PART VI

SECURING ALL RIGHTS – A STATE OF NATIONS

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom

must undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”

Thomas Paine

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY & HUMAN RIGHTS - U.S. & U.N.

From much of the foregoing discussion it must seem clear that we must look both inside and outside the framework of our modern state if we are to realize and protect our rights. Kant realized this as far back as 1795 when he wrote on "eternal peace" and pointed out that nations cannot escape from lawlessness unless they renounce their primitive (anarchical) freedom and adapt themselves to the public constraint, or laws, and thus form a "state of nations."

The Confederation of States in the U.S. was a prelude to the present Federal Union. Like the U.N., this confederation was an organization of sovereign states jealously guarding their own rights to the detriment of the union's collective rights and to its survival. Realization of the need to relinquish power or share it comes grudgingly, but the act of actually relinquishing or sharing is even more painful. Nations and their power elites have historically been more interested in expanding their own political and economic realms. After two centuries of bitter wars for supremacy the countries of Western Europe are now in the process of economic union. Other blocks of nations likewise, for reasons of perceived necessity, are banding together to protect their political or economic integrity. Corporations have merged, both within and without their own national boundaries in order to compete and exploit more effectively. Professional organizations also have seen fit to breech their own national boundaries - concerned scientists, physicians, humanitarians and lawyers. The U.N. itself is perhaps the most comprehensive expression of this awareness.

A large percentage of this outreach is self-centered, i.e., motivated by the realization that confederation is necessary in the ongoing struggle to preserve or enhance ones' own power, but some is motivated by deeper concerns. Slowly but surely, as Sherrington's vision of a world consciousness emerges, as the character of McLuhan's Global Village becomes clearer, as our micro/macro comprehension of life and universe expands, and as our information and energy technologies geodesically encapsulate earth (and beyond), this loathing to change, to share, will disappear and the new needs for cooperation and equal justice will prevail. (Sometimes my optimistic side gets carried away).

But there are still some serious problems. Corporations attempt to eliminate all extraneous baggage, i.e. workers, social welfare responsibilities, environmental controls, corporate taxes and government regulations. They are also driven towards monopoly, maximization of stockholder returns, with both legal and political tactics to strengthen their position. Escaping the limitations of more restrictive countries is, or course, an ideal goal; even more ideal has been their opportunity to write the rules of international trade. This then is the present situation. No longer are individual countries in control of their own destiny, they have become pawns in a larger chess game whose logic is controlled by corporate "bottom line" economics. All of this should be a wake up call to the involved countries, big as well as small, the under and the over developed alike. Now is the time to form a more perfect union, to realize with Abraham Lincoln that, "The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present."

The International Court at The Hague, the United Nations, the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the Court of Human Justice in Luxembourg demonstrate man's growing concern and need for worldwide law and order. However limited and weak these beginnings are, they are beginnings. Nor should we forget the constant struggle Amnesty International and others carry on to save the lives of individuals throughout the world who, in the process of exercising their rights, have been incarcerated, tortured, intimidated and murdered by their own governments or their government's hired thugs.

This responsibility, protecting and expanding human rights, is undoubtedly the most difficult one confronting us today. It can, however, be simply stated in the following terms:

All individuals have a shared right and responsibility to protect, improve and extend the administration of their exclusive, mutual, and use rights at all organizational levels both natural and manmade, and by whatever means they may deem necessary so long as those means do not exacerbate or nullify the very rights which they are being called upon to protect.

To date, representative democracy appears to be our best option. It qualifies for the term ‘shared’ and it is correctable, moving historically from exclusions to inclusions. What I believe democracy must do for tomorrow is as follows. It is but a brief digest and it is focused on the U.S.

Corollary 1: Create a clear separation between itself and all special interests—religious, commercial, racial, ethnic, et al.

It is clear the founding fathers wanted no part of a state religion. What was not clear is that we must also beware of all other special interest groups who desire special privileges via government. Only groups who have obviously been hurt – slavery or false imprisonment – deserve restitution. Today government has been subverted by both flawed laws permitting businesses to finance elections and by elected officials who voted to give specific religious groups funding, ostensibly for charity but mainly for political support.

Assure equal representation to every citizen through the election process by:

(1) Assuring an equal vote for all citizens.

(2) Sponsoring election campaigns at all organizational levels by providing adequate time for all candidates on the public’s spectrum and in the private print media, claiming the competitive value of media used resources, and a ‘takings’ for the public good.

(3) Eliminate campaign and party financing except by individual citizens.

This does not preclude special interests from lobbying their interests with elected officials. It only denies them the use of money or favors in this process. Nor does it allow businesses to write lobbying costs off as an expense.

Corollary 2: Expand the concept of ‘checks and balances’ to include, beyond the present court system, those agencies and administrations which deal technically with foods, drugs, investments and the environment, and wherein experts in those fields, as well as those in the federal courts, would be democratically chosen by their peers to adjudicate and resolve all infringements relative to the health, welfare and environment of all citizens, i.e., to rectify the content of both private and public ‘services’ which are clearly disservices.

Corollary 3: Create, through the U.S. Treasury, debt-free monies for its own services, redeeming them through taxation and fees for its services. Create debt-free monies (currency and electronic) for the private sector banking industry for short and long term loans, redeeming them and the cost of supply thru the Federal Reserve Banks. Banks using government created monies for lending will do so by charging a competitive fee for their services, including a adequate insurance against default. Only lending from earned money on deposit will command interest.

Corollary 4: Levy and collect fees on the competitive value of those natural resources which its private citizens convert, providing and receiving human services. This income to be used for the restoration and protection of the biosphere. It should be the equal responsibility of all citizens as stewards of their common heritage to administer these monies in conjunction with those agencies and administrations under Corollary 2.

In the work of converting resources to our own ends we have ignored or not understood the larger ramifications of our acts. We have disrupted and damaged our eco systems and endangered our own lives. It is for these reasons we must collectively attempt to heal our country(ies), becoming stewards for all our children and theirs.

Corollary 5: Reconstruct corporate and related investment laws and regulations to quality both as complete services.

(1) Demand that those who directly provide corporate services utilizing resources, information, and manpower assume full responsibility for their actions, both as individuals and corporate employees.

(2) Require that those who invest in publicly traded corporations, and are solely absentee participants, must assume a secondary position in all decision making. Their equity will always be less than 50% of the net value of a given corporation. However, unlike those who perform corporate services, they will not be criminally liable for its actions.

(3) Require that all absentee investments remain with the corporation(s) for stipulated periods of time thereby eliminating extractive investments.

(4) Stipulate that those corporations which are chartered to provide information and cultural events can be censored, fined or eliminated if the communities which they serve determine they are providing disservices or only self-services.

(5) Stipulate that those corporations providing basic health, education, and welfare services be chartered as non-profits, but that self-interest groups be refused this status.

(6) Demand that all corporations be held accountable and their decision makers subject to criminal charges individually or collectively where the facts are clear. Require that both individual and class action suits be brought promptly to the proper courts for final resolution. Provide, finally, that any corporation’s charter can be revoked if the designated arbitrators determine its’ chartered services have become disservices.

(7) Require that both horizontally and vertically structured corporations be constrained where the results limit competition.

(8) Deconstruct corporate laws which unfairly stall litigations, to dodge responsibilities via bankruptcy.

Corollary 6: Free the Securities and Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) from government meddling; recreating it, as with the courts, as an independent jurisdictional organization. Its major job will be to define complete services relative to investment banking, stock brokering, mutual fund activities, and individual investing. A major part of this job will be accomplished by eliminating those activities which are pure speculation, adding nothing but instability to the market and the corporate world.

(1) This rebirthed S.E.C. must also establish firm regulations for accounting services in determining their client corporation’s real worth, and provide equally stringent requirements for each corporation’s in-house accounting procedures. Finally, the S.E.C. must eliminate any conflicts of interest between accountants and their clients.

Stock and bond investors will be constrained by the demand for complete services from all businesses and by the requirement that their funds must remain in place for stipulated periods.

(1) National governments must demand an end to current international trade agreements; G.A.T.T, M.A.I., N.A.F.T.A, and W.T.O.’s self serving laws by and for transnational corporations and international investment bankers. They must attempt to construct agreements in co-operation with the U.N. which take cognizants of the unique nature of each country, its culture, its people, its resources, and its state of development. They must eliminate predatory capital, extractive investments, environmental degradation, and labor exploitation. They must, in a word, stop ‘economic colonialism’.

These brief comments on the present state of ‘Private Services’ are insufficient. The job of deconstructing and humanizing corporate law, both locally and internationally, must fall to a judicial branch of government. It is a big job and long overdue. Its undertaking awaits those actions noted in Corollary 1 and 2.

Government services, no less than private ones, must be held to the same basic standards, i.e., to protect both citizens and their environment. Failing this test private citizens and/or the collective citizenry have a right and a responsibility to challenge government in the courts and in the streets.

Corollary 7: Provide those services which by their nature are, or should be, public responsibilities—the basic infrastructure of cities, regions and nations, including those utilities, communication networks, and natural resources that are vital for all citizens. It must also, when necessary, subsidize those of its citizens who cannot afford certain of these critical services e.g. water, heating, health, clean air, food, and shelter.

Corollary 8: Protect its citizens from the results of major disasters—famine, pandemics, floods, earthquakes, wars, et al., and provide them with basic health, education, welfare services and insurances.

Corollary 9: To insure against its ability to provide these many listed services, it must monitor and analyze major ongoing events, including population growth, in-out migrations, resource availability, consumption/production patterns, pollution, and finally, the biosphere’s health. This needs to be done in cooperation with other nations and the U.N. These services will act as an early warning system to advise decision makers and thus help define needed actions.

Feedback from on-going monitoring and analysis may prompt decision makers to discourage or encourage procreation, to slow the use of a particular resource while finding alternatives, to halt services which are discovered to be harming the environment or their citizens. These decisions may be reached nationally or in conjunction with other nations and/or the U.N.

Its primary goal must be to protect its own citizens, their rights and their environment while assisting other nations to do likewise. International success depends on local success. Mutual aid is the essential element.

These responsibilities of governments cannot be fulfilled by private industry which only functions equitably when there is no shortage of resources. They can only be accomplished when governments have the foresight to prepare for adversity.

Neither the international proliferation of weapons, the damage being caused by the burning of fossil fuels, the economic colonialism of W.T.O., nor the hate mongering and terrorism of religious fanatics qualify as mutual aid.

Nor is unilateral action on the part of any one country going to successfully resolve today’s serious issues.

Corollary 10: Finally, to accomplish these international missions, individual governments must relinquish some of their authority to the U.N., participating with it to create viable democracies and secure everyone’s comprehensive rights.

These monumental tasks will require the serious attention of all the major powers plus the smaller, stabler ones. They will need to address both those man-made problems just noted and those with which the U.N. is already struggling— plagues, refugees, failed states, starving peoples, genocide— plus the basic health, education, and welfare of millions.

The extent to which we are able to realize the full blossoming of rights depends on how well we manage responsibilities. Managing responsibilities depends on how well we grasp our role as earth's stewards and how well we conserve earth's inherent energies to these ends. Succeeding, we will gain immeasurable additional human energy focused on mutual success. Failing, we will probably dissipate our resources in conflicts and return, as other civilizations before us, to a more primitive state.

We live amid an ever-growing army of specialists, but most of today's specialists are, by themselves, helpless to cope with problems that refuse to be pigeonholed in accordance with yesterdays' filing and feedback approaches. NASA (and obviously it's Russian counterpart) realized this dilemma. They organized an interdisciplinary task force, equipped the team with science's most advanced tools and began a program of professional cross-pollination. The results have paid off. This same approach should be implemented if human rights are to be extended. We must attempt to know the results of our acts before we engage in them, for in not knowing we take risks which today could endanger the entire human population - DDT, ICBM, H-Bomb. The Food and Drug Administration must accurately and in good time assess the introduction of a new medicine prior to a mass release. The construction of new power generating plants must be equated with projected power demands, resource utilization of scarce fuel, potential site and air despoliation, and the direct impact on affected populations. Nor will it be sufficient to know only the external physical effects, which might result from a new technology. We must be able to predict, as Marshall McLuhan has pointed out, the psychic effects on man himself,\ by confronting, analyzing and projecting the possible results of proposed acts, with cooperative inputs from both generalists and specialists.

This needed cross-pollination, networking and teamwork at the local, regional, national and international level (while currently underway) will blossom if and when we clearly perceive the necessity of redirecting our historic competitive drives. At that time we will be ready to establish a comprehensive universal bill of rights and to grapple with the major issues it presents; as opposed to the old rules of the game which viewed success as the accumulation of more than one's neighbor, and usually at his expense, the new rules will view all neighbors and oneself, as passengers on the same ship tossed about on the same rough seas, all dependent on one another to help achieve successful passage.

The distinction between courts and regulatory agencies will become blurred as rights are understood to encompass a broader range of human activity than heretofore considered. These agencies, which now exist at many levels of government including the international, will need sufficient funding to research the effects of existing actions which are suspected of being harmful and also to analyze proposed actions which could prove harmful. Further, they will need to monitor population growth, conversions, migrations, global warming, etc. - the general health of earth and its passengers. Such an early warning system becomes imperative today, given human's ability and inclination to procreate, consume and war. To be truly independent both courts and regulatory agencies must be free of partisan politics and special interest lobbies. To that end and to satisfy the concept of checks and balances these bodies should be made up of members from the ranks of their respective professions and selected by vote or lot by their fellow professionals. Like federal judges, their tenure should be fixed and without the potential for political interference. It may prove difficult for popularly elected officials to accept this re-adjustment but it will become ever more obvious that the change is necessary and just; that decisions should not be rendered on the size of contributions by political action committees.

EVOLUTION OF U.S. GOVERNMENT

The evolution of government has paralleled man's ever-increasing ability to harness nature's energy resources to his advantage. It has also paralleled his growing understanding of the world around him and of his fellow man. It is the history of change from superstition to reason and from tribal societies to confederations of countries. Government began with the "Big Man" and his shamans. In time, as the size of tribal territories increased and as other tribes vied for more Lebensraum, it became necessary for the Big Man to share his power base with others - his most trusted warriors and perhaps his chief tax collector. This increasing specialization and with it the ability to discover and focus more power led to even larger territorial claims. Realms grew from tribal entities to city-states, to nations and to empires.

For centuries offensive and defensive strategies consumed the major time/energy reserves of government. With the advent of the industrial revolution a great surge of new power became available. This event spawned, within two centuries, the greatest revolution since the discovery of agriculture. The world shrank. East met West; South, North. Wars became global and populations grew out of hand. Great nations with great power bases vied for dominance. World religions were overtaken by new dogmas. Eighteenth century philosophers and scientists projected this new world view, one based on logic and reason. Holy men relinquished their central roles - but not everywhere.

Throughout all these changes there had always been an elite whose job it was to assemble and codify prevailing unwritten laws, whether they were revelations from holy men or mandates from hereditary kings. These monks and scribes of ancient times eventually metamorphosed into legal experts, or lawyers. This is how Jefferson viewed the transition from unwritten Saxon Common Law, its subversion by the Normans and finally its restoration after the Magna Carta:

"English Liberties are not infringements merely of the king's prerogative, extorted from our princes by taking advantage of their weakness; but a restoration of the ancient (sic) constitution, of which our ancestors had been defrauded by the art and finesse of the Norman Lawyers, rather than deprived by the force of the Norman Arms."

But time and events move on. Jefferson himself began to practice law at age twenty-four and, as it turned out, his services proved indispensable to the founding fathers much as British lawyers have proved indispensable to the establishment and functioning of that modern state.

Writing on "energy and structure" Richard Newbold Adams, an anthropologist, had this comment to make concerning decision-making and the pecking order of power elites today:

"I believe what I have been calling 'dogma,' the unchallenged acceptance of a decision-making process, will always be claimed for and to some degree will characterize the ideology of centralizing units at the highest level of integration. There is little question that in much of the western world today dogma exists at that level, but it is not in a religious or, better said, theistic vehicle, the idiom has changed and, for example, in the United States it has been taken over by 'the rule of law', and its priests are lawyers, and its high priests are the justices of the Supreme Court. Further, if it exists at the highest centralized level, then it can also be argued that at the next highest level, which will of necessity be coordinated, there will be found the elements of a further protodogma that waits in the wings for the curtain to rise on its act."

There is little question that the rule of law will remain a centralizing dogma but its present high priests will need to share their role with the scientific community whose contribution will be to correct and expand our inherited ideologies passed down from the so called age of enlightenment. Science is indeed Adam's "protodogma" and it has already made its appearance on center stage. Unlike past centralizing dogmas, the new scientific infusion into our inherited rule of law will not favor mere size or growth nor the concentration of power. Based on observation, analysis and hypothesis, and bolstered by an ever expanding information base, its advocates have already begun to question human's accelerating disruption of ecosystem functions. Their contribution to our presently operating 18th century constitutions might well be termed an ecological imperative and, while the complete scope of their contributions is still unfolding, the broad outlines are clear enough to discern that we cannot continue to operate solely on our present rules; those formulated by lawyers, economists and politicians.

While the major task of scientists will be to define limits, the other will be to resolve conflicts wherein technical knowledge is critical. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out this second issue in a February, 1998 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS):

"The law itself increasingly needs access to sound science...courts must avoid that kind of serious scientific mistake which once led one court, for example, to hold that dropping an orange can cause breast cancer...they must aim for decisions that, roughly speaking, approximately reflect the scientific 'state of the art.'"

Ellen Goodman's editorial appearing in the Bellingham Herald of February 23, 1998 elaborates:

"As science and the law come into contact and conflict, the courts need their own neutral experts. They need the scientific community to help separate the science from the fiction. They need to call on scientists the way they would call on tech services to load in some new software.

This is not an entirely new direction. In Supreme Court cases, the scientific Community has long weighed in with 'friend-of-the-court' briefs. In last year's right-to-die case, there were no less than 60 such briefs.

Five years ago, in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the Supreme Court Explicitly called on judges to act as 'gatekeepers' of scientific information –keeping unreliable 'evidence' out of the court. Since then, notably in the controversy over breast implants, one judge asked four neutral experts to sit beside him through a trial. Another called on a panel to review the scientific literature and prepare a report for use as evidence.

Then just last December, in a second Supreme Court case that strengthened the Judicial gatekeeper role, Breyer urged judges to seek out specialists in pretrial conferences and hearings and through the appointment of special masters and trained law clerks.

All these moves come from the recognition that bad science makes bad law. Marcia Angell, the executive editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, who has spoken out extensively on this, says that the courts are replete with 'experts' who give 'what is charitably called an educated guess.'

It's not just dueling experts but dubious ones who are now common. As Angell says, 'Science is not for hire, but some scientists are.'

Meanwhile the adversarial nature of the courtroom alienates many of the best scientists. They don't want to testify in a courtroom they regard as more like a theater than a lab. Indeed the process of arriving at a scientific conclusion is wholly different from the process that ends in a legal verdict."

This recent realization that today's courts do not alone have the competence to resolve issues which require specialized scientific knowledge has led to a closer cooperation between the courts and the scientific community. This is a sound beginning. At some point soon, however, the adversarial approach to the resolution of serious problems of eco-stability and societal health will overtax the present system's abilities. Judges will need to defer judgment on these issues to neutral observers from the scientific community. Some may be settled by our present, but strengthened, agencies (EPA, FDA, OSHA), others will require experts from various fields as far ranging as microbiology and space exploration.

The wise and equitable resolution of these use rights issues are not to be found in legal casebooks, arcane court proceedings, nor attorney selected juries. Costly litigations and government vs. corporate battles lead to endless appeals, costly fees and too often clog the court system. Those with deep pockets are happy to prolong settlements and to wear down opponents. It is all a form of cold war. For these reasons alone we need to abandon adversarial law. We cannot afford the long wait nor the wasted talent. Lost time may mean many lost lives.

Like our own Supreme Court these new organizations will not be infallible. As Breyer points out, they will only approximate the current "state of the art," which, as with the courts, is not stationary. On the positive side I think it is safe to say that we will be in better hands on issues which may be critical to our collective survival.

The ascendance of science to a position of greater political authority should not be misread. This is not a case of substituting scientists for lawyers but a melding of both disciplines to define our 21st century world in terms of sustainability. Science's central role will be to establish maximum production/destruction/pollution/procreation criteria beyond which the biosphere will no longer support man. This will, by definition, define the ultimate use infringements. This task will challenge the best minds from many disciplines. It will require teamwork as opposed to hierarchical order. It is a task made for democracy, for the free flow of information, and for the fullest participation of scientists around the world.

We have moved from myth and belief to reason and logic to observation and understanding. It is only fitting that we should embrace these new truths, weaving them into the fabric of our constitutions yet leaving the whole unfinished with Forteian^[1] perception for still other contributions.

The central philosophy, or in Adams' terminology "dogma," of our U.S. Constitution (our rule of law) is embodied in Jefferson's famous preamble to the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This is not a statement claiming equal abilities, health, appearance, et al., for every newly arriving child, but a lawyer's declaration that before the law all individuals must be treated equally, that no one, including kings, are "above the law." The second assertion follows with, "that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Jefferson's third great challenge writes Philipp Russell (one of his biographers) lies in the Declaration's preamble, "Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government."

Life and liberty are inviolate. The government can not deprive an individual of these (inalienable rights) except by due process of law and only except for some major infringement of another's equal right. The particulars and protections of these rights were to be spelled out later in the body of the constitution or as a bill of rights to be added to the constitution. Jefferson saw his statement as encompassing freedom of speech, freedom of the press, religious freedom and even, as he wrote much later, freedom for the slaves. He did not address women's rights, nor Native Americans, nor other special cases; he did not view these issues as relevant for the times. Nor was the abolition of slavery ready to be addressed head on. It took another 74 years and a devastating civil war to put an end to slavery, and another 100 years to legitimatize its victims equal civil rights. It is now 135 years since the Civil War and the battle for true equality is not yet over. Women's voting rights were addressed in 1920, but here again women's "ipso de facto" equality is still being sought.

There has been, however, steady progress in the expansion of civil rights beginning with women's suffrage, elimination of the poll tax, and finally the Civil Rights Act under President Johnson's Administration. Desegregation of schools and job affirmative action laws, among others, is being administered in an ongoing attempt to rectify long standing discrimination (though efforts to reverse these laws are flourishing). Women, people of color and different sexual orientation are also beginning to gain a fair representation in local as well as Federal government. Progress may appear slow to those fighting for a place inside the system but viewed historically I suspect it will seem relatively speedy. All this in spite of the inertia of an entrenched, privileged and powerful ruling class which can see no reason for the revolt of the masses. Only the aborigines (those who were here first) remain totally outside mainstream culture. Banished to impoverished regional reservations, without any indigenous means of support, they become, like those behind bars, prisoners of the welfare state.

Jefferson's poetic - "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" - purposely avoids dealing with the question of property. Tutored by Thomas Paine, whose theory of human rights posed a two-tiered construct consisting of rights which the individual could exercise on his or her own and those which required society's administration, Jefferson chose for his first three rights those which the individual could exercise without government. Earlier the Virginia Bill of Rights had used "property" in it preamble, and later the French Bill of Rights would also use property: "Every man is born with inalienable and imprescriptible rights; these are the freedom of his opinions, the care for his honor and his life, the right of property, the entire disposition of his person, his industry, and all his faculties, the communication of his thoughts by every possible means, the pursuit of well-being, and resistance to oppression." Russell comments as follows on Jefferson's selection of terms:

"Their statements and actions often revealed the founding fathers as highly property-minded; but Jefferson put happiness ahead of property. For it was his conviction, based on long study, that property is not a natural right, but a legal one only; though he never went as far as his preceptor, John Locke, who wrote: 'Where there is no property, there is no injustice.' "

Jefferson wrote, "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." With that one bold stroke the divine right of kings and the elite position of holy men was cut down, forever eliminated from the new dogma. Not only did those governing receive authority from the people, but they could be eliminated if they should attempt to usurp power from the people. These were strong warnings to all would-be tyrants. Desist or you will be thrown out. This statement leaves no doubt as to the meaning of the new dogma - "These truths are self-evident." No more mumbo-jumbo. No more god-kings. Everyone is hereafter equal under the law.

After much debate and compromise, Governor Morris completed writing the U.S. Constitution in its final form, ready for the thirteen founding states to reject or ratify. Soon it became apparent to many that the document failed to list individual rights, and a number of states refused ratification until these were added. It was true. The original constitution focused on the structure and workings of the new republic, on its three major elements: the legislative, the executive and the judicial. It was a brilliant scheme of "checks and balances" to keep everyone honest and it covered all the main functions for an effective representative government, but it neglected, with few exceptions, to include those basic rights and their protections which the Declaration of Independence championed. These rights were subsequently added as the first ten amendments to the Constitution. All states ratified the document in 1791.

It is now an even two hundred years since the inception of our constitution. Sixteen^[2] additional amendments have been added to the original ten, and the Supreme Court has ruled on thousands of cases testing the constitutionality of congressional acts, state laws and individual challenges. How well has our government and its construct worked to protect and enhance our rights? And a second question which must also be asked - how well has the republic worked compared with other governments? If we base our answers on today's world we must conclude it has worked pretty well in both instances. If we look somewhat more closely we might conclude that some of our success and that of other democracies (those in Europe in particular) might be due to our superior destructive technologies and thereby our economic and political domination of less developed countries, i.e., to our imperialism. We might also conclude that the nature of majority rule often frustrates the rights of minorities. The frustration of people of color attempting to achieve civil rights is an obvious case in point. We could also conclude that a wealthy few often tilt justice in their favor, e.g., the corporation vs. the individual. In general we observe that religious, ethnic, sexual and racial majorities often impede the rights of minorities. Resource rich minorities have often frustrated equal access rights of others. Over a long period of observation we might find that even rule by majority breaks down when, through apathy or cynicism, a large number of citizens fail to participate in their government. Finally we might conclude that our system of "checks and balances" often gets perverted by the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government, i.e., it becomes politicized. It is precisely here where rights become sacrificed to the prerogatives of the majority and their representatives. But in spite of these shortcomings this system, which the founding fathers put together two hundred years ago, has worked well. Yes, relative to alternative systems it has been superior. Will it suffice going into the 21st century? The answer, I believe, is not unless it is modified and expanded to cope with yesterday's flaws and today's changing realities.

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

But our Constitution is changeable. We can expand its scope and rectify its shortcomings which over the first 200-year trial period have become apparent. Our country can also, like its early confederation of the original 13 states, accommodate other confederations beyond its borders and eventually live within a world community under rule of law subordinating its prerogatives, where required, for the good of the whole.

Great strides have been made towards enhancing and protecting "individual rights," since the adoption of the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, eight, and ninth original amendments. To these the thirteenth, the abolition of slavery in 1865, must be added. Together these constitute the sum total of amendments on which an individual's right to express him or herself must rely. They also constitute the rights with which an individual can protect himself or herself against incrimination and imprisonment for any presumed infringement of others' rights or acts against the state. They have worked well.

* * * * * * *

On the question of mutual rights and responsibilities the constitution is somewhat unclear. It relegates contractual agreements such as marriage, to the individual states. Likewise health, morals, safety and public welfare are relegated to the states: Amendment ten. Education likewise is left to each state's discretion and available funds. But item eight, section 8, "powers of Congress," which is sometimes referred to as the "elastic clause," has been broad enough in its scope to foster an ever-growing spectrum of departments with programs aimed at securing and assisting mutual rights. The Constitution's preamble sets the stage thusly: "To promote the general welfare ... to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity." The effect of these mandates has, as with individual rights, resulted in long battles between those with entrenched privileges and those demanding social justice: Social Security, equal and non-segregated education, minimum wage, disabled accessibility, job rights, women's right of choice, et al. While the direction and content of these socializing measures is positive there is more to be done. Nor have these measures moved from the political arena to ones of confirmed rights. There continues to be a political struggle between the resource privileged and information privileged vs. the non-privileged, which conflict cannot be resolved until the definitions of "resource" and "property" are justly settled. Once those questions are resolved there still remains the basic question of infringement of mutual rights; i.e. given all the "use rights" factors discussed earlier, at what population levels can democracy best prevail, insuring the health, education and welfare of its citizens and their progeny?

* * * * * * *

The definition of property in our constitution is taken as self-evident and thus not defined. The sole mention of property in the original ten amendments comes in the Fifth Amendment; no person can "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." The fourteenth amendment reiterates this statement for each State. English common law had treated wives as property and the landed gentry in Jefferson's own south treated slaves as such. Property included huge tracts of land given to early settlers by their English king and, while these same settlers were about to oust the king, they were not about to give up their holdings. Nor were they about to cede land back to the original owners who they had ungracefully pushed off the land - the American Indians. If anything characterized ownership or property it was power; those who owned property had power. Those without did not. Nor was this true only for land. As noted earlier, those with the most effective navies controlled the seas. Only the inaccessible and unusable remained unowned.

Today, some three hundred plus years since a few philosophers began to question the concept of property, most of the world has abandoned the idea that wives, children and prisoners are property. This, of course, does not mean that slavery is dead or that women and children are treated as equals, power still prevails over reason, and not only in the backwaters.

We are also beginning to understand that free enterprise does not mean the right to plunder or pollute our resources, and that "ownership" of these may endanger a species, an ecosystem, or the planet. Indeed we are now aware that the biosphere, like ourselves, is a living thing and should not be exploited or enslaved as someone's exclusive domain. As the potential tragedy of our current ways becomes increasingly apparent our present legal concept of property must change. The right to "use" will be coupled with the responsibility to protect. This process is underway, pitting classical market forces against the new environmental awareness. In time this conflict must be resolved with the redefinition of resources, use rights and property.

Is it too much to suggest that we will realize, along with Odum, that what we have been defining as property is in fact another living entity and an integral part of our own lives? Then, instead of conquering it, consuming it or abusing it, we will opt to liberate it along with our own outcasts and untouchables: the final abolition of all slavery!

Historically, the right to hold property has carried with it the responsibility to use it in such a way as not to harm or injure ones neighbors or the general public. Absolute right of use has never been considered a protected property right. As early as the turn of this century the courts were confirming this fact. In 1908 the Maine Supreme Court, when asked if the state could regulate (without compensation) the cutting of trees on private property for various environmental reasons, responded as follows: "We think it a settled principle, growing out of the nature of well ordered civil society, that every holder of property, however absolute and unqualified may be his title, holds it under the implied liability that use of it may be so regulated that it shall not be injurious.... to the rights of the community." Since then the courts have consistently ruled on the side of public welfare. Only when the demands of a local jurisdiction have deprived an owner of any feasible use have the courts required compensation. Thus defined, reasonable regulation is not confiscation.

The better we understand the complex working of ecosystems the clearer those "rights of the community" will become. Angus Duncan, a member of the Northwest Power Planning Council, in an article in for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer discusses this subject relative to the Columbia River Basin:

"There have been many efforts to coordinate river uses, beginning with the Corps of Engineers first "308" reports in 1931. All failed, for the value of the river in fragments always seemed superior to the value of the river whole. Each practiced conservation only as it permitted still more intense consumption.

Today there is a crying need for practices and institutions that begin in a different place, with a notion of conservation that first establishes and respects the threshold survival needs of other species, then orders human uses at sustainable levels.

To accomplish that we should begin, as (geographer, bureaucrat) Powell advised us, with the watershed.

In 1980 the Northwest Power Planning Council was directed by the Congress to address the problems and needs of the river and its tributaries as a system.

Congress should charge the council with developing and setting forth a general plan for the conservation and efficient use of the waters and lands affecting those waters of the Columbia River Basin.

The basin plan should encompass water quantity and quality both. It should address land uses as they affect stream conditions. Individual sub-basins should be free to fashion watershed programs that meet their circumstances, as the Grande Ronde sub-basin and others are doing today such programs, upon meeting a test of consistency with regional watershed health standards, would be grafted into the larger plan.

The basin plan should employ the best science available, recognizing that judgments will rarely be made with certain scientific knowledge. A research program, to reduce uncertainty, is integral to that effort.

Federal agencies with land and water management responsibilities would be obligated to operate consistent with the basin plan, and explain any discrepancy to Congress. State agencies would be under direction from their governors to act consistently also.

Most of all, we must refuse to passively accept a status quo that is purchasing near-term prosperity for some but is slowly strangling the river. That is too high a price."

* * * * * *

There is nothing within the body of our Constitution which limits Congress' borrowing capacity. Section 8 delineates Congressional powers. Among these are the right "to borrow money on the credit of the United States," and "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures." The economic strategy of stimulating the economy through controlled inflation was a brainchild of the 1930's and Keynes was its father. Until then government indebtedness had been minor. Since then it has become rampant. There is little doubt now that this "fix" has only exacerbated the situation and eroded the rights of many. Borrowing money to pump prime the economy has been the root cause. Is there a constitutional fix for this situation? According to Jaikaran, while the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 provided the Federal Reserve with authority to create money and issue bonds it did not irrevocably eliminate the right of the Federal Government to assume that responsibility:

"It would require an amendment to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5, of the Constitution to do so. But this part of the Constitution was never amended; it is still the law of the land."

To reverse this process Congress obviously must act. It must end the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and establish the Government as the rightful issuer of all money debt free for its own services. This is of course a mere peek at the extensive changes such a move would involve. The point is that it is possible within the framework of our constitution and, done properly, would be a great step forward for human rights. Should private entities outside the banking industry also be allowed to issue debt free money? Again, there is nothing against it in federal of state laws (Fisher et al explored this option in the Thirties). The argument for starting such a service is sound. It need not await federal action and could stimulate government to follow suit. It would stimulate local business. It would create healthy competition among issues. All this is true but it would also require regulation. Perhaps its primary function would be to lead the way. That would be no small service.

Under Section 8 Congress also has the authority to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their writings and discoveries." This granting of an exclusive right should not be interpreted as a right to the restraint of trade. While ownership here should be remunerated, information should not be withheld (monopolized) nor should government R & D assistance go unrepaid.

* * * * * * *

All individuals have a shared right and responsibility to protect, improve and extend their other rights. But the right to vote and thereby have an equal voice in government has been and continues to be frustrated. Until this century people of color and women were effectively barred from the polling place. But more insidious has been the growing power of those with resources to effect government action in their favor. The growing cost of running a successful political campaign has escalated out of the reach of all but a few wealthy candidates. This reality has forced most candidates to become indebted to their monied sponsors. Does indentured sound fair? The Herald American International sums up the situation focusing mainly on European democracies but the situation is the same here:

"In Europe, political corruption stains one country after another, showing that even the most solid democracies have a dark side. The Italian stain is surely the most vast, but in Greece, Spain, France and Germany, scandals have multiplied. The same goes for Britain.

In no other country has corruption of such amplitude been revealed as in Italy, where at the end of 1993, 2,500 people were being investigated, including tens of ministers and former prime ministers, 200 members of Parliament and scores of businessmen. In no other country has corruption involved an entire society, destroyed its traditional parties and compromised entire governments. In no other country has there been more of a lack of political watchfulness than in Italy.

Everywhere the problem of the state in pluralist societies founded on democracy and the market economy needs to be resolved. As the state breaks away from the economy, privatizing it more and more, the financial and economic world latches on ever tighter to the state, attempting to 'privatize' it. If the role of the state is not redefined - if the political ethic is not reconstructed - then the incestuous relationship between public and private will endanger democracy."

And another commentator, Gore Vidal, from The New Yorker article of December, 1997 on the Kennedy White House and beyond:

"That the political system doesn't work is no news. Whoever can raise the most corporate money by providing services once in office will be elected, or at least get to an office. Clinton and Dole spent, it is said, more than half a billion dollars on the last presidential election. The press accepts all this as just the way things are.

We all agree, monotonously, that a change in campaign financing laws would be helpful, but no Congress or President elected under the present corrupt system could bear to kick over the ladder that got him and his tools to the second floor."

The present state of our electoral system is corrupted and, as Vidal says, it is no secret. Allowing corporations, businesses, unions, religious groups or any other private organization to pose as an individual and thus pervert the very foundation of democracy, it’s one vote per citizen, is a travesty of justice. This insidious buying of democracy by special interests is no less a threat than an outright invasion; perhaps more so in that the acts are so seemingly painless. Our founders worried about the Church of England. Today we need to worr