Ronald F. Avery
Dear Mr. Lykins,
I want to thank you for your permission to write an extended piece on Constitutional law as a visiting contributor with your one stipulation that it be “high and tight.” Having discovered the State’s “presumption” of “absolute sovereign immunity” to harm the “subjects” in my appeal to the Supreme Court of Texas, I have some qualification to comment upon the present drive to overhaul the “unwieldy” Texas Constitution of 1876. I am certainly devastated by the rulings of the “courts” in regard to “absolute governmental or sovereign immunity” which I proved does not exist in America or in any state in the union except by judicial, legislative and executive corruption of the most egregious and tyrannous type. Yet, I endeavor to encourage both myself and my readers by what I write herein.
Our “representatives” and the
media mislead us by referring to
The citizens are distracted today by the manipulators of their passions in order to create the illusion of open government and sovereignty in the citizens. Therefore we read of Gay rights, prayer in school, Ten Commandments in Court Houses, Pro-choice, Pro-life, support our troops, bring them home, conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat, left and right. But the reality is that none of the members of any of those factions own their life, liberty or any property whatsoever. James Madison gave the answer to this problem in Federalist Letter #49, “But it is the reason, alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government. The passions ought to be controlled and regulated by the government.” We have the reverse. We are attempting to control government with endless passions in conflict rather than using political science and its revealed sole purpose of government to enforce its well founded law to control the passions of the citizens in order to protect the property of each. Alexander Hamilton expressed his knowledge of this in Federalist Letter #9, “The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients.” Government schools have purposely failed to teach the students this science and substituted political science with the ambitions of global financiers wrapped in lofty groundless moral platitudes. No engineering professor would consider teaching phony moral imperatives to design a bridge but professors think nothing of teaching such as the foundation of a nation or justifying a global banking dynasty. The real problems lay beneath the rhetoric of the burning issues of a “democracy.” The government has seized all the property of the citizens including their lives, liberties and possessions and left them to argue over who gets more or less of the straw, mud, and privileges rationed by an omnipotent government.
The purpose of a constitution is to unite the people under a government by common agreement. What would the terms of such a common agreement be? Maybe the terms would be to make the world a better place, to equally share the planetary wealth, to love one another more perfectly, to provide for a retirement of each person or maybe cheaper prescription drugs, or to spread world peace, or to bind us together, to remind us of our roots, to sketch our future, etc., etc.? Regardless of our whim and desires, people have only one capacity by which they can lawfully form a government. Each person has a natural or God given right to protect, with force, their property consisting of life, liberty and possessions. The corollary is that no person has a natural or God given right to invade or harm another’s property. All agree that no person can delegate to another more than held in themselves, therefore, government can only acquire the delegated authority from each individual to protect the property of all the citizens. Government and its officers, employees and agents cannot invade or harm the property of a citizen nor can it enjoy immunity when it does so. Government is limited in power to protect the property of all citizens and it cannot exceed that limit by agreement, legislative act, judicial decision, or executive order or by the majority voting in favor of it. The government cannot acquire something by the votes of those that do not possess it. The sovereign people that create government for their benefit do not have “immunity” to harm others and therefore they cannot delegate that to their government even by voting to grant it.
Virtually all citizens think that when the constitution is violated by contrary laws of the legislature or non-enforcement by the judiciary or executive orders that the constitution continues in effect until others can take the offices that will enforce or correct the law. This is error and ignorance of political science. If you had a contract with a lawn man to pay him monthly for his monthly mowing for one year, would you still owe him if he quit after the second month? Would the contract remain in full force without the mowing? Or would the contract reactivate upon the lawn man’s resumption of mowing your lawn two years later? Therefore, a government that is dissolved by failure to conform to the constitution, cannot lawfully make, execute or enforce any other law, constitutional or otherwise.
The commonly expressed view is
that the Texas Constitution is too long as opposed to the U.S. Constitution
which is very short. Both the “
This is plain political science hidden from the citizens by worthless public schools, colleges and universities. In 1748 Montesquieu wrote of this phenomenon in the Spirit of the Laws, “It is also clear that the monarch who ceases to see to the execution of the laws, through bad counsel or negligence, may easily repair the damage; he has only to change his counsel or correct his own negligence. But in a popular government when the laws have ceased to be executed, as this can come only from the corruption of the republic, the state is already lost.” Monarchy could heal itself if it were initially a lawful form of government. But when a constitutional republic is dissolved by breach it has no authority to convene and act for the people. It must be declared dissolved and another constituted by all newly elected representatives of people of the same mind to unite.
The five means of dissolving a government from within were fully known by our forefathers as expounded in 1689 by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government, “Whensoever therefore the legislative [all government constituted] shall transgress this fundamental rule of society; and either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption, endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.” [Brackets added] Therefore we know that it is futile to attempt to restore a republic, with those elected to it, when those once vested with the delegated authority violate the trust of the People granted them in the Constitution. It becomes futile and hopeless to elect persons to hold offices that no longer have authority to operate in any capacity.
We may now ask, “Is the State of
In 1969 the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) was passed by the Legislature which “presumed”
to possess “absolute sovereign immunity” to kill the citizens of
The Supreme Court of Texas has
abrogated its authority and acquiesced to the legislative usurpation of their
authority by permitting the Texas Legislature to close courts by their passing of the TTCA. This Act violates Art 2
Sec 1 by giving the Legislature judicial power to dismiss cases against the
State in violation of Art 1 Sec 13, 17, 19 and 29. The Supreme Court of Texas
should have found the TTCA void in accord with Art 1 Sec 29.
A government that has lost its delegated authority through miscarriages for what ever reason, no matter how some may attempt to justify it, naturally fears the citizen and the revelation of the knowledge of dissolution. This fear causes the unlawful government to take dreadful and appalling steps to remain in power. The very first ploy is to pretend the existence of a constitution lawfully binding upon the citizens. Then “democracy” is used to enflame the passions of the citizens to action while deceiving them into the perception of participatory government. This makes politicians look good as they rally the voters for the moral causes they cook up and propagate with great expense and thought. Foreign wars “to protect the homeland” are a common and ancient technique to distract the citizens concerning the want of authority by the state to exist. James Madison spoke of this in his minutes of the constitutional debates “A standing military with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended.”
Beneath a dissolved constitution is the law of nature and the return to every individual person of the full authority to be legislator, judge and executor of their own relationships with others and their property. “Government” at this point is in want of authority and exists only by coercion and fear of guns and badges. The only law presently in lawful effect is the law of nature, which as observed earlier, is that no one should harm another in their property consisting of life, liberty and possessions.
The people at this time are free to create another government that will conform to its delegated authority from the citizens limited only to the protection of the property of each individual. When they form this new government they will again agree to no longer act as their own legislator, judge and executor over their relationships with others as long as the government protects them through their delegated authority.
The people of the once “
Having shown fully the status of
the people and their “government” at this time, what do you think is the
motivation for the drive by our present legislators to modify and streamline
the constitution via a constitutional convention? It would most likely be to
get rid of those really annoying provisions that illuminate the criminals now
pretending to be “government officials and representatives.” Until a new
government is formed by consent of the people and their newly chosen
representatives no “elected official” to a dissolved state can reform, alter or
create a lawful government. I pray that the principles of political science in
Ronald F. Avery