Dear cj & rn, (please pardon duplication) This is a first report on my whirlwind tour of northern california activism, hosted by Brian Hill, roving-activist extrordinaire. You've seen postings from him on rn (Nov 24, Sep 27 being the most recent - I can forward on request). Brian's career began in the sixties, when he worked with many of the well-known leaders and groups of the day. Unlike many of us who drifted away from the movement, Brian has kept with it. He's developed an ever-expanding network of contacts, "tribe members", and "family". These latter terms express the personal comradarie and trust that has developed over the years among dispersed and local communities, making "networking" too shallow a term. We're talking about real, functional relationships, not trendy new-age nomenclature. His professional background and academic training were in anthropology, and his "conversion" occurred when he realized that his skills were more valuable applied to the movement, as a social phenomenon, than to the needs of commercial employers. As we drove up through Marin, Humboldt, and Trinity counties, swapping stories, I learned many things, practical, political, and philosophical. I now count Brian as a "brother" and look forward to ongoing collaboration. Brian's involved in dozens of different projects and ventures, from legal cases to small-business development to revolving funds to a peoples-gold-coin scheme. His hallmark principle is _synergy -- identifying the pieces that can be combined to create change. None of the projects he's involved with have anything to do with protest, they're all _accomplishing change. He's not the kind to spout mottos, but if he did, "We are free people and we do have power" might be a good candidate. synergy: the artful transformation of two or more problems into a solution; the alchemy of creative change. -rkm's dictionary In my own thinking about revolution, two problems seem central: how to build an appropriate mass-movement in the short term, and how to achieve the kind of societies we want in the long term. It seems to me there is an obvious synergy opportunity here. Instead of thinking of the movement as a "political action group", in the context of today's political regimes, we can think of the movement as the "seeds of a new society", in the context of the evolution of humanity. Instead of "struggling against" the system, the movement "out grows" the system. Instead of seizing the power of the state, the movement becomes the new society. Not every "synergy inspiration" pans out. But this one has only gained strength through deeper exploration. The first-level benefits are clear: 1) no power-vacuum is created when the existing system is overcome 2) the new society evolves organically, working out the bugs on the way 3) everyone gets involved as it grows; there's no elite power center 4) the movement is both the means and the ends But there are second-level benefits as well. A lot is known about movements, and a lot is known about the structures of societies. If we say the movement _is the society, then we can apply knowledge from one domain to the other. We can look at societies that have "worked", in terms of human empowerment, and apply those principles to movement-building. And we can look at empowered movements, such as Gandhi's, and seek ways to make that kind of energy part of the normal infrastructure of tomorrow's societies. There is much to be learned from exploring this interdisciplinary gold mine, and I invite the social scientists (amateur or otherwise) among us to post on this topic. The critical enabling factor, to accomplish this synergy, is the "consciousness" or the "self image" of the movement. If the movement adopts the consciousness "we are the sovereign people" and "we are building the society we want for ourselves and our children", then the foundation is partly laid. One thing we can say for certain about tomorrow's society is that everyone will be in it. Hence everyone, eventually, needs to be part of the movement. That, among other reasons, is why we must overcome the divide between left and right. Perhaps one place to begin finding common ground is by going back to our constitutions, and the foundations of what were supposed to be self-governing societies. Brian and B.E. Smith have been "family" for many years. In the essay below, B.E. shares his some of his constitutional thinking. B.E. is a defendant in a medical-marijuana cultivation prosecution which could prove to be a landmark case. It's not about pot, but about personal and state's rights. More about that later. all the best, rkm ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Brian Hill" <•••@••.•••> To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Fw: Federal/State Jurisdiction Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 13:41:30 -0800 Hi This is from BE Smith. You'll meet him up in Denny, Trinity County. I've sent some of your stuff to him so you talk to him if there's something here that you want to talk about. B -----Original Message----- From: B E Smith <•••@••.•••> To: Brian <•••@••.•••> Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:39 Subject: Fw: Federal/State Jurisdiction ---------- From: B E Smith <•••@••.•••> To: Alan Bock <•••@••.•••> Subject: Federal/State Jurisdiction Date: Tuesday, December 08, 1998 12:29 PM ATTN: Mr. Alan W. Bock Senior Editorial Writer Orange County Register Dear Mr. Bock, By the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, the States jointly surrendered some 17 specific and well defined powers to the federal Congress. Regardless of what powers government has, all power is, by nature, jurisdictional. This means that there are PLACES and SUBJECT MATTER that the power exists for. In other words, a law passed in Canada has no effect on Americans, unless they happen to be in Canada. When we are talking about the 17 powers granted to the federal government, it's jurisdiction is also over the States. But unless this is a power SPECIFICALLY granted, the federal government has NO jurisdiction over the people of the States. This principle was perhaps best expressed in Caha v. United States, 152 U.S. 215, where the Court declared: "The laws of Congress in respect to those matters do not extend into the territorial limits of the states, but have force only in the Disctrict of Columbia, and other places that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national government." In Ableman V. Booth, 21 How. 523, Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney described in plain language the complex nature of our government, and the existence of two distinct and separate sovereignties within the same territorial space, each of them restricted in its powers, and each within its sphere of action prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, independent of the other. Neither is under the necessity of applying to the other for permission to exercise its lawful powers. Within its own sphere, it may employ all the agencies for exerting them which are appropriate or necessary, and which are not forbidden by the law of its being. For instance, when the power to establish post offices and to create courts within the States was conferred upon the Federal government, included in it was authority to obtain sites for such offices and for court houses. Federal jurisdiction is extremely limited, with the same being exercised only in areas external to state legislative power and territory. The only provision in the Constitution which permits teritorial jurisdiction to be vested in the United States is found in Article I, section 8, clause 17, which provides the mechanism for a voluntary cession of jurisdiciton from any State to the United States. When the Constitution was adopted, the United States had jurisdiciton over no lands within the States, and it possessed jurisdiciton only in the lands encompassed in the Northwest Territories. Shortly after formation of the Union, Maryland and Virginia ceded jurisdiction to the United States for Washington, D.C. Over time, the States have ceded jurisdiction to federal enclaves within the States. Today, the territorial jurisdiction of the United States is found only in such ceded areas, which encompass Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and such territories and possessions which may now be owned by the United States. State jurisdiction encompasses the legislative power to regulate, control and govern real and personal property, individuals and enterprises within the territorial boundaries of any given State. Within the state power, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, is "that immense mass of legislation which empraces everything within the territory of a state, not surrendered to the general government, all which can be most advantageously exercised by the states themselves. Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, ets., are component parts of this mass. No direct general power over these objects is granted to Congress: and, consequently, they remain subject to state legislation. If the legislative power of the Union can reach them, it must be for national purposes; it must be where the power is expressly given for a special purpose, or is clearly incidental to some power which is expressly given." The jurisdiction of the States is essentially the same as they possessed when they were leagued together under the Articles of Confederation. The confederated States possessed absolute, complete and full jurisdiction over property and persons located within their borders. It is hypocritical to assume or argue that these States, which had banished the centralized power and jurisdiciton of the English Parliament and Crown over them by the Declaration of Independence, would shortly thereafter cede comparable power and jurisdiction to the Confederation Congress. They did not and they closely and jealously guarded their own rights, powers and jurisdiction. When the Articles were replaced by the Constitution, the intent and purpose of the States was to retain their same powers and jurisdiction, with a small concession of jurisdiction to the United States of lands found essential for the operation of that government. What was definitely decided in the beginning days of this Republic regarding the extent, scope, and reach of each of these two distinct jurisdictions remains unchanged and forms the foundation and basis for the smooth workings of state governmental systems in conjunction with the federal government. Without such jurisdicitonal principles which form a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of the States and the United States, our federal governmental system would have surely met its demise long before now. The U.S. Constitution (as well as the Constitution of California) contains a broad realm of individual immunity against all governmental power, municipal, state or federal. It is a principle of our constitutional law that the individual citizen is exempt from any power or control by the foregoing governments, except when such power or control is necessarily implied in such expressly vested power or control. It would be impossible to find any dissent from this principle on the part of any reputable publicist, statesman or jurist, or in any judicial decision down, at least, to the close of yesterday. In pursuing his occupations in the common law realm, the individual has made no "Oath or Affirmation" supporting any constitution and he is not subject to any constitutional jurisdiction. If it cannot be proved that the individual is subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution, then who is contractually bound by "Oath or Affirmation" to obey such Constitution in consideration for offices of public trust and those benefits of public service and public employment? "...The Sentors and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;..." The intent of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution was to define exactly to whom the constitutional jurisdiction applies to. There can be no doubt that the federal/state legislative acts can and does pertain to those artificial subjects and members who are wards or creations of the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of California. The fact exists that private individuals are excluded from the requirements of Article VI of the US Constitution and Article XX, section 3, of the Constitution of California. Government only have the right to control, limit, restrict, and regulate the actions of those artificial persons they create. B E Smith (530) 629-4356 e-mail: •••@••.••• ------------------------------------------------------------------------ a political discussion forum - •••@••.••• To subscribe, send any message to •••@••.••• A public service of Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance (mailto:•••@••.••• http://cyberjournal.org) ---------------------------------------------------------- Non-commercial reposting is hereby approved, but please include the sig up through this paragraph and retain any internal credits and copyright notices. .--------------------------------------------------------- To see the index of the cj archives, send any message to: •••@••.••• To subscribe to our activists list, send any message to: •••@••.••• Help create the Movement for a Democratic Rensaissance ---------------------------------------------- crafted in Ireland by rkm ----------------------------------- A community will evolve only when the people control their means of communication. -- Frantz Fanon
Share: