Reply to "The fact a system is not included in the Constitution does not mean it cannot be as part of the reform process."

Gilbakka posted:

Both sides in this important debate have strong arguments. It's a complex issue. For me, the question is: how soon will the Constitution be reformed?

Lewis is wrong. This is one of his letters My response is

Sir, you are quite wrong in your approach to constitutional theory. Constitutions are supposed to be a summary of normative historical continuities as to what a society presumes itself to be. Constitutions are not what legitimize the legal and moral traditions of the state but are codifications of what are already gelled traditions in the society. Constitutions are a study of who we are. This one is so alien to us because it is a deformation of our people hood foisted on us by a dictator to legitimize himself and ratified by a fraudulent referendum. It is from its origination an abomination and if it has no resonance in the society it is because it is not of us but what some deformed hoodlums tricked us to accept as ours. You can study it all you want but you will not find our peoplehood there. We need to abandon this deformity and redefine a new one that matches who we are and what are our high ideals.

Let me begin from where our constitution should have started; in thr defining of who we are and what we want acknowledged. We are of the western tradition so the rights of man from an enlightenment natural rights perspective is accepted as self evident. By that tradition we were deemed free and sovereign lords over our person in the state of nature so are we to remain in any formal document circumscribing our status in a society. All rights are reserved to us by default and those we give up are for the functioning of a legitimate authority but remains ours except they are to be overseen by a legitimate government.

On that premise we do not authorize the formation of a government that is an autocracy as this deformed instrument does. Its creation of an executive presidency in a Majoritarianism system formalizes an elected dictatorship. Toss that out. It follows also that the government is to be accountable to us so the idea of legislators created out of closed lists who are creatures of an autocratic president does not, match our aspirations. Mr Campbell is right that we need to directly elect our legislators. This is to be so on formal republican principles (instead of embracing a faux burnhamite republic) through competition of individuals in direct constituencies from which they are elected. Additionally, how we organize the polity here, bicameral or unicameral is to be ferreted out since we do need to strengthen accountability

It is also self evident we want a hand in the selecting of who stands for us to be elected as president and not have that default to a party cabal. In short we need electoral reform. Also, Amerindians have special rights handed down by long traditions from the Dutch, the Creek bill, the 1951 Amerindian Act, the pre independence agreement in Annex C ; these are absent from the constitution. We want it there as Mrs LaRose advised. Were it included explicitly we would not be having a COI bogusly constituted to dispossess Amerindians.

I can nit pick on every pernicious aspect of this constitution but that is not my intent. I do not subscribe to your absurd notion we must be expert on this sterile document to know our rights. We know our rights and this document does not conserve it so successive regimes have trampled on us. We actually know this document well as it has been the object of our contempt since its origination and the idea that it does not serve us is not new. It is not of us and that is undeniable.

We want a hand in actualizing an existential social contract as a people within the western tradition not this farce. We want to discuss the shape of our government, the authority of our government and en sure the appropriate institutional fences exist that does not repeatedly hand over the offices of the state to ethnic based government. We are not stupid as you presume us to be. This western tradition give us the basis in the legacy of hundreds of scholars in whom we can source the ways to rationalize what is good for us. It is absolutely nonsense that we can only gain that wisdom if we study the deformity that exists. In any event, we want to collectively define our social space and to collectively create a document for us and from us. You can have this monstrosity. We do not want it.

×
×
×
×
×