The People's Proclamation of Sovereignty

Being a natural viewpoint of mature people, as when they were children they learned over time to favor the blood of their parents and families over that of strangers, the nameless and faceless in society tend to subordinate themselves by elevating "star" people to the status of celebrities.  In determining the far ends of a political spectrum the likes which has resulted over time, as on one end of it are these nameless and faceless who, out of fear, would tend to leaning towards honoring and praising a prince by valuing him even more so than his kingly father; meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum are those in tyranny who, out of a sense of entitlement, would tend to leaning in just the opposite direction towards dishonoring and condemning a mere son of man, with him being the male offspring from commoners, by valuing him even less so than those deemed nameless and faceless.    


In contrast, our Founders were more than just our American representatives when addressing tyranny, as they acted together in fellowship on the side of these kinds of nameless and faceless, for the sake of the whole of 'one people,'  and, indeed, even for the sake of the complete inclusiveness of  'all men.'   Therefore, as our Founding Fathers were so envisioned during the age of Enlightenment to lower themselves from their high social-statuses of rightful Aristocratic Gentlemen, (indeed, they do say within The Declaration of Independence that: we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor,. . ..) so do the American people proclaim the highest of sovereign power, as James Madison himself once said we possess, as we stand today as representatives acting on the behalf of those very least ones among us, with these being the out castes, the untouchables, and beyond even these miser souls towards that Great Burden they have within them, with this Truth being the one true King of kings.

Realizing something significant in the above paragraph, let's pause to think about our American Founders and how they were so willing to mutually pledge to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred Honor, only because the focus of Declaration of Independence itself was affixed upon a natural law, a singular order, and upon a collective heart, and not upon endless numbers of interpretations of law within infinite numbers of partisan legal minds. 


As a declaration is made by someone acting in submission to a higher authority, in comparison, a proclamation has to usher forth either directly or indirectly from the highest of authority.  As a king is, at best, an indirect means of expressing the highest authority, it would have been a requirement of him to elaborate thoughtfully on any of the proclamations that were dispensed by him to those nameless and faceless living within his kingdom.  Indeed, in contrast, our Founders, in the formal document of The Declaration of Independence, created an extensive natural law, a whole new order so to speak, even pausing to justify it by both reducing towards an unalienable conclusion, and then by further explaining what was basically an incomprehensible conclusion with that of an analysis while utilizing the proper means of linguistics when doing so.

On one level, acts of evil should be justification enough.  Indeed, following the list of grievances that were documented towards the heart of The Declaration of Independence concerning the thoughtless behavior of king George III., our Founders concluded:  A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Understand, the above reasoning alone isn't sufficient enough to fully substantiate a natural law.     
Aside from them being righteous in divorcing the American people out from under the persecutions of tyranny, our Founders had to show two kinds of conclusions by first justifying he natural law by reducing towards "one people," and then further justify it by the additions of the elaborating analysis: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness . . .." 

Again, as it was their intentions to declare a Natural Law that would cut us off from the prior traditions of legal precedence, our Founders had to produce two types of justification with one being an incomprehensible narrowing towards a single heart, thus making the natural law undeniable, and the other being an analysis explaining it to partisan minds while utilizing proper linguistics.

This is how the scientific method of natural law worked.    

In other words, in order to keep the king from claiming ignorance, our Founders within The Declaration of Independence substantiated the natural law by including both a narrowed incomprehensible conclusion, which was the nature of such, and a clear analysis elaborating on that conclusion.

Lest anyone doubt the new order of this natural law, I refer to the very opening of The Declaration of Independence itself:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, . . ..

Clearly, as they attempted an incredible achievement within the formal document towards a society of "one people" and later, lest anyone misunderstand them, towards the inclusion of "all men," so it wasn't our Founders original intentions to include, as the lawyers have since deemed it so, just some of the people and some of the men - with the term men here, or mankind, being an expression of both male and female; but, regarding the establishment of our Civil Purpose, there existed a proliferation of confusion before, during, immediately following, and ever since our Founders gathered together in fellowship to sign their names to The Declaration of Independence..

What the American people have begun to realize lately is how chaos isn't an absolute spontaneity devoid of any laws; rather, chaos is a phenomenon that happens when laws are instituted for the sake of laws without any regards for a singular order.  

Paradoxically, reduced to its essence, war is an endeavor waged between those who, on one side, desire simply to increase the contentment of others, and those who, on the other side, manipulate government for personal gain by the eloquent spouting of such emotional causes as liberty and equality.  In the case of those leaning towards the increase of contentment for all, they have come to realize how both liberty and equality have to exist as prerequisites in order to advance our Civil Purpose.

Therefore, intelligent Americans should first reduce to common ground extensively before allowing any elaborating judgments to commence forth in their discussions.  In other words, sophisticates can live quite well boxed up inside a legal world of laws without them ever having to take the effort to thoughtfully reduce towards that of the controlling order.  At the same time, there is a difference between reducing down to what is in a person's best interest, with this being a false power of manipulation, and reducing down towards what is thoughtful, with this being towards the unapproachable Truth itself, the ultimate power.         

Yet, many are still being made ashamed by a confused segment of our society, even though the people are not here to be responsible in the ways of the prerequisite virtues of liberty and inequality, but in the advancement of our Civil Purpose.  Paradoxically, as increasing the contentment of her children exponentially is a mature necessity that will cause a mother to go to war even to the extent that she will take her own life and the lives of her children if she fails, the establishment of liberty and equality as causes is an immature goal of a child and one that has made a mockery and fools of these United States.

  

   
Under Construction * * *