Will Of The People

Proclamations of the People

Assertions, Premise, and a Modern Declaration

Conundrum of Governance

 

            Liberties of the people have effectively been undermined.  It appears laws have been made to specifically subvert the economics and liberties of the people otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution and higher law.  Erosion and denial of rights to the middle class and small business, along with profiteering to the specific detriment of the taxpayer, homeowner, and worker, from corporate bailouts to universal insurance schemes, have resulted in grave inequities to lesser fortunate and understandable public outcry.  Worse, orders were given and laws were made designed to quell the people from reaction, allowing police officers to apply brut force and arrest anyone who would question lawmakers.  (Click on pop-up for partial list of these laws.)  Resolution of these grievances are imperative for the protection of the people.

            These laws are written in a way that their language is so broad, and their application is so wide, there can be no mistaking what they accomplish.  These laws are a concerted attempt to attack nearly every right throughout the Bill of Rights: abridging freedom of speech, disparaging peaceful assembly, resisting and obstructing protestors, denying petition for “redress” (new correction), authorizing soldiers and spies in times of relative peace to be quartered by electronic means in every house and mobile equipment, issuing unreasonable searches and seizures of electronics and communications devices without warrant or probable cause, depriving persons of their life, liberty, or property without any compensation, as well as discouraging accountability of representatives to the people, amending the Constitution through laws made in secret and other unconstitutional means, and prohibiting or excluding power otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution to and for the people.  The Bill of Rights guarantees consent to be governed and sovereign accountability by will of the people.  Without them, the people have no real protection from tyranny.

            It matters not whether the threat is perceived or real; the Constitution affirms rights and freedoms to the people.  But, people are genuinely concerned about their liberties for good reason.  In spite of the uncertainty as to what government intends with these laws, the government has taken taxpayer monies to reward financial executive pay through the Troubled Asset Recovery Program (Bank Bailout), and has required the working and middle classes and small business to participate in costly health insurance.  Laws like these were made in closed door sessions, and people were physically thrown out of the Senate hearings for the Affordable Health Care Act (Obamacare) in 2010.  The government has not required the same of the wealthy or corporate executives, creating greater income inequities – that have flatlined since the 1970’s.  Jobs that have been added since the Great Recession are either menial or have exacerbating stringent qualifications because the market is still flooded with applicants.  And, news of photos of the National Guard and statements attesting to high powered weapons arriving in Fergusson, Missouri to aid local police is not a casual response. 

            These are the most recognizable laws and acts, but numerous other examples of disparity persist.  The government has not responded to these concerns, either.  So, people believe the government has acted with malice against the Constitution for the detriment of the people.  The people have every right to see their liberties restored and easement of such taxation and Marshal Law over the American people.  This is where the government has fallen short.  The government cannot resist a protest of the people; it is a First Amendment right to assemble.  The government cannot reject petitions and notices of the people; it is a First Amendment right to receive new correction.  The government cannot refrain from accountability; it is our system of government.  The government cannot retain consent of the governed when it has been revoked; it is our heritage to dissent oppression.  The government cannot return an extraordinary writ unresolved; it is the purview of the people.  The government cannot refuse the proclamation by a Continental Congress; it exists to protect the Union from anarchy.  The government cannot restrict a people-initiated recall election; it exists in defense of the Constitution.  The government must not rebel against any order to comply with the sovereign authority of the people, even for contempt, warrant to leave, or registrar notice; it restores faith in governing laws.

            Every effort has been made by the people to rein in the government of this nation – by each one of these endeavors.  Yet, the government of the United States has failed to acquiesce to the will of the people and relinquish unrestrained power.  In other words, this event is considered catastrophic failure of governance.  The federal government cannot both be authorized of the Constitution and simultaneously act against it.  This has been called, a “conundrum of governance”.  Will of the People Constitutional Authority board has declared the U.S. government to be illegitimate.  What is left is for the people to enforce the results of the recall (despite attempts to derail it) and assert a government of the Constitution.

 

Top ∙  FAQ's ∙  Declaration

 

Provisions of Constitutional Law

 

            For some, this takes convincing.  The legal premise in support of these assertions by the people are not hard to grasp.  The interest of the people is, not one, but every Constitutional right of the people.  And, the law considers this scenario – where the government has acted against the Constitution for gain – to be foreign to the law under the Constitution and is considered "extraordinary".  For, if one were to apply the applicable portions of law governing extraordinary circumstance as per court rules regarding this, in essence, it would require that there exists: either a significant and novel Constitutional issue of widespread interest, conflicting interpretations of the law that require resolution, government’s orders that have deprived the people from presenting a substantial portion of their cause, government’s orders that are clearly erroneous as a law under the Constitution and substantially prejudices the peoples’ case, that there is no specific remedy for the error committed by government and typical remedy by the people would not be adequate, or that the proclamation and petition is to prevent an irreparable injury (Omaha Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court, 209 Cal.App.3d at 1273-1274, 258 Cal. Rptr. 66. 1989).  All of these are true and applicable - when only one of these is required to be considered extraordinary.  Which means, something very serious has gone wrong in order for this to have happened.

            Another area of law affirming this course is that the people are “keepers of the Constitution”, as the founding fathers have referred to it.  People have sought to hold their government accountable, but government has not yet complied.  For, the people qualify as both the governed and the highest power, not merely holding voting privileges afforded as citizens, but as enforcers of their own rights.  So, the right to seek resolution for grievances exists as a higher order than for government to govern.  This is well defined.

            The founding fathers of this nation defined what the powers of the people are.  Enforcement of “holding of government accountable”, is known in law as the “sovereign powers of the people”.  George Washington described the affects of this accountability in a letter to Bushrod Washington in 1787, saying, the people have the constitutional “power to recall” government officials who “[overstep] the desires (will) of the people”.  This was somehow understood to be included in the framework and position of the Constitution prior to the Bill of Rights being adopted in 1789.  Although self-discipline and impeachment are the only written forms of removal from office permitted in the Articles when Washington wrote about the accountability powers, the first 10 amendments later penned those rights and powers of the people.  So, Washington’s remarks must signal a connection to another founding document, existing as constitutional precedent. 

            Although the Declaration of Independence is never specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the last paragraph gives nod to independence gained by it and is clearly precedent for the Constitution.  The First and Tenth Amendments are extensions of accountability by the people and consent of the governed, just as the other eight amendments in the Bill of Rights are extensions of “due process” of law and habeas corpus found in the Magna Charta, forming a sort of sandwich effect.  For, the premise of "rule by consent of the people" was established in British precedent time and again since the 5th century.  Accountability and consent are found in the Declaration.  As stated in the Declaration of Independence (2nd Para.), the “right of the people to alter or abolish [government], and to “throw off such [destructive] government”, is known as revocation of “consent of the governed”.  It was well understood by the founding fathers that these phrases ratified in Congress lead to an application of accountability by the people and consent to be governed.

            Founding fathers of this nation described the ability and right of the people to enforce accountability by elections, including federal recall.  Then, if that failed, according to the Declaration, the people could apply revocation of federal powers, to be returned to the people, in order to preserve rights according to higher laws.  However, there is now a condition they added to first seek the assistance of government by way of assembly and petition (First Amendment).  From this clause in the Bill of Rights, it is ascertained that if requests and notices to the government does not work, the people must then seek the assistance of the Court.  For, “petitioning the government for redress” in the First Amendment also invokes judicial determination of constitutional matters in Article III, and only if that fails, would the people have the constitutional authority to further intervene according to Tenth Amendment “powers of the people”, which has been asserted and established.  A federal recall would be considered a form of partial revocation of consent, because it assumes that assembly and petition did not correct the grievances against the people.  So, Tenth Amendment powers of the people for revocation of consent to govern could be applied after accountability by the people failed to alter course through use of First Amendment rights, as it has happened.

 

Top ∙  FAQ's ∙  Declaration

 

Constitutional Contempt

 

            Accountability of government has failed.  Now, let it be understood in clear terms that the President is duty bound to see the laws are faithful to, and executed according to, the Constitution, Congress has a duty to the Constitution and the people to make necessary and proper laws, and the Supreme Court justices are duty bound to not make new laws by judicial activism.  Congress has denied the people laws that are necessary for protection of the people and instead have enacted laws in which improperly and maniacally advantages the wealthy, corporations and their executives.  Likewise, the Whitehouse and Supreme Court have been complacent to protect the people and the Constitution when capitulating to power-driven economic desire rather than to see that the laws are faithful to the Constitution in spirit and in letter.

           There is nothing wrong with having just laws in which further corporate aims to the benefit of all - so as long as those aims do not harm or create injustices.  So, these branches of government have failed in their duties and to perform what is expedient and lawful, allowing the wealthy and corporations to trample on the rights of vulnerable American people, and has festered to the point of sickening grief, great harm, irreparable injury, and gross injustice.  For their part, it appears these members of the federal government have fortified their privilege and position, despite their duty and agreement to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.  But, they cannot hold the same in contempt, nor can they simultaneously relinquish the preservation, protection, and defense of the otherwise susceptible American people for whom the Constitution was made, and certainly not in the hour so required.

            By way and extension of the First Amendment, laws and acts that have abridged or restricted the rights of the people to petition its government and to seek remedy, all while causing grief, would not have any enforceable affect upon their execution.  To the extent there is effacing of civil liberty in law and process, is not only unwarranted and contradictory, it is unrestrained authority set in opposition directly against the Constitution and the people that guard it.  And, the passing of strange laws without due course and consent of the people without the ratifying of such changes in amendment, or other similar Constitutional process, according to Article V, would definitely be improper and unconscionable.  And, legislative bills and executive orders that are contrary to the permissions and the right standing of the Constitution, especially those that erode or reverse civil liberties, are most improper, devoid of authority and execution, and are in danger of establishing unauthorized precedent in contempt of the Constitution and higher law, as it is understood.

            Those who make the laws know this, and are hoping the people do not find out about what was actually done, or these laws would not have been made in secret or make light of so often, as has been revealed by whistleblowers and dissent.  It is clear how no action of the people, or even the force of Constitutional law as it currently exists, would be sufficient to persuade lawmakers to resolve this matter quietly because of presumptively deep-seeded corruption.  In fact, the federal government has disregarded the right of the people to find resolution to these matters, refused to change the terminology in proposed law or act to correct any of these measures, and has not honored the terms of their license by the Constitution or the authority in of will of the people.  For, the government did not have the powers, by applicable laws and constitutional order, to refuse a right of the people.  And, by its inaction to resolve resulting grievances of the people, has placed the Constitution in jeopardy.

           So it has become necessary, seeing how our system of government has failed, to resort to enforcement of higher laws and protections for the people that will restore order and bring balance for Acts in Equity (an area of law to approximate fairness).  For, when representation, executive powers, property, and taxpayer monies have been taken from ordinary persons to the benefit of the wealthy and powerful to the detriment of ordinary persons, equity therefore demands restoration of higher laws that affords restitutions to the people.  Even if all of this precedent and basis of law were not true, and say the application of current laws would somehow augment or trump a legitimate understanding of the Constitution, these laws and acts of government still have caused so much grief, harm, and injustice on such a grand scale that this event has surpassed any similar crisis throughout American history.  These abuses of power so perfectly model the grievances against King George as cited by the Declaration, so much so that the people, the Constitution, and higher law demand this be made right.

​

Top ∙  FAQ's ∙  Declaration

​