[In this writing I outline the general concepts of the office of the Reeve.  This is a work in progress.  Check back from time to time as I fill this in.  Or better yet, contribute an idea.  Or just give some thoughtful feedback.]

[ ------- DRAFT ------- ]

“Bad principles in a Govt. tho slow are sure in their operation and will gradually destroy it.”
– Madison’s Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention. June 18, 1787

That the Federal government is severely in need of reform is a given.  You and I both know that the government is near collapse.  What you may not know is that the main reform needed is for the Constitution to become actively enforced on the office holders of government.  When the Framers wrote the Constitution, some of them were aware of the need for enforcement, but they did not know how to add this feature.

Hamilton in Federalist No. 31: Concerning the General Power of Taxation addresses the necessity of completeness of the Constitution of the United States of America and the public’s fears of positive change in their form of government. Hamilton points out that government must be complete in its powers, and in a variation of “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” he admonishes the first American citizens to not be paralyzed by fear into not making necessary changes in their form of government. That admonishment that applies to us today in addressing necessary change in our existing government:

“A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people.
[ ... ]
“The moment we launch into conjectures about the usurpations of the federal government, we get into an unfathomable abyss, and fairly put ourselves out of the reach of all reasoning. Imagination may range at pleasure till it gets bewildered amidst the labyrinths of an enchanted castle, and knows not on which side to turn to extricate itself from the perplexities into which it has so rashly adventured.

“Whatever may be the limits or modifications of the powers of the Union, it is easy to imagine an endless train of possible dangers; and by indulging an excess of jealousy and timidity, we may bring ourselves to a state of absolute scepticism and irresolution. I repeat here what I have observed in substance in another place, that all observations founded upon the danger of usurpation ought to be referred to the composition and structure of the government, not to the nature or extent of its powers. The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty. In what does our security consist against usurpation from that quarter? Doubtless in the manner of their formation, and in a due dependence of those who are to administer them upon the people. If the proposed construction of the federal government be found, upon an impartial examination of it, to be such as to afford, to a proper extent, the same species of security, all apprehensions on the score of usurpation ought to be discarded.”

In this document I make the case that the original design of the Constitution left out a key provision in that it lacks effective enforcement of the laws of the Constitution on the officer holders of government; that the lack of enforcement has been a problem for the US since its beginning; and that the missing piece of the puzzle of effective Republican government is to simply correct the problem by adding an office to the government to enforce the laws and principles in the Constitution on the officers of government.

Most or all of today’s governmental problems in the United States can be traced back to the US government’s ongoing desire to not follow the principles of good government that are encoded in the laws that form the US Constitution.  The US government breaks those laws at will because the laws are not properly enforced.

They never have been.

[ ------- DRAFT ------- ]

Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, and US President in 1880, wrote a document in 1825, The Solemn Declaration and Protest of the Commonwealth of Virginia on the Principles of the Constitution of the United States of America, and on the Violations of Them, that discusses the very same governmental abuses that the Tea Party folks protest today. The Federal government’s abuses were happening a mere 37 years after the Constitution was put into operation in 1788.  Jefferson complained that the Federal government regularly used powers in excess of those not granted to it by the Constitution.  The Federal government had become so out of control that Jefferson found it necessary to draft a formal Protest against the abuses of the Federal government. The Draft was a warning to the Federal government that Virginia might secede if the Federal government continued its criminal course. Jefferson noted numerous violations of the Constitution by the Federal government, and the negative impact those violations were having on Virginia and the freedom of all of America’s citizens.The Federal government was raising numerous taxes and engaging in construction projects under the premise that it could do so to provide for “the general welfare of the United States” without limits, in particular the limits defined by the Constitution.   Jefferson noted:

But the federal branch has assumed in some cases, and claimed in others, a right of enlarging its own powers by constructions, inferences, and indefinite deductions from those directly given, which this assembly does declare to be usurpations of the powers retained to the independent branches, mere interpolations into the compact, and direct infractions of it.

They claim, for example, and have commenced the exercise of a right to construct roads, open canals, and effect other internal improvements within the territories and jurisdictions exclusively belonging to the several States, which this assembly does declare has not been given to that branch by the constitutional compact, but remains to each State among its domestic and unalienated powers, exercisable within itself and by its domestic authorities alone.

This assembly does further disavow and declare to be most false and unfounded, the doctrine that the compact, in authorizing its federal branch to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, has given them thereby a power to do whatever they may think, or pretend, would promote the general welfare, which construction would make that, of itself, a complete government, without limitation of powers; but that the plain sense and obvious meaning were, that they might levy the taxes necessary to provide for the general welfare, by the various acts of power therein specified and delegated to them, and by no others.

Nor is it admitted, as has been said, that the people of these States, by not investing their federal branch with all the means of bettering their condition, have denied to themselves any which may effect that purpose; since, in the distribution of these means they have given to that branch those which belong to its department, and to the States have reserved separately the residue which belong to them separately. And thus by the organization of the two branches taken together [ed: e.g., by the collusion of the Executive and Legislative branches] , have completely secured the first object of human association, the full improvement of their condition, and reserved to themselves all the faculties of multiplying their own blessings.

The Federal government in 1825 by grabbing power was taking away from the citizens their ability to take care of themselves, just as today’s Federal government is creating a welfare state which takes away people’s ability to take care of themselves.  The Federal government in 1825 has invented the idea that the “General Welfare” clause granted the Feds unlimited rights for “improving” society. Today’s Federal government continues this abuse.

This flaw of government has existed since its beginning.  “Virginia” proves that the problems of government are not, as many claim, a modern product of the manipulations of a conspiracy of modern Leftists; they were present from the beginning of the nation.

The overreach of the Federal government is the disease. The modern Leftists are a secondary opportunistic infection. Both the primary disease and the secondary infection can destroy the American government. Both must be treated.

Our Democracy has confirmed a key conviction of the Framers:  That Democracy is irrational, immoral, self destructive and caught up endless in fanatical fads of political ideals.  Our Democracy continually demonstrates an inability and unwillingness to enforce the wise limits encoded in the Constitution, because doing so would be contrary to the nature of Democracy.  Madison in Federalist No. 10 covers the topic of the flaws of Democracy in greater detail.  He warns us:

Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Madison also discusses in his Notes on the Debates in the Federal Convention that the Framers understood quite well the inequities of democracy.

The democratic process is inherently self serving and easily swayed by persons with great power, usually in the form of money.  Democracies tend to vote their pocketbooks.  And Democracies tend to get caught up in fanatical ideas.  Today we see this most clearly in the fears about man-made global warming and the fanatical extents the government goes to in order to protect the Earth from a problem which is no problem at all.  (For my friends who advocate AGW, I would suggest considering that the fanaticism as just the opposite; the fanatical refusal to protect the Earth from the obvious problem.  In either case, you must recognize that Democracy is driven by fanaticism.)

The only place I have found to date where the issue of enforcing the laws of the Constitution on the Federal government was in Federalist No. 48, Federalist No. 49, Federalist No. 50., and Federalist No. 51.

In Federalist No. 48 Madison discusses why the balance of powers will not keep the Federal government within the limits in the Constitution. There is too much political horse trading in politics. One branch will overlook a violation by another branch in exchange for overlooking its own violation. We see that happening every day now in Washington, DC. Madison summarizes his discussion in No. 48:

The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.

Madison or Hamilton in Federalist No. 49 discusses why the citizenry will not keep the Federal government within the limits laid out in the Constitution. It makes the case that the citizens in general think with their passion more than their reason. I would add two observations. First that the citizens in general form a democracy, which No. 10 points out is an irrational and self destructive form of government. And second, that the citizens tend to vote from their pocketbooks, so we elect officials who are good at bringing home the bacon, instead of those who would do right by the nation. No. 49 concludes:

The PASSIONS, therefore, not the REASON, of the public would sit in judgment. 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 found in the last paper, that mere declarations in the written constitution are not sufficient to restrain the several departments within their legal rights. It appears in this, that occasional appeals to the people would be neither a proper nor an effectual provision for that purpose.

Federalist No. 50 by Madison approaches the subject of violation of the Constitution by the Federal government. It discusses one failed model of enforcement that was tried in Pennsylvania. The politicians in that State formed a group called the Council of Censors. They tried to be the enforcers of their state constitution, which was of course an unworkable process. No. 50 does not present a finalized solution to the problem of enforcement. Madison concludes:

This censorial body, therefore, proves at the same time, by its researches, the existence of the disease, and by its example, the inefficacy of the remedy.

The disease Madison refers to is the overreach of government.

Publius continues in Paper No. 51.

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. “

This is the problem; how to oblige the government “to control itself. “  The current construction, while it divides the government into powers, does not provide for the enforcement of the Constitution on the office holders.

In No. 51 Publius continues:  “Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.”  When we look at the current condition of American government, we see liberty being lost daily to the uncontrolled Federal government.  The cause is obvious, for those who care to open their eyes.  We suffer from a lack of justice.  The problem is not that we do not have sufficient laws.  The Framers created a Constitution that is well reasoned and for the most part up to the task.  The problem is that justice is lacking in that the Constitution is not enforced on the office holders of government.

Those Papers are vitally important because they prove that the topic of enforcement was recognized as important, but it was not taken up by the Constitutional Convention in substance.  Where the topic was taken up, we look at the end results, and we see that however nice the theories seemed at the time, the proof is in the pudding.  They result in today’s mess.

From those early writings and the proof found in our own history, we can safely and correctly conclude that the idea of enforcement of the Constitution was not taken sufficiently into consideration by the Framers, and that the US has suffered endless abuses from its own government from its beginning to today because no agent is charged with enforcing the limits defined by the Constitution. The Framers certainly recognized this weakness in the Constitution. Why didn’t they address the topic more thoroughly? Perhaps they needed to get the Constitution put into place quickly, and they left this problem to a future generation to solve.

In the old West certain towns were considered “lawless.”  Those towns actually did have laws.  The towns simply did not have sufficient enforcement of the laws.  They remained lawless until they hired a capable lawman.  The US government is likewise lawless.  The Constitution is the law, but it lacks sufficient enforcement.

This document addresses the creation of a new office of government for the purpose of bringing the out-of-control and unjust American Democracy back into conformity with the Constitution and restrain it to its proper limits as intended by the Framers.  A law officer is needed to enforce the Constitution on the Federal government, and to a lesser degree on the State governments.

[ ------- DRAFT ------- ]

I.  Introduction to the problem

The Framers based the Constitution for the most part on timeless principles of good government.  To ensure that government followed those principles the Framers encoded those principles into the laws that form the Constitution.  America’s greatness comes from our having followed those principles.  When our government refuses to follow those laws, it is also refusing to follow those principles.  If good principles of government are not followed, misery and disaster inevitably results.

We must keep in mind that the American form of government is an experiment. Madison in Federalist Paper No. 14 wrote:

“But why is the experiment of an extended republic to be rejected, merely because it may comprise what is new? …  Had no important step been taken by the leaders of the Revolution for which a precedent could not be discovered, no government established of which an exact model did not present itself, the people of the United States might, at this moment have been numbered among the melancholy victims of misguided councils, must at best have been laboring under the weight of some of those forms which have crushed the liberties of the rest of mankind. Happily for America, happily, we trust, for the whole human race, they pursued a new and more noble course.”

And in  Federalist Paper No. 39 he wrote:

“The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.”

As those documents and others point out, the Framers knew that the new form of government they were creating was an experiment.  When they created the Constitution they allowed a process for making corrections to the Constitution through amendments.  They did not allow for a peaceful process when the corrective process itself doesn’t work.  They did allow for a non-peaceful process to come into play when the corrective process doesn’t work, in the form of the right to bear arms.  The Federalist Papers also made clear that violence as a last resort was to be a viable option.  We do want to prevent that option of last resort from happening.

As good as the American Constitutional principles are, the Constitution lacked a small but critical piece; the active enforcement of its laws on the Federal government.  Some of the Framers anticipated that the Constitution would be enforced by the virtue of the electorate, by the distribution of power, and by the balance of powers.  But when we look at the state of American political affairs today, we see that a great majority, perhaps as much as about 90%, of the government is contrary to the laws of the Constitution.  The most simple and obvious example is the Article requiring the States to make nothing but gold and silver legal tender.  Even the most general examination of the real powers exercised by the Federal government shows that it continually overreaches its Constitutional powers.  Time has proved that the Framers were mistaken in their theory.  Democracies are not wise and virtuous by nature.  The Democratic process is not enough to keep government in check.

According the to Federalist Papers, the Framers based the Constitution on the idea that the electorate would choose the wisest and most virtuous from among themselves as their representatives in government.  Yet, when we look at the types of people who we elect into government we see that we most certainly do not require wisdom and virtue from our representatives. [ed: Add a reference to Papers and include quotes here.]

Some of the Framers expected the balance of powers would bring about enforcement of the law.  But when we look at the scope of government we can easily see that the overwhelming majority of it lies outside the limits set in the Constitution, so it is obvious that the balance of powers is not effective at enforcing the law.  The balance of powers does reduce the ability of each branch to over centralize its powers, but the balance of powers does not limit the whole of government from exceeding its Constitutional authority.

[ ------- DRAFT ------- ]

The Framers understood that Democracy is a destructive and irrational system of government.  They established the Constitution with the intent of making it a straightjacket, encasing the Democracy to prevent it from doing harm.  The only reason they vested power in Democracy was to prevent power from be vested in a central authority.  They reasoned that a central authority would be better able to usurp the rule of law than a distributed authority would.  So they intended to set up a Democracy that is limited by the rule of law which is the Constitution.  They intended to create a limited and minimal set of governmental powers, because they knew that the officers of government would corrupt whatever powers they had.  To keep the corruption to a minimum they kept the powers of government to a minimum.

Democracy by its nature is not virtuous.  Some people today like to blame the problems of government on the electorate, saying that the electorate is not being virtuous enough or the good people aren’t trying hard enough to keep the government in check.  That’s a cop-out.  That’s like a bad football coach blaming the players for losing because the players were not trying hard enough, when really the problem is with the way the coach trained the players and called the plays.  You can blame the Democracy all you want, but by nature a Democracy is not virtuous, and it never will be. The problem lies in the structure of government, not the character of the citizens, or as Hamilton said earlier in this document “to the composition and structure of the government, not to the nature or extent of its powers.”

Because the law of the Constitution has never been actively enforced, it is not authoritative.  The will of the Democracy has always been the highest authority.  By strict definition, the US government has never been a Constitutional Republic.  It has always been a form of Democracy, properly a Representative Democracy, which is Democracy by Proxy.  It has most of the problems of Direct Democracy, and it adds the problem of corruption of the representatives, especially in the form of continual, open and unapologetic bribery, generally in the form of campaign donations, but it also takes the form of legislation favoring the financial disposition of friends and family.  By reducing the Democracy to a Democracy by Proxy, the ability to corrupt the Democracy was simplified; corrupting a few Proxies is easier than corrupting all of the citizens in the Democracy.  The Constitution has primarily been a set of guidelines, weaker than a proper rule of law, but firmer than guidelines such as Robert’s Rules of Order.

So, what can we do to fix the problem of illegal government?

Before we can address the repairing of government we must first have a clear understand the cause and character of the problem.  It’s hard to cure a disease without knowing what disease we are dealing with.

The problem as we can plainly see is that the Constitution is passively enforced, not actively enforced.  Currently, the laws are only enforced if someone feels like issuing a complaint.  The complaints can be ignored by the head of the enforcing agency.  In the horse trading that goes on in politics, one goup of politicians agrees to overlook the violation of another group in exchange for overlooking their own abuses as a means of getting what they want.  The politicians tend to only enforce the laws when they serve as a dull instrument for the bludgeoning other politicians.

The Balance of Powers does not enforce the laws of the Constitution.  That would be contrary to the self interests of the elected representatives.  The Balance of Powers is more about preventing the over-centralization of powers, than it is about preventing the general overreach of the government.

[ ------- DRAFT ------- ]

Individuals cannot enforce the Constitution.  A common reason for throwing out legal complaints by citizens is “lack of standing.”  According to the Court, the individual is not directly harmed by violations against the whole of the public, so the Court tosses out the case of the individual.  The corruption here is obvious.
The Court does not actively enforce the Constitution anyway.  They only respond to complaints.  The Court is generally manipulated by the Congress and the President anyway, so they tend to reflect the character of those parts of the Democracy.

The Democracy does not actively enforce the laws of the Constitution.  Democracy would have to be rational and moral to that.

That is the source of today’s governmental instability.  No one responsible for enforcing the laws has the nature or power to do so.  That is the disease.

So now, curing the disease.

For the US government to remain viable the laws forming the Constitution must become actively enforced.

Imagine a highway with wonderful, well thought out traffic laws that if followed would certainly contribute significantly to a safe and efficient drive.  And image that no police are provided to enforce those laws.  The drivers had to enforce the laws on themselves and each other.  What would happen?  The laws would be pretty much ignored.  Serious crashes would be a common occurrence.  Traffic would be a mess.

Image a professional football game with wonderful, well thought out rules that if followed would certainly contribute to a safe and enjoyable football game.  And image that no referees are provided to enforce those rules.  The players had to enforce the rules on themselves and each other.  What would happen?  Chaos!  Cheating!  Injuries!

So this is the cure:  Bring a law enforcement officer into government to address violations by the office holders.

The Constitution must have an office responsible for policing its laws.  This police force must have authority to charge elected representatives and officers with violations.  The police must be empowered to charge them with crimes.  They must have the power of impeachment; to bring office holders before the Senate for trial.  They must be able to force action when members of government refuse to fulfill their obligations under the Constitution.  As is always the case with all other forms of police, the Constitutional police must have authority and with authority, accountability.

Without such an office the Constitutional government will eventually collapse, to be replaced by God only know what; no doubt some kind of tyrannical Leftist state.

The English had a name for this office around the 12th century.  They called this officeholder a Reeve.  A Reeve has some police powers and some judicial powers.  The reeves worked within their shires.  When justice was needed the people would go to the shire reeve.  If the shire of Nottingham had a problem with some hood robbing travelers on the road, the shire reeve of Nottingham would attempt to bring the robbing hood to justice.  Over time the phrase “shire reeve” became shortened to “sheriff,” and so, the famous story became the story of a Robin Hood being chased by the Sheriff of Nottingham.  The office discussed here is properly called the “Reeve of the Constitution,” and it is an extension of the early idea of a shire reeve, or sheriff.

The rest of this document discusses the general makeup of the Reeve’s office.

[ ------- DRAFT ------- ]

II.  The relationship between the Reeve of the Constitution and the Democracy.
The democratic government must have no power over the Reeves office except for the power of impeachment over the officers of the Reeve.  To do otherwise would bring the Reeves office under the sway of the democracy, and which would corrupt the office, much as the democracy has corrupted the Court.

The democratic government must make no law or act respecting the Reeve.
In effect, the Reeve must exist much as foreign embassy, limited only by the laws that form the Constitution, and held in check in part by the House’s power of impeachment and the Executive’s policing authority.

III. Relations between the Reeve and Congress

Just as a Representative Democracy simplifies the ability of corrupters to manipulate the government by reducing the number of people to corrupt, so does the creation of the Reeve simplify the enforcement of the Constitution by reducing the number of people to police.

Hamilton or Madison, writing in Federalist Paper No. 50, refers to the problems of the “Council of Censors” of Pennsylvania.  The Paper points out the problems of trying to enforce a Constitution through a politically connected organization with no real authority to penalize.  The Reeve must have the power to arrest and bring to trial members of Congress.  Such trials would be held by a military court, not a civilian court.  Congress has too much control over the civilian courts.  To ask the members of the courts, that are populated and impeached by the will of Congress, to exercise no prejudice during trial is to ask too much.  That would be a little like asking the boss of a company to be judged by the people who he has hired and can fire.  Such a situation would be unfair to the members of the Court as much as it would be unfair to Justice.

All criminal trials of members of the Legislature would have to be held by a different court.  The most capable alternative to the civilian court would be the military court.

The Reeve’s judicial power would come into play when forcing Congress to action.  A judge in civil court would has the ability to require the parties to attempt to settle peacefully, and if unable to settle peacefully, the judge can direct how the settlement of the suit will happen.  So must the Reeve be able to require members of government to attempt a resolution for issues, and if the members of government are unable to come to a peaceful settlement the Reeve must have the power to force a settlement.  In effect, the Reeve must have in certain limited and clearly defined circumstances the power to create law when government officials act contrary to the Constitution, and those government officials cannot bring themselves to act responsibly.

Without that power of ultimatum Congress would have difficulties bringing itself to act, and the Reeve’s only alternative would be to force the removal of members of Congress from their seats or possibly imprisoning them for failing to uphold their duty.  As awkward as the power of ultimatum would be, it is certainly less socially disruptive than the ongoing threat of arrest, unseating, or impeachment of members of Congress.

The Reeve would begin with the assumption that all law must come from Congress if at all possible. The only time it would be appropriate for the Reeve to intervene would be when Congress is beyond a reasonable doubt in violation of the Constitution, but is incapable of resolving its abuse on its own.

The Reeve would be authorized to require Congress to consider removing members of Congress from their seats if they are involved in wrongdoing.  Congress does not always reproach its members, especially of the wrongdoer is of the same political party that is dominant in the House or Senate.  That has proven to be the nature of Representative Democracy.  The Reeve would present the case for removal, with or without support from other members of Congress.

The power to impeach currently rests in the House of Representatives.  The House does not always exercise this power, even when it is obvious that it should.  That too has proven to be the nature of Representative Democracy.  The Reeve must have the power to impeach directly, bringing the case for impeachment to the Senate if the House refuses to do so.

Congress would be forbid from creating laws respecting the Reeve.

IV.  Relations between the Reeve and the Executive

The Reeve would have the power to impeach the President, bringing the case for impeachment to the Senate.

The President would have the power to arrest an officer of the Reeve and bring the officer to trial for specific types of criminal wrongdoings.

The Reeve would have the power to arrest criminals for trial for directly violating the Constitution, presenting the criminal to the US Attorney General for trial.

Members of Congress, if arrested by the Reeve, would be tried in a military court, not a Federal court because of their direct connection and influence over the Court.

The President would have the power of direct removal of an officer of the Reeve under certain circumstances.

[ ------- DRAFT ------- ]

V.  Relations between the Reeve and the Court

The Reeve would have the power to override Court rulings cart blanc if there is sufficient cause to believe that the Court made a decision based on pressure from the Executive or Legislature.  The Court cannot try such cases itself.  That would be absurd.  Asking the Court to overrule its own acts of corruption would be to admit to being corrupted in the first place.  That would be asking too much.

The Legislature and the Court would be able to review and reverse actions by the Reeve.

The Court cannot fairly try Legislative or Executive criminals in many instances because those two groups have too much power over the Court.

Because of the influence of the Legislature and President on the Court, the checks held by the Court on the Reeve must be minimal.  Otherwise the Court would be used by the other two branches to attack the Reeve.

In matters of the Constitutional standing, the Reeve would always have standing with respect to the Constitution, so the Reeve would always be able to file suit on behalf of the Constitution.  In this way, the Reeve would help resolve the problem of the individual being unable to sue the government for violations against the whole of the public.

In effect the Reeve would be a Vicar of the Constitution.  An assault again the Constitution would effectively be an assault against the Reeve.  When individuals commit sedition against the Constitution, they would be committing libel against the Reeve, and the principles of law concerning libel would be applied against that individual by the Reeve through the Court.

VI.  Relations between the Reeve and the States

The Constitution guarantees every State a Republican form of government.  As long as a States is ill with the problems of Democracy, it is a threat to Republican government.  Many US States today face internal collapse due to their overpowering Democracy.  The Reeve must have the power to require changes in State governments if they are organized and operating in a manner that would certainly prevent them from being the Constitutional Republics the Framers intended them to be.  A State cannot be allowed to collapse because if it did it would most likely have to resort to some sort of Statism to keep itself standing, which means it would by default become non-Republican.

VII.  Establishing the office of the Reeve

The office of the Reeve cannot be established through the conventional democratic process.  The democracy would never stand to have enforcement brought onto itself.  If it could stand to do so, it would have restrained itself to the confines of the Constitution already.  The States cannot create this office either.  They are of the same general character as the Federal government and the same general character as Democracy.  The States are Representative Democracies also.  The general population cannot require the office to created either.  If it was in their character to do so, they would have required government to stop willingly violating the Constitution long ago.  That has proven to be the nature of Representative Democracy.  So the problem is how to create the office without going through the normal democratic process.

A Constitutional Convention will not be able to create the office.  As the Federalist Papers point out, the public, which is a democracy, is easily swayed by the passion of the moment.  Constitutional nullification has similar problems.

Let me simplify the argument against a Constitutional Convention with an example.  California would be represented in the Convention.  Try to imagine what kind of nonsense the representatives from California might bring.  They might try to attach a rider requiring that the Reeve create “green” energy laws or require the Reeve to build and run a financially ruinous national public transportation system.  Add California’s voice to the voices of some of the other collapsing leftist States, and you would have a complete disaster.  The smart thing for the non-leftist members of a Constitutional Convention to do would be to sabotage the effort, and see to it that it goes nowhere.

The office could be created through military coup, but that would be really inappropriate, especially if there is an alternative.

The Supreme Court might be able to create such an office through some obtuse legal slight of hand.  But the Court is a creation of Congress because Congress has the power to hire and fire.  We can rule out the Court as the answer.  The Court is more of a reactionary agent anyway.  It only responds to complaints.  It doesn’t actively create actions.

That leaves the President.

Lincoln demonstrated a rarely used power.  He demonstrated that natural principles of good government can define and add to the literal text of the Constitution. The Confederate States in his day were trying to separate from the Union.  They pointed out the fact that there was no written provision written in the Constitution preventing them from doing so.  Lincoln made the case that by reason of Natural Law the States could not secede .  A nation in which States could secede was no nation at all.  A nation has the right to keep itself whole:  A house divided against itself cannot stand, he said.

[ ------- DRAFT ------- ]

When it is obvious that some condition or structure of government is beyond a reasonable doubt plainly and obviously destructive to the people’s right to a healthy and whole government, and no written legal structure is available to address the condition and none can be created using the existing legal writings, a correction can be made to the structure of government without requiring a written law.

This document has made the case that the Constitution does contain a weakness that that is plainly and obviously destructive to the health and wholeness of the United States government.  And this document has made the case that the constitutional provisions for making corrections cannot be applied to fixing the Constitution, and given the nature of Democracy, the Democracy can not and should not make the fix.  There is no telling what kind of monster Congress would make if they tried to create this office.  I shudder at the thought.

The Reeve can be established by the President, but there are three important conditions the must be present before a President could do this:

1)  The creation of this office is absolutely necessary to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” and to prevent the abuses of the Constitution that construe to deny and disparage the rights retained by the people.  In the case discussed here, the people have a right to a rational, moral and whole Repubilcan government; as opposed to an irrational,  immoral, and self destructive Democracy.

2)  None of the constitutionally legal agents are capable of creating this office.

3)  The office established by the President respects the same principles of rational and moral government that were used in the original framing of the Constitution.

If those conditions are met, the President may create the office of the Reeve of the Constitution by writing it into the Constitution directly without the consent of the Congress or the States.

If those conditions are not met, and the President attempts to create this office anyway, the President will have committed a serious crime.  Perhaps a capital crime.  The Chief Executive must be sure of the case for this action and must be prepared to prove the necessity of the action to an unhappy Congress and a vocal minority of unhappy citizens backed by a power hungry Leftist press.

This document has provided one general outline for establishing the office that respects the principles of rational and moral government that were used in the original framing of the Constitution.

The initial formation of the Reeve would be precarious.  Congress certainly would not enjoy the new restrictions on their ability to abuse power.  For a temporary time, perhaps two complete election cycles of the slowest election cycle, the ability of Congress to affect the Reeve would be removed completely after the formation of the Reeve.  The slowest election cycle is that of the Senate which is six years, so the amount of time would be twelve years.  Those members of Congress who served for the purpose of abusing power would have time to leave office peacefully, thereby reducing opportunities for social disruption.

The initial creation of the Reeve would be done by the President.  The office would initially operate with the full support of the President.  If the Reeve proved to be unworkable or more harmful than today’s unenforced government, the President would have the ability to terminate the office.  The electorate would have the ability and the time to elect a President who would terminate the office.

VIII.  The structure of the Reeve’s office

Internally, the Reeve must not be structured a democracy.  It must be a top-down hierarchy, much like the crew on a ship form a hierarchy with the Captain in charge.  If the Reeve’s office were democratic it would suffer from the same ills as the body it polices.  That would be like putting drug addicts in charge of enforcing drug laws on other drug addicts.  It would be a disaster.

The organization would have a lead officer (or Director), one lieutenant for each of the branches of Federal government, and one office for the States.  The Lieutenant Reeve of the Congress might have one officer for each member of Congress.  The Lieutenant Reeve of the States might need one officer for each State.

The office cannot be hereditary.  An officer could not receive the office if directly related to another officer.

[ ------- DRAFT ------- ]

IX.  The character of the officers of the Reeve

Just as the some Framers believed that the viability of the Constitution depended on the virtue of its citizens, the viability of the Reeve will depend on the character of its officers.  The difference between the character of the general population and that of the small population who form the Reeve’s officers is that the general population includes every kind of character, while a small group can be appointed who represent necessary personal characteristics:  Love of country, love of liberty, love of the rule of law, love of the principles of government that good laws are based on.

An over ambitious person, a ladder climber, would turn the office into an instrument of abuse.  Under no circumstances must an over ambitious person be an officer.  If such a person were placed into the office, they must be removed by any means available.  An over ambitious person loves power more than anything else.

The officer must be of rational character.  Some people think with their heart more than their head.  Some people think very technically.  The feeling centered person would be entirely inappropriate to the office.  The technical minded person would be a better fit.  A romantic loves emotions more than principles.  A rational person who lack feeling would also be a poor fit, because such a personality lacks compassion which is a prerequisite to morality.

An excessively devout person would make a bad officer.  The officer’s duty must be primarily to the Constitution, not the Church or the Cause.  Religious zealots and ideological zealots must be excluded from the office.  Likewise they must leave voluntarily or be removed from office by force if they go through a deep, heart-felt religious or ideological conversion while in office.  A zealot loves their religion or ideology more than anything else.

The officers must maintain a distance between themselves and government officials, businesses, political and religious zealots, and other corrupters of government.  Over involvement with any of those would be cause for removal from office.

The officer must have a profound appreciation and respect for the principles of good government that are the foundation of the Constitution.

The study of history and the science of politics must be an ongoing activity for the officer.

In effect the officers of the Reeve must be proxies for those human values the Framers expected from the Democracy but did not find there.

[ ------- DRAFT ------- ]

X.  Concerns

One fair point of concern that people have expressed to me is the problem of abuse of power in creating the office. The argument I get is that the President should not use this kind of power because it goes against the character of American government.

Fair enough, but when we think this through a little logic shows a critical flaw in that argument.

Lets say that a good President is in power and chooses to not create this office because it goes against the character of American government. OK. No problem. All the nice people are happy.

But then lets say we have an evil President.

If the good President has the ability to create the office of the Reeve, so does the evil one.

The good President won’t use the power to create the office because he believes that doing so is unconscionable. The evil one will use the power because that is the nature of evil. The evil one will do it in a heartbeat, and the evil one’s version of the Reeve would be a perversion of the office the good President didn’t create. The “Reeve” of the evil one would be an instrument for abuse of power instead of a protector of the people against the powers of evil.

Are you following me so far?

If a good President had created the office, he could have set it up to prevent a future evil President from setting up the evil version of the office. But the good President chose not to because he thought it improper.

Now the evil President can come along and creates his corrupt version of the office because the good President did nothing.

If this power is available to the President, a good President must use it, and use it before an evil President comes along, to prevent the evil President from doing evil.

The President has the ability to create the office of the Reeve of the Constitution.

The Reeve, properly constructed, has the ability to stop an evil President.

The Reeve must be created before an evil President is elected and uses this power to weaken America further.

[More to come ... ]