Search this site

JOURNAL OF THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS (Philadelphia) Friday, November 10, 1775 Resolved, That two Battalions of marines be raised, consisting of one Colonel, two Lieutenant Colonels, two Majors, and other officers as usual in other regiments; and that they consist of an equal number of privates with other battalions; that particular care be taken, that no persons be appointed to office, or enlisted into said Battalions, but such as are good seamen, or so acquainted with maritime affairs as to be able to serve to advantage by sea when required; that they be enlisted and commissioned to serve for and during the present war between Great Britain and the colonies, unless dismissed by order of Congress: that they be distinguished by the names of the first and second battalions of American Marines, and that they be considered as part of the number which the continental Army before Boston is ordered to consist of. Ordered, That a copy of the above be transmitted to the General. Source: https://www.usmcu.edu/Research/Marine-Corps-History-Division/Brief-Histories/Brief-History-of-the-United-States-Marine-Corps/#:~:text=On%20November%2010%2C%201775%2C%20the,the%20United%20States%20Marine%20Corps.

1st Congress Convenes on March 4, 1789 and adjourns on March 3, 1791 Coinciding with George Washington’s first term in office, both houses in Congress were pro-administration called Federalists. Congress met in Federal Hall, NYC for the first two sessions and met in Philadelphia Pennsylvania for the third session.. Key Events and Legislation: Session 1 March 4 to September 29, 1789 In NYC April 1, 1789, House reached a quorum for the first time and elected officers April 6, 1789, the Senate reached a quorum for the first time and elected officers. Also certified the electoral votes for Washington and Adams April 21, 1789 John Adams was inaugurated as Vice President April 30, 1789 George Washington was inaugurated as President June 1, 1789 Act regulating oaths for congressors was signed into law and left out mention of God in the final draft July 4 1789, Tariff July 27 1789 Department of Foreign Affairs (State) is formed July 31 1789, US Customs service established August 7 1789 Department of War (Defense) established September 2 1789 Department of the Treasury established September 24, 1789 Judiciary Act September 25, 1789, 12 amendments passed congress and were sent to the states to ratify November 21 1789 North Carolina became the 12th state to ratify the constitution and join the Union Session 2 January 4 to August 12, 1790 In NYC January 8, 1790 Washington gave his first state of the union address March 26 1790 Naturalization Act May 26 1790, Territory South of the River Ohio is organized and will become Tennessee May 29, 1790 Rhode Island ratified the constitution becoming the 13th state and last of the original 13 colonies June 20, 1790 Compromise of 1790 where a national bank is formed and the capital is moved to DC August 2 1790, First census Session 3 December 6 1790 to March 3, 1791 In Philadelphia February 25, 1791 First bank of the United States created March 3, 1791 Tariff that led to the Whiskey Rebellion March 4, 1791 Vermont Admitted into the Union Leadership Senate President: John Adams President pro tempore: John Langdon House of Representatives Speaker: Frederick Muhlenberg Lists of committees and their party leaders. Senate Whole House of Representatives Elections Rules Ways and Means Whole Joint committees Enrolled Bills Officers Senate Secretary: Samuel A. Otis, elected April 8, 1789 Doorkeeper: James Mathers, elected April 7, 1789 Chaplain: Samuel Provoost (Episcopalian), elected April 25, 1789 William White (Episcopalian), elected December 9, 1790 House of Representatives Clerk: John J. Beckley Sergeant at Arms: Joseph Wheaton, elected May 12, 1789 Doorkeeper: Gifford Dalley Chaplain: William Linn (Presbyterian), elected May 1, 1789 Samuel Blair (Presbyterian), elected December 10, 1790 Reading Clerks: John Beckley Membership House of Representatives Connecticut All representatives were elected statewide on a general ticket. Benjamin Huntington, Roger Sherman, Jonathan Sturges, Jonathan Trumbull Jr., Jeremiah Wadsworth Delaware John Vining Georgia James Jackson, Abraham Baldwin, George Mathews Maryland Michael J. Stone, Joshua Seney, Benjamin Contee, William Smith, George Gale, Daniel Carroll Massachusetts Fisher Ames, Benjamin Goodhue, Elbridge Gerry, Theodore Sedgwick, George Partridge, George Thatcher, George Leonard, Jonathan Grout New Hampshire All representatives were elected statewide on a general ticket. Abiel Foster, Nicholas Gilman, Samuel Livermore New Jersey All representatives were elected statewide on a general ticket. Elias Boudinot, Lambert Cadwalader, James Schureman, Thomas Sinnickson New York William Floyd, John Laurance, Egbert Benson, John Hathorn, Peter Silvester, Jeremiah Van Rensselaer North Carolina John Baptista Ashe, Hugh Williamson, Timothy Bloodworth, John Steele, John Sevier Pennsylvania All representatives were elected statewide on a general ticket. George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, Thomas Hartley, Daniel Hiester, Frederick Muhlenberg, Peter Muhlenberg, Thomas Scott, Henry Wynkoop Rhode Island Benjamin Bourne South Carolina William L. Smith, Aedanus Burke, Daniel Huger, Thomas Sumter, Thomas Tudor Tucker Virginia Alexander White, John Brown, Andrew Moore, Richard Bland Lee, James Madison, Isaac Coles, John Page, Josiah Parker, Theodorick Bland, William B. Giles, Samuel Griffin Senate Membership Connecticut Oliver Ellsworth, William S. Johnson Delaware George Read, Richard Bassett Georgia William Few, James Gunn Maryland Charles Carroll, John Henry Massachusetts Tristram Dalton, Caleb Strong New Hampshire Paine Wingate, John Langdon New Jersey Jonathan Elmer, William Paterson, Philemon Dickinson New York Philip Schuyler, Rufus King North Carolina Samuel Johnston, Benjamin Hawkins Pennsylvania William Maclay, Robert Morris Rhode Island Theodore Foster, Joseph Stanton Jr. South Carolina Pierce Butler, Ralph Izard Virginia William Grayson, John Walker, James Monroe, Richard Henry Lee Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_United_States_Congress

Civil Theory By Mark Shubert First Draft The State of Nature All things are in nature, if we intend on living we need to be secure in nature. This security is civility, the less secure we are the less civil we are. In the state of nature, which is the absence of civility, each individual does what they deem they should and would use whatever power they have to do so despite the livelihood of others. This is their natural rights, mainly the right to all things. They may seize, build, destroy, say, or do anything. Just as they do what they may, everyone else can do the same. This mutual aggression or the persistent threat of war causes individuals to live a solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short life. Individuals strive to live a long and happy life which is not ensured in nature. Families Due to this, individuals collaborate with others to become more secure since the power one has in nature is exponentially increased with collaboration. These are the first societies, the family. In order for this kind of collaboration to occur and remain its constituents must develop trust that its other members will not exercise their natural rights which would violate their lives and happiness. The development of this trust requires the relinquishment of natural rights that threaten the union. The rights that remain are their civil rights and all relinquished rights are granted to a trust or governing body however organized. This is where the government receives its power or right to govern, from the governed. Some of these relinquished rights can be abrogated or abolished completely. These abrogated rights should be rights that threaten the trust the people have of the government or themselves. These are rights or powers that make the government ineffective, unusual, or cruel. If the government uses an abrogated right or misuses a granted right then it fails and sends itself along with its members back into a state of nature where conflict is inevitable even between the members of society. In the family, one or few members could embody the identity of the whole. A de-facto governing body who holds more power or rights than its other members since they hold not only their individual civil rights but also the granted rights. This head of the family, however organized, must secure its constituents from nature and cannot violate the domestic trust or else they lose their mandate of civility or their consent to govern. The loss of trust encourages two actions from the people affected. The first action is the succession of another head, preferably one that would restore trust in the family. The second action is secession of some members to form a separate family, preferably one that would not violate trust. To prevent the overreach of the head or the loss of trust the governing body must organize itself in such a manner that keeps the family secure from nature. It must govern itself to ensure that it has the right knowledge and energy to do this which requires specialization of statecraft. The government must also govern over the people and provide the knowledge and energy for them to remain civil. Individuals must govern themselves and the government. They govern themselves to make sure that they do not assume and exercise a relinquished right which would violate the trust and return them into a state of nature. Falling back into a state of nature allows for society to do whatever it wants to the errant or violator since, after all, the state of nature is where everyone can do anything.This is where law gets its authority and why it is necessary to follow it. It is also why the government is justified in apprehending errants since these criminals forfeit their membership in society and become yet another threat in nature. However, the laws themselves must be acts consented by the people and which secure its constituents, not acts that violate its constituents which is an errant government or despotism that puts the government into a state of nature where individuals can do what they want to it. This is why the people must govern the government, to ensure that the authority they consent to is an authority that will actually secure them in nature instead of violating their trust; this is also where the people have their right to rebel since the despotic government is yet another threat in nature, and anyone can do anything in the state of nature. Another restriction on law enforcement is that the more people there are in a society the greater the potential security is and a civil society would be the most secure it can be, due to this it is not civil to just kill off errants but instead to bring them back into a state of civility. Rehabilitation is the most civil enforcement as it corrects errant behavior while also not decreasing the population which would needlessly decrease the potential security of the society. There are reasons to execute individuals for example if they simply cannot be rehabilitated and they are a threat to society, at that point it is justified because those individuals will perpetually be in a state of nature which is a threat to civility. To reiterate the past few concepts, the government must govern itself in order to maintain consent and it must govern the people to maintain safety and happiness; while the people must govern themselves in order to stay in society and govern the government to maintain an effective body that will keep them out of a state of nature. Mutual governance. If an individual who is entrusted with governing violates that trust they are a tyrant, if the people violate that trust they are errants, and both of these societal failures are types of despotism. A single individual cannot take care of themselves for long in the state of nature and therefore it is unreasonable to assume they are able to take care of others all by themselves. Due to this reality, society requires and becomes more efficient with specialization. The less time someone has to spend doing something they are not good at is more time they could spend doing something they are good at. This specialization is important because it increases the efficiency of the society, in this case the family but could be applied to larger and more complex societies. These specialties or roles in society allow for innovation as more people can now spend time and effort exercising new roles or discovering better ways to do old roles. The best person at hunting should hunt so that the best person at cleaning can clean which would in turn allow the hunter to hunt more without needing to spend time cleaning. If they do their jobs well enough there may be extra time in the day to do something else like build a better home or leisure or do another activity that will increase their standard of living. People are pattern seekers and so the more time we spend observing an issue the more clear that issue becomes and the easier it is to find a solution. The longer a hunter hunts the more likely they will be able to see patterns in the behavior of their prey which would allow them to invent traps and techniques to hunt more efficiently. The more efficiently the hunter hunts, the less time is needed in hunting which provides more time for innovation. Since individuals do not live long they are not able to learn much on their own, but families and other forms of societies can live, theoretically, forever and accumulate generational information beneficial to their posterity. This knowledge passed down is education and it gives freedom to people since they do not have to relearn information the way their ancestors had to, but can continue from where they left off and spend more time learning new information; that is why, as I understand it, the root for freedom and books in latin are the same, libertas & libri. Efficiency is necessary but it is not the only thing required, happiness or satisfaction is also needed. The best hunter might dislike hunting so should they be forced to hunt? Keep in mind that consent is requisite in a civil society so enforcement of roles against the will of the individual is a violation of that consent. Either find civil ways to encourage the best hunter to hunt or allow him to exercise the role they are most happy with. Tribes Eventually multiple families realized that if they collaborated they would be more secure in nature. This is the formation of tribes. This realization, however, is not always, if ever, consensual as one family may subjugate others and still be able to form a tribe. This uncivil union is cause for discontent which raises conflict as families will try to succeed to the top or secede to be the top of a separate tribe. This uncivil formation of a society could be reconciled with the introduction of consent of the governed but sadly throughout history those in charge value control more than civility. To counter discontent, the ruling family or individual may invent and use culture. Culture may use positive or negative reinforcement but either way it is attempting to make its members feel a sense of belonging which cools aggression. It is more difficult for people to rebel against society which shares their culture than a society that does not since people do not wish to undo most of what they are conditioned or accustomed to. Culture is a tool of control to prevent immediate tension which can prolong a society by being stable but could also be the cause of downfall since it stifles necessary change making society ill prepared for when the demand for change becomes greater than the controlling effects of culture. The more people who practice culture, especially dogmatically, have less time addressing problems or even feel apathetic towards societal issues till it is too late. This is why there are cycles of calm and conflict. Out of conflict comes resolutions and a culture to prevent conflict from occurring in the short run, which is calmness with little reform; the lack of reform or a redress of grievances causes discontent and tension which eventually leads back to conflict. Culture must be well regulated and cannot stifle societal progress. Culture could be a good thing by cooling people in the short run but if the culture takes too much of the people’s time and efforts away from reform then it is detrimental. A family who usurps the identity of the tribe, much like a tyrant, is a dynasty. They may assume power with force alone but in the long run they need to maintain consent of the other families. Why would members of a family value the members of a different family above their own? The answer is culture. This kind of culture is propaganda that convinces people to support something they would not naturally support. Tyrants and dynasties and other forms of despotism use culture to condition or normalize their positions in society, even though in reality they are not the best ones for their positions or that their powers should be abrogated in the first place. A free people would be able to look past culture to understand this fraud. Take the ruling dynasty in England, why should the Queen and her family be protected and honored above every other family, above your own family; in nature they wouldn’t be, and in a civil society they wouldn’t be, it is a form of despotism that has adopted to the modern world in order to justify itself and garner support when their adherents shouldn’t support them in the first place. City-States Eventually, tribes began to realize that collaboration better secures them in nature which led to the formation of city-states. The same principles apply to city-states as to subordinate forms of society. If one tribe positions themselves above the others, with force and culture, then they are an oligarchy. The reason why I use the term oligarchy is because the rich and powerful marry each other and form a tribe of sorts. This kind of tribe may extend past the physical borders of a city-state but it is still a tribe nonetheless; a tribe organized by material possessions where they try to maintain their status in the stratification of class. A civil society would have each individual equal to every other individual, each family equal to every other family, each tribe to every other tribe, each city to every other city, all the up to a universal state. What this equality means is that in society there would not be any arbitrary hierarchies of stratification if they could be abolished with civil means. Just a note, tribes in the modern world like the United States would be what we call the local government, just to clear up any confusion. This equality does not mean everyone does the exact same thing. Remember the importance of specialization. Equality in a civil society would mean that despite specialization which might materially benefit some over others, the society as a whole would continue to treat and view everyone and every subordinate society the same. The farmer would not have more political authority than a manufacturer, a man would not have any more authority than a woman, a white would not have any more authority than a nonwhite, a family would not have any more authority than other families, etc. Non Political Entities At this point there needs to be a mention of entities that are non political but act in a similar manner to the societies mentioned earlier. What is political are the ones mentioned before such as families, tribes, cities, and I will go into nations and the universal state with a mention of civilization states later in the essay. There are organizations of people that do not fit this neat stratification. These miscellaneous collectives are what I consider to be non-political which means they do not deserve to exist in any formal or respected manner, informally yes they can exist as long as they do not attempt to make themselves formal institutions and as long as they do not violate civility. These consist of identities such as culture, religion, race, ethnicity, class, etc. I mentioned culture and class in short earlier but I should go into detail as to why these are non-political, meaning that these identities should not be politicized and would not be in a civil government but they could be in a despotic one either from an errant government or an errant people. The reason why these identities should not be political is because of their lack of structure, lack of universality, lack of their necessity, or their harm to civility due to them being non-complementary to the formal institutions of society. Culture has little structure since it changes all the time, which is ironic given how culture is usually looked at as the development of traditions and conditioned behaviors. The parts of culture that don't change quickly usually benefit a specific group of people instead of the whole body of individuals. Some cultures are harmful to society, especially those that perpetuate violations of individuals and trust. There is also the decreasing necessity of culture in more civil societies. Remember culture is a tool to cool aggression in an uncivil society; as society becomes more civil there are less problems people have and the more satisfied people are the easier it is to be granted their consent, which means that culture, a tool to garner consent, is required less and less. This is not to say that culture is bad or completely unnecessary, only that culture, especially cultures invented in less civil times, is becoming obsolete. There can be, and we see this now, new cultures forming in more civil societies that are created around self-actualization and not like traditional cultures which were created around a sense of duty or role in society. Those old cultures conditioned people to do what they didn’t want to do but what society at the time demanded that they do. Because of progress in productivity and technology there is less of a demand for people to do what they don’t want to do and this gives them the freedom to pursue self-actualization. Just a note, there is currently no civil societies, since there is no society that has completely received the consent of its constituents, completely protects its constituents from nature, and completely removes despotism in the people or the government; there will never be a civil society, only societies that are more civil than others. Religion has a little more structure than culture, but not enough to be stable. We see the history of all religions includes many fracturing events that divide adherents even of the same religion. Christianity used to be one uniform identity but split into Catholics and Orthodox, then again between Catholics and Protestants, and I cannot even mention all the denominations Protestantism has split into. Civil theory understands religion as an individual behavior not as a collectivist entity, therefore religion should be free to practice and not respected as an establishment or formal institution that has authority over anyone. These are the concepts of freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Freedom of religion means you have the right to practice your religion. Freedom from religion means that you are protected from another religion imposing itself onto you. Freedom of religion is not absolute because if your religion violates the trust in civil society then it enters into a state of nature and therefore can be restricted. An example would be if your religion calls for human sacrifice of any kind. Proper religion is the conscience of an individual not an identity of a collective. Such an evangelized collective with any power or privilege will seek more of it till it tears us asunder with factionalism and special interests not concurrent with the general happiness and freedom; like how a tyrant, dynasty, oligarchy, or any other form of despot may seize society for themselves. A reason why religion ought to be seen and treated as an individual behavior and not a collective is because not everyone holds the same spirituality; even two people of the same exact religion may differ on theology. All of this is tied up with the bow of reality since none of it is real and dogmatism should never regulate civility. Even if you are someone who holds a religious faith, that means you still believe that most religious beliefs are false. This makes religion unnecessary and detrimental to society. Again, even if you have a particular faith this means that you do not support the dominance of another religion over you and you should in turn not support your religion dominating over the lives of others. Do not be hypocritical and no you do not know for sure that your faith is the one true faith cause that is literally what all religions say about theirs so there a ton of people lying even if one religion just so happens to be true. Race is another such identity. What is whiteness? If it is just the pigmentation of skin then it is just an observable characteristic that means nothing. If whiteness is a set of behaviors then what happens when an observably white person does not behave in that manner, are they not white? If it is behavioral then why have it attached to a non-behavioral characteristic such as skin color? Race is obviously not universal since we are not all of one skin color. Race isn’t even a good unifier. Looking at the history of wars in Europe we see that the greatest threat to white people are other white people. There has never been a mass genocide of white people done by another race, certainly no where near as much of a genocide that white people have committed against other whites. Who decides what being white is? The Anglos tried to control what being white is and they based whiteness on how Anglo someone was. The Germans tried to decide what whiteness was and believed themselves to be it. Other groups, usually ethnic groups, try to seize the identity of the race with themselves on top. Ethnicity is similar to race although it is more granular and is still a common divider amongst people today. There are still wars being fought between people of the same race who claim to be of different ethnicities. Now, there are many uses of the term ethnicity which is inconsistent most of the time and obviously not universal, and is certainly not a unifier in any way. Gender, which includes masculine and feminine roles and attributes is also not that helpful since a lot of men don’t naturally fit in with strong masculine expectations, so how can strong masculine expectations claim to be the natural male disposition when most males do not naturally form to those expectations? It seems to be the case that those expectations are prescriptive, not descriptive, or aspirational, as in they are asserting what a man ought to be, not what a man actually is. The ideal tough male American, might be chicken-shit compared to the tough male Mongolian. So these expectations don’t seem to fit in any objective usage today so gender can be lumped in with culture and should not be politicized. People on the Right should stop trying to enforce their version of masculine or feminine expectations while people on the Left should stop trying to receive recognition and subsidies for their gender. Culture, again. I want to summate on culture and these nonpolitical ideals. There are two types of culture, one that is propagandistic and originates from a power above the individual with the intent of conditioning and controlling people, and there is natural culture which arises from the individual that is not enforced from a power above the individual. The former is less consensual than the latter; remember the importance of consent in a civil society. So the propagandistic and top down approach of culture is not civil and therefore ought not be political. Then you have the natural and individual approach to culture which can never be enforced by a power above the individual with policies, lest it becomes propagandistic, and if something cannot be enforced by policy then it cannot be political. This means that one approach to culture is uncivil and the other is natural making its enforcement also uncivil. Class is the last nonpolitical identity that I will go into detail about. Class is understood as differences in material possession; yes there can be religious classes and that would go under religion, but even societies like India, that have religious class systems, also have a class system based on material ownership/standard of living. When it comes to material ownership there are two ways this can come about. The first is inheritance and the second is meritoriousness. Remember specialization from before. Someone could specialize in a lucrative industry and earn money for their merit and productivity, assuming no funny business. Then there is inheritance which can start out as the transference of wealth from a meritorious laborer to an unmerited brat. This inheritor could then become meritorious but sadly the usual case is that they stay a brat and spend the money on speculation and other people’s labor which they reap excess rewards they did not deserve by effort. Some squander their inheritance with no effort and their predecessor’s efforts were for nothing, which is the usual case given how many wealthy families rise and fall over time, but the class system remains the same. The reason why this should not be political, meaning classes should not be subsidized, bailed out, or receive any kind of benefits or social admiration is because those who are meritorious will earn their wealth themselves and would not require aid while those who are bratty inheritors don’t deserve aid. These entities, collectives, and identities act like political societies do but that does not mean that they are; similarly a virus acts like life does and yet isn't life itself. These societal viruses must be kept in check and should never dictate the structure or sovereignty of governance. Nation States When multiple city states discovered the power they had when they collaborated, they formed the first nation state. Remember all of the principles that have applied thus far because they all continue in nations. When one city state seizes the identity of the nation for themselves and places itself above all others they form an empire. Rome was an empire when it was still a republic because the city of Roma is what branched out and conquered other cities to subjugate them into their nation. When a family seized power for themselves, Rome became a dynasty as the city of Roma lost influence and was no longer the center of Rome especially after Constantine. The republic itself could be considered as an oligarchy instead of the republic. So Rome went from a dynasty under the Tarquins, to an oligarchy with some reforms, to an oligarchic empire when the city started to expand, to a dynastic empire when Augustus became emperor, to just a dynasty when the city lost its significance. Keep in mind how I am using these terms cause this is not how they are usually used. An empire is when a city state embodies the identity of the nation and puts other city states beneath it. When a tribe does that, they are an oligarchy. When a family does that they are a dynasty. When an individual does that they are a tyrant. Just a note, these different levels i.e. individual, family, tribe, city, nation etc. are what I call levels of sovereignty and a civil society would not let one level become despotic and seize the other levels. The main issue Rome’s government had, other than constant civil war, was that the government was designed to run a city, and it kept that design even after becoming more than a city. The consulship that existed after the fall of the Tarquins was the same consulship that Julius Caesar was a part of over four hundred years later. The Romans did not understand that their level of sovereignty had changed dramatically and therefore they could not make the necessary reforms to organize being a nation which is why most people today don’t consider Rome to be a nation even though it was larger and even wealthier than a lot of nations today. Some political thinkers at the time and place of Rome did start to discuss this problem albeit not as directly as I am now. Cicero comes to mind and especially two of his works called The Laws and On the Republic. A proper nation, as all proper societies, would not allow any subordinate level of society to become despotic and this requires a well regulated system of governance. When the city state was the sovereign level it had sovereign power but when the nation was formed it was no longer the sovereign meaning that sovereign power needed to be granted to the new sovereign, the nation. Just as the individual is sovereign in nature and has to relinquish its natural rights or sovereignty that could violate the trust of society, so too does each level of society when they are no longer the sovereign. The city state must give up any rights it has that would violate the trust in the nation. One of these rights, although despotic, is the right to violate individual rights. Now in a civil society a city state would not have this right since it would have been abrogated, but there never has been nor ever will be a civil society and so we are left to deal with despotic societies in varying degrees. Take slavery, the clearest example of despotism, which many states allowed and even enforced to protect their economic interests. A civil state would have abrogated slavery so according to civil theory those states did not have the right to protect slavery. Since those states did not have the right to protect slavery, when the federal government stepped in to end slavery, the federal government was not violating state’s rights, because those states did not have that right in the first place. Same thing with racial discrimination; when the federal government stepped into state’s affairs, it was not violating state’s rights because those states did not have the right to violate individual rights on the basis of race. A proper civil society would know and keep the civil rights of individuals safe from any despot, know and keep the granted rights of a family, know and keep the granted rights of a tribe (local), know and keep the granted rights of a city state (state), and know and keep the granted rights of the nation state (federal), while at the same time figuring out which rights should be abrogated. This theory and praxis is called statecraft. This should use the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and analysis to help us understand social science. Perhaps the current laws around families are flawed and we should reform them, perhaps the specific division of powers is flawed and they need amending, perhaps some rights need to be abrogated entirely. Amending America is attempting to be a place for public disquisitions, discussions, and deliberations on these issues. Civilization State The nation state is currently the highest level of sovereignty, but there are talks about civilization states which some seem to be in the fetal stage of development. Some say that there already are civilization states. A potential civilization state would be the European Union, if it develops a continental sovereign which right now does not exist. If an individual nation seizes the identity of the civilization where that one nation is superior to its fellow nations then that is called a hegemony. All of the principles mentioned thus far apply to this scenario. Universal State The formation of civilized states may or may not happen, but what is inevitable is the creation of the universal state. Societies throughout human history are developing larger, more complex, systems of governance. These transitions from one level of sovereignty to the next might take centuries or millennia but they have taken place and so what is this development heading towards? The universal state would encompass all civil creatures, right now that is just people since no other creature can participate in statecraft. We can see this occurring right now, the UN, as basic and inefficient as it is now, is just the fetal stage of development for future collaboration. Remember, the reason for collaboration that led to all of the other levels of society is that people became more secure in nature. Well, the UN, the collaboration of all nations, would make all people more secure since people would no longer have to fear nations fighting which makes them more secure in nature. This is inevitable, but there is no guarantee that the current UN is structured in such a manner to realize the universal state. We must use statecraft, and in turn look towards the development of subordinate societies to see what common trends have occurred for their development that may be in effect for the development of the universal state. If civilization states occur first, and if one of those seizes the identity of the universal state then that would be a dominion.

The Legislature The People’s Ordained Body of Governance By Mark Shubert In a well regulated Democratic-Republic the legislature is the main or supreme branch from which the other branches receive their power and legitimacy. This was more so the case in the early history of the US government, however, regrettably the legislature is delegating more governance as the vines of the other two branches are leeching responsibility from it. When the Supreme Court was formed the first court, the Jay Court, did not know exactly what their duties entailed and so they waited for Congress to pass the Judiciary Acts during the Washington Administration which granted the Supreme Court with specific powers and structure that the Constitution did not enumerate. The same may be said about the executive branch since any appointments of judges, ambassadors, and cabinet officers need approval from the Senate and any bills proposed by the President need to pass Congress. Any officer of either subordinate branches including the Chief Justice and the President may be impeached and convicted by the legislature exclusively; neither the executive nor judicial branches can impeach or remove any Congressor. I use the term Congressor instead of saying both congressmen and congresswomen. During Washington’s precedent setting presidential administration, he deferred to Congress, specifically the Senate for most of his decisions. The Indian wars in the Ohio River Valley and in Georgia, the passing of a liquor tax and subsequent Whiskey Rebellion, the formation of post roads, the establishment of a national bank, determining immigration and naturalization policy, setting the location of the new capitol, regulating trade and the militias, determining the structure and powers of the judicial branch, and many more issues were overseen and managed almost directly by Congress while Washington merely executed the orders of the legislature and gave some advice during the annual state of the union addresses. There were few issues where the President took initiative in affecting policies, in fact Washington would only sign eight executive orders during his eight year tenure as President and all but one were minor. Also these weren’t called executive orders back then, but they essentially are so I do not see much issue calling them that. The one notable executive order of Washington was his proclamation of neutrality which he defended as only a statement of the state of the union, not a directive against Congress’s power to declare war or approve peace. Now, the president signs dozens or even a hundred in their first week or so in office. There was more national unity and consensus in the Early Republic other than a few issues like the aforementioned neutrality crisis, and so there was less of a reason for the President to initiate policies. There were also few departments and virtually no agencies to enforce their own policies so the legislature had more direct and unchallenged power. This includes state legislatures not just the federal government since Federalism was more common and included more issues than today. Although not enumerated it is heavily implied that the legislature is to be the ordained representative of our polity while the two subordinate branches are designed for necessary and proper purposes of enforcement and justice. As John Adams put it in his essay Thoughts on Government, the legislature is not capable of the three duties of government all at once and so more branches are requisite for a sound and effective government. The Constitution is the highest power of our polity but even it may be amended by the legislature alone and the other branches are not included in that process. Yes, the state legislatures get involved as well which goes to show the supremacy of the legislature as a body that represents the people since the Constitution is established by “We the People” without it actually being established via referendum but via representatives. Judges and executives play no part in the amending process, not even as an honorable rubber stamp. The branches were not made to be coequal but instead coordinate under the direction of the legislature. Today, the executive and judicial branches, mostly the former, have assumed more legislative powers. There are more executive orders signed, more departments and agencies that can hardly be supervised or audited by Congress, and worse of all there is a passiveness that allows the President to get entangled in conflicts abroad; it is Congress, specifically the Senate, that has exclusive power to declare war and the last time the Senate voted to declare war was against Italy and Germany on December 11, 1941, now I do not know if you know this but we have been in one or two “wars” since then. The Korean War, Vietnam War, all wars in the Middle East, sending troops to Africa, fighting the Lybians and bombing Serbia. None of these are official wars, but instead “conflicts.” Now these are weird examples because on the one hand the executive is “circumventing” the legislature but with the legislature’s permission since all of these conflicts required resolutions to be passed for example the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which officially unofficially started the Vietnam conflict. So Congress is handicapping itself to give the executive more power. The reason for this is because Senators find it hard to get approval from the people to start a war and could lose their voter base so they put the responsibility on the President who isn’t elected by the people. Now, I do not believe that the government should be doing things that violate the will of the people; the people should not be forced into conflict they do not consent to and in this instance of conflict management there are two ways to fix it. The first is to prevent Congress from delegating authority to the President by requiring declarations of war and abolishing “resolutions of conflict” for all military actions that involve violence; and the second is to have the President be directly elected by the people, I personally support both. Money, which is supposed to be strictly managed by the House of Representatives, is being reallocated from allocated programs to fund Presidential projects without Congressional approval and without condemnation from the Supreme Court even though these branches are supposed to check and balance each other. Now to be clear, all of these behaviors have been tolerated by Congress since they could step in and prevent them from happening in the first place so when I say “without Congressional approval” what I mean is that Congress does not go out of its way to shut down the actions of the President. However, when you look at how Congress is run it is becoming more of a rubber stamp. Senators especially are in more committees and subcommittees than they could possibly attend all meetings for. Their workload is too much for them to handle and because of this the ever expanding executive branch is assuming more responsibilities and with greater responsibilities comes greater power. This assumption of more “necessary and proper” authority was not done by an ambitious and nefarious executive but due to the detrimental inefficiencies of the legislature. In summation, Congress cannot do its job but someone has to and that someone is the executive so the less Congress is able to do on their own either from apathy or incapability the more the executive does. To return to the legislature their power that has been delegated to the other branches requires reform that deals with the issue of congressional inefficiency & responsibility. Here are some amendments that I propose in regards to this issue. First would be to increase the size of Congress. As our political system and problems become more numerous and complex, Congress needs to expand to have the human capital necessary to manage such changes. The executive has changed and adapted via expansion of departments and agencies while Congress has remained stagnant in the number of seats since the 1920s. If we intend on moving the powers of the executive over to the legislature, Congress needs the manpower to reassume those responsibilities to maintain efficiency. I suggest we increase the size of the House to 888 and the senate should be increased to three senators per state with one seat up for election every two years. This will increase manpower and decrease the workload per congressor so that committees would be properly filled, it would also decrease the cost to run for a house seat since more representatives means smaller districts which means fewer constituents and less money required to run a campaign. Each congressor would be more representative of the people since there would be less constituents but also because the decrease in cost to campaign would lower a barrier to entry for more average Americans to run for office. This would also have the added bonus of increasing the cost of lobbying since corporations would need to lobby more congressors in order to achieve the same amount of influence in Congress; tighter restrictions on lobbying should also be passed for example repealing the Citizens United case which would allow for regulations on companies promoting or denouncing politicians close to the elections but also policy not written by politicians themselves should be announced to the public along with sources on who exactly wrote that policy. There is the criticism that the decrease in cost of campaigning will also decrease the cost of lobbying but this isn’t the case since more special interests that don’t have as much money will be able to compete and this competition will drive the lobbying costs back up despite the decrease in the cost of campaigning. Not only will there be more competition between special interests, but if the decrease in campaign costs is significant enough, then lobbyists who fund campaigns might not be needed at all since revenue via constituent donations would cover the costs. The increase in Congressors would allow for more hearings from experts and corporations or activists proposing policy which should be live streamed so that the people know the source of policy proposals. Other than increasing the manpower of Congress there are some procedural reforms to consider. The House should focus on domestic and money bills while the Senate should focus on administrative and foreign policy. These specialties are already hinted or implied in the Constitution as the Senate is enumerated power over administrative policy such as approving appointments of Judges, Cabinet members, and impeachment trials along with foreign policy consisting in approving ambassador appointments, treaties, and declarations of war. The House, due to their short terms in office, must appease voters quickly which is done via domestic policy since the average American mostly only cares about domestic issues, and the Constitution enumerated that money bills originate from the House. An amendment to solidify this legislative specialization might look like this; any domestic or money bill starting in the House would need a majority to pass in the House while requiring a majority for the Senate to veto or block. I guess for either house it wouldn't be a veto it would be a vetimus. So a bill originating in its specialized House would have the same process as it is now but it will become law on its own unless the other house has a majority to prevent it from becoming law. If for example, a domestic bill originates in the Senate, not its specialized house, then the House of Representatives would need to approve it with majority before it can become law, which is the current due process. To reiterate, the House should focus on domestic and economic policy while the Senate should focus on administrative and foreign policy, but they can still have a say over the other if a majority prevents a bill from passing instead of requiring a majority to pass a bill. Regarding Executive authority there needs to be more oversight actions done, any policy changes either from the president via executive orders or by the departments or agencies themselves should require approval from Congress. One way to do this is to have a period of time from when an executive order is made where Congress can vetimus the order. So the order will go into effect immediately but could be recalled or vetimus by Congress. These could be called Post Actus Vetimus or something similar in Latin. This would require a proactive Congress, it has been their passive habit that has given or allowed the executive branch reason to assume more “necessary and proper” power. This is unhealthy for a democratic-republic since no executive officers are elected by the people making their representative legitimacy sourced in Congress. The less Congress oversees and actively approves programs and policies of the executive means that subordinate branches are only virtually representing the people. I made a prior video on why virtual representation is a bad thing so check that out. In summation, the legislature is the ordained body of governance in our polity and we need amendments to secure that supremacy above the other two subordinate branches. These amendments include expanding congress, moving responsibilities that have been assumed by the executive to congress, and to increase efficiency and representation of the legislature.

On Representation By Mark Shubert Democracy The only representative form of government is democracy. Democracy has been viewed as the rule of the majority or the will of the people but it is fundamentally more important than that. The act of suffrage is the only civil means in which a person may give their consent to the government; the only civil means of granting the government sovereign power that it requires in order to have the mandate of civility or the right to rule. Individuals are the only ones who are naturally born with rights originating from the state of nature, groups, institutions, government, any form of a collective or society does not naturally exist nor has rights; from there an individual may relinquish some of their natural rights or authority to a governing body with the purpose of securing themselves and the other constituents from the threats in nature. Suffrage is the only civil means, but there is a more natural way which is rebellion and usurpation. Democracy may be organized in different ways which can change the nature of the society. Direct Democracy Direct democracy is when the people individually vote on a bill themselves instead of having a representative legislature. This direct rule of the people is sometimes called pure or absolute democracy. The specific act of the people voting directly on a bill is sometimes called a referendum and they happen more occasionally the more local the government is; a nationwide referendum almost never happens for large countries; it could occasionally happen statewide or in small countries; it happens the most locally. Direct Representation Direct representation is when the people vote to elect members of a legislature and then those legislators vote a bill into law. We have this in the US for state representatives, state senators, federal representatives, and federal senators. Indirect Representation (multiplicatively removed) Indirect representation twice removed is when the people elect an electoral college and then those electors vote to elect members of a legislature and then those legislators vote a bill into law. Indirect representation thrice removed is when the people elect legislators and those legislators elect electors and those electors vote to elect a legislator or other official position and those officers then vote on a bill. We have this in America for the president. The people vote in their state legislators, those state legislators choose the electors of the electoral college, those electors then vote on the president, and the president can sign or veto bills. Indirect representation quadrice removed is just another instance of the elected representative electing another representative. We have this in America for the Supreme Court, from the thrice removed President who then nominates the Justices to the Supreme Court. Virtual Representation and Suffrage Are the democracies of the past that people like to point to actually democracies? No! The vast majority of the people couldn’t vote in the past even in the recent past. How can you know the will of the people if there are no institutions where the people can give their consent or even voice their opinions? When the people cannot vote that is called virtual representation and it is a fraud. Dictators, kings, oligarchies, and other forms of despotism claim to represent their constituents because they know that the mandate of civility comes from the people, but without actual consent, which can only be truly known via suffrage, then those claims are false. The institution of suffrage is the only civil means the people can use to give their consent and this institution cannot be tampered with by an ambitious despot or else they de-legitimize their right to govern, not that they care. Some despots try to use some other reason for their authority, the most common being God. Virtual representation was brought up during the Stamp Act Crisis of 1765, where many of our nation’s founders responded to Parliament against the legitimacy of virtual representation. Parliament was claiming that despite the lack of suffrage in the colonies, they still represented the colonists and their interests. Founders like Adams, Franklin, Otis, and Mulany argued that since the colonists’ will cannot be known, their consent could not be granted, then their interests and rights cannot be kept in mind during the passing of parliamentary acts. This is the idea of no taxation without representation, the act of taxing isn't the issue, it is the lack of representation, and the only way for a government to truly represent its constituents is if those constituents had some level of suffrage. Mob Rule Mobs are never a true majority, usually they are a group of motivated and angry people that cannot be reasonably viewed as the will of the people. Take the French Revolution for example, the people of Paris overthrew the French political order in a mob like fashion but the people of Paris were not a majority of the French people; instead the majority of the French people were royal loyalists who needed to be guillotined or shot before the Revolutionaries had their way. The “mob rule” is not democratic since the majority of people prefer the status quo over upending society for an uninsured system of governance. Mobs are not the will of the people but instead another despot. Only the people as a whole can rebel, not an individual or minority group. Remember the importance of consent, when an individual rebels they may be trying to overthrow the government; if they somehow succeed then they are the new government which requires the consent of the people in order to be legitimate. If it is just one person or one minority group rebelling then they obviously do not have the consent of the people and therefore do not have the right to rebel or to set up a new government. Or I should say, they do not have the civil right to rebel, when it comes to natural rights, you have a right to all things, including rebelling, but this right violates civility and so it is a relinquished right only to be called upon in a state of nature caused by the government. If an individual takes back a relinquished right then they violate the trust of society and enter back into a state of nature and remember that in the state of nature anything goes so the society can do whatever it wants to that rebellious individual since that person is now just another threat in nature. In nature anything goes, but in civility there are restrictions on behaviors and so the society would not do anything unnecessary or detrimental to itself. Remember, civility is security in nature, the more civil the society the more secure and vice versa. One observation made is that the more people coordinating in society the more secure that society is, the more civil it is. Given this observation, a society would not just execute errants or violators of civil trust but would instead re-assimilate them back into a state of civility. This is only the case if errants can be rehabilitated, for those who cannot be, then it is up to the society to decide. Consent and Reciprocity Although the histories of democracies have been undemocratic, it is entirely possible that a true majority of the people can be despotic and choose to violate the rights of an individual or minority group. The key virtues that secures trust the most is consent and reciprocity. Obviously an individual would not want their civil rights violated so they shouldn’t violate the civil rights of others lest their rights are violated. This reciprocity or equal treatment is necessary for the trust in society because it gives some assurances that your rights would not be violated. Where trust is lost is when people, could be the majority of the people, ignore reciprocity and decide to violate the rights of a group they might not like. That is the reason why minority groups today have more trust issues because in the past and even today they are not treated equally or with reciprocity by the majority. What helps reconcile this mistrust is for the errants to use some introspection to realize they are not being civilly reciprocal. Once the errant behavior stops then trust can start to heal. Given how important trust and cooperation is, it is important for the violated group to be open to reconciliation so that the society may move on. If both sides do their part, then full trust is restored in society and it may be a safer, consensual, reciprocal civil society.

Privileges and Prerogatives Granted by Their Catholic Majesties to Christopher Columbus April 30, 1492 Privileges and Prerogatives Granted FERDINAND and ELIZABETH, by the Grace of God, King and Queen of Castile, of Leon, of Arragon, of Sicily, of Granada, of Toledo, of Valencia, of Galicia, of Majorca, of Minorca, of Sevil, of Sardinia, of Jaen, of Algarve, of Algezira, of Gibraltar, of the Canary Islands, Count and Countess of Barcelona, Lord and Lady of Biscay and Molina, Duke and Duchess of Athens and Neopatria. Count and Countess of Rousillion and Cerdaigne, Marquess and Marchioness of Oristan and Gociano, &c. For as much of you, Christopher Columbus, are going by our command, with some of our vessels and men, to discover and subdue some Islands and Continent in the ocean, and it is hoped that by God's assistance, some of the said Islands and Continent in the ocean will be discovered and conquered by your means and conduct, therefore it is but just and reasonable, that since you expose yourself to such danger to serve us, you should be rewarded for it. And we being willing to honour and favour You for the reasons aforesaid: Our will is, That you, Christopher Columbus, after discovering and conquering the said Islands and Continent in the said ocean, or any of them, shall be our Admiral of the said Islands and Continent you shall so discover and conquer; and that you be our Admiral, Vice-Roy, and Governour in them, and that for the future, you may call and stile yourself, D. Christopher Columbus, and that your sons and successors in the said employment, may call themselves Dons, Admirals, Vice-Roys, and Governours of them; and that you may exercise the office of Admiral, with the charge of Vice-Roy and Governour of the said Islands and Continent, which you and your Lieutenants shall conquer, and freely decide all causes, civil and criminal, appertaining to the said employment of Admiral, Vice-Roy, and Governour, as you shall think fit in justice, and as the Admirals of our kingdoms use to do; and that you have power to punish offenders; and you and your Lieutenants exercise the employments of Admiral, Vice-Roy, and Governour, in all things belonging to the said offices, or any of them; and that you enjoy the perquisites and salaries belonging to the said employments, and to each of them, in the same manner as the High Admiral of our kingdoms does. And by this our letter, or a copy of it signed by a Public Notary: We command Prince John, our most dearly beloved Son, the Infants, Dukes, Prelates, Marquesses, Great Masters and Military Orders, Priors. Commendaries, our Counsellors, Judges, and other Officers of Justice whatsoever, belonging Courts, and Chancery, and Constables of Castles, Strong Houses, and others; and all Corporations, Bayliffs, Governours, Judges, Commanders, Sea Officers; and the Aldermen, Common Council, Officers, and Good People of all Cities, Lands, and Places in our Kingdoms and Dominions, and in those you shall conquer and subdue, and the captains masters, mates, and other officers and sailors, our natural subjects now being, or that shall be for the time to come, and any of them that when you shall have discovered the said Islands and Continent in the ocean; and you, or any that shall have your commission, shall have taken the usual oath in such cases, that they for the future, look upon you as long as you live, and after you, your son and heir, and so from one heir to another forever, as our Admiral on our said Ocean, and as Vice-Roy and Governour of the said Islands and Continent, by you, Christopher Columbus, discovered and conquered; and that they treat you and your Lieutenants, by you appointed, for executing the employments of Admiral, Vice-Roy, and Governour, as such in all respects, and give you all the perquisites and other things belonging and appertaining to the said offices; and allow, and cause to be allowed you, all the honours, graces, concessions, prehaminences, prerogatives, immunities, and other things, or any of them which are due to you, by virtue of your commands of Admiral, Vice-Roy, and Governour, and to be observed completely, so that nothing be diminished; This document appears in the Compendium: Chapter I Columbus Before the Queen — Emanuel Leutze 1843 Annotation: Issued by Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile, the charter grants Christopher Columbus the hereditary titles of Admiral of the Ocean Sea, Viceroy, and Governor over lands he discovers, along with a share of the profits. It establishes a legal and economic framework for exploration, revealing how the Spanish Crown incentivized expansion through private enterprise while maintaining ultimate authority over commerce, territory, and imperial governance. Authors: Ferdinand II of Aragon — José de Madrazo ca. 184 Isabella of Castile — José de Madrazo ca. 1848 Recipient Christopher Columbus — Sebastiano del Piombo 1519 Transcript Source: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/15th_century/colum.asp and that they make no objection to this, or any part of it, nor suffer it to be made; forasmuch as we from this time forward, by this our letter, bestow on you the employments of Admiral, Vice-Roy, and perpetual Governour forever; and we put you into possession of the said offices, and of every of them, and full power to use and exercise them, and to receive the perquisites and salaries belonging to them, or any of them, as was said above. Concerning all which things, if it be requisite, and you shall desire it, We command our Chancellour, Notaries, and other Officers, to pass, seal, and deliver to you, our Letter of Privilege, in such form and legal manner, as you shall require or stand in need of. And that none of them presume to do any thing to the contrary, upon pain of our displeasure, and forfeiture of 30 ducats for each offence. And we command him, who shall show them this our Letter, that he summon them to appear before us at our Court, where we shall then be, within fifteen days after such summons, under the said penalty. Under which same, we also command any Public Notary whatsoever, that he give to him that shows it him, a certificate under his seal, that we may know how our command is obeyed. GIVEN at Granada, on the 30th of April, in the year of our Lord, 1492.- I, THE KING, I, THE QUEEN. By their Majesties Command, John Coloma Secretary to the King and Queen. Entered according to order. RODERICK. Doctor. SEBASTIAN DOLONA, FRANCIS DE MADRID, Councellors.

By Mark Shubert What is a republic? First we need to look at the word itself which comes from the latin phrase res publica which translates to the thing of the public or public thing. So what does it mean for a state to be a thing of the public? Most importantly the government has to be open to the people and this occurs in two ways. The first is that public offices have to be open to the public. A good way to determine whether or not you live in a republic is if the people can participate in government freely. If the government is closed off to a single family you are probably in a monarchy, to a single person you are probably in a dictatorship, to a class of priests you are probably in a theocracy. These types of governments might have public officers but if their authority is only delegated from a sovereign that is closed off to the people then it is still not a Republic; the sovereign authority cannot be closed off to the people in a proper republic. The second is that the people need to be able to vote. Voting is an essential part of a republic since it sets up who runs the government and most importantly it is the civil way in which the people can give their consent to the government. The more people who have suffrage the more consent the government has to govern. The fewer people who can vote means that there is less investment or interest or consent in the state by the people which can and has been a dangerous environment to most states. The less consent and interest the more the people are detached from their society and are encouraged to secede or revolt to form their own society that they feel apart of. So if democracy is an essential part of a republic, why do people, mainly conservatives, speak out against democracy all the time. The uncharitable, and right, answer is that they are only against democracy because of party factionalism and they know that their views are not popular with the people. The more academic answer is that our understanding and definition of a proper republic is different from that of historic thinkers. Our constitutional framers for example did not include women or non-whites or poor people, the vast majority of the total population, when they originally constituted the right to vote, and yet they called America a republic. They even called America a democracy and some of the constitutional framers like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson created a political party called the Democratic-Republican party. They developed a republic that was not open to the public. Even to the small percentage of people who could vote only around 11% of that turned out to vote in our nation’s first Presidential election. Needless to say the American republic was nowhere near a proper republic until women were protected their right to vote and participate in government. However, this was still not proper since many adults were not able to vote, mainly adults between the age of 18 and 21 plus any convicts, plus poor people who could not pay a poll tax. Amendments have been ratified to fix two of those issues with there being talk of extending the protections of suffrage to convicts, at least those who finished serving their sentence. Another reason for a worry of democracy is that the constitutional framers did not like direct rule of the people. Conveniently the French Revolution occurred around that time which only confirmed their bias against democracy even though the French Revolution was led by rather wealthy “enlightened” bureaucrats and generals who wanted to replace the Bourbon dynasty and establish themselves in higher positions like Robespierre, Napoleon, and Talleyrand. The French people were taken advantage of and many were not enfranchised so blaming the people and democracy is not accurate when looking at the failures of the French Revolution. Another reason to dislike democracy was that most of the people didn’t have a stake in society. Instead they believed that only those who owned land had stock in the nation due to them having ownership of property. This idea is straight up wrong since people without land still have stake in the nation in the form of their own lives. We have seen throughout history that the wealthy landowners of society are the ones who use their wealth and influence over the government to violate the rights of others and to take other people’s land and wealth. History shows that the wealthy don’t actually care about the society that they own property in and so giving them all enfranchisement over the people is not the answer. Look at monarchs, dictators, emperors, chieftains, who all use their influence and wealth to accumulate more for themselves from others both rich and poor. As I mentioned at the beginning the more people who have suffrage the more consent and investment or trust the state has which means the state has more legitimacy and interest. This secures society more than just securing the consent of the wealthy people, since they don't even care about society, only their bottom line. Institutions that make up society are grounded by those who believe and maintain them. The people broadly have been a more secure foundation of stability for political institutions than the top down approach by wealthy individuals. Given this, democracy is essential for a republic to be stable and legitimate. The consent of the people is necessary but not sufficient; the people themselves and the government ought to be well regulated. This regulation occurs by both sides. The people need to regulate themselves and the government, while the government also has to regulate itself and the people. If the people did not violate the rights of others and could be counted on to defend the polity from nature then no government would be necessary, however, many do violate the rights of others and cannot be counted on to defend the polity and so a government is requisite. The government, being the embodiment of the sovereign authority granted to it by the people, must secure the civil rights of its constituents in order to maintain its mandate of civility. A government must be well regulated internally as much as it regulates the people. This internal regulation consists of separating power to specialize and creating a system of checks and balances to make sure that one arm of the state does not extend its power past its enumerated authority. This, I am sure, everyone knows about from elementary school social studies, but another aspect not considered by most is the abolition of powers. Certain natural rights have been abolished before, the right to be a monarch, and the right of the government to kill is being restricted as more laws are made to remove execution as an option. The abolition of power (natural rights) to things that violate civil rights requires more research into and more discussion of. For example, a power that I think the government should abolish is the power of the pardon. The practice of subverting the judicial system by the executive is not something people should support; if someone is innocent then they can go through the court of appeals and should not appeal to the executive. At this point you might be confused about the distinction between natural rights and civil rights. Natural rights are the rights an individual has in the state of nature; this is literally everything. If you are the sovereign you have the right to claim the world, to make your own laws, judge others based on those laws, and execute others based on those judgments. You have all rights and a right to all things in nature. In order to enter into a civil society an individual has to give up their natural rights, especially the rights to claim everything, to legislate, judge, and execute to the government which is where governments get their sovereign authority. However, one does not have to nor want to give up all of their natural rights and so they negotiate with the state in order to preserve the natural rights that do not violate the rights of others. These preserved rights are the civil rights. Rights that the people maintain for themselves in society. This negotiation is not always rational or agreed upon especially when people want to maintain rights that are beneficial for them that also violates the rights of others such as the natural right of slavery. In nature, an individual has a right to enslave anyone, if they can. In a civil society, they would not have that right, however, not all societies are civil and might allow that right to persist. The reason why this right is uncivil is because it violates the right of another, since a civil compact requires free consent of all its constituents. If there are those whose consent is not respected, then that is a state of nature, war, or at least the threat of war since the disenfranchised has the incentive to secede or overturn their oppressors. A revolution or churning of society can occur through war as it has historically, or it can occur through civil means, specifically an amendment process of society. A stable civil society would enumerate an amending process that is efficient enough to make the necessary changes that the people, especially the disenfranchised people, desire. To reiterate, a republic is a public government. A public government is one that has its offices open to the public and suffrage for the people to give their consent and choose their representative. This relationship between the people and their government has to be well regulated. The people need to regulate themselves and the government. The government needs to regulate itself and the people. A well regulated people is one that respects the rights and individualism of others and one that understands political science to know when the state violates the mandate of civility in order to demand the necessary amendments to form a more perfect Union. A well regulated government is one that respects the rights and individualism of its constituents and one that separates its powers in a system of checks and balances that ensures the integrity of the state along with properly representing the people. If the government violates civility then the people need to amend or revolt. If the people violate civility then the government needs to educate or restrict. The civil action is to amend or to educate while the natural action is to revolt or to restrict and a civil society would prefer the civil actions which requires an efficient amending process and a proper educational system. When the amending process fails and when education fails then nature is the more probable course of action. When an appeal to reason and reform fail there is the appeal to heaven.

Development of Civil Societies By Mark Shubert In the state of nature, the individual is the sovereign. They have all of their natural rights; the right to claim the world, the right to create laws, the right to judge others based on those laws, and the right to execute others based on those judgements. In this state the individual is naturally free and naturally secure but that is not the most free or secure they could get. No matter how strong willed an individual is, alone in the great expanse, they are not free to do as they please but instead are bound by constant concerns since the only rational drive is self preservation; that preservation is challenged everywhere in the state of nature. In this individual state of sovereignty, the highest identity is the individual and nothing else matters to that individual other than their own preservation, rights, and happiness. To better secure oneself in nature, the individual figured out that cooperating with other individuals was requisite. This alliance of individuals became the new sovereign, a new identity, a civil society; this first civil society was the family. In order for the family to have power, individuals needed to give up certain natural rights and entrust them to the sovereign, usually to a person who embodied the familial sovereign. Here the workload necessary to survive can be divided up, specialized, and more productive. Individuals can also live longer, not only physically longer, but also their identity since they now identify with a family that can theoretically last forever while an individual cannot. The constituents of a healthy family will have that family’s identity as their highest if not their only identity. However, the development into more complicated societies is not absolute and some constituents of the family might reject the family identity and desire a new identity that being their individual identity or a new family identity either by starting their own family or by taking over their family. To better secure one's family in nature, a family figured out that cooperating with other families was requisite. This alliance of families became the new sovereign, a new identity, a more complicated civil society; this being the tribe. In order for the tribe to have power, families needed to give up certain rights and entrust them to the sovereign, usually to a person who embodied the tribal sovereign. Here the workload necessary to survive can be divided up further, more specialized, and more productive. This allowed the society time and manpower to research and develop capital, both physical and human capital, which advanced society economically. A healthy tribe had its constituents view the tribe’s identity as their highest identity. But, this does not mean that individual or familial identities were abolished. Some families might even reject their tribal identity and desire a new identity by seceding and starting a new tribe or by taking over their current tribe. A family who values its family identity over its tribal one, while recognizing the necessity of being in a tribe, would try to position itself at the top and keep the other families below them in a power hierarchy. They convince the other families into believing that they support the tribal identity for all families, but in reality they only care about their particular family and are willing to use other families as a barrier to the elements of nature. These are the first petty dynasties. This process of establishing one family over all others included changing the identity of the tribe, which is supposed to be higher than any one family, to be attached to that family. England is the Windsor family and the Windsor family is England. And that family is willing to throw all other English families into the meat grinder of nature before themselves. But there is never just one family who desires this, but many and there have been many dynasties throughout the world. Many families who do not identify their family as being a part of a tribe but instead view the tribe as being a part of the family. This has been the cause of so much devastation, intrigue, war, and unrest. Families are not the only ones to do this, but individuals as well. These tyrants, viewing their individual identity as higher than any other, will use all others as they see fit. To better secure one’s tribe in nature, a tribe figured out that cooperating with other tribes was requisite. This alliance of tribes became the new sovereign, a new identity, a more complicated civil society; this being the city. In order for the city to have power, tribes needed to give up certain rights and entrust them to the sovereign, usually to a person who embodied the urban sovereign. Here the workload necessary to survive can be divided up further, more specialized, and more productive. This allowed the society time and manpower to research and develop capital, both physical and human capital, which advanced society economically. A healthy city had its constituents view the city’s identity as the highest identity. But, this does not mean that individual or familial, or tribal identities were abolished. Some tribes might even reject their urban identity and desire a new identity by seceding and starting a new city or by taking over their current city. If a tribe values its identity over the urban one, it will try to establish itself at the highest strata of society and would disregard other tribes. The individual who established itself as the hierarch of its family, could also establish its family as the hierarch of its tribe, and from there establish its tribe as the hierarch of the city. This hierarchy convinces the other tribes, and families, and individuals that the city’s identity, which they all belong to, is attached to that one tribe or family or individual. In other words, those other tribes are persuaded that the urban identity is embodied in a single tribe. This state of sovereignty being at the city state is what most people think about when they think of civilization but the development of families and tribes played a crucial part in laying the foundation, both physical and social, for city states. This is understandable, since writing was invented only after the first city states started to form. Writing as a technology that could only be afforded by the economy of a city. There is also little archeological evidence that paints a clear picture of what life was like before or outside of urban life. To better secure one’s city in nature, a city figured out that cooperating with other cities was requisite. This alliance of cities became the new sovereign, a new identity, a more complicated civil society; this being the nation. In order for the nation to have power, cities needed to give up certain rights and entrust them to the sovereign, usually to a person, but more so nowadays a congress of representatives who embodied the national sovereign. Here the workload necessary to survive can be divided up further, more specialized, and more productive. This allowed the society time and manpower to research and develop capital, both physical and human capital, which advanced society economically. A healthy nation had its constituents view the national identity as the highest identity. But, this does not mean that individual or familial, or tribal, or urban identities were abolished. Some cities might even reject their national identity and desire a new identity by seceding and starting a new nation or by taking over their current nation. If a city values its identity over the national one, it will try to establish itself at the highest strata of society and would unequally treat other cities. The hierarchy of the city can then establish its city as the hierarch of the nation. This hierarchy convinces the other cities that the national identity, which they all belong to, is attached to that one city. In other words, those other cities are persuaded that the national identity is embodied in a single city. Rome for example, was a city that ruled cities. The head of the state of the Roman nation. However, other cities had ambitions too, and either seceded or tried to take over the Roman nation. Rome was not a healthy nation given this inequality and disconnect of identity. Why should another city be subservient to the city of Rome? Rome did provide protection and economic growth but there were many negative attributes to being under the Roman yoke including high taxes, no citizenship especially the further you are from Rome, a change to your culture or religion, or social norms, and there was always the threat of the Roman military sacking their own cities just to pay their soldiers. These injuries caused by Rome outweighed the benefits of Rome especially in the later years of the Empire when Rome could not continue defending or securing the loyalty of its vassal cities. To better secure one’s nation in nature, a nation figured out that cooperating with other nations was requisite. This alliance of nations became the new sovereign, a new identity, a more complicated civil society; this being the civilization. In order for the civilization to have power, nations needed to give up certain rights and entrust them to the sovereign, usually to a person, but more so nowadays a congress of representatives who embodied the civilized sovereign. Here the workload necessary to survive can be divided up further, more specialized, and more productive. This allowed the society time and manpower to research and develop capital, both physical and human capital, which advanced society economically. A healthy civilization has its constituents view the civilized identity as the highest identity. But, this does not mean that individual or familial, or tribal, or urban, or national identities were abolished. Some nations might even reject their civilized identity and desire a new identity by seceding and starting a new civilization or by taking over their current civilization. If a nation values its identity over the civilized one, it will try to establish itself at the highest strata of society and would unequally treat other nations. The hierarchy of the nation can then establish its nation as the hierarch of the civilization. This hierarchy convinces the other nations that the civilized identity, which they all belong to, is attached to that one nation. In other words, those other nations are persuaded that the civilized identity is embodied in a single nation. The United States of America is a civilization state since it is made up of “nations.” People today do not call the states in the USA “nations” but before the union, citizens of the several states or colonies viewed their own respective state/colony as a unique country or nation. Also the states are not city states since they consisted of several cities making them nations. Unless, we create a new categorization for “states” to be their own political identity but states/provinces/prefectures were not sovereign but usually subservient to another power. If you think that this includes the pre-union colonies that's fair, but remember a couple sovereign nations joined the union such as Texas and Hawaii. All other states were subservient to another sovereign whether that be the British, French, Russian, Mexican, or Spanish. The civilization state is the highest state of the sovereign today and it is not yet the most common state, that being nations. The next step, however, could be continental, where civilizations congress into one sovereign. We are seeing the foundation of this kind of state in the European Union but it has yet to become the sovereign of its constituents. Right now it is more like a confederacy of nations than a defined continental state. After this would be a hemispheric or universal state depending on how society develops in the future, I don’t know, I do not have a magic orb. A few clarifications are in order: When sovereigns “join” to form a new sovereign this process is not always consensual, like with Rome conquering other states to form a nation. When a sovereign “figures out” that they would be more secure in nature if they cooperated with other sovereigns this process is not always rational but a necessity pressured by war or environmental happenstance. When a new state of sovereignty is formed that does not mean that it becomes popular immediately; development is slow given the complexities of societies, however, due to technological advancements, societal developments are faster than they ever were before. Given this, though, some areas are still run by tribes or city states despite nation states being the more common state of sovereignty. When a new state of sovereignty is formed, that does not mean that it is stable, it could very well collapse back into the previous states of sovereignty. The reasons for collapse are plenty, but a major reason is the issue of identity. If a state is built off of a specific identity and that identity is no longer commonly supported or subscribed to by the people, then it is weak and under threat of a new more popular identity. This is why the only truly civil society is a society whose identity only consists of universal values. Universal values, after all, are universally supported making that identity the most secure. When a sovereign identity, at any state, is embedded in a single person or a single organization that is not open to the public, that is called a principality; when a sovereign identity, at any state, is embedded in a congress of representatives that is open to public elections and participation that is called a republic. A healthy or civil society would have these states in their proper order, meaning that no sub state is at the level of a higher state which requires equal treatment of the states on each level. The identity of a single individual cannot be at a level higher than that of the individual or else it breaks equality and allows for the threat of war as other individuals, desiring that same position will try to take it for themselves. This desire comes from the state of nature, the desire to be safe, free, and happy, and since more developed societies have more power to fulfill that desire, individuals will try to take it for themselves. This explains the cults of personalities that people try to conjure up for themselves. This needs to be abolished in order for a society to be equal and therefore civil. No individual should be under another. This can be applied to any level of the state of sovereignty. If a civilized state is forming it needs to make that civilized identity the highest identity for if nationalism is the highest identity then it will be harder to form a civilized identity. An example would be British nationalism which was strong enough for Britain to secede from the European Union, a prenatal civilized society. Dictatorships are examples of individuals who make their individual identity higher than their superior identities. Monarchical dynasties are examples of families who make their familial identity higher than their superior identities. Tribal identity differs greatly depending on which continent you observe; in some places tribes are defined clearly and in others they are not. More segmented societies have clear tribal lines and more integrated societies are more difficult to identify. However, in integrated societies like in Western Europe or North America those who identify with a certain tribe associated their identity with an economic class. The wealthiest families in one city state or nation state often married another wealthy family of another city or nation instead of marrying with a poor family of the same city or nation. So in some areas tribal identity is closely tied to economic status. These have only been about political identities, there is an infinite number of identities that exist which only complicates an already complicated topic. There are countless religious identities, social identities, cultural identities, racial identities, etc. Here is the rub of societal development, since it is difficult for people to be rational in the first place, but also difficult for people to agree to subscribing to identities that they were not raised in. Since rationality is a rarity, the course of societal development has been paved with sword and blood instead of reason and negotiation. Also sorry for the repetition, I wanted to make a point. This essay has been inspired by Locke’s “Second Treatise on Government” and Kant’s “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose” along with other various essays about societal development and human history. I suggest you all read these since they are enlightening.

Disquisitions & Deliberations on the Reality of a Universal State of Civility Along With Prescriptions Requisite to Obtain Such a Society Perpetual Peace is a cogent and defensible concept that takes into consideration the realist view of the international environment while also proposing a potential and likely, to the point of inevitable, constitution to a universal state of civility that will secure peace perpetually. This analysis of contemporary international anarchy along with a prescription of a universal framework is based on the cosmopolitan worldview of history which, according to Kant, shows a history of societal development into larger institutions with the goal of securing and preserving peace for its constituents; this goal, being a part of human nature, is universal, ergo, a universal state is the end development of societal evolution. Human nature is bound by the laws of nature; proven by indirect observation on human behavior and how stable it is at being unstable like the weather. Despite this assured instability, people in societies desire stability and peace which has been the motivation for the development of civilization. Individuals, however, think little about the end goal and yet act towards fulfilling it; this, according to Kant, is evidence for a shared human nature. An instinct that is inside every person like potential energy is in a rock on a hill that is about to start rolling. Since humans have a nature that is difficult to understand through direct observation, Kant suggests a series of theses from the observations of non human nature to help understand human nature. The first is that natural characteristics evolve to an end state through instinct and accident; that end state is peace. That human reasoning is a species-wide phenomenon since reason is not instinctive but habitual and requires human capital which can be collected from one generation and granted to the next instead of every generation requiring to relearn the same lessons through trial and error. That humanity has developed reason to learn more about the world than what is instinctively given by a simple biology. Our ancestors who built shelters and gathered food for themselves gave their next generation the surplus of those amenities which allowed them to gather and develop other things which were passed down their posterity as well. That people congress into societies in order to secure themselves and to feel greater than being alone. However, there is the threat that a person may become disconnected from society; feeling opposed by everyone, they will act towards their natural inclinations such as power and violence. This threat is the reason for the development of culture. Culture refines the people in order to feel attached to their society by having social worth which discourages their natural disposition. That the greatest problem for people is the creation of a universal civil state that has the capacity to enforce law. This civil state requires equality ensured to all its citizens. The reason being is that inequality breeds covetousness and discontentment. Why should someone be content with their status when there are others living with more rights and privileges? This discontent leads to the threat of the natural disposition as mentioned before but that can be restricted by culture and social order which disciplines people; Kant observes this phenomenon with trees disciplining each other to live cooperatively and with a noticeable order in a forest which is different to that of a lone tree which grows wildly. Machiavelli hinted at this concept of human nature charting the path towards more security even without the knowledge or planning of people and that friction or conflict is the natural way in which a society develops to be better at securing itself. This is shown by the discord between the plebs and the senate which was unplanned and made the Roman republic more durable, powerful, and free. Charles Hill also points out the fact that “War is the father of all things,” and provides the example of the outcome of the Thirty Years War as proof that war can be what progresses society forward since after the war there was an increase in religious toleration. Kant would see this as a good thing but not the best thing; he suggests that reason, not war or accident, should be what progresses society forward in order to be more peaceful and less costly. That this is the last issue for human society to solve. This problem can only be solved through reason not through instinct or else it would have already been solved. This reason, as mentioned before, has to be habituated by society. However, society, the culmination of human labor and reason, depends on the people. It is a mutual governance and an oscillation of development where the people add in their labor into society and society conditions the people to live better lives and recontribute for the next generation. If the society does not have a civil constitution then it cannot govern the people properly, and an improperly governed people will feel no need to invest in their society; this can oscillate to absolute destruction like an ouroboros. That the same disposition that individuals have to secede from their society when feeling disconnected is not a phenomenon reserved to individuals but to all individual identities which includes entire states. If one state feels disconnected from their neighbor then there is the constant threat of war. A universal civil state will administer law and culture to ease every individual state in order to secure itself from constant revolution. War, as Kant observes, is the means or friction that grinds and hones society to this end. The creation of a universal state requires universal consent and where there is no consent there is war. People could unite as one now, but that requires a shared reason and identity of interest, which does not yet exist and so we are left with nature’s way of teaching us, that being war. That the history of humanity is a history of societal development towards this universal state, where people can fulfill their capacities. This development is glacial and should only progress through enlightenment actions that amends current society to be more civil. That a cosmopolitan understanding of history is possible and requisite to reaching this natural and universal end rationally instead of having to rely on natural development. Although history is complicated and incomplete, we share the same nature and in turn the same end. This universal cosmopolitan existence is the highest purpose of nature since it is the most encompassing state; the smallest minority is the individual not some group, and the largest majority is the whole population not some group. The individual and whole are universal while every other group identity is non-universal; a civil state will only include universal concepts and leave out group identity politics. It is requisite, however, that this probity must be held not only from the top down but also from the bottom up. The people must also hold universal values above group identity or else they will feel discontented, secede, and go to war. Similarly, the several states of the world must hold universal values and identity above any identity they have individually and historically developed for the same reason. Human nature being universal is the guarantor of perpetual peace among nations since it is human nature to secure peace and there can be no greater peace than universal peace. This universal peace requires a universal constitution which Kant proposes. This constitution and general cooperation of nations has to address all issues in order for them to not become an issue later along with making sure that all nations are proper domestically by being a republic while also behaving properly amongst themselves by not invading each other’s sovereignty. Christopher Browning agrees with Kant in that international relations, especially after WWII, has developed to be more universal with a code and the foundation of an institution that might be able to, in the future, create and enforce law, which is the United Nations. Browning also supports the idea of spreading more universal concerns such as human security instead of nations fixating on solely national security. Morgenthau, understood by himself and others as a realist, proposes a revival of international diplomacy so that nations can pursue peace and order with parliamentary procedure among nations and not with the pursuit of power by each individual sovereign. He submits nine rules requisite for diplomacy to function. Diplomacy must be divested of a Crusading Spirit where the people and states are not fighting for a non-universal cause such as a particular religion or culture or ethnic identity. The objectives of foreign policy can only be defined through national security where it is the bare minimum that diplomacy has to offer in order to maintain cooperation of its participating states. Include all points of views in order to make sure that each state has social worth in the negotiations so that they do not become disconnected and veer away from diplomatic means. Compromise on all non vital issues in order for negotiations to occur in the first place instead of every state dying on every hill. States need to give up rights for security in order to keep their priority straight and to keep negotiations smooth since more people can agree on a shared definition of security more so than a definition of rights. States need to get into positions with a pull-out plan and where you can advance with low opportunity costs. Being able to pull out has always been cheaper than staying in. That's true in love and war. They need to never allow weak allies to make decisions for you since the weak nation is willing to be more reckless when using their money and manpower. States need to understand that the military is an instrument of policy not its magistrate. Military governing policy is not likely to secure peace since the objective of war is to end the enemy’s will to resist while the objective of international diplomacy is cooperation and compromise. Government and law ought to override popular sentiments especially when those sentiments are against peace and stability. Morganthau concludes by simultaneously criticizing Kant but also suggesting the very same thing that Kant does. Morganthau, in regards to the failure of diplomacy in the 150 years before his time, states that, “This has been the promise of such solutions as free trade, arbitration, disarmament, collective security, universal socialism, international government, and the world state.” He then states that “It is only when nations have surrendered to a higher authority… when they have given up their sovereignty– that international peace can be made as secure as domestic peace.” Morganthau is not impressed by the seemingly simple understanding Kant has on the international stage and yet realizes that Kant’s analysis of the end state is the end goal of societies. Kant, however, addresses the need for states to give up their power when he talks about the universal state being able to enforce its laws. If sovereign authority exists then a universal law cannot exist. The universal law has to be supreme in order for the international polity to exist in harmony. Kant also addresses the issue that this international state will not exist in the near future and does not give a prediction of a date instead he lays down the framework necessary for such a society to exist. We could all adopt that framework today or we could take a million years to do so; Kant does not propose a time frame only the conditions that would bring about that state. Tanisha Fazal and Paul Poast share a similar critique about Kant’s simplicity. They bring out the nuance of conflicts and how the development to broader peace is not occurring as predicted. Deaths may be declining but that is due to medicine and evac during combat not because there are less conflicts. They go a step further and say that the threat of war is a good thing and that complacency is the real danger since it distracts people from being aware of issues that can become wars. They point to WWI and WWII which was preceded by almost 100 years of European peace among large powers as evidence that Kant’s perpetual peace cannot work but the conditions Kant clearly states as being necessary for perpetual peace to occur were not existent before WWI or WWII. The very first preliminary article is that treaties must clear up any and all disputes to leave nothing for a future war which it is common knowledge that the treaties between European powers were not clear nor complete; an example is the territory of Alsace-Lorraine. What is an interesting critique is that Kant simultaneously believes that the constitutions of nations ought not be interfered with by other states but also that all nations ought to have a republican form of government. Kant, could be suggesting that non-republican governments are free game for republics to destroy but given how Kant does not want nations fighting each other it makes it unclear how exactly all states have to be republics while also not stating how all states can be republics given the current environment of the world consists of monarchies, dictatorships, and theocracies, albeit they failing and declining. Michael Doyle observes that good liberal democracies concern themselves with issues beyond national security such as human well being abroad, which is something Browning mentions in regards to human security. However, Doyle also observes that liberal democracies tend to not always act like liberal democracies. Instead of leaving other states alone like how Kant wants, liberal democracies interfere with other nations all the time. How they interfere could become a major issue for them since many of the policies they employ are not very liberal in nature. Some liberal democracies, like the United States, are willing to ignore human rights violations for its allies and economic partners while making a big fuss about human rights to her rivals. This seems to show that the realists like Morganthau are right since states, even those who claim to be liberal democracies, tend to still act Machiavellian as expected. Kant’s understanding of history through a cosmopolitan perspective allows for both the realist understanding of the current environment and the optimistic predictions of a universal state that can secure perpetual peace. Nations act in their own self interests, realist approach; but using reason nations realize that universal cooperation can better secure themselves, optimist approach; but nations need to have their self interests be in line with universal interests, realist approach; but nations have been developing towards the adoption of universal values more and more, optimist approach. Eventually, either through war or reason human societies will develop into one society and secure peace. References: Beck, White Lewis, et al. “Idea for a Universal History From A Cosmopolitan Point of View.” On History: Immanuel Kant, The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc, 1963. Machiavelli Niccolò, et al. The Discourses. Penguin, 1983. Hill, Charles. Grand Strategies: Literature, Statecraft, and World Order. Yale University Press, 2011. Kant, Immanuel, and Lewis White Beck. Perpetual Peace. 3rd ed., Liberal Arts Press, 1957. Browning, Christopher S. International Security: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford Univ. Press, 2013. Morgenthau, Hans J. “Chapter 32 The Future of Diplomacy.” Politics among Nations, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1973. Tanisha M. Fazal and Paul Poast. “War Is Not Over.” What the Optimists Get Wrong About Conflict, Foreign Affairs, November/December 2019. Doyle, Michael W. “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs.” Immanuel Kant, 2017.

If all cities and state governments acted the same way, then they should not treat certain businesses differently than others regardless of their size. The reason for this is that a civil government would not be tied to a particular means of production, especially in a manner that would mix the interests of governance with the interests of a company. If the government recognizes the interest of a company as the interest of the state then the government is encouraged to act in a manner that is not truly beneficial to the polity but instead beneficial to that business. Businesses come and go all the time and there very much could be diminishing returns to investing in one business. Sure, some cities and even states may begin because of a business but they cannot remain vibrant being contingent on the success of that business or industry. Why is there a Rust Belt? Those cities and states invested their capital into businesses and industries that ended up leaving as soon as they could find cheaper labor elsewhere; they failed due to a lack of innovation since the government subsidized or deducted taxes that made businesses rest on their laurels. Those cities and states should have invested in society, not a specific means of production since a particular industry will not last forever nor will be the most profitable for long. The reason why this separation of business and state likely won’t be established is because not all cities or states act the same way. Meaning that there are competitive advantages in the short run that are too alluring for politicians to ignore. This sounds Machiavellian, as governments do what they think they should to get reelected or to seemingly benefit the society they were elected for. If one city does not accept Amazon, another will, and that other city will reap the short run rewards; this is how politicians are observed to think. They tend to leave out the long run effects of giving large business benefits. What if Amazon is accepted in NYC and gets tax deductions on the promise of providing jobs and then Amazon just automates and causes local prices to skyrocket? An example would be large sports events like the Olympics, sure the state and wealthy get a lot of money, but after the Olympics those places and the people who live there are destitute. Their welfare does not increase and sometimes it decreases and yet their “representatives” allow for subsidies and tax deductions to go through anyway. This is because representatives are not always representing the interests of the people but instead of businesses. If a business is truly healthy for a polity then it will grow naturally and from the bottom up; from the demands of the market not the policies of the government. Therefore city and state governments should not pursue large corporations proactively but instead lay the framework for the people to choose and develop industry on their own. As Mayor De Blasio and under the presumption that I am trying to curry favor from Amazon I would prioritize the impact Amazon would have on the community. Amazon is promising 25,000 jobs with an “average” of $150,000; I would ask for salary mode instead of mean since averages can be skewed easily. I would also wonder how many jobs would be lost if a large retail and shipping company like Amazon was dropped onto NYC. How many jobs from other retail and shipping companies would be lost because a wealthier, tax deducted, privileged, behemoth that is Amazon can now compete with them to death? If there is a net job increase that is preferable but does the city have the right workers for Amazon already living here or would there have to be a migration of skilled workers from outside of the city to fill the employment quota? If a migration is needed how will that impact the current residents of the city? Gentrification would certainly increase which would heavily disrupt the local culture of the city that Amazon claims to care about. There is also the issue of infrastructure since the city's roads and subways would not be able to handle the increase in traffic caused by Amazon trucks and vans going in and out of the city which would drive up traffic times and encourage more people to use the subway which would increase foot traffic to the subways. Amazon could have gathered committees of representatives from the local areas to discuss the issues I brought up earlier. Meeting with city officials and being public would have been so much better for Amazon since in reality many local officials only learned about it through the very biased media which affected their opinions on the topic. Had Amazon been more open about and included local representatives the backlash would have been less and support for the decision would have increased. There is a trade off, however, and that would be that prices of real estate would have risen. This is why Amazon should have, and they actually did, talk to multiple cities to make sure that realtors wouldn’t increase prices before a decision was made. This could still have been done while being open; just be open with multiple cities. This might have actually decreased real estate prices as there would have been competition to attract Amazon. The opinions that matter the most are the people via their representatives. If the local and state officers are not willing to work together and there is an increasing opposition to the negotiations that is probably a clear sign to steer clear from that area. As mentioned before, Amazon could have garnered much more cooperation and support from locals had they been more open and allowed local representatives to voice their opinions directly instead of only learning about the deal through the media. Next important opinions would be the shareholders and employees but they pretty much have the same interest of being in a place with low taxes, good infrastructure, and high opportunity to increase their wealth in general. Another opinion to consider might be the rest of the nation, especially the less amicable opinions against large businesses. If Amazon goes to a place and ends up ruining it, that will be fuel for anti-large business sentiments across the nation making it more difficult to find a decent place later. Finding the best place is essential and that requires observing many viewpoints and variables along with analysis of potential rewards along with risks.

By Mark Shubert The natural interest of all life is to survive. Survival requires adaptation to or manipulation of the environment in order to be safe, live long, and expand. People pursue this interest through identities. If you identify as a Christian then you have the interest of keeping Christianity alive which requires adaptation or manipulation of the world to keep Christianity safe, to live a long Christian life, and to expand your religion both in personal understanding and piety along with expanding the population of Christians. All life and all identities have this same drive. Proper statecraft includes clarifying the identity of the state and to remove or prevent identities that do not belong in the state identity from attaching themselves to it. Identities are a lot like viruses since they cannot be considered as life on their own and yet they have the same drive as life. They enter into the minds of people as a virus does a host. An identity only survives if there are hosts to believe in it. Some identities try to attach themselves to other identities to form a new identity with the intent of securing its interests. Similarly, organisms attach themselves onto other organisms in order to survive and these can form new organisms entirely with a new identity and a new interest. This we see in America as Christianity is dying, or at least under the perceived threat of dying, it is trying to attach itself to the national identity. There are formal and informal ways Christianity is adapting or manipulating America. The formal ways include official documents and policies, i.e. changing the national motto from “E Pluribus Unum” to “In God We Trust,” changing the pledge of allegiance to include the words “under God,” allowing state courts to recognize religious iconography such as the 10 Commandments which have little to nothing to do with American politics, and economic policies around religious institutions such as church, non profit companies, and private schools with tax exemptions, deductions, and subsidies. Yes, the non profit companies and private schools do not have to be religious but many are and I would argue that no business should receive tax exemptions, deductions, or subsidies. The informal ways include culture and marketing. Culturally, parents have the ability to force their children to go to church with or without their consent and could use punitive measures such as grounding or insulting against impious children. This is on the decline but is still common in rural parts of the country where small religious communities do not shun these parental actions and some actively encourage parents to behave this way. Marketing includes promotion of awareness and accessibility to religious communities. These informal means are trickery to tackle since the state as a formal institution should not proscribe this behavior, instead a rational populous ought to encourage good parenting and discourage bad parental control without government management. These formal and informal means have been about manipulating the world in order to be more suitable to Christianity but there have also been lots of changes to Christian thought and practice which is Christianity adapting to the world in order to fit in better. Examples include changing views on marriage, divorce, abortion, nationalism, family, apostasy, sex, entertainment, and multi-religious relationships, along with other things. There is a lot of overlap between the formal and informal means of pursuing the interest of Christianity and there are sure to be many more ways that have not been addressed. The state, as a secular entity, needs to maintain that secular characteristic in order to keep its mandate of civility. The reason being is that the enfranchisement of one religion over others is a threat to all religions. If this avoidable threat becomes a reality then the state has failed and lost its claim to civility and enters into a state of war, at least the threat of war, until equal treatment under the law has been restored. This is true for any and all religions not just Christianity but in the context of America which has a strong Christian base of supporters it applies more so to Christianity than other religions. The identity of the state should only be representing two things: the individual and the whole body of individuals. The smallest minority is the individual and the largest majority is everybody. Any other group cannot claim to be the true majority or minority and should not be the interest of the state. White people are not the largest majority in America and so the interest of “whiteness” should not be the interest of the state; likewise, Black people are not the smallest minority and so “blackness” should not be the interest of the state. Instead the whole body of individuals which include both whites and blacks and all other races should be the interest of the state; likewise the individual, which also could be any race, should be the interest of the state. A common phrase uttered by misguided people is that America is a “white” nation. Here we see the identity of “whiteness” trying to attach itself to the identity of the state since these people feel that “whiteness” is under threat and that it should be maintained through formal enforcement. First of all, whiteness is not under threat as there are more white people in the world today than ever before and also whiteness is not a characteristic of America. America is a nation for every individual, not just for white people. The most notorious use of the concept of America being a white nation was the Dred Scott case where the supreme court decided that Blacks cannot even be citizens since America is a white nation. This is referenced at the beginning of the Majority opinion made by Chief Justice Taney who said that when the constitution was made they (Africans) were not included in the community that constituted the state. More sensible minds have overturned this decision and the identity of whiteness as an attribute of the identity of America is gladly dying but still needs to be shot in the head once and for all. The modern argument in favor of this irrational identity is the fact that America is a majority white nation and so the interest of whiteness should be embedded in the interest of the nation. First of all, white people are not the largest majority since the largest majority is everybody including non-whites, and secondly I doubt that if the demographics of the nation were to change that they would want to continue the idea that the “majority” race should be the hegemonic interest of the state. If Asians became the largest racial majority I doubt these whites would argue that America is an Asian nation simply because Asians are now the largest racial majority. This inconsistency causes insecurity among whiteness identifiers which only exacerbates their efforts to make sure that white people will always be the racial majority in the country since they do not want to face their inconsistency and since they fear that their racist policies and rhetoric might be used by Asians against them if Asians became the racial majority. White people, and any race for that matter, do not have to fear such racial policies if race is not a consideration of state interest in the first place. We need to de-essentialize race from the state. We should also consider the history of white identity. Racial identity is a rather new concept and in fact most parts of the world still have ethnic identity as the main interest and not a broad racial one especially in Africa but somewhat in Central and South America, Asia, Oceania, and some parts of Europe. In America at least, the rhetoric we see with racial identity is more prevalent than ethnic identity. The reason for this is that the Anglo whites were the ethnic majority of the founders of the nation but are no longer the largest ethnic group. The largest ethnic group in America today are Germans and the second largest are Irish. Due to this the interest of the state has shifted properly to a more inclusive identity which has ended war (and the threat of war) between the ethnic groups. There was violence between Irish and Anglo peoples which is silly. In fact all violence due to ethnicity and race is irrational and only shows the insecurity of the aggressors. And the German population in America is only around 15%, far from any reasonable use of the term “majority”. Also, what is the German identity? German itself is made up of many old ethnic groups, the Prussians, Pomeranians, Bavarians, Hanoverians, Westphilians, Hessians, Saxons, etc. Identity could continue to be more granular all the way until you reach the individual. How we can ensure the perpetual death of this identity is to teach our citizens, both young and old, that America’s identity does not belong to any group other than the individual and the whole. Formally, whiteness has been abolished by the government, but informally the identity continues in the minds of those who perpetuate this identity by passing it to others like a virus. We hear lots of rhetoric about immigrants and “white genocide” which is proof that this identity still exists informally in the minds of some people. Proper statecraft includes making sure the formal institution of the state does not have a racial or ethnic attribute attached to its identity. Similarly, Christians have made claims of America being a “Christian” nation. My argument against racial and ethnic identity of America is the same in regards to religion. Simply having Christianity as the majority religious group does not mean that the identity of the state ought to include Christianity. And like my previous argument, the Christian identity itself can be and has been divided into many denominations which if you continue dividing you end up at the religious conscience of an individual. This is why James Madison in his speech against religious identity of the state through formal means of taxation and enforcement called a “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessment,” argued in the perspective of the individual conscience not the conscience or identity of a particular group of Christians. James Madison was undeniably against the formal institutions of religion and certainly against the identity of the state including a religious attribute. Where many get confused about Madison is from his many pro Christian quips but those are all informal suggestions not formal enforcements. A stronger defense against Christian identity in the American identity includes our Constitution and the 10 Commandments. The 10 Commandments is a large idol of Christians and an icon used to spread the Christian identity. However, enforcing seven of the ten commandments would violate our Constitution and American civil rights in general. The first four commandments; no worshiping of false gods, no idols, no using the Lord’s name in vain, and keeping the Sabbath day Holy, all violate the First Amendment. You can worship any God you like, you can make idols if you want, you can use the Lord’s name in vain, and you don't have to keep the Sabbath Holy. The fifth, seventh, and tenth commandments are not restricted by the Constitution or even any law in America; you don’t have to honor your parents under threat of legal punishment; you can commit adultery and not be punished for it; you can covet or be jealous of other people’s lives without being arrested. There are only three commandments that are included in American politics and those include not murdering, not stealing, and not lying in the court of law. These three are common sense, and Christianity has no monopoly ownership over these concepts since these concepts have existed before Christianity or even Judaism. The seven previous commandments that the Abrahamic religions could claim originality of are ironically the commandments that are not formalized in American politics and increasingly losing support informally as well. The ten commandments have no place in American politics and Christianity, or any religion, has no place in the American identity. Some say that America’s political values enumerated into the Constitution come from religion or the Bible. I would ask, where in the Bible does God say that everyone has the right to worship whichever God they wish to worship and no punishment on Earth or after death would be inflicted depending on the religious choice of an individual? The concept of religious toleration, especially as a right directly endowed to people from God, is found nowhere in the Bible. Where then does the idea of religious toleration come from? In modern times, from the enlightenment, specifically after the bloody Thirty Years War, which shed light on universal values including liberty which extends to religious toleration. Liberty requires that the state and society be tolerant of certain actions like worshiping a religion that is different from others. The source of American values is not the Bible, but universal values understood through reason. To my fellow secularists, learn about this as much as you are interested in this topic and ponder new arguments to end the spread of religious identity in politics. For the tactics that they use we can use, but their weaknesses are also our weakness for secularism is itself an identity like any other. This means that our identity ought not to be the identity of the state, instead, it, along with religion, should be a non issue to the government and politics in general. That is the goal; to separate the issue of religiosity from government not to replace religious hegemony with atheistic hegemony. Only then could this specific identity conflict die and remain dead. France has done a terrible job at this with their laicite which enforces atheism which again should not be the identity of the state but instead liberty, something that is a universal concept that can be applied to everyone. There is a lot more religious unrest in France than in America because religious communities feel and are threatened by the state, while in America we handle religion through liberty which does not threaten religions in general. How America handles religion, although not perfect, is better than France and most of the world. Where we can make progress is abolishing the formal religious policies mentioned earlier along with decreasing informal support among the American population mainly through increasing education of science and cosmopolitanism. Race and Religion seem to be the main identities trying to leech off of the American state identity but there are many different identities that we should be perpetually concerned of. Cultural identity, sexual identity, gender identity, sports identity, music identity, corporate identity, the cult of an individual person, etc. these smaller identities for the most part are not significantly affecting American identity except for corporate identity which includes the automobile culture where the government subsidies infrastructure that benefits automobiles more than other types of transportation which gives an unfair advantage to one industry over the other which could be more costly to the nation since other forms of transportation may be faster and safer than cars and trucks. This could be solved with Non Negotium, the idea that there should be a separation of business and state; where the government does not identify with any one particular industry so that state power is not used to perpetuate that industry over others. Another identity that we need to address and one that used to have actual political authority is the identity of land ownership along with educational meritocracy. The government needs consent of the governed; a civil way in which the people give their consent is through the institution of suffrage. Suffrage ensures the interest the people have in the state since they give their consent. Restricting suffrage to just those who have land or “high education” will only decrease the amount of interest the people have in the state since not everyone owns land nor has everyone received a “high education.” This decrease in interest of the people will make the state lose credibility since it decreases the amount of consent it has from the people. Having a well educated electorate is important, the way to have this is not by restricting suffrage but by expanding education. Spending needs to increase both on the state and federal level, but the education institution needs reform. The identity of the state should not be contingent on anything but the individual and the whole, dividing the people into subgroups to be treated differently is not proper governance. Land owners should not be the identity of the state, nor should “high education” whatever that actually means. Enfranchisement based on educational merit can and has been tyrannical depending on who decides what is a proper education. Throughout history educational requirements had very little to do with an actual decent education and had more to do with party loyalty. Another identity that had an effect on many countries around the world includes cults of personalities or the state identity attached to a single individual. This includes dictators and monarchs, especially absolute monarchies, but even constitutional monarchies still have that unreasonable identity of a single person attached to the state identity. In the US there is a soft cult of personality with the president and a proper republic would decrease the authority and gravitas of the executive in order to secure the power and probity of the legislature. We have holidays around the president, not congress. Most people know who the president is but not their congressor (I use the term congressor instead of having to say congressmen and congresswomen). We have lots of statues of past presidents and very few of congressores. The solution is not more statues of congressores but instead less statues of presidents and individuals in general. Statues of the personification of universal values like the Statue of Liberty are perfectly fine but statues of individual people lead to cults of personality which should not be encouraged and especially enforced or paid for by the state. The executive branch has assumed many delegated powers from the legislature since the legislature is becoming distracted by irrational politics. Look at the bills introduced in congress during any given month and there will be bills that are not necessary nor proper for Congress to be interested in; some bills are about honoring an athlete, or renaming a post office, or commissioning a statue. None of these bills are necessary nor proper and so should not fill the schedule of congress. A well regulated and properly functioning congress would filter out this nonsense and focus on actual policies; policies that, due to congress being distracted, have been delegated to the executive branch. What I am referring to is who decides how laws are enforced. The legislative branch creates laws, the executive branch enforces laws, but who decides how laws are enforced. This was an issue that Washington mentioned in his first inaugural address and he decided that congress should decide how a law is enforced. This decision has not been enumerated into the constitution properly and so over time congress has delegated that power to the executive; this is why there are many agencies and departments in the executive branch with little to no oversight or much interest by congress. Congress technically does have power over deciding how laws are enforced but this requires a proactive Congress and we see that they are not using this power responsibly which allows the executive branch to get away with creating policies that circumvent the legislative branch. Changing the understanding of the state identity would change how congress uses its power for that identity’s interest. If Congressores view sports as important to federal legislation then they will waste their time introducing and passing legislation about sports, but if they understand that sports should have no place in politics, especially federal politics, then they will not waste their time. Another identity that has gripped the Southern United States is the Confederacy. People are identifying with an institution that no longer exists, that was immoral at the time and especially today, and anti-American as it went against the Constitution and the Rights of people. They perpetuate this identity simply because they lack education on the matter and it was given to them by their parents or friends like a virus. We need to remove this identity from the hearts and minds of those people. Formally, with good education, and informally, with more open discussion with these people to make them feel more attached to the true American identity than with the identity of the Confederacy. Adopting universal values is the best way to achieve this. If those who are against the Confederacy identity, as all Americans should be, switched the racial identity of America from White, as it was during the time of the Confederacy, to Black, then many who still identify with the Confederacy and therefore the White identity of the nation will view anti-Confederacy as anti-White and would not feel attached to America today and would continue to fight against anti-Confederacy rhetoric and actions. Switching America’s race from White to Black is not the answer, but instead to universal concepts that everyone can get behind regardless of race. This is the proper progressive movement. However, there is an idea that universal values threaten a race, they do not. It does threaten the identity of a race which, as mentioned many times before, is a virus that only survives when it has hosts who believe in it and if everyone adopted universal values the identity of race would die. This is a concern of all conservatives who are not actually conservatives since they do not want to conserve anything and certainly not the current state of America. They are more like restorationists who want to restore a previous state of America. Some want to restore the state that America had in the 1980’s, some the state of the 1950’s, some the state of the 1860s. There are inconsistencies with all of these restorationist since they want to keep modern amenities like technology but they want to restore identities that they identify with the most; very few people actually identify with technology such as the Amish. Race is a major identity to Confederate sympathizers since it was an identity to the Confederacy and so both identities need to parish. The identity of the state should only be interested in that which is consistent with the individual and the whole body of individuals. Religion differs from person to person and so any one religion ought not to be the identity of the state, same goes for race, ethnicity, culture, language, gender, etc. Those should be non issues to the government. That which is universal should be the attributes of our state identity: equality, justice, representation, liberty. Cheesy I know, but universal concepts like these are the only ones with a right to be attached to the American identity and nothing else. This, of course, has only addressed the formal identity of the nation. What is equally important, especially for a democratic-republic, is that the people should also hold this probity. In a democracy, if the majority believe that Christianity ought to be the interest of the state then there will be religious enforcement which begets violence or the threat of war. Therefore, the people need to hold and maintain this idea of proper state identity and of their own identity as well. It is not enough for the government to be anti-racist, the people need to be anti-racist as well. Same goes with all of these concepts and identities. The people, individually, should hold and act upon these values, just as the state, which is the whole body of individuals, should also do so. Non-political identities should not be political, obviously, but the issue is determining what is and is not a political identity. Any identity that can apply to everybody, universal concepts for example, are political identities and have more of a right to be attached to the state identity than identities that only apply to a subgroup of the total population. This is the theory of proper state identity. However, reality shows people do not pursue proper statecraft but instead the interest of certain non-political identities, and so the difficulty is to promote this understanding of universal identity and decrease support for less than universal identity politics.

The constitution of the United States outlines the structure of government and also the relationship between the government and its citizens. This structuring creates checks and balances between the government and the people to ensure that there is limited tyranny from the many and from the few. Articles one through three enumerate certain powers granted to legislative, executive, and judicial branches that also intend to create a system of checks and balances through a division of power. Even within article one, the legislative branch is divided into two houses, a bicameral legislature, the house of representatives, and the house of the senate. For each of these two houses, the politicians themselves are elected differently and have different responsibilities and powers. The house of representatives is filled with members who are elected for only two-year terms and are chosen by the general population, at the beginning mostly wealthy men but we have extended suffrage to the real general population, within congressional districts. The senators were elected by the state legislatures, the 17th amendment changes this to the general population of a state, and serves 6-year terms with one-third of all senators being up for reelection every two years. The number of senators for each state was equal at two regardless of the population of the states. This bicameral system shows the concern that the framers had on the division of power where the house was elected by the general population and varies from state to state based on the total population of that state and the senate being few and equal for all states. This way the many did not have complete legislative authority over the few and the few did not have complete legislative authority over the many. This system has worked well for the past couple hundred years with some bumps in the road but systems such as the amending process, the constitution and the division of powers have made our union more perfect over time. Outside of the legislative branch included the executive branch which is run by a unitary executive leader called the president. The president had nearly unanimous control over his branch with a few exceptions with appointments to cabinet positions that need to be approved by the senate along with treaties of peace and war and embassies. The president was elected by the states through an electoral college and served four-year terms. The twenty-second amendment limits presidential terms to two. The office of the president is an example of the power of one but that office also had checks and balances to deal with and is responsible for. The president can veto any bill that is passed by congress but can be overridden by ⅔ vote from both houses. The president can also be impeached starting with the house issuing the impeachment and the senate as jury and judge to convict. This way the one (president) had power over the few (senate) and the many (house) but that the few and many could remove the one as they see fit. The third branch, the judicial branch, is the smallest and resides in the supreme court. Currently, there are nine members although there is no limit to how many there can be. These justices are not elected but nominated by the president and approved by the senate. The supreme court can be seen as the second group of the few, other than senators, given their impartiality to politics and focus on judicial issues that ought to remain out of party drama. Outside of these branches are the powers of the amending process which is necessary in order to form a more perfect union since we did and still don’t have a perfect union so the only way to become more perfect is to be able to fix or amend the constitution whenever necessary. The amendments themselves have to be approved by the congress and president but also ¾ of the state legislatures as well. Here we see another instance of the one and few (the federal government) and the many (state governments). The amendments could be ordered into two classifications, this is something that I made myself, the first being administrative amendments and individual-rights amendments. The administrative amendments consist of those amendments that change the structure of government such as changing how senators are elected or putting term limits on the office of the president or changing how the vice president assumes power or creating income tax. The individual rights amendments include the first ten amendments, the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, nineteenth, twenty-fourth, and twenty-sixth amendments. The first ten amendments are historically called the Bill of Rights but I believe that we should change the term’s meaning to include any amendment that deals with the issue of rights like the six other amendments I included. This Bill of Rights that I describe can be seen as the eighth article of the Constitution since these amendments do not amend any other part of the constitution itself but do amend the relationship between the people and the government. The Bill of Rights as I understand them to be, is yet another example of the framers separating power between the few (including the one) and the many since the many citizens do not get to amend the constitution themselves, but the amendments do restrict government behavior to prevent tyranny against the people. Overall the constitution does a decent job at resolving the issues between the one, the few, and the many. There are still issues that need to be addressed such as gerrymandering which is an overstep of the few to control the many; since it should be the people who choose the representatives, not the representatives who choose the people. There are issues with plurality voting and winner takes all for state and federal elections because that often means that less than a majority chooses the representatives and this system can be compared to gerrymandering on the state and federal level. Other than those few issues, the amount of peace and general prosperity of the union, compared to other nations, shows the success of the constitution in separating power, creating a system of checks and balances between many groups, forming a cohesive structure of government, and establishing a healthy relationship between the government and the people.