Cenocracy: A Declaration for Greater Independence
Cenocratic Declarative heading (68K)


We the people A want something better. We want something better than what all the present and past social systems, including Theocracies, have brought us. We think we can do better and want a chance to prove it. We want the same length of time that present and past social governing systems have had in their experimental ventures; which, unfortunately, have brought us countless miseries. But we must humbly admit that our desires for a more fulfilling path to follow does not guarantee there will not be unforeseen hardships in our proposed adventure. Yet, such is the same for the trail we have been on for centuries... except that this time, we the people will collectively make the choice.

We want a New Government: A Cenocracy.

In as much as this new government, by way of definition and application may be termed a New Peoples Government (Cenodemocracy: New Peoples Rule), its pronouncement as a Cenocracy suffices for the preamble of a Declaration for Greater Independence.

There are three stepping stones which are required in order to bridge present humanity with their pursuit of a greater promising future:

  1. We want a National, if not International Cenocratic Government Party. 1st

  2. We want a National, if not International Cenocratic-guided Referendum process. 2nd

  3. We want a National, if not International Peoples Legislative Branch on the Federal, State and local levels. 3rd

And we want these basic requirements of social self-governance to be legally guaranteed as mandated by a Constitution and Bill -of- Rights written and ratified by the people, through a Cenocratic-styled Referendum process administered, guided and controlled by the people. B

Entering a new age as we will by the adoption of these three initial stepping stones; will bring about unprecedented changes in our economy, our foreign policies, and the overall structure of our jurisprudence sectors. It is an inevitability as the people go about removing inequalities, social barriers and righting the many wrongs we have had to suffer in accordance with because of traditionalized out-dated observances. But our intent is not to be revengeful, violent nor exercise a malicious, or otherwise self-excusing effrontery. We want a peaceful transition in as much as peace can be maintained when practiced as a by-word. We do not want anarchy— but systematic and controlled alterations in accordance with the dictates of the Peoples Consciousness by way of the ReferendumC that is a legally-binding act controlled by the people and not businesses, governments nor religions through any of their machinations at the expense of the populace... or has it as its secondary, if not tertiary concern.

Initial government restructuring is sought to take place in three years or less, after the laying down of the three stepping stones and the people have become used to the new social architecture which provides them with an extended and expansive view beyond their current horizons. Such will be the breath-taking dawn. As the day moves forward the warmth of the new day will enable them to better embrace changes which will over-ride any and all current political practices as are needed. Further into this day with be the eventual dusk of the old ways that will be relegated to the dust bins of history and placed into the museums of antiquity.

The people are cognizant of the fact that although what we ask for is tantamount to a revolution in social self-governing practices on a scale never before attempted, much-less proposed, we do not seek a terror-based Revolution that provokes the populace into unrestrained acts of violence or destruction. But make no mistake. We will have our Cenocracy and our Cenocracy is a Revolution to be exercised on many intellectual fronts. It consists of three formidable forces assembling for the march. These forces are the heart, mind and soul of humanity's collective consciousness.

Such forces exhibit the inherited endowment of a courage, wisdom, and enduring inner voice that, when it has begun to speak' will be a tongue never again silenced by the historical vagaries of the old social orders fashioned by a new knowledge that clamor for obedience to distorted perceptions of reality which perpetrate illusions and delusions into a mythologically proportioned patriotic concordance in order to insure a subjugated and docile public that would otherwise require wresting control of the populace by way of many forms of both salient and subtle manipulation. Yet, it is not our intent nor desire to hinder nor harangue current social processes that, by way of a socialized habitual deference to an established mythos which is adroitly commensurate with a brandished institutionalism; unconsciously assist in perpetuating a largely ineptly stagnating social order which emaciates the populace with a cyclicity of economic concerns that suppresses the larger, unsuspecting populace into the naive acceptance of what amounts to is a present day-styled serfdom.

Let us assert, again, with a clarity that can not be mistaken for equivocation or subterfuge: We prefer a non-violent, legislated approach to our declarative end for a greater level of independence..., but we will have our Cenocracy, with or without such a measure... with it's true cost and benefits to be weighed by future historians and the generations of peoples yet to come; who deserve and want something better, much better.

And thus, so begins our present day journey on the trail of a Cenocracy:

The Cenocratic Declaration for a Greater level of Independence gets a measure of its impetus from the declarative statements used by the forefathers of America's 18th century Declaration for Independence from a fallacious sovereign rule. It was used in effecting the reasons for establishing a (monarchial) sovereign-free self-representative government in the early (so to speak, infantile) stages of America's struggle for personal, self-identity development. The adoption of a Cenocratic governing structure is part of humanity's maturation beyond the present adolescent-infantilism.

We the people must rid the world not only of such structures which invite the production of incongruous policies, but also congruent policies that current governing structures make it possible for the administration thereof; to be left in-charge with those whose inherent predispositions or to-be-developed inclination is to undermine such policies (often with loop-holed legalities) to further personal gain. No less, we must also be diligent in our perceptions to replace or discard those governing structures which attract those who are required, due to the ambiance of the environment created by such structures; to maintain a coterie of parasitic alliances by attaching themselves to a myopic perspective they want all others to share in by way of perpetuating illusions that have no counter-part in actual reality...

In short, they want us to believe in the reality which they legislate because the only way in which they can see the world is through a very narrow aperture and want us to peer into the same tube filled with a kaleidoscopic array of colored rules, regulations, laws, statutes and the like; that we are supposed to defined as artistic talent, giftedness or genius, but is actually a perception of the world and humanity with an unknowing focused intent on building a castle right before the on-rush of a tide.

newearth (16K)

When in the Course of Global Human events, it becomes necessary for citizens to restore the political bonds which have disconnected them from one 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 entitles them, a decent respect for the opinions of all citizens requires that we should declare the causes which impel us to seek restoration of those lost guarantees which provide for true Self-Representation and not be constrained to accept present day vicarious, by proxy, or surrogate (financial or property-based elected) representation as the one and only preeminent process by which laws should be developed and enforced for the good of all.

Though laws in and of themselves are inherently predisposed to limitations, since humans are not omniscient, such an acknowledgment does not imbue us to readily accept and conform to the impositions of selected officials (or their chosen deputies) without question and without our own self-administered convictions; simply because they believe themselves to be superior to the populace at large based on definitions derived from adulterated interpretations of what being "the chosen one" actually means. Such a form of administration presupposes an interpretation that they've been seduced by an exaggerated sense of self importance and over-valued abilities that a voracious ego greedily consumes with small heed to overall cost outside the purview of their physical senses or life-long accustomed-to sensibilities.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that every citizen should have an equal opportunity to aspire to the utmost realization of their abilities constrained by decency, morality, and truth, and that we are endowed by our Creator (however so defined), with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are three notable humanity-endowed visages by which Self-Representation in the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness in every respect of social Self-Governance can be the better assured:

  1. The people have the right to their own collective National Government Party (The Cenocratic Party).
  2. The people have the right to their own collective National vote (The Cenocratic Referendum).
  3. The people have the right to their own collective Congressional Body (Cenocratic Legislative Branch).

That to secure these rights, True Of-By-For "ALL"the People governments are instituted among citizens, deriving their just powers from the consent of the majority, and not a minority who take it (for granted) upon themselves to presume their collective singular and personal perspectives represent the totality of best intelligence, insight, experience, and wisdom of, by, and for that majority to consign themselves to... which is some speciously defined middle-of-the-road conjunction without its edges being demarcated physically, emotionally, and intellectually by the people themselves; instead of the many illusions they are encouraged, expected, and enforced to adopt.

...That whenever any form of social order denies, falsifies, or becomes destructive of any or all of these prescribed ends, the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it must be effected, entitled and enforced, in order to institute a New Government: A Cenocracy; laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to what All The People shall seem most likely to better effect our collective agreement of what constitutes the best form of Self-Representative Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

The Right of the people to alter or abolish, in toto, their present government denies the right of the present government or any member thereof to use military or police forces in an attempt to subjugate the public in denial of their right. Any use thereof is an act of treason and gives credence to the people for affecting a civil war against those who would commit such a treasonous act. If the people call for a Cenocracy, then one will be permitted to ensue. All military and law enforcement personnel must stand down when called upon to do so by the public and not interfere with their right to alter or abolish their government to pursue a better form of social self-governance as a right to effect political self-determination.

It is therefore necessary that the people interject into the minds of law enforcement and the military that their role is to first and foremost govern according to the will of the people, and to stand down, with a full individually obligated conscience, if so directed, by one or more in the protested government, to otherwise intervene on their behalf against the people seeking the reformation of Democracy with a Cenocratic architecture. Indeed, if on behalf of the people a person should stand down from effecting an intervention against them; they, nor any member of their immediate family, extended family, relatives, friends, colleagues, neighbors or acquaintances in no way, shape or form... should be subjected to retributions from either their fellows-in-arms or the governing body of their consigned behavior... and neither be constrained from participating with the people in their protest against the parent or subsidiary organization.

Military and police personnel can not be held accountable for disregarding the request or order of one or more superiors if such a request violates the principle of the people having a right, as they collectively see fit to effect, if necessary, a conclusionary three-step process:

  1. Abjure (through the peoples' acknowledgment proceedings) their existing government, an agency, or basic structure thereof.

  2. Alter (through the peoples' adjudication proceedings) their existing government, an agency, or basic structure thereof.

  3. Abolish (through the peoples' adjournment proceedings) their existing government, an agency, or basic structure thereof.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has shown, that humans are more often forced to suffer, though no evil should be sufferable, than to right themselves by amending or abolishing the traditional form of government to which we are publicly taught to pledge allegiance and bid other forms of obeisance to. However, such respect and considerations find it just as conscionable to reject, forsake or nullify a part or whole of any government practice based merely, but not necessarily solely on the notion of tradition when such reverence is found to be wanting though its culture of usage obstinately and wrongly pretenses its existence as an inviolable form of "the lesser evil" perfection endowed by a universal supreme being upon a chosen few who think they know best for all concerned.

Such a pretense is an obvious short-sightedness that in ages hence, the people of today who seek a more fuller expression of social self-governance may very well be viewed as having a form of hyper-vigilance and hyper-consciousness in contrast to the lack of stark common sense exhibited by those who cannot recognize that the presently played out Communisms, Democracies, Socialisms, and other social governing paradigms of old; must come to an end by way of adapting to the needs of an evolving civilization so that humanity can more fully aspire to its greatest potentials. Cenocracy is the presentient strategy to which must be put into practice in order to supplant all the many present day idiocracies.

In so doing, we must transform the government practice of adopting the standard convention of developing mandated traditions, because these same traditions very often usurp the government’s role though they illustrate themselves as being that which is to be most valued... at least by those in a position to take advantage thereof. Such political devices are then presumed as cultural monuments based on some superficial primacy of tradition. But such traditions disregard the very tenuous nature of political, religious and business-designed and designated monuments, for they are typically made from the most expedient and cheapest of materials with a proportionately fabricated egotism. Because of this, they can be toppled either by slow degradation from within as is presently occurring, or in a moment’s overzealousness of seeking freedom from a perceived constraint.. either of which can displace the government’s feigned integrity into an honest portraiture of its disingenuousness.

Such is our cause that when a long history of abuses and public disregard, pursuing invariably the same non-egalitarian and non-altruistic (self-defeating) objectives evinces a design to reduce the citizenry under a trinitarian form of collective absolute Legislative-Judicial-Executive despotism; it is our fundamental right, it is our moral obligation, it is our deeply earnest duty to intellectually, emotionally, morally, patriotically, "spiritually" (meant as "esprit"), and economically oppose, alter, or reject (with lethal force if necessary) any and all such Democratic, Oligarchic, Totalitarianist, Marxist, Socialist, Fascist, Communist, Monarchist, Socio-Religious, Corporate, Militant or other social control— in order to provide new methods of Self-Representative social self-governance for our future well-being.

Present governing structures such as in America, are based on an elitism by which a select few are given privileges that the remaining larger whole of the public are denied, and yet are force, by way of increasing taxation, to provide for wages and benefits that most citizens do not have; and argue that their self-imported increases in wages and benefits are justifiable because they are commensurate with similar positions and/or duties to be found in the 'publicly-private' sector.

Privileges of wage and/or benefits afforded to those in government (or business, or religious) positions by their "humbled" entireties for such help to conceal an underlying insatiable voraciousness (greed) they wish to exclude from being effected by the larger membership of the overall public; which constitutes a state of privilege for a few and the remainder are thus assigned to a modernized form of serfdom... a "serve-dom" (serve them)... that is exploited by various patriotic or religious themes or slogans and the public is thus viewed as a type of prisoner serving out a penitent sentence under the adage: "They deserve what they get if they're dumb enough to be manipulated to serve."

However, when a widespread concerted consciousness does take hold of a larger public, (where they feel they are being used to benefit others and not receiving any just reward themselves), it is very often expressed with more-of-the same "dumbness" by becoming a many-tentacled anarchic mob monstrosity that is unorganized without a singular direction of purpose to effect positive changes other than the presumed changes wrought by destructiveness. They march down streets, occupy this or that, make assorted demands both good and those that have little to do with the underlying and overall governing processes for the whole of the public (many gripes are for local governing circumstances and should not be included along with those having a national governing orientation)... and then retreat to their homes in abject dejection when they look about and see the larger public is still trying to figure out what they are proposing in a manner that the public can be of assistance. The public doesn't want to engage in a protest which embodies a lynch-mob mentality where common-sense, respect for others and morality are actually or appear to be effaced. The use of force and destruction of the governing infrastructure is a last resort measure. Anybody can be destructive. The public wants to be constructive because the destruction of an infrastructure is very costly... and the resources can be put to better usage.) The public does not want to participate in an organized representation of disorganization that doesn't even evolve or unfold into becoming better organized with a centralized purpose for effecting a change that benefits them.

If the privileges of the few are removed so that they too must live the hand-to-mouth existence of most people, they resort to individually-fashioned forms of behavior that is ever-so reminiscent of the tyrannies committed on past publics by those who sought a means to control others for their selfish interests, and yet not be subject to being controlled themselves. This is the state of affairs today being promoted throughout the world in different ways with different names... or the same name practiced according to the dictates of a given social environment. In effect, social governing policies are the role model by which the public is encouraged and rewarded to exhibit. In classrooms, in both small and large businesses, in homes and both business and religious meeting halls, we find non-communistic, non-democratic and non-socialistic practices of governance. We find variations of dictatorships, of monarchies, and other antiquated governance formulas being played out, because the leaderships are exhibiting the behavioral-mentality of their social governing role modelers. If you take away the self-designed privileges of those in business, government, and religion, you would see some of the most primitively vicious animals in existence... who should not be caged, but viewed as rabid and put our of our misery.

All present day forms of By-proxy Representation are an outrage to the enlightened consciousness of citizens who realize their self-sovereignty is persistently violated by those committing assaults on the most fundamentally basic, culturally-specific, and ultra-progressive developmental rights in the caballed halls and chambers of myopically regressive Legislative, Judicial, and Executive-defined denouement that is laughably called the administered will Of, By and For the people. If such is permitted to continue, a monolithic environment of false Communism, Democracy, Socialism (or other social order) shall continue to prevail and a third-world climate will be pervasively imminent to the detriment of all humanity with its linguistic, emotional, intellectual, physical, and ethical traumas of regressive behavior attendant with a pervasive crisis of identity which seeks solace and refuge in over-indulgent kaleidoscopically morphed forms of feminine or masculine characterizations similar to a primitive's attachments to naturalistic anthropomorphisms.

The history of social rule as practiced by both past and present day social orders such as Communist, Corporatist, Democratic, Dictatorial, Fascist, Monarchist, Religist, Socialist, etc..., with variably administered underlying forms of capitalistic greed, particularly for a select few; is a history of repeated injuries, insults, and indignations, all having in direct object the establishment and perpetuation of an absolute Corporate, Religious or Governmental slave-like manipulative control over the citizenry. They are disgusting variations of the same theme that produce different forms of misery century after century for humanity. They and those who support such marginalizing regimes of poorly practiced Democracy (and other social orders) must be vanquished from their ability to bring harm on humanity ever again. They are a disgrace to the most necessitous form of actual self-rule.

In all nations, the single most important party of political confluence must be that which establishes, maintains, and develops the citizens as rulers unto themselves for the true betterment of human society everywhere and not By-proxy surrogate rulers who are more interested in perpetuating a form of social control which upholds their personal survival and beliefs at the expense of a true ruling public. The future will rightly derisively ridicule the common practice of today's legislative bodies that hold closed-to-the-public hearings, discussions, and pre-legalized voting measures that will ultimately affect the lives of the very public they are supposed to SERVE honestly and openly. It is of little wonder why so many publics hold their dysfunctional governments in monumental contempt due to a lack of trust for the many atrocities perpetrated on them in the name of so-called Constitutionally-framed justice, fraternity, and freedom; which may collectively be denoted as liberty.

Such has been the patient sufferance of Earth's citizens; and such is now the necessity which constrains us to alter our former Systems of Government, however they may be defined. In all the world’s presently named countries can be found various levels of profoundly phoney Communisms, Democracies, Socialisms and other social orders being practiced. They are "profoundly phoney" based on the interpretation that they are variations of the ideal state each of these perspectives stress; such as the dictum "Of- By- and For the people" espoused by the American form of Democracy which is actually a governing process based on a Plutocracy (a political system governed by the wealthy people). Each of these governing processes should rightly be identified and labeled as generalities which can be improved upon instead of promoted and taught to the populace in illusory form.

In all the world's countries, including the other struggles for Independence not yet recognized as a Sovereign State; can be found watered-down versions of Self-Rule and should be publicly recognized as a Demockery when compared to a clear and honest definition of what it means for a free and sovereign people to rule themselves as they collectively deem best. We The People therefore begin anew our struggle to adopt a New Government: A Cenocracy.

The U.S. Declaration was not an original document in the sense of displaying information that had not been considered elsewhere before. For example, Some of the reasons for declaring independence were the same reasons used in the 1628 (English) Petition of Right that was presented to Charles I by Parliament that was initially accepted but then later on rejected (and he was later executed):

  • No taxation without Parliamentary consent.
  • No imprisonment of subjects without due legal cause.
  • No billeting of soldiers in private houses without payment.
  • No declaring of martial law in peacetime.

It's astonishing to think that the Americans would have to, in their own 1776 manifesto, voice similar complaints from the English Parliament! You would think that their own experiences in the previous century would have made them a little more wise and prudent... yet most of them may have been forced to agree with the stubborn (and Mad) king in their day.

And yet, the American government is now doing the same thing to the American people; forcing them to voice a manifesto by declaring the desire for an even greater level of independence! Governments don't seem to learn from history. The people don't want to be taxed without its consent by way of a Referendum. And as for imprisonment, the people are imprisoned by the costs of warehousing prisoners, many of whom will do little more than recidivise if let go. Such topics need to be addressed by way of a National (Cenocratic) Referendum. And who knows, this century is still young... perhaps the last two items are yet to come as yet more fuel to add to the growing flame of smoldering thoughts towards a Revolution.

Whereas the forefathers (and mothers) of America wanted:

No Taxation Without Representation

The people of the present want:
No Taxation Without Referendum

~ No Taxation Without "Referendumation" ~

Unfortunately, the present Congress of the U.S. might well be just as stubborn and stupid as the English Parliament was and thus requires the full measure of a CENOCRATIC REVOLUTION!

A Note:

Note: The expression W e the people is a proclamation that is used not as a derived consensus by way of a populace wide Referendum. And though it is not historically stated, this is the same case with its usage in the earlier U.S. Declaration of Independence document. It is an expression incorporated into the Document by Thomas Jefferson and ratified as an acceptable expression by the members of the to be U.S. Congress. While there may have been wide support for the overall pronouncement of the Document's contents after they were written, at no time was there a public-wide Referendum. The We the people phrase in the present context is used as a parody, in terms of an imitation, of the earlier document since many of the incorporated ideas, at least on a basic level and contoured to present circumstances; can be used in the present context to assert a desire and need for the establishment of a Greater Independence through a declaration thereof. A full disclosure of usage, intent and origin thus disingenuates any claims for plagiarism.[return]

B Note:

  1. The first stepping stone is an organization to insure the practice of the Cenocratic process and is not a candidate selection nor endorsement committee. Candidates seeking to be endorsed by the Cenocratic political party are admitting they are out of touch with the populace because they do not understand the needs of the public with respect to a Cenocracy. Such candidates are only trying to use this stepping stone as their personal stepping stool upon which to fulfill self-serving goals. A full disclosure of usage, intent and origin thus disingenuates any claims for plagiarism.[return]

    B Note:

    1. The first stepping stone is an organization to insure the practice of the Cenocratic process and is not a candidate selection nor endorsement committee. Candidates seeking to be endorsed by the Cenocratic political party are admitting they are out of touch with the populace because they do not understand the needs of the public with respect to a Cenocracy. Such candidates are only trying to use this stepping stone as their personal stepping stool upon which they will come to proclaim their right to be independent from the people except when it comes to the candidate's self-supporting personal interests.

    2. The second stepping stone is a Referendum based on a Cenocratic process involving a Peoples Legislative Branch overseeing the Congressional mandates produced by way of the Referendum. It is a process which will face many difficult choices that must be made and accounted for as a nation. There is no margin for scape-goating. One such choice is the need to vote on a periodic examination of alternative social self-governing ideas and not wait for a protest, Revolution or social crisis to precipitate a soul-searching reflection of where we are, where we've been, and were we want to go not only as a nation, but as a species. The Cenocratic process can best take place after the amalgamation of voting rights are addressed by the third stepping stone process. For example, the 1st Peoples Legislative Branch Congress will develop the issue for the 1st Referendum which determines voter eligibility and voter/government responsibility such as:

      • Length, place and time of voting?
      • Internet voting?
      • Proxy voting?
      • Voter identification (I.D., Electronic and/or card issuance, DNA) ?
      • 100% voter registration?
      • Age-related Eligibility: based on teenaged employ ability, marriageable, or military service?
      • Refusal to vote is an automatic yes vote?
      • Refusal to vote or register to vote determines eligibility of social services?
      • Should illegals be permitted to vote?
      • Should foreigners with a legal right to be in the U.S. be able to vote?
      • Should those in jail (traffic offenses?), prison (non-violent?) or a mental institution be able to vote?
      • Should the homeless, or anyone without a stable residence be permitted to vote?
      • Absentee voting?
      • Voter registration requirements?
      • Mobile voting units for the elderly and disabled?
      • ETC.

    3. The third stepping stone is the Peoples Legislative Branch based on for example in the U.S.: 1 man, 1 woman, and 1 worker from each state will be randomly chosen from lists of self-nominated, names collected in each state, of those wanting to be considered for possible random selection in which campaigning does not afford them any greater advantage for being chosen. It replaces the solely used Representative model which is, in effect, a "Mommy and Daddy take care of me" approach. The P.L.B. is a means by which the public gets kicked out of the nest, den, and womb. The "Representative" umbilical cord must be cut so that the public learns to let go of the apron strings.[return]

    C Note:

    Critics of the Referendum (where the entire public gets to vote on an issue) might claim that there is a Referendum process already in place. However, as this so-called process is presently practiced, the public is forced to jump through hoops which amount to deliberate attempts to forestall the usage thereof. In other words, its a type of Congressional filibustering (an effort to delay or obstruct legislation or, in the case of a Referendum, obstruct the process through a means meant to fatigue the people). Clearly, the present formula is like an out-dated mentality of sports contests where the government pits itself the public by way of defining the rules-of-the game which "favor the house" as do the odds for gambling establishments.

    Critics of the Referendum also claim that it breeds a type of unrestrained "Majoritarianism" where the will of one majority, be it a religious, ethnic, gender, political, etc., would impose its will on one or more minorities and thus exclude them, in one way or another, from exercising their rights to freedom, justice, liberty, and all provisions guaranteeing equality. Clearly, a Cenocratic referendum process would ensure against this in as much as humanly possible, and provide for alterations in the process to increase (and not decrease) the standards as needs arise. However, this does not ensure the people against social groups that could and would wield forcible power against them. For example, if all the Military Commanders decided to impose its will on the public, it might well have the military means of doing this.

    Additionally, such critics of using the Referendum for determining the best functionality of a society might arguably contend that the public, as a whole, is too uneducated and experienced to vote on pertinent issues which are best left to "professionals" who have both the knowledge and experience of supplying the best results. Yet, the present process, which amounts to a "no confidence vote" on the part of the government with respect to its people; is another government-sponsored obstacle towards the public acquiring the needed knowledge and experience. Besides, with all its presumed knowledge and experience, the government often makes a mess of our lives. And as a matter of fact, the so-called required knowledge and experience needed by today's politicians has more to do with maneuvering legislation through a gauntlet-like course by those who have succeeded in turning the law-making process into a collection of childish games such as king of the hill, hide-n-seek, red rover - red rover, etc... Such nonsense needs to stop and we need to get rid of those whose pubescent egos thrive on perpetuating such a ridiculously malnourished maturity.

    Proponents of the Referendum know that while the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against the usage of Legislative Apportionment to gerrymander districting in order to produce unequal distributions of voting... from which later arose such declarations as "one man's vote should be worth as much as another's", and "one man— one vote"; such a practice as the Electoral College in the U.S. disrespects such rulings in that each person's vote does not count when a candidate can receive most votes and yet still lose... or that an assumed tie by the Electoral College is then to be decided on by the Supreme court whose small sampling of votes becomes yet another form of Electoral College by way of extension. It is a supreme hypocrisy that circumvents the higher ideals of a Democracy (Peoples Government), which defines it as a process of selectivity. Such hypocrisy is rampant in the U.S. Government.

    Proponents of the Referendum know all too well that questions posed to the public for their vote can not be worded to encourage laziness for not voting by those who simply want to keep things as they are if an absence of vote is tailored to represent a "Yes" towards acceptance. It may therefore be prudent in a "peoples government" for voting to be tied with the ability to receive social services, if the person receiving such has a means and opportunity to vote and are of course, of age. It may also be necessary to align popular ideas with the possibility of a discontinuance in order to ensure voter participation. However, in such cases, the public must be fully aware of the consequences for not voting.[return]

    Each of the three stepping stones have merit for consideration and qualification:

    1. As for the 1st stepping stone, instead of a Cenocratic "Political" Party, it may be more appropriate to originate this as the "Cenocratic Government Party" since its intended organization has nothing to do with the traditionally used formula of collectively endorsing and supporting a particular candidate within the scope of a designated political party. It is specifically for the support and endorsement of the Cenocratic governing process as a primacy of accountable existence. Individual members can support and endorse any candidate they wish. It supersedes the notion of an "Independent" party.[return]

    2. The 2nd stepping stone, ear-marked by the "Referendum" designator, advances the notion of "political self-determination" into a lawful practice of foremost intent, and not as an after-thought made possible by some routinized gauntlet-like signatory qualification. If an issue has merit to be considered for a vote as determined by the people, it has merit to be placed on a Referendum ballot.[return]

    3. The 3rd stepping stone's organizational formula is given a precedent by the usage of an impartial jury process as outlined by the U.S. Sixth Amendment despite all the political and legal maneuverings used as attempts to assist one lawyer's position over another by methods that use various scales of arguing the viability of one or another selection procedures to determine a juror's qualifications.[return]

      The selection process of the "Peoples Legislative Branch" is an extension of the "Pendleton Act" that occurred after the assassination of the U.S. President James A. Garfield (1831-1881), by a frustrated office-seeker during an era when government positions were arranged by a "spoils system" where candidates elected to office would provide jobs to those who supported them. The law established a three-person, bi-partisan panel to develop exams to hire federal employees based on merit. The PLB selection process insures that someone's "merit" is based on the standard of law with respect to citizenship. However, this might well be altered to provide for the definition of citizenship to be based on length of living in a given area (state, country, province, etc.).

    spoils pig (60K) In memoriam--our civil service as it was, a political cartoon by Thomas Nast showing a statue of Andrew Jackson on a pig, which is over "fraud," "bribery," and "spoils," eating "plunder." in Harper's Weekly, 1877 April 28, p. 325.

    In the politics of the United States, a spoils system (also known as a patronage system) is a practice where a political party, after winning an election, gives government jobs to its supporters, friends and relatives as a reward for working toward victory, and as an incentive to keep working for the party —as opposed to a merit system, where offices are awarded on the basis of some measure of merit, independent of political activity.

    The term was derived from the phrase "to the victor belong the spoils" by New York Senator William L. Marcy, referring to the victory of the Jackson Democrats in the election of 1828, with the term spoils meaning goods or benefits taken from the loser in a competition, election or military victory.

    Similar spoils systems are common in other nations that traditionally have been based on tribal organization or other kinship groups and localism in general.

    Before March 8, 1831, moderation had prevailed in the transfer of political power from one presidency to another. President Andrew Jackson's inauguration signaled a sharp departure from past presidencies. An unruly mob of office seekers made something of a shambles of the March inauguration, and though some tried to explain this as democratic enthusiasm, the real truth was Jackson supporters had been lavished with promises of positions in return for political support. These promises were honored by an astonishing number of removals after Jackson assumed power. Fully 919 officials were removed from government positions, amounting to nearly 10 percent of all government postings.

    The Jackson administration attempted to explain this unprecedented purge as reform, or constructive turnover, aimed at creating a more efficient system where the chain of command of public employees all obeyed the higher entities of government. The hardest changed organization within the federal government proved to be the post office. The post office was the largest department in the federal government, and had even more personnel than the war department. In one year 423 postmasters were deprived of their positions, most with extensive records of good service.

    Less obvious than the incompetence and/or indolence of many of its political appointees was the spoil system’s propensity for also corrupting or installing already corrupt public officials. An early and glaring example of the perfidy, that was associated with the spoils system, is the matter of Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives (1843-1845) Caleb J. McNulty’s alleged embezzlement of U.S. House funds or what then former U.S. President and sitting Whig Party (United States) U.S. Representative John Quincy Adams called a “… memorable development of Democratic defalcation (an archaic though more descriptive term for embezzlement).”

    President after president continued to use the spoils system to encourage others to vote for them.

    By the late 1860s, citizens began demanding civil service reform. Running under the Liberal Republican Party in 1872, they were soundly defeated by Ulysses S. Grant.

    After the assassination of James A. Garfield by a rejected office-seeker in 1881, the calls for civil service reform intensified. Moderation of the spoils system at the federal level came with the passage of the Pendleton Act in 1883, which created a bipartisan Civil Service Commission to evaluate job candidates on a nonpartisan merit basis. While few jobs were covered under the law initially, the law allowed the President to transfer jobs and their current holders into the system, thus giving the holder a permanent job. The Pendleton Act's reach was expanded as the two main political parties alternated control of the White House every election between 1884 and 1896. After each election the outgoing President applied the Pendleton Act to jobs held by his political supporters. By 1900, most federal jobs were handled through civil service and the spoils system was limited only to very senior positions.

    The separation between the political activity and the civil service was made stronger with the Hatch Act of 1939 which prohibited federal employees from engaging in many political activities.

    The spoils system survived much longer in many states, counties and municipalities, such as the Tammany Hall ring, which survived well into the 1930s when New York City reformed its own civil service. Illinois modernized its bureaucracy in 1917 under Frank Lowden, but Chicago held on to patronage in city government until the city agreed to end the practice in the Shakman Decrees of 1972 and 1983. Modern variations on the spoils system are often described as the political machine.

    Wikipedia: Spoils System

    Initially created: Sunday, January 5th, 2014
    Text updated: Friday, December 5, 2014 6:22:34 AM
    Posted Update: Monday, December 22, 2014