28. Constitution Compass

Why a free society constitution must be larger than any other

© Copyright 2024. Kenneth E. Bartle.   — Researcher, Objective philosopher, Psycho-epistemologist, Published Author – Content Creator for ‘The One Great Network,’ USA.

ius natural Master

Free Societies rely upon authoring a country’s Constitution to uphold the people’s freedom and to ensure that their rights and freedoms are protected. That automatically denies any government legislation overruling the people's free choice.  Logically, therefore, no (free society) governing body can make any rules. It cannot govern at all. It can only protect the people’s rights and freedoms.  Immediately it appears that its Consitution document will be much smaller because the particular country no longer meddles in people’s affairs, financially, in business, or socially. It simply arrests and deals with crime, thus its Constitution document will seemingly be minuscule in comparison with an authoritarian government constitution.   

Wrong! The exact reverse is true. Why, you might ask? How can that be?  President George Washington gave us the clues in 1778 by writing–

Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved, and on the present occasion, this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits and particular interests.

His second and last sentences perfectly explain that the share of liberty to be surrendered cannot ever be defined in advance. Importantly, therefore, a legislative Constitution need only describe the sacrificial means and little else, hence the document is tiny and concise. All judgements that follow are eventually recorded publicly in countless law books and libraries dotted throughout the land. 

Contrast that with a free society that protects the people’s rights and freedoms but has no authoritarian government because the people govern themselves. Its Constitution must specify the protective structure, much as before, but additionally, it must also specify exactly what rights people have according to what we are by nature. It must establish ethics, morality, and justice in principle; not by the facts of multitudinous (later committed) crimes. Such knowledge allows and encourages self-mastery and personal sovereignty by which people can truly live as their Creator intended. This knowledge permits constitutional authors to specify what rights cannot be usurped, overruled, denied, or violated, long before any such crime is committed. The standard of virtue and respectful freedom is innate, not opinionated, even by a majority, or ruled by Justices in a courtroom. 

This is where the fun starts. The (Free) Constitution never specifies what must be done. It simply spells out in principle what our rights are and that those rights cannot be taken, denied or trespassed because they are intrinsically innate within our nature. 

That is priceless because a free society Constitution is not built on the people’s consent, on differing opinions or a majority vote, but instead, our Creator’s consent to live abundantly, and particularly his gifted means for so doing. Neither is it one or more constitution authors dictatorially proclaiming this is how it must be written regardless of other people’s ideas or opinions. On the contrary, it is the task of constitutional authors to learn exactly what human nature depends on for life’s success, recognise those masterly principles and their governing laws, and embody them into a Constitution that upholds and protects them. That being done, the people’s rights and freedoms are ensured in perpetuity. 

But what about A, or B, or C people may howl indignantly. How can my thoughts or opinions be trashed as irrelevant or unimportant? Simple. If your thoughts or opinions support and sustain your life within the equal rights of all others, they are decidedly vital, relevant and important to you!  Congratulations, you’re a winner fully supported by a free society constitution. Now think. If actions resulting from your thoughts or opinions trespass or violate the equal rights of someone else, perhaps causing harm, you have trespassed their boundaries for sure, but you’ve also rejected the governing laws of your nature which forbid any right to perform that action. You’ve repudiated your nature and rejected your life. Truth is, your right to freedom is maintained by you, not the government. No free society Justice can rule against you when (court-proven) evidence certifies you’ve already ruled against yourself. 

And that is what all governments do! Leaving their labour force aside, all their ministers, senators and members of legislative assemblies have forsaken the jurisdiction of life into which they were born; to thus rule, violate, usurp and even deny your life. You do not need to resign from their (legal) jurisdiction. They’ve already exited your (life) jurisdiction. 

Expose their voluntary sacrifice of life’s freedom to authoritarian rule and a bountiful future for humanity looms. Do you get it yet?  Individuals entering into society must never give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest, as social contracts inherent in democracies and republics demand. The people must prize and protect their freedom in full, respectful of all other’s rights because that cause guarantees the people’s freedom. These facts, vital in a free society constitution document, must be spelled out. Moreover, such protections must themselves be protected against all trespass, denial and usurpation to complete the document. Necessarily that requires more words than legislative Constitutions require, but when done, resultant case histories in law libraries will be minuscule in comparison.

Think of legislative Constitutions as wholly dependent on multitudes of (subsequent) court decisions recorded in libraries throughout the land. The sum of written words is massive yet still incomplete as new legislation piles on top weekly. By contrast, think of a free society Constitution document being (say three times) larger yet fully complete, with no additions necessary, their word sum minuscule in comparison. 

Free society Constitutional authors have much to consider, but the principles are clear-cut in our human nature. Provided these authors appraise and apply them as they should, all who disagree are free to present any dispute to our Creator for resolution. That is how natural law works.