(from "Emily's Amendment", MENSA Peace Notes) ON ISOCRACY: "How to establish your own Presidency, Supreme Court jurisdiction, and equal Congressional representation directly by the First Amendment" Interpret: (1) "free exercise [of religion]" as EQUAL EXECUTIVE POWER, or the right to act on one's beliefs freely, by consent, or without fear of imposing on others or being imposed upon; (2) "the freedom of speech, or of the press" as EQUAL JUDICIAL or LEGISLATIVE power, or the right to express one's opinions in spoken or written communications or contracts, established by informed consent, not by imposing on others; (3) "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition [each other] for a redress of grievances" as EQUAL CONGRESSIONAL, LEGAL, and EXECUTIVE authority to resolve conflicts of interest by mutual consent of all governed or affected. In short: By "free exercise of religion", "freedom of speech", etc., one has the right to exercise one's freedom/free will/free speech, but cannot abuse those freedoms so as to cause a disturbance or "breach of the peace", thus abridging "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". -- (e) 1997* *[Note: All material on this page is under "educational copyright" - to be copied and distributed freely for the purpose of public education. -- Thank you, etn]
From Democracy to Isocracy:
Rethinking Government by the First Amendment
Submitted to the "Journal of Church and State", J.M. Dawson Institute for Church-State Studies, Baylor University, Waco, Texas (who asked that it be revised to meet the 25-page minimum to be considered for publication) by Emily T. Nghiêm, P.O. Box 981101, Houston, Texas 77098 vmb: (713)867-5998 NOTE: If you would like to debate these things, I'll be glad to add some pages on . . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -- Amendment I, U.S. Constitution In "Principled Separation: Liberal Governance and Religious Free Exercise", Lucas A. Swaine claims that "government should minimize its effect upon religious practice by striving not to interfere with the freedom to exercise religious practices." [footnote 1] However, the established practice of giving civil authority mandatory jurisdiction over all citizens unfairly discriminates against followers of alternative views, such as the anarchist who does not believe in institutionalized law, the patriot who believes in putting the people's authority before the state's, or supporters of isocracy or Christianity who believe in equal political power or equally fair treatment for all people regardless of nationality or standing inside or outside public office. The exercise of such personal, moral, or ethical beliefs in higher standards of autonomy or equality is severely abridged, if not prohibited, in an environment where governments no longer "deriv[e] their just power from the consent of the governed", as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence.[fn 2] Thus, if "government should assist a religious organization only when it does not excessively favor one religion or incur expense upon non-members of the organization" [footnote 3] , only members of the majority voting in favor of particular governmental officials or legislation can be held responsible for funding and following these, for to do otherwise clearly constitutes taxation without representation -- the direct result of violating "separation of church and state" by establishing the policy of a private interest group for the greater public. To address the need for a broader interpretation of the First Amendment that accommodates such alternative beliefs or viewpoints, the following may be considered. To allow for faith in anarchism, "free exercise [of religion]" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" may be interpreted to ensure respect for "free will" or "freedom" in general, provided that one does not abuse one's freedom to cause a breach, disturbance, or disruption of the peace. The well-known example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre to create a false alarm would then be equally prohibited by this interpretation, as would more direct threats or acts of violence. In the case of a conflict of interest or other infringement of personal freedom or peace, if "the people" and "the Government" are interpreted as one body, this empowers the individuals involved in a conflict to exercise their right peaceably to assemble and to petition each other directly (or one another if co-mediation is required) to redress grievances by consensual agreement or contract. Governmental officials, regarded as any other group of "people", may still exercise their personal "freedom of speech, or of the press" to form contracts for themselves and for their constituents they represent, instead of threatening the freedom and peace of others who do not feel represented by their legislative agenda. The following is also offered for those, like the author, who prefer isocratic forms of government that recognize equal political power or human rights and freedoms for all people, whether inside or outside church, state, or other social institutions. If "free exercise [of religion]" is interpreted as equal executive or judicial power to interpret and carry out one's personal policies; "freedom of speech, or of the press" as equal judicial or legislative power to verbalize, research, or document one's positions; and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition . . . for a redress of grievances" as equal congressional or executive power to congregate in peace for the purpose of mediation, decision-making, and other functions of self-governance; together, these interrelated functions redefine the three powers of government in terms of direct, equal access to the political process. Again, the balance of power lies in interpreting the right "peaceably to assemble" as including the individual's right to peace of mind and to peaceful coexistence with others, in order to use Amendment I to check itself from abuses of the rights and freedoms therein. The logic behind this interpretation is twofold: (1) If an individual is not at peace, or if there is a violent disruption of the peace, that person cannot "peaceably" assemble with others; and the right to do so is either abridged or threatened, such as by the fear of crime or violence or political oppression; and (2) This more efficient interpretation precludes the need for additional legislation or unconstitutional attempts to restrict First Amendment rights and freedoms, while also simplifying the task of mass legal education so that all members of society may participate as law-abiding citizens instead of falling victim to ignorance of the law. Just as religious codes cannot be mandated, civil laws cannot be imposed, much less enforced, if not taught in an inclusive accessible manner that preserves the freedom to follow such policies voluntarily. To those who believe that no laws may be made without, to some degree, establishing moral values, or without favoring the faith of those who believe in representative democracy as opposed to other forms of governance, it is clear that enforcing such legislative or judicial decisions against the will of affected dissenters would further violate their First Amendment rights as defined above. Examples of governmental policies unconstitutional by these standards include tax laws that do not guarantee taxpayers' choice of which institutions or policies to fund; the electoral college and jury systems that require a certain degree of faith in the human conscience; immigration laws that discriminate against those whose believe in equal rights and freedoms for all "people"; the death penalty or other sentences being imposed or denied against the beliefs of those affected by the crime or the punishment; and bills on such issues as abortion and same-sex marriage that favor one moral view over another. One solution may be to define citizenship requirements based on the First Amendment, so that individuals may claim their Constitutional rights and freedoms by agreeing to respect the same for all people equally and, in case of conflict, to form consensual policies or contracts through mediation techniques that preserve the freedom of speech and the right to petition. Civil governance depends on public legal education, whether through church, state, media, non-profit, or business entities, so that all people, fully informed of their rights and freedoms, may participate equally in the democratic process, through the institutions of their choice, to draft social contracts directly by consensus, to balance individual freedom with global peace and security, and to achieve lasting justice. [footnote 1] Lucas A. Swaine, "Principled Separation: Liberal Governance and Religious Free Exercise", "Journal of Church and State", Vol. 38, No. 3, (Summer 1996): 600. [footnote 2] Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence. [footnote 3] Lucas A. Swaine, "Liberal Governance and Religious Free Exercise", 600."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." -- Amendment I
CIVIL RAP
(The Bill of Rights, set to the tune of "Tom's Diner" originally by Suzanne Vega and later re-mixed by D.N.A. WAV files courtesy of Suzanne Vega/Tom's Album homepage, who wins the Free Speech award for the most creative solution to a First Amendment issue) CHORUS I (twice): Congress shall not, Congress shall not, Congress shall not make a law. Congress shall not, Congress shall not, Congress shall not make a law. VERSE I [SOUND CLIP] (600K wav): Congress shall not make a law That would establish a religion, Or disrupt the peaceful exercise Of your religious freedom; Or abridge the right to free speech, Or the freedom of the press; Or stop the people from assembling To petition for redress. REPEAT CHORUS I (twice): Congress shall not, Congress shall not, Congress shall not make a law. Congress shall not, Congress shall not, Congress shall not make a law. VERSE II [SOUND CLIP] (600K wav): The Bill of Rights Would not suffice Without the next amendment, Which protects the right to bear arms From the government's infringement, To counteract the forces That defend our country's freedom. (If you'll learn your rights ahead of time, The cops won't have to read 'em!) REPEAT CHORUS I (twice): Congress shall not, Congress shall not, Congress shall not make a law. Congress shall not, Congress shall not, Congress shall not make a law. VERSES III and IV [SOUND CLIP] (600K wav): No soldier shall be quartered In a time of war or peace Without consent of the homeowner Or the holder of the lease. What's more, the right to safety In our persons, houses, and effects Shall not be breached without a warrant By police or by the feds. CHORUS II [SOUND CLIP] (600K wav): Congress shall not, Congress shall not, Congress shall not make a law. Doot doot DO doot, doot de DO doot, Doot doot DO doot DOOT de DO doot. Congress shall not, Congress shall not, Congress shall not make a law. Doot doot DO doot, doot de DO doot, Doot doot DO doot DOOT de DO -- VERSES V -- VI [SOUND CLIP] (600K wav): No one shall be deprived of rights Without due process of the laws, Compelled to self-incriminate, Tried more than once for the same cause, Or be deprived of private property Without just compensation, Or denied a public trial with help To face the accusation. VERSES VII -- VIII: The right to trial by jury Is preserved in suits at hand Involving more than twenty dollars . . . . . . No fact being re-examined . . . . . . [SLOW PART 600K sound clip] . . . Except by common law Or in accordance with the rules. No bails or fines shall be extreme, No punishment unfairly cruel. CHORUS III [SOUND CLIP] (600K wav): Doot doot DO doot, doot de DO doot, Doot doot DO doot DOOT de DO doot. Doot doot DO doot, doot de DO doot, Doot doot DO doot DOOT de DO doot. Dat dat DA dat DA dat DAT da Dat dat DA dat DA dat DA, Dat dat DA dat, dat dat DA dat dat Dat DA dat DAT dat DA. VERSES IX and X [SOUND CLIP] (600K wav): No rights shall be disparaged By the laws' enumeration, Nor the power retained by states Or by the people of the nation, Such as the right to happiness, To life, and liberty To practice equal voice in government And true democracy. REPEAT VERSE I [SOUND CLIP] (600K wav): Congress shall not make a law That would establish a religion, Or disrupt the peaceful exercise Of your religious freedom; Or abridge the right to free speech, Or the freedom of the press; Or stop the people from assembling To petition for redress. REPEAT CHORUS (to fade) [SOUND CLIP] (600K wav): Congress shall not, Congress shall not, Congress shall not make a law. Doot doot DO doot, doot de DO doot, Doot doot DO doot DOOT de DO doot. Congress shall not, Congress shall not, Congress shall not make a law. Doot doot DO doot, doot de DO doot, Doot doot DO doot DOOT de DO doot. The U.S. Congress shall make no laws . . . =================================== (e)* 1999, Emily Nghiem Houston Progressive Webzine http://www.houstonprogressive.org =================================== All rights reserved. All wrongs reversed. =================================== VERY SPECIAL THANKS to Suzanne Vega and Tom's Album Homepage! *Note: All material on this webzine is under "educational copyright" - to be copied and distributed freely for the purpose of educational fair use. (For serious educational outreach, see Corpus Justice, Inc. -- Thank you!) All midi files were removed from this site due to copyright laws that prohibit performance to other than immediate friends or family. Therefore, please send your adoption papers to the address below so we can be perfectly legal: -- Emily T. Nghiêm (You may call me Auntie Em) isocracy@juno.com P.O. Box 981101 Houston, TX 77098 (713)867-5998 I know that parodies are supposed to protected by a recent Supreme Court ruling, but I believe the issue is whether the adaptation is made for financial profit, not whether it is a parody or a copy. I believe in following Suzanne Vega's example of collaborating so that there is an express agreement between artists how to handle their joint work. Until I can contact Cole Porter, Andrew Lloyd Webber, and other great composers whose work I have incorporated into my own, please do not copy or play any midi or wav files that you feel will put either you or me at legal risk. On the other hand, you are free to copy any lyrics I have written, even the entire Juliet & Romeo opera and the Recycled Songs for the Redwoods, onto your own computer and put together a personal concert for you and your immediate family and friends, which is perfectly legal. Please also include a few 2,000 year-old redwoods and endangered species in your circle of friends, as the songbook was written for them. I would like any profits made from these to benefit Headwaters Forest preservation and stewardship program at http://www.headwatersforest.org., while my other political parodies to be used to further those charitable causes they address. Unlike some artists, I consider my work to be public domain. The words I have written came from the same divine inspiration as the original music, so I feel it is only fair to share with others the gifts God has lent me to use. My writings are as personal as prayer, and I don't mind sharing these with others who feel the same calling. I believe that the original songs and the new lyrics are equally inspired by God. There is no simpler way to explain why the words are so closely matched to music created "separately" only in time. I believe these words I share on the Internet are meant to move people toward greater compassion and appreciation for one another's gifts and sacrifices, to go beyond what is given and to reach out for even greater things to come. If you have any suggestions for contacting sympathetic people at the various music companies that own the rights to music and lyrics files in question on the Internet, please contact me. And don't forget to include your adoption papers -- we're family, remember? Stay out of trouble, now. Love, Emily Personal email: isocracy@juno.com voice mail: 713/867-5998 Join the campaign to access free music on the Internet!
===================================== MEDIATE, DON'T LITIGATE! Support Arts Mediation Training through Texas Accountants and Lawyers for the Arts: (713)526-TALA 1-800-526-TALA EDUCATE TO LIBERATE: Reduce Violence Inside and Outside Prisons through the Texas Alternatives to Violence Project: (713)747-9999 avpusa@aol.com NO MORE VICTIMS* (NOT EVEN OURSELVES): Support Families Recovering from Addiction to Drugs, Prostitution, Incarceration, and Crime: (713)659-6922 *Member of Listen to the Cries of the Children. HOMES NOT JAILS, FOOD NOT BOMBS: For Training Manuals on Conflict Resolution and Consensus-Building, contact FNB Publishing: 1-800-569-4054 HEAL RACISM, RESOLVE CONFLICT: Click here for more Mediation Links, including the Center for the Healing of Racism, and Corpus Justice.* * See also: Pedro Oregon coalition. For information on forming a citizens' complaint and mediation board call: 1-281-405-8998
[Back to Houston Progressive Webzine][Political Song Index]
[Democracy Denied][Proportional Representation][U.S. Constitution]