I would like some views on the testing requirement for citizenship that Joel proposes. I understand the great necessity for a citizenry that understands the principles of liberty and the nature of fundamental rights, as well as the government's role in defending those rights. I applaud the initiative of establishing a test evaluating a prospective citizen on his/her understanding of constitutional law and these fundamental rights. However, I am curious as to how the proposed government would set up and maintain such tests so that they are accurate and complete evaluations, modified as necessary over time and the evolution of the government. How would the content of such tests be determined, and who would make those decisions? It would seem to be the charge of the government itself, or at least some committee of the government. Yet, wary as I am about the extent to which this nation has socialized education, creating such bloated and inefficient agencies as the Dept. of Education at public expense, I would be hesitant to put such matters again in the government's hands without at least some clear definitions.
I'm also curious about the preparation requried for such testing. Especially at the upstart of such a new nation, there would be a great need to educate prospective citizens on these fundamental principles. Later, the need would mostly involve the education of the young and of immigrants who wish to become citizens. Maybe such education can be accomplished on an informal basis, namely by becoming acquainted with the "Principles of Liberty", the Constitution, and any other material that would be construed to accurately define the rights of citizens and the roles of individuals and the government. However, I ask on the basis of the fact that education in itself is not a fundamental right, and there would be sufficient reason I believe to ensure that both the government and the well-meaning individuals who set up such a government, do not overstep their bounds in this concern.
I suppose the language test is not an issue? As to the law and liberty test, I have an idea. Let's model this after our jury selection system. Each year, there is selected by random drawing a committee of (10? 50? 100?) citizens whose qualification is a score above 90% on the test which they took. A citizen can serve on this committee only once in his life.
This committee has limited power to revise the bank of test questions from which each test is drawn. For example, each year's committee could change no more than 10% of the entire bank of questions.
The committee is well paid for their time of service (1-3 months?)so that it is not a hardship for them to perform this service. This could be done in large part by e-mail or mail, with limited face-to-face meetings. Or, all members each year could be drawn from only one state to facilitate face-to-face meetings. Perhaps 1-3 volunteer members could be chosen from each year's committee to chair the following year's committee.
As to the testing process, I suggest a bank of, say 1,000 questions of which maybe 100-200 randomly chosen questions appear on any given test. The questions and answers of the previously administered tests are published. Also a list of reference works on which the questions are based is also published (Constitution, Declaration of Independence, etc.) It then becomes the duty of the prospective citizen either to study on his own or to take a commercially offered course to prepare him for the test, similar to what is done for the Uniform CPA test.
The idea here is to remove all willful access to the important position of test question creator, and to make it very difficult for any agents of interest to penetrate and corrupt the process. The education process is placed entirely in the hands of the prospective citizen and any private agents they may choose to hire, thus leaving no place for an educracy to develop.
Of course, I forgot about the language test. I think that would fit under the same general category, though, and thus the same rules (and concerns) would likely apply to both.
I like your idea about a "jury selection" process. It would be important to keep matters as closely within the hands of citizens as possible. If clearly defined rules are established to govern the test development process and keep changes within limitations, I could see such a system potentially being very successful. In addition, particularly in the case of the law and government test, it places more responsibility on the citizens themselves to know and understand the principles involved. A person would probably (if he takes the assignment seriously) learn much more about the material by taking part in the test development process than he ever did actually preparing for the test.
(1)WHY should I want to become a citizen?
This is a serious and honest question.
(2)What are all of the differences, between a citizen and a resident.
Public education is not a power of the
federal(national)government.(governments have powers,people have rights, slaves have privileges.
Besides public education is the 8th or 9th
plank of the Communist Manifesto.
Education is the responsibility,
first of the Family,
if the family chooses not to or cannot, the responsibility falls to the Church(at least half of education involves Philosophy,the other half,
reading,writing and arithmetic, etc.)
Those who disagree,please tell me what government does well.
Government will already have much power,entrusting education to it, will cause us to fall back into the tyranny, we are presently in.
Education being taught, by people not working for the government, will act as a check and balance against government power, as abuses can and will be pointed out and discussed,so that the appropriate action may be considered.
It is a conflict of interest, for government employees, to point out government wrong doing.
Concerning Celeste S's comment about learning
about law and principles,Please go to a law library and walk all the way around each aisle.
How can anyone possibly learn the law unless it is their full time job.
It is Necessary to limit the amount of laws binding on men.An abundance of laws causes
men to become criminals by accident(without evil intent)and eventually causes men to ignore needed laws.
How can the amount of laws be limited yet sufficient?
An abundance of laws are also the tool of a tyrant.
I suggest thatfor each point in the Constitution, at the right side of the screen, you place a "click spot",so that someone may make a comment, pertaining to that subject and also others may view those comments so tha tthe weaknesses may be discovered and removed.
Please,please ,please,Mr.Skousen please re-read the us constitution.It has given very few powers to the federal government.
The constitution you propose greatly expands the federal governments powers.
Most of what you propose is best given to the state government.Yes it will be less efficient.
Tyrannies are efficient governments.
Federal permits to move to another state??
Russia has those.If you travel more than 50 miles from Moscow you must obtain a permit.
I do not need a permit now ,how will this permit give to me more Liberty.Remember ,a permit is permission . Permission can be denied. A free man does not need to ask his
government permission,
but a slave must ask permission.
State regulation of "businesses with employees",
Is not what I am talking about.Private conduct in
common areas is to be exempt from permits,license,or fees.Otherwise the policing
will create a Big Brother ,"Do You have permission", "have you paid your fees"Policestate even worse than now .Remember
governments always do overstep its Bounds.
Mr. Skousen:Please go to 4bypass.com
You may or may not agree with all of their philosophy of government.
Their ideas are farther down the road towards bringing us back to Freedom and Liberty.
you will enjoy what they are doing.
Please get their back issues,take plenty of notes as you read.
Most of what they have to offer is based on Law,
which is cited.
They find the beneficial Laws and case laws, so that they will have a solid foundation on the topic of Fundamental Rights.
Please incoporate their information into your work
on the Constitution
You have what they lack ,a website on correcting the flaws in the Constitution for the united States of America.
Maybe you both can work together.
Ms. Skousen,
In answer to your question, here are my views on the testing requirements for citizenship:
A wise man once said: "I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves."
I disagree with Mr. Wright's suggestion to publish previously used questions and answers. A test of this type must have as its aim
1) the education of those who wish to take it, and
2) the demonstration of a thorough understanding of fundamental rights by those tested--
not the rote learning of published questions and answers.
Most tests I've taken are largely constructed to measure one's ability to take tests, not one's understanding of the concepts and principles which should have been learned.
I do agree with Mr. Wright's suggestion as to a lottery to determine an annual jury for test evaluation and refinement. However, I do not think the test needs to be terribly complex or lengthy. The section on Constitutional law should serve to show whether or not the prospective citizen being tested understands the spirit and intent of Constitutional Law, as well as basic content. The original Constitution of the United States isn't all that bulky a document. It could be memorized without Herculean effort. (How many songs, nursery rhymes, advertising jingles, etc., do you know? Far more altogether than the text of the Constitution.)
The section on fundamental rights could be covered in no more than five or ten essay questions posing problems and requiring an answer proposing a resolution according to the principles of fundamental rights. Granted, these questions would need to be graded or corrected by volunteers, complete with an appeals process of some kind to prevent those citizens jealous of their status from denying citizenship unjustly. I believe it would be in the best interest of citizens to help in the process, to help protect their fundamental rights by ensuring that only those who are prepared by and armed with understanding are allowed to have a portion of power over them (the citizenry) through the governing process.
Please do not consider this flip -- it is not meant to be. I wish to play the devil's advocate and remind you good people of our country's recent history...complete with voting & poll taxes and Jim Crow laws. As the old story goes, a black man goes to vote and the county sheriff says he has to take a literacy test first. The sheriff shows the man a newspaper in Chinese and asks what it says. The black man looks at the sheriff, slowly shakes his head and says, "Well, sheriff, it says ain't no blacks voting in this county today."
I hope to continue to read and research your work and that of others. I'd remind all of you to "check six" even though these are discussions for academic consideration. These are, as the Chinese curse goes, interesting times.
James Madison was correct, "In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the greatest difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place, oblige it to control itself."
In order for government to control itself, there must be penalties for government employees,who break any Law or Regulation. At present, in most bureaucacies, there are No Penalties, against the Government Employee, who fails to Follow the Regulations or Laws.
Laws without Penalties are merely advice.
The penalities must be sufficient enough, that Every bureaucrat, will act CareFully each and every time they deal with a Private Man or Woman.
And THAT, my friends, is one of the major flaws in our system, which, obviosly, is out of control.
A test is not going to make a citizen just as a license does not make a good driver or good fisherman or anything else that they license. The only test for a freedom loving citizen is in how his or her life shows up. I do believe the Skousen's are on the right track in regard to the NWO etc. I just have this gut feeling about it. I am surprised by some of their ideas on how to "fix it" There is no fixing it. At this point we need to learn to survive it and recreate our lives without BIG BROTHER. When a group of people get together to plan how a society should or should not be I think you are headed onto the path of socialism. Should life look or be a certain way? I love to get together with people that have possibilities for themselves and their families. This strong individual families would create a strong commitment to just that strong individuals. I myself am scared of both the right and the left. The left wants NWO and the right wants government too but only what they think it should be. Both want government but justify it with their own slant. The idea of government is dark on its own. No offense to the Skousen's but you do much better work as investigators on what the NWO is up to. Really love your World Affairs Brief. M in IDaho
To M in Idaho.
I don't think you have read my work thoroughly if you say my proposals "are headed down the path of socialism." Everything I've written attempts to proscribe and limit man's natural tendency to use government for personal gain.
Do I think there is a "certain way of life" that everyone should follow. No, specifically, but Yes, in general. Everyone should be required to act so as to not violate anyone else's fundamental rights--and government must be made to abide by the same restrictions. Beyond that, let each man live his own preferences. I don't think that is too much to ask or is being too intrusive.
On the other hand, I do share your skepticism of government, in general, knowing how power is easily corrupted. However, I also have studied human nature and history sufficient to know for certain that there exists great evil in the universe, and evil forces do band together for the purpose of agression against those who simply want to be left alone. That is why anarchy or even the "golden rule" doesn't work for long in any society without good people banding together for mutual protection and the enforcement of good laws prohibiting agression.
Carefully defining fundamental rights prohibits socialism, and strict wording in a Constitution can, I believe, limit the down side of a strong national defense. But the early colonial wars and the civil war proved (especially in the South) that people will wait too long to join forces in mutual defense if their isn't some pre-arranged mutual defense pact and appropriate taxation system to fund it. It is true that there wasn't much organization during the early war of Independence, and we almost lost it there--were it not for the intervention of a divine hand.
You obviously are very sensitized, as I am, to the clear and recent historical precidents which demonstrate the evils of a powerful national government, but don't make the reactionary mistake of going back to the days when every lone farmer in the Western territories was a sitting duck waiting for the next predatory band to come along.
We have to devise a way to make government work and yet stay within proper limits. Don't say it can't be done until you dig in and try to work through the numerous proposals I have made.
Joel Skousen
You all know what is happening in Southern Rhodesia right now. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to see that happening here a few years down the pike And it won't be native Americans reclaiming their lost land. My hat is OFF to Joel for his effort and insight.
Alonzo has some good points relative to a uniform test pool of questions. However, I would not concur with the suggestion about letting a jury of citizens write or amend questions. Anyone who has been to college knows how difficult it is to write good, clear test questions--especially the multiple choice or true/false variety. I am inclined to have short answer and essay questions where prospective citizens really can't fake the answers.
I would task the Supreme Court to being in charge of the pool of questions. The constitutional tests would not be so much concerned about technicalities but about what you can and cannot do with law and government. People have to be drilled on the limits of law. This would not include any highly technical issues or difficult case law--only the general principles. In this way one won't have to be a legal expert to become a citizen. Yet everyone will have a sense for what is basically right and wrong in the use of law and government.
Joel
Earl,
You asked what are the differences between the Citizen and the Resident status. These are clearly delineated in the section titled "Citizenship Compact" in the Law and Government section of this website.
In decrying "permission to move" you fail to notice that this is only a restriction for the residents who have not qualified for citizenship. Citizens have no such restrictions. Some residents are immigrant employees under the sponsorship of a citizen and thus don't have the full right to disappear from the scrutiny of the person who is responsible for them. Other non-dependent residents are under this added restriction too as part of the package of differences specifically designed to induce people to qualify for citizenship. I want to see everyone have the maximum liberty, but I want to make sure they do so under the full understanding and commitment to maintain that liberty.
Joel
I do not want to be a Citizen of your system.
As of now I dont need permission to travel.
Under your system I would need permission to travel. I dont see why I want to be a Citizen
in this federal government or in your System of Central Government.
I have no objections to being a state citizen.
Your system the Central government has too much Control and thus too much Power, remember spreading Power (checks and balances between the federal government and state governments)reduces a Governments ability to Tyrannize.
Spread the Power and Control to the other levels of government.
Minimize the Power of Government.
Minimize the Control ability of Government.
I am a military veteran, as is my wife. We both proudly served America. We love this counry and all it stands for.
What bothers both of us is the right of citizenship expressed here.
Our only child, our daughter, waa born in a U.S. Army hospital on German soil. She is a citizen. And, we have raised her to both honor and respect what this wonderful nation stands for.
She, as a teenager, does not want to serve in the military, nor involve herself in any government service. She wishes to involve herself in other endeavors. She loves our country, and what it is founded on. And, we fully support her.
Does this exclude her from citizenship? Is she, under these ideals, dropped to the status of resident, and not citizen?
Isn't freedom of choice the basic beliefs that this great nation was founded on?
What about those who are unable to give their time, or lives, to the country?
Will they be reduced to burdens?
Our forefathers strived to give each of us freedom of choice. And, the freedom to disagree with the majority, or the body politic.
Putting stipulations on natural born citizens to either contribute or be cast aside is not what they wanted.
Sure, our government has become complicated, and has lost its way, in some areas. But, what I have read here has, in some cases, professed near anarchy, and in others, a hardline that reminds me of Stalin, Hitler, and the current regime in China.
There is a better way. The few in Washington haven't found it. They have strayed from our ideals. But, your solution can only lead to, ultimately, less freedom, and a loss of choice.
I agree with so many of the ideals expressed here. But, it is not the solution.
Please listen more to people, and what they desire.
It is not the dream of one person that makes a society. It is the dreams of many.
[This comment is actually more broad than education
in that it covers all voting rights.]
You have not understood what Joel has said about
fundamental rights, or do not fully appreciate
its logical consequences.
Many of your comments focus on limiting or
controlling the "right to vote".
But there is no "right to vote".
Instead there is the right not to be told what to do by
anyone - including you, regardless of how much property
you own or how smart you are. (excluding criminal
actions, of course)
The vote exists to control state action, state action
only legitimately exists to defend or control "The
Commons", e.g. common defense, common environment,
common infrastructure etc.
These things are used, and therefore paid for, by all.
Therefore they should be controlled by all. If you
eliminate any citizen's vote (or control) over state
actions then the state actions are inflicted upon
him/her without his/her consent.
Those whom you would enfranchise become de facto Lords
over the others. That would violate the aforementioned
right to not be told what to do by anyone.
Therefore all citizens must have the "right to vote".
The only legitimate limit on the "right to vote" is
whether or not the citizen in question paid his/her
fair portion of the cost of the state.
As to the notion that military service should be part
of that "fair portion": Nonsense.
The choice to serve is a choice. In more chivalrous
times many men made that choice specifically so that
women would not have to defend their lives themselves.
That in no way makes the recipients of that largess
less of citizens.
If insufficient numbers volunteer for service then
the state's intended action must not have been that
important.
Re-read "The Last Mohican" and pay close attention
to Natty Bumpo's attitude toward military service.
As to education per se; as Joel has pointed out there
is no "right to an education" but there is the right to
not be told what to do.
Unless you declare the ignorant or stupid to be a
sub-species and not heir to the divinely granted
fundamental rights then the fundamental right to
liberty trumps the society's desire for an educated
citizenry.
If you have ignorant citizens that make ignorant
choices: tough.
If these ignorant choices endanger the society itself,
then perhaps you should plan a state action to correct
it under the "provide for the common defense" provision.
[On the related idea of Citizenship]
This is more tricky and in fact contains an inherent
conflict.
Clearly a group of persons should be able to form a
society or state under a convenant to which they
all agree. (ref. Unanimous Consent)
That covenant could contain any provision that they
seek to impose upon themselves; such as a literacy test
for citizenship.
However the moment that the state takes any action
that seeks to direct, control, restrict, or especially
tax a person that is not signatory to it, then the
unanimous consent is broken. The state would be
violating the fundamental right of that person
to not be told what to do.
The conclusion to which one is forced is that the state
cannot be sovereign over persons that are not citizens
unless those non-citizens gave away their own liberties
in knowingly signing a covenant that denies their
citizenship!
To put it another way, the state may restrict citizenship
but the only two consequences of that are:
1) The state no longer has any dominion over the persons
so excluded.
And
2) Those excluded persons do not pay for and have no say
in state actions.
Thus a good analogy for such a state would be a voluntary
club like the Masons, or the Knights of Columbus. One
accepts the principles of the club or one doesn't join.
Only members control and thus pay for club actions and
the club has no say in the actions or demeanor of non-
members.
Another tricky part comes when a citizen has children.
When those children reach the age of majority then they
are automatically no longer citizens, since they are
adult persons but are not signatory to the covenant.
It should be noted that if non-citizens exist within or
close to the state, those non-citizens are still not
subject to restrictions in the convenant even if they
benefit from state actions (e.g. common infrastructure).
Analogy: The Masons hold a picnic in the Park. They
pay for security guards to keep the members safe. There
are other persons, non-members, in the park. They are
also protected by the security guards, but are not subject
to the rules of Masonry and the Masons derive no sovereignty
over them by paying for the common service.
To them it is Manna.