Questions of Sovereignty

Today, I'm going to raise some questions concerning the concept of personal sovereignty and discuss these in terms of:

• vote selling;

• Chicago's 75-year parking deal, in reference to the 99-year lease of Chinese lands to the United Kingdom;

• several unions promising not to sue;

• the Chicago Teachers' Union's potential to be a game changer in Chicago.

I define personal sovereignty as that degree of personal freedom of action which an individual possesses and which cannot be infringed upon by the state. In the United States, personal sovereignty - while not using those words - is enshrined in the Preamble of the US Constitution as well as in the Bill of Rights, especially in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. These are stated, respectively, as highlighted below:

• "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."  The Preamble doesn't say, "We the states of the United States...," or "We the federal government of the United States." The concept of something that transcends state and federal authority is immediately introduced in the Constitution. In fact, "We the People" transcends the Constitution itself, since this sentence strongly implies that if "We the People" wanted to form an even more "perfect union" than the one created by this Constitution, We could do so. Interestingly enough, this Constitution fails to provide any mechanism for doing so. But that's not important: Where there's a will, there's a way.

• "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Not even the Constitution, due to failure to enumerate, can serve to limit the rights "retained by the people" - "retained" by virtue of the people's sovereignty, as opposed to the sovereignty of the United States and the individual states.

• "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." This language acknowledges an entity ("the people") that has "powers" and an existence of its own that can sit at the bargaining table as an equal to the states and central government.

The problem, of course, lies in the fact that the Supreme Court has seized the power to interpret the Constitution, which could render We-the-People helpless should it decide to ignore our rights.

Vote Selling

I have the right to own property, which means I can sell any property I own. I have the right to vote, but...I can't sell my vote to the highest bidder. Why not? Why should a person's vote be held in any esteem greater than that of other forms of property owned by that person? Some will claim that vote selling is immoral. Please. If someone were to conclude that it doesn't really matter who gets his vote since the status quo will prevail no matter what, it would seem to be immoral to deny that person the chance to at least make a couple of bucks by selling his vote.

Efforts to control the vote have existed in this country since the very beginning when only people (men only) who owned property could vote. Since then, the privilege has been granted to increasing categories of citizens. I even hesitate to call voting a "right" since it seems more like a privilege granted by legislatures than anything God-given.

I broach this subject:

• to claim more freedom of action for individuals, which should be their birth right in the first place, and

• to highlight my belief that we should have as few laws as possible that restrict our ability to engage in a wide variety of contracts and behaviors - which should include the right to contract for same-sex and polygamous marriages.

Chicago's 75-year parking meter deal

QUOTE:

Chicago Parking Meters LLC rolled us once. In 2008, the company struck a deal with Mayor Richard Daley and a compliant City Council that gave it control of meter revenue for 75 years in exchange for what's now universally recognized as an astonishingly paltry one-time payment of $1.15 billion.
:UNQUOTE [source: article by Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune, dated May 26, 2013]

Most of that $1.15 billion has already been spent, which leaves us without the benefit of 70-years' of parking meter revenue which could have paid for a lot more than $1.15 billion in city projects. Former mayor Richard M. Daley should be in jail for his leading role in this travesty.

I don't understand how a city gets to sell off part of its sovereignty. Could Hawaii sell off one of its islands for 75-years, while only technically holding on to its sovereign claim to that land, in order to serve as a naval base for China? How does a current group of leaders have the right to make such a deal so far into the future, a future in which those not-yet-born citizens had their birthright sold out from under them before they had a chance to say "no?" I think a very potent lawsuit could be founded on this basis. Yes, it would most likely get tossed by a Democratic party judge, but could serve as a rallying point even in failure.

The only reason Chicago's voters don't openly rebel and throw out the bums is, this is a one-party town in which political power is very tightly controlled. Not to mention the media which, except in a few rare  instances, can't say enough good things about (especially) the mayor. In spite of the de facto powerlessness of Chicago's voters, they still possess sufficient personal sovereignty to justify voiding this contract made not in their best interests. The question becomes: How to invoke their sovereignty to not only void this deal but to oust from power those who supported it?

A 99-year UK lease compares with Chicago's 75-year lease

QUOTE:

Under the convention the territories north of what is now Boundary Street and south of the Sham Chun River, and the surrounding islands, later known as the "New Territories" were leased to the United Kingdom for 99 years rent-free[1], expiring on 30 June 1997, and became part of the crown colony of Hong Kong.[3]  Claude MacDonald, the British representative during the convention, picked a 99-year lease because he thought it was "as good as forever."[4]

:UNQUOTE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Extension_of_Hong_Kong_Territory

This 99-year lease was nothing more than an imperialist's territorial grab, for I feel the UK never intended to return that land to China. However, political fortunes have reversed since the late 1800s. No longer does the sun never set on the British Empire. And the sun may yet come to never set on an empire which China might attempt to establish.

The 75-year parking meter deal in Chicago is comparable in terms of its attempted denial of sovereignty.

Several unions promise not to sue

QUOTE:
A union-backed plan to reform the worst-funded state pension system in the United States will be introduced in the Illinois Senate...

John Cullerton...said on [Monday, May 6, 2013] he plans to introduce the new bill endorsed by public labor unions and bring it to a vote by the full Senate on Thursday.

... The unions had vowed to sue over the rival bill narrowly passed by the Democrat-controlled House last Thursday.

"When this bill is passed, they're not going to sue," Cullerton told reporters...

Cullerton estimated the Senate measure could save the state about $46 billion over 30 years, though he acknowledged the projected savings could rise or fall, depending on choices people make among options offered by the bill [I will comment on this below].

By giving the state's public-sector workers a choice in how their pension and health benefits are allocated, the bill seeks to avoid [an Illinois state] constitutional prohibition against reduction in benefits promised to public sector workers.

UNQUOTE: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/07/usa-illinois-pensions-idUSL2N0DN1QX20130507

Cullerton's plan may be "union-backed" and endorsed by "public labor unions," but I'm sure this was not done by the formal process of collective bargaining nor rendered into a written, contractual form. I'm also sure the unions could change their minds and sue after all. But even if they didn't sue, who's to say that individual union members couldn't? Answer: A judge will summarily dismiss such a suit by ruling that individual union members don't have standing to sue; that only their unions do.

And that's where I must object: A union is supposed to represent its members but not exclusively - members should be able to represent themselves by virtue of their personal sovereignty. However, institutions (like the state legislature) much prefer to deal with other institutions (like labor unions), shutting out individuals as often as possible. An individual should be able to sue, not based on any violation of a written labor-mangement agreement (for in this case, there is none), but on a violation of the state's constitution. That document clearly states:

"Article XIII, SECTION 5. PENSION AND RETIREMENT RIGHTS Membership in any pension or retirement system of the State, any unit of local government or school district, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, shall be an enforceable contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired."

Section 5 dovetails nicely with my concerns as indicated in the yellowed highlight above. If Illinois can save up to $46 billion over 30 years based on "choices" made by members as offered in this bill, that means (quite simply) that Section 5's prohibition against diminishing pension benefits is being violated. And it doesn't matter if "choice" is involved, since (constitutionally speaking) benefits would be reduced to the tune of that $46 billion. And Section 5 doesn't give any wiggle-room by allowing for "choices" (coerced ones at that) to be made according to the terms of a statute.

As for why the unions would go along with this: frankly, I don't care. There are times when a union will act according to its own agenda, which isn't necessarily rank-and-file friendly.

There was a time when unions had their place, but I draw a line when their place becomes greater by means of diminishing or eliminating the place individuals should have, especially in courts of law. As a closing thought here, I offer a reform: Citizen courts should replace judges in the ability to issue binding verdicts. Especially since it happens too often that judges are far more interested in denying access to any hearing which considers the merits of a case, especially by using the excuse that a suing party doesn't have standing. That becomes just another excuse to deny personal sovereignty.

Chicago Teachers' Union v. Mayor Rahm "the Golem" Emanuel

The CTU has floated the idea of finding a candidate to support who will try to unseat Mayor Emanuel in the next election. I would suggest they expand that strategy by announcing: "The CTU wants to support an independent candidate for mayor, and other independents for the 50-seat city council so as to eliminate the rubber-stamp nature of that body."

CTU can't act alone in this, since the Mayor and his council allies would be quick to accuse them of trying to win elections for the sole purpose of advancing this union's interests. The problem is, the CTU is one of the few independent institutions of sufficient size (manpower and financial muscle) which can effectively challenge the city's one-party establishment. However, there are possible allies - including university professors who could offer themselves as candidates. There are always a fair number of them who are in between positions, retired, or able (should they win) to take sabbaticals or reduced academic workloads in order to serve. Another potential source of candidates and supporters lies in Chicago's sizable retirement community.

Not to mention: Aldermanic pay is over $100,000 dollars per year - not bad for a virtually part-time job.

There are many Chicagoans like myself who are independents or are Democrats who are sick and tired of how this one-party town is run by a cabal of greedy, connected men who treat this city like a cash cow. CTU could challenge them but must avoid the appearance of seeking candidates who would be nothing more than union puppets. This can be done and should be - in the name of trying to establish in at least one little corner of the USA a greater degree of personal sovereignty than generally exists in the rest of the country.

Who knows? This might be the beginning of a trend.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of The Independent Contractors' Party

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance by those brave enough to insist they still have personal sovereignty."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com