained control over the many, not just in the United States but also throughout the world.

As a Canadian living under a Parliamentary Democracy I have always felt that the few are in control of my country. I’ve been taught that democracy is the best form of government possible (by those who control our democracy) but I’ve always seen that once elected, Members of Parliament seldom listen to those who elected them. Then I heard of a court case where the final decision rendered by the judge stated that there was no legal duty on an elected representative at any level of government to consult with his constituents or determine their views. The judge also adopted a statement from a previous trial that stated:

It is of the essence of our parliament system of government that our elected representatives should be able to perform their duties courageously and resolutely in what they consider to be the best interests of Canada, free from any worry of being called to account anywhere except in parliament.

Note: Underlining added.

I think most Canadians would be shocked to find out that Members of Parliament have no obligation to represent them once they’ve been elected. And, that the courts agree that they should be free from any worry of being called to account by those who elected them. Imagine putting servants in charge of your estate only to find that you cannot call then to account. Something’s wrong with this picture.

The Littlechild Case

Proceedings taken in The Court of Queen's Bench,         Docket # 9012000725

Law Courts,

Wetaskiwin, Alberta.

10th December_, 1990

The Honourable Mr. Justice, E.A.  Marshall

Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta

E. Molstad, Esq.

For the Defendant

F. Wall

For the plaintiffs

Official Court Recorder

THE COURT: Thank you. Well, as you suggested and conceded Ms. Wall, it appears clear to me that the Statement of Claim must be struck out -- that legal proceedings are not the correct forum to seek the relief which has been sought. Counsel for Mr. Littlechild has outlined the law.  The Statement of Claim alleges a failure on the part of Mr. Littlechild to consult with the constituency members and a failure on his part to account to them, further failing to ascertain their views in voting for the government's goods and services tax and failing to adequately represent their views in his voting for the government's goods and services tax.  It appears that the action is a claim of a breach of duty on the part of the M.P. of the Plaintiffs.   It seems clear on the authorities and I note in Roman Corporation which has been cited, that if I have any doubt on this application, as to whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action, I must give the benefit of that doubt to the Plaintiffs and refuse the application and leave the matter to be decided at a trial. However I am satisfied the Plaintiffs have no cause of action against the Defendant. I know of no legal duty on an elected representative at any level of government to consult with his constituents or determine their views. While such an obligation may generally be considered desirable, there is no legal requirement.  I adopt the quotation from the trial in the Roman Corporation case, where he said:

"It is of the essence of our parliament system of government that our elected representatives should be able to perform their duties courageously and resolutely in what they consider to be the best interests of Canada, free from any worry of being called to account anywhere except in parliament."

So, it appears to me that the only remedy existing for the Plaintiffs is the remedy provided by our Constitution in the right to vote in a future election.   I note also that the prayer for relief gives some difficulty.   They request an Order of the Court recalling the Defendant to account to the Plaintiffs in his constituency for his actions in parliament.   I would be inclined to strike the Statement of Claim on that paragraph as well.   But I note they do make a prayer for such other relief as the Court shall deem just which probably is general enough that the action could not be struck out on that account alone.   So I am satisfied that no court can compel the Defendant to account to his constituents and just to show you what really occurs in this application, Ms. Wall, what I am really assuming for the moment is that everything you have said in the Statement of Claim is correct.   Even if that is all true the Court can't give you assistance because in the drafting and the exercise in the use of our constitution through the decades, it has been the wisdom of our Fathers of Confederation and others that M.P.'s must be given a right to carry out their duties without any worry about being called to account during their term of office.   That is the way our constitution was drafted and I must take judicial notice of the Act - - which relates to Members of Parliament, the Parliament of Canada Act, that the members of the House of Commons enjoy all the privileges and immunities of Members of Parliament, Parliament of the United Kingdom.    So, under the circumstances I am dismissing -- or I am allowing the application to strike but the Statement of Claim and it will be struck out accordingly.  

The remainder of the transcript deals with court costs (snipped)

***************************************************************

In the above transcript, the case referred to was “Roman Corporation Limited vs. The Hudson Bay Company”, both corporate entities. The reference itself does not refer to a “roman incorporation - roman person”; however, that case referred to the limited liability status of Members of Parliament - showing that Parliament is considered to be a “make-believe ship” - an incorporation in the Roman Empire style, whereby the crewmembers (of real or imaginary ships) are considered to not be responsible for their own actions, but are totally subservient to the captain and officers of the ship.

This little known decision should be delivered to every Canadian; probably to everyone under a monarch controlled Parliamentary Democracy. It seems that when we elect Provincial or Federal Government members all we’re doing is filling the Board of Director’s seats for one of the Queen’s foreign corporations known as Canada. Evidence to that could be the oath each elected member must take before they can occupy their seat. It may surprise Canadians to know that the oath is not to them; it is to the queen. The following was taken from: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch04&Seq=9&Lang=E.

Before a duly elected Member may take his or her seat and vote in the House of Commons, the Member must take an oath or make a solemn affirmation of allegiance or loyalty to the Sovereign and sign the Test Roll (a book whose pages are headed by the text of the oath). When a Member swears or solemnly affirms allegiance to the Queen as Sovereign of Canada, he or she is also swearing or solemnly affirming allegiance to the institutions the Queen represents, including the concept of democracy. Thus, a Member is making a pledge to conduct him-or herself in the best interests of the country. The oath or solemn affirmation reminds a Member of the serious obligations and responsibilities he or she is assuming.

The obligation requiring all Members of Parliament to take the oath is found in the Constitution Act, 1867, with the text of the oath itself outlined in the Fifth Schedule. [207] The Act states: “Every Member of the … House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person authorized by him … the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act …” The wording of the oath is as follows: “I, (Member’s name), do swear, that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.” [208]  As an alternative to swearing the oath, Members may make a solemn affirmation, by simply stating: [209]  “I, (Member’s name), do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.”

Although the above states that: Thus, a Member is making a pledge to conduct him-or herself in the best interests of the country. It doesn’t state, however, that the member is making a pledge to conduct him-or-herself in the best interest of the people of Canada. There is a difference. And if that’s really what the intention is an amendment to the oath to include words to that affect should not be apposed.

What the above indicates to me is that Canadians live under the Dictates of a Monarch. Monarchists would disagree but in this day and age Monarchs are totally unnecessary. They serve no useful purpose. The day has long since passed that any person be born into a position of authority over others. That one person should be required to lower their head to another is in itself an injustice. That someone, through birth, expects or demands that should be an insult to all. That human beings have been conditioned to embrace the sovereignty of another rather then their own is a crime. And I rue the day that any sovereign Canadian is required to swear an oath of faithfulness and true allegiance Charles or any of his heirs. Nothing he has done has earned him that honour and birth should not grant it.

Republic

Now that you know what I don’t want let me reveal what I strongly desire. I desire a Republic where all are sovereign. Where each person is allowed to live as they decide as long as they fulfill three conditions.

1.      That they harm no other person.

2.      That they break no one’s property.

3.      That they commit no fraud in their contracts with others.

What makes a republic great is the limits it places on government and the freedoms it leaves in the hands of the individual. All other forms of government (democracy included) have a way of dominating the individual as they gather more and more power unto themselves.

The American Declaration of Independence is a powerful document but it’s in need of some improvement. Its wording left doors open that allows for the deceitful usurpation of power by groups motivated solely by what would benefit themselves the most. As an example, look at these lines from that document.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Three points are presented here.

1.      Individuals have the unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

2.      Governments are instituted to secure these rights.

3.      Governments derive their power from the consent of the Governed.

These three emanate from the true seat of power; the consent of the Governed. But where the founding fathers thinking about vocal consent or was tacit consent included? I would submit that it has been tacit consent that slowly eroded that true seat of power and placed it firmly with the few; the oligarchy.

An example of tacit consent happens after each election. Shortly after an election all constituents of a riding will receive a notice in the mail. This notice will be from the person who received the most votes in the election. It will be a notice of introduction and will say, “Hello, I’m ____________. I’m your new representative.”

Most people don’t recognize this as an offer. The elected person is making an offer to represent the constituent in Parliament. There is then a period of time after the constituent receives this notice and the time the elected person takes the oath of office. This is an important time for it’s the only time the constituent has to say, “No, I don’t accept your offer to represent me.” The constituents’ failure to respond is taken as their tacit consent that the elected person can act as their representative. Having received no negative responses, the elected person can now claim to have the consent of 100% of the constituents of the riding.

I have heard people say, “That person doesn’t represent me. I never voted for him or her. The truth is, if you didn’t say no, you said yes.

Another example: I have a friend who worked all her life and made a fairly decent income. Due to illness my friend became unable to work and over time was forced onto government assistance. When my friend learned how little she would receive her comment was, “How do they expect a person to live on this.” I told her that she had previously agreed that it was a fair amount. I explained that the government had passed an Act in the Provincial Legislature stipulating the amount that a recipient of benefits would receive. Again, they waited an appropriate time, usually thirty days, before making it Law. Those thirty days were my friend’s opportunity to voice her opposition to the Act. Failing to do so was her tacit consent. With no opposition to the Act, the government could now pass it into Law. My friend had given her tacit agreement to the Act and thus, had lost her opportunity to complain.

I don’t believe the founding fathers looked at this possibility. If they had I’m sure that they would have stipulated that consent must not be gained through tacit means. I do believe, however, that Monarchies have only given up control with the knowledge that control can be regained through tacit consent.

With the tacit consent of the people of the Republic the American oligarchy now claims to be a democracy, a word that cannot be found in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution. And it is this Democracy they intend to spread to the rest of the world. They’re not intending to spread a Republic. I wonder why.

It is said that when Benjamin Franklin exited the Constitutional Convention a woman asked him, “Sir, what have you given us?” To which he replied, “A Republic Ma’am, if you can keep it.” Through tacit consent, it was lost.

Canada has never had the opportunity of a Republic. We have always had a Parliamentary Democracy. Canadians have always been told that their form of government offers them more freedom than any other. But we are not taught of the benefits of a republic. We‘ve not been taught how Democracy manipulated our tacit consent to steal what little freedom we had. And, we’re not taught that democracy is the best form of government for an economic system that burdens us with an un-payable debt. If the Bank of Canada Act or the Federal Reserve Act had to be passed with the active, vocal and written consent of the people, they would have died on the floor. No people, aware of the consequences of these acts, would have agreed to them. Both were passed by stealth and are thus a fraud perpetrated on an unsuspecting people.

Once one sees how individual rights can be eroded by the manipulation of our own tacit consent it becomes evident that liberty and freedom can only be had through a consciously retained Republic. One in which the scope and power of the government is limited. The sole purpose of the American Bill of Rights was to safeguard individual rights by limiting Government power. The whole document is about what the government “Shall not do”. I watched a video yesterday where the narrator stated that the tenth amendment basically says, “If we forgot anything, you can’t do that either.”

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

As a Canadian I vote that we pursue a Republic form of government. I urge all people everywhere to pursue that end. Until we have that we will have slavery.

With the present forms of governments around the world a very few in each country lead the many into confrontations and war for their own gain. Hermann Goering, Hitler’s number two man probably said it best with the following:

“Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. [Notice he never mentioned a Republic.] Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. It is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Goering was commenting on how to generate public acceptance and enthusiasm for the mass slaughter that is war. Next read Julius Caesar’s comments; they sound somehow familiar.

“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervour, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.

And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.

How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.”

The only defence that the people have over these forms of lies is a consciously held Republic. To do that the people need to firmly grasp the knowledge of what rights are theirs. They must constantly be on guard to protect these rights for without them they become slaves. They must never forget that with freedom comes responsibility; not only the responsibility to protect their own freedom and liberty but the responsibility to protect their neighbours as well.

Much more could be written but I’ll close with something written and published previously.

Be careful of this word "freedom", especially if you want freedom from responsibility. You should know that there are those who are more than willing - in fact they are eager to embrace that which you cast off. And years later when your grandchildren become adults they will be docile followers of those who picked up what you left behind.

Today the world is full of docile people. They know that responsibility for their children's education rests with the school board; that the responsibility for hospitals and medical care rests with the health "authority"; that the responsibility for law and order rests with the police; (they're even cautioned, "don't get involved. Call the police.") They know that the responsibility for their country's economy rests with the central bank and they know that their relationship with the people of other countries rests with the government.

But slowly, painfully slowly for some, there is an awakening going on today. That awakening is the realization that all the above mentioned responsibility rests not with any authority; it rest squarely on the shoulders of the people. The people have elected and appointed servants, not sovereigns. Sovereignty's rightful place rests with the people; always with the people. The people forgot for awhile, but now memory's return journey has begun.

Remember freedom. Remember liberty.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments to the author are welcomed. david.ealing@gmail.com