Simple Ideas the Right to Vote A

8/9/2019 Simple Ideas the Right to Vote A

1/4

Copyright2010byRobertL.Nuckolls,III.Thisdocumentmaybereproducedinanyformorvenuewhenauthorshipisproperlycitedandtheworkisnotexploitedforthepurposeofsecuringaprofitorobscuringcontext.

1

The Simple-Ideas Occasional

A publication dedicated to the study and celebrationof common sense and repeatable experiments

Robert L. Nuckolls, III

Medicine Lodge, KS

Number 30, Revision A, May 6, 2010

Tossing-of-the-Green: Whats all this

right to vote stuff anyhow?

For most of this countrys existence, there has been adiligent if not pedantic attention paid to a "right tovote". There have been countless organizations,movements, demonstrations, demands for governmentintervention in what is perceived as repressions ofcivil rights. Our government has responded with lawsand appropriate punishments for individuals who

may be found guilty of suppressing anyones franchise.Franchise to do what? Let us consider the following:

Suppose our federal government were conducting itselfin accordance with enumerated powers described in theConstitution. What behavior by a legislator wouldmotivate the honorable citizen to go to the poles?

Suppose the government and the laws under which itoperates were honorably focused on crafting andenforcing constitutional law for the protection ofliberty. If a legislators behavior was in agreement withhis/her job description, why would any citizen believe

his civic duty demands extra attention at the nextelection?

According to our founding fathers, governmentbehavior under the constitution would be all buttransparent to our daily lives. Constitutional behaviorby federal lawmakers was to have no particular effectupon any honorable citizen. Similarly, journalists andcommentators upon the news would have few reasonsto take notice of routine government activity. Thenewsworthy event would speak to legislativemalfeasance on the part of the occasional dishonorablelegislator. Once exposed, it is reasonable to expect thatoffending legislator be removed from office by thehonorable citizens he or she purports to represent.

Under what conditions might we expect a commandingmajority of legislators to stray from their constitutionalcharter? Let us hypothesize and instance wheregovernment takes special notice of any special interestgroup of citizens. Suppose the headline of todayspaper reads:

"Noon tomorrow: 1,000 hundred-dollar billsto be tossed from the roof of city hall."

Is the effect not predictable? Certainly more than 1,000people will be waiting for the Tossing-of-the-Green. Indeed,with modern communications technologies in place, someindividuals may drive for hundreds of miles to attend thisextra-ordinary event.

Not everyone will get even one bill. Some will get more thanone. The mob-mentality excitement stirred together with theinexorable willingness of some individuals to engage inviolent behavior. The outcome might even be worthy ofglobally disseminated "news". Do a NetSearch on riots anddeath tolls. I got over 10,000 hits. Its a certainty that ourhypothetical Tossing-of-the-Green event would be added toand compilations of mankinds more egregious behaviorstoward each other.

The special interest group in this hypothetical is comprised ofindividuals who saw the headline and were motivated to jointhe crowd. But let us suppose the paragraph under theheadline says:

"Only males of Mongolian descent over the age

of 60 are authorized to participate in this event.

Armed guards will join inspectors with judicial

authority to review qualifications of prospective

participants. The same guards will protect the

event grounds from interlopers. It is suggested

that supplicants for entry line up for vetting of

qualifications the previous day. Further, entry

to the green grabbing arena will be limited to

the first 1,000 individuals.

Does this sound fair? Certainly the individuals likely togain entrance to the arena will think it is quite fair. Do we

suppose more that a dozen folks would qualify? Consider thecost of setting up the event. You need police to protect thefacility and participating individuals. You need fences tocontrol interlopers. You need to hire individuals chargedqualifying supplicants for tickets. The set-up would probablycost more than the value of the green to be tossed.

Its a certainty that folks who are allowed inside . . . and


2/4


2

hopefuls who didn't make the first cut would, no doubt,vote enthusiastically for repeat events. Why not? Evenwhen probability of getting a grip on a C-note is poor,what is there to loose? The folks who supplied thegreen are not in attendance to protest the squanderingof their confiscated property. The guards and

inspectors are on paid with the same loot. Is it not agood thing that everyone has a job?

What of those legislators carried into office onpromises of more and larger Tossing-of-the-Greenevents? Its obvious that thousands of such events willbe necessary. Oversight committees must be formedand funded. Regulatory agencies chartered and funded.Buildings, desks, vehicles, computers must bepurchased. Insurance, and retirement plans must be setup to benefit critical organizers for Tossing-of-the-Green events. When would-be politicians perceive theeffect of successful subversion of constitutional duty,future campaigns promise an expansion of qualifiedspecial interest groups , , , each one vying for theirown Tossing-of-the-Green events.

Most important, as the events grow in size, scope andpopularity, more green must be harvested . . . fromsomewhere. No problem, the government is quitewilling to establish similarly organized and financedactivities for Harvesting-of-the-Green. These wont belarge or obvious events. Harvesting will take place asprescribed in 60,000+ pages of arcane regulation andlaw. Hundreds of $millions$ of yearly confiscationswill target everything including the honorableproduction by individuals intent on providing for

themselves and their families. While there is greatinterest in publicizing Tossing-of-the-Green, there isa compelling interest in keeping the Harvesting-of-the-Green isolated from the lives and thoughts of amajority of voters.

This is a microcosmic example of how government inthe US (and other countries) operates. There arethousands of situations where the law takes notice of aspecial interest group to whom largess is dispensedfrom the public treasury. The special interest groupsare so small or widely distributed across the landscapethat risks for mob violence is avoided. But the rules for

eligibility are complex and arcane. Millions of no-value-added government jobs are created and financedby the taxpayer to organize, fund and managethousands of Tossing-of-the-Green events.

The civilized tool of influence available to US citizensis the ballot box where one may vote for one of twothings:

The quest for acquiring tickets to a Tossing-of-the-Green or . . .

To plead protection from forces that compel theproductive to give up a portion of their green..

In the context of honorable/dishonorable behavior, I trust thedistinctions are clear. There is but one reason for thehonorable citizen to exercise aduty to vote . . .

To remove the dishonorable legislator from office.

There is but one reason for the dishonorable individual toclamor loudly for aright to vote . . .

To secure benefits from government unique to theirown special interest group or groups.

The individual infected with despotic progressivism willcampaign on legislative goals wrapped in many cloaks.Patriotism, generosity, sympathy for some unfortunatesegment of society, etc. They will endeavor to make thehonorable, citizen feel guilty for their success and independentself sufficiency. They will strive to shift blame for behaviorof the dishonorable to the honorable. They may speak ofconstitutional duty but are unwilling or unable to articulatethat duty in simple-ideas. When they seek justification fortemporary or unfortunate but necessary attack upon theliberty of any citizen, its helpful theres a crisis that criesfor immediate attention. If no suitable crisis exists, they areadept at generating them.

The dishonorable politician will decry the unfair plight of

blacks, Hispanics, Asians, poor, rich, middle-class, women,men, children, old, ill, etc, etc. The list is endless. They willdemonize the behaviors of the honorable and successfulamong us. The despotic progressive seldom if ever offerswords of personal encouragement. They do not publiclymarvel at a nation that rose to such prominence in 200+ yearson the combined efforts of millions of honorable citizens.

They are not students of history and therefore cannot cite therecipes for success (or failure) upon which they base theirown plans for the future. They are oblivious of (or choose toignore) countless examples going back thousands of yearswhere similar behaviors destroyed the ability of honorable

people to produce. They will go to great pains to mis-represent how such behaviors brought down entire nations.Recipes for failure go to one and one purpose only: To gainthe support of a majority of voters to keep themselves andtheir allies in power. From that same majority, they claimpopular mandate to treat the constitution as a living,breathing document thus nullifying its recipe for successupon which our marvelous nation was built.


3/4


3

Constitutional law protects the liberty of all citizensirrespective of their special interest group identity.The honorable politician has but one campaign speechthat attends to a common interest of all citizens. Thatspeech goes to the education of his/her constituency asto the simple-ideas under which our nation was

founded as described in documents crafted by ourfounding fathers. The honorable politician is a teacherwho offers understanding of what it means to be anhonorable citizen from the president on down theordinary citizen.

There despotic progressives with file cabinets full ofcampaign speeches tailored to persuade every specialinterest group. They cannot be trusted. They have nocenter upon which their integrity stands. Theyprofess empathetic attentiveness to the interests of allgroups. They will offer words and ideas in onecampaign speech that are contradicted in the nextspeech.

Yet without alliances of other despotic progressives ingovernment, no campaigner is individually incapableof delivering on such promises. Such individuals arethe antithesis of behavior prescribed by theConstitution of the United States and are not qualifiedfor public office.

The honorable citizens alarm bells sound loudly whenany despotic progressive publishes or speaks wordsthat targets a special interest individual or group forbenefit or oppression by legislation. Even when thehonorable dissenter is only invoking his or her right

under our constitution to simply be left alone., thedespotic progressive stirs up an emotional dust stormto obscure their dishonor.

Astute students of honorable behavior within ademocratic republic will recognize and resist suchefforts. The courageous among honorable citizens willstand up to and shine a spotlight of revelation uponseductive ideas of the despotic progressive..

This document goes to a simple-idea for evaluatingunrestrained and un-constitutional behavior of ourgovernment. I trust the foregoing is strictly free of

partisan political thought. I have named only thedishonorable, carriers of despotic progressivism as aspecial interest group worthy of censure. The simple-idea of honorable behavior cuts across all political andsocial borders. This paper is about individuals whogather unto themselves the power of law to take fromone group of individuals to give to another groupwhile siphoning off a sizable benefit to themselves as

the river of money flows by.

In criminal law it 's called extortion, fraud, armedrobbery, embezzlement, racketeering and graft.

In Washington, DC (and many state or local

legislatures) it's called a quest of fairness for thegreatest public good where in greatest is 51% ormore of those to cast ballots.

I would encourage my fellow citizens to consider motivationthat compels them to vote for any candidate. The ability tovote responsibly within the framework of our constitutionrequires a study, understanding and personal adoption ofsimple-ideas upon which this nation was founded.

Ill suggest that as long as our legislators are diligentlyattending to civic duty under the Constitution, we have nocompelling reason to go to the ballot box. Should somelegislator drift to the dark side of power, we should beconfident that the individuals charter will be revoked at thenext election. Finally, if that legislator is but one of a smallgroup of sad examples, their ability to damage the nation isheld in check by attention of their honorable colleagues.

Our government sponsors thousands of Tossing-of-

the-Green events and employs millions of individuals

to create and manage them. Individuals competing

for tickets to a Tossing-of-the-Green lottery must

pursue a right to vote loudly and with diligence or

their probability of gaining something for nothing is

diminished . . . if not zero.

The idea of being able restrain and ultimately remove badapples from government of by and for the people isfundamental to the idea of separation of powers as crafted byour founding fathers. But as the ranks of congress, theadministration and judiciary become ever more polluted withdespotic progressives, the ability of honorable citizens tooccasionally purge the barrel of bad fruit is diminished if notblocked . . . separation of power is lost.

Dishonorable governments are quite willing and demonstrablycapable of protecting their self-interests. It happens all overthe world every day. It has happened in this country. Allowedto proceed without restraint, the probability of passing a

catastrophic tipping point looms ever closer.

Sadly, what passes for civic duty at the ballot box is becomingno more than a supplication by special interest groups ofindividuals (infected with the early stages of despoticprogressivism), for still more Tossing-of-the-Green events. .. . but only if that green is harvested from somebody elsesgarden.


4/4


4

The gardens of the productive are being over-harvested. Further, they are being deprived ofresources necessary for thriving production. Thepromises of the despotic progressives in Washingtonare growing in number and size while the resourcesfrom which such promises are delivered are dwindling.

I leave it up to the reader to plot present trends into thefuture. Is this what we want to leave to ourgrandchildren?

Our founding fathers gave us tools by which the futureof our nation can be secured. But just as a hammer canbe used to build or to destroy, the vote can be use toeither purge the Congress of looters and destroyers . .. or infest those offices with looters and destroyers.

The remedy of our nations present condition calls forvetting of a candidates motivations to public officeand a vetting of the citizens who would elect them tothat position. There is no right to vote only a duty tovote.

That duty comes with a charge to understand theConstitution as our founding fathers wrote it. Suchduty cannot be left up to individuals in black robes andexpensive suits who have elevated themselves to the

stature of minor gods. The Constitution was written inplain English by individuals who intended that theordinary citizen understand it.

So when one attends to the words of a candidateseeking to attain public office, the questions to be

asked are:

Is every citizen entitled to liberty?

Does not every citizen of this democratic republichave the right NOT to be molested by theirgovernment?

The answer to THOSE questions should guide thecitizens action in the voting booth. If they are 51% ormore of honorable citizens who vote, then our future asa nation is assured.

If one votes to seek ever greater benefit from the laborof others (despotic progressivism), then they are notqualified to vote as a citizen of a democratic republicunder the Constitution of the United States. Further, ifthey are 51% or more of those who bring theirdishonor to the voting booth, then the future of ournation is a frightful thing to contemplate.

Documents

Simple Ideas the Right to Vote A