As the basis for governments and forms of social organization that are deemed to be most in accord with principles of natural law, the following precepts have been established.
That the process of evolution has endowed humans with tendencies and capacities that are generally conducive to their survivability, and those forms of social organization (societies) that are based on rules and principles that are most consistent with human nature will tend to be most stable, robust and conducive to human survivability over the longer term.
That a set of primary rules or first principles for organizing and governing human societies, or a rationally constituted system of natural law, can be extrapolated from the more accurate and complete understanding of human nature that has been coming into view as a result of advances in the behavioral sciences.
Because a rationally constituted system of natural law is based upon the careful consideration of the capacities and tendencies that have proven conducive to human survival over the course of human evolution, and which are present in human nature, it will also prove to be the system that is most conducive to human survivability over the longer term, all sentiments and beliefs to the contrary notwithstanding.
Because individuals sometimes hold sentiments and beliefs that are based on what they want most for themselves over the shorter term, rather than on considerations of what would most likely benefit either their society, or the species, over the longer term, such sentiments and beliefs can be opposed to natural law.
That any sentiments, beliefs, freedoms,
rights, etc. which individuals might claim for themselves based upon shorter
term considerations of their
immediate interests, or on what they want most for themselves over the shorter term, and which might be opposed to natural law, should not be presumed to have protection under a form of social organization or government that is based upon natural law.
That when a form of social organization or government does not rest firmly on natural law foundations, or when it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and human interests, it must eventually become unstable, and must eventually pose a danger to all who must live under it.
That as the ends of all just laws and forms of government are the welfare and survival of a people, when a people find themselves living under a form of government that has become destructive of these ends, it becomes both their right and their obligation to abolish it, and to reconstitute it in a way that will serve these ends.
That in order to better insure peace, progress and stability, and in order to maximize their survivability over the longer term, it has become both the right and the obligation of the people to establish new governments based upon principles of natural law.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SXS PART II
PROVISIONS, RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES BASED ON NATURAL LAW
ARTICLE 1: PROVISIONS, RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO SURVIVAL
The desire to survive is the strongest and the most important human tendency. No other values can have any meaning if we are not able to survive. From this first and most important human tendency, we can extrapolate the value that maximizing the survivability of the species must be the highest value, and the value to which all other values are subordinate.
Furthermore, if men pose no threat to the public good, if they have demonstrated a willingness to work but cannot find work; they should not be denied the right to survive, or they should not have this right threatened, merely because of transient economic conditions over which they have no control. Accordingly, the right to a subsistence wage shall be guaranteed.
In return for the grant of a subsistence wage, the state is entitled to certain assurances from those who have come to depend on it for their very survival. First, all recipients of public aid who are able bodied and of sound mind shall be required to undergo a regimen of self-improvement. This regimen shall consist of mandatory physical conditioning, in those individual cases where it is deemed necessary; or, alternatively, it shall consist of basic skills training, where it is deemed necessary. If the recipients of public aid in the form of a subsistence wage are able to meet both the minimal physical and basic skills standards, they will be referred to a military recruiter, they will be entered into a jobs training corps, or they will be assigned to a public works program, depending upon public needs at the time.
NOTES TO ARTICLE 1
Among the most important rights which seem to immediately spring from the nature of man is the right of survival, or having the means by which to procure one's survival. In the broadest sense, freedom means being able to engage in activities that one chooses and to behave as one likes, without restraints. This also includes the freedom to engage in those activities necessary to secure the necessities of life, which encompasses the full range of man's economic activities. Most importantly, it includes the right to secure a living wage through one's efforts. Implicit in this freedom would seem to be "the right to have a job" as a means of obtaining a living wage. And, when social circumstances have changed so much that the average person becomes separated from the means of production (or separated from the means by which they might naturally obtain subsistence through farming, fishing, hunting, industry etc.) then it would seem that the state incurs a certain responsibility to provide them with some minimal degree of economic security, as well as to provide them with the training and skills they will need to become members of the workforce. And, when jobs are scarce, it would also seem that the state has a responsibility to foster the economic conditions that are necessary to maintain a "relatively" high level of employment.
Additionally, under conditions where the jobs produced by the economy falls significantly short of the number of people who are seeking employment, the state would seem to incur some obligation to either stimulate economic growth or to "artificially employ and absorb" the surplus workforce, insofar as it can accomplish this without posing an unacceptable burden on those who must finance the state (i.e. the taxpayers), and insofar as it can employ people in a manner that is consistent with the general welfare.
At the same time as it extends the right
of subsistence to individuals in need, the state is entitled to some reasonable
assurance that the resources it devotes to this purpose will not be squandered,
and that the recipients will use this aid in a way that will make it more
likely for them to become contributing members of society in the future.
ARTICLE 2: PROVISIONS, RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO SEX AND REPRODUCTION
Beyond the desire to survive, or beyond the drive to procure the basic necessities of life, man's second most important drive is the desire to have heterosexual sex, not for the purpose of reproduction, but for the pleasure of the sexual experience itself. From this basic and most representative human tendency, we can extrapolate the principle that man is naturally heterosexual (if not homophobic), and that laws affecting the relationship of men and women (such as the institution of marriage) should be designed to favor monogamous heterosexual relationships. Accordingly, the state is obligated to give its exclusive support to the institution of marriage as it has been traditionally defined, or exclusively in terms of a relationship between a man and a woman.
Sexual Freedoms in General
We are all bound by duty to serve the best interest of the species, or to act in such a way that it will result in the greatest benefit for the species. This duty extends to the exercise of our sexual freedoms as well. If what is done in private does not tend to further the welfare of the species, such behavior cannot be sanctioned by the state, even though it may have the consent of all the parties involved. If individuals wish to live in a society and receive its benefits, they must defer to its normative prohibitions. If they are unwilling to do this, they must seek to live elsewhere, where no such prohibitions exist. They must leave and create a state of their own, where their perversions are permitted, and where they can enjoy the protection of "their" state. The whole purpose of a community and a nation state is to define a regime based upon certain values.
The forms of human sexual perversion are many and varied, and the state should never find itself in the position of attempting to give legitimacy or lend respectability to any one of them. Similarly, the state should never place itself in the position of attempting to mandate that others in society should respect a class of individuals; that those who belong to this class should be regarded or treated as equals; or that others in society should harbor no resentment towards members of this class. Every individual is not entitled to such natural rights, simply because they are individuals.
The state, by way of its power to officially recognize and designate a category for protection, should only lend its support to those forms of sexuality that are manifestly beneficial to the community. The state should not sanction homosexuality, or any other form of sexual perversion, by attempting to give it legal parity with heterosexuality, or by officially designating it as a protected category, merely by virtue of the fact that it represents a consensual sexual behavior in which people may engage in the privacy of their own lives. For, in the privacy of their own lives, people can give their consent to any number of behaviors that will have destructive consequences for society. Accordingly, the state shall not sanction, recognize or extend its official protection to the practitioners of any forms of sexual perversion.
Reproductive Rights and Responsibilities
Under Natural Law
As the reproductive drive is among the strongest natural drives, it provides the basis for a distinct category of rights and responsibilities under natural law. It is the state's responsibility to insure that this drive is functionally channeled, or channeled in a way that is consistent with the community's welfare, and which is designed to meet important societal goals. Towards this end, the state may proscribe the proper bounds of sexual behavior, and it may prohibit any kind of sexual behavior that is inconsistent with the broader aims of the community, and with the interest of the species. And, it may banish those who demonstrate a propensity for such behavior. Properly, it is the responsibility of individuals to regulate their own sexual behavior in a manner that is consistent with the interests of the community, and the species. But, failing this, it becomes the obligation and the right of the state to institute a system of incentives and penalties designed to encourage people to channel their reproductive drives in ways that will conduce to the welfare of the community and the species.
The Definition of Marriage
Across cultures and throughout human history, the institution of marriage has involved the union of a male and a female. There are no accepted historical precedents for a "marriage" between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Such relationships have no meaning in the context of marriage. The very concept of homosexuality is contrary to marriage. Homosexual marriages, civil unions or some legal equivalent, have no place in a society that has been organized according to principles of natural law. They merely represent attempts by homosexuals to either receive some official recognition from the state, or to extract some special privilege from the state based solely on the fact that they are homosexuals. One's sexual orientation is not a relevant category for consideration as the basis for some "special" laws or privileges. homosexuals want special considerations for the fact that they are homosexuals. And, to these, they are not entitled.
The laws of a nation should not be designed to give safe harbor to every whim, behavior, or form of deviance, merely because some regard it as harmless to the general welfare. Marriage shall not be defined in any other way than as a union between a man and a woman, and the practice of marriage between homosexuals shall be prohibited. Accordingly, marriage shall be defined exclusively as a relationship between a man and a woman, and no legal equivalent to marriage shall be allowed.
The emergent consensus of long standing on the abortion issue suggests that the best policy should not involve a total ban on all abortions, and should take account of a number of extenuating circumstances. For instance, the state has an interest in protecting the life of the mother as well as that of the unborn child. But, in those cases where both are at stake, the life of the mother takes precedence in most cases (unless the mother's condition is already terminal or likely to become terminal as a result of her pregnancy, or other cause.) This determination is best left to professionals in the medical field. In cases of pregnancies resulting from illicit unions, such as rape or incest, the state has an overriding interest in protecting the mother, and the mother's decision to terminate a pregnancy resulting from an illicit union should have precedence. In the case of a fetal abnormality, the state has an interest in preventing the birth of the child, so that it will not become a charge to the state. Thus, there is a narrow set of conditions under which abortion should be allowed. Specifically, abortion should be allowed in cases of rape, incest, endangerment to the mother, detection of fetal abnormality, and in cases in which the mother is 18 or younger, on grounds of higher risk pregnancy associated with this group. Abortion should be prohibited as a mere convenience.
As for the case of Roe V. Wade, the issue was originally set forth on the basis of the right of privacy, or on the basis of a penumbral right. The existence of this right is dubious at best. And, given that the state does have a compelling interest in protecting the life of the mother, and given that this right takes precedence over the life of the unborn in a situation in which the two are at odds, the former must prevail. On similar grounds, the state has a compelling interest in preventing the birth of offspring which have been conceived by illegal means such as rape or incest. And, the state has a further compelling interest in preventing the offspring from becoming a burden to society, so it has an interest in preventing fetal abnormality. Thus, once again, we arrive at the logical constitutional formula for dealing with the abortion issue. Abortion shall not be prohibited in cases of rape, incest, endangerment to the mother, or in cases in which substantive fetal abnormalities have been detected.
In its current form, an unconditional grant of the right of abortion does little more than sanction, and reduce the natural penalties associated with, individual irresponsibility. It sends a permissive message to younger members of society when it needs to be designed to send them a stern warning, and when it should lead them to fear the consequences of their own irresponsibility. It is not the purpose of laws to safeguard individuals from the consequences of their own irresponsibility, but to encourage them to behave more responsibly, even if some level of fear is required to achieve this effect. A constitutional provision specifically addressing the abortion issue has been designed for this purpose.
The potential benefits of cloning are obvious. Cloning will allow us to duplicate our best representatives, and it will allow our best representatives to become a larger proportion of the total population than they would be naturally. The potential danger of cloning is equally obvious. In the wrong hands, or in the absence of stringent regulations, cloning would allow some of our worst representatives to duplicate themselves and to become a larger problem than they already are. Keeping such potentials and dangers in mind, the need for strong safeguards and stringent regulations is manifest. But, the need for safeguards and regulations does not logically lead to an absolute prohibition on cloning, particularly in view of the potential benefits that can be realized.
Legislators must begin to view human cloning as something that will inevitably occur, and they must take preemptive steps to insure that it takes place in way that will serve the public interest. To achieve this aim, cloning must be seen in the context of reproductive rights. Yet, it has greater implications for the entire race (by virtue of its capacity to alter the distribution of the genotypes of which the human race is composed) than other reproductive rights. This is the mandate for the national legislature to have regulatory power over cloning. Cloning has great potential as a eugenic tool. And, it is from this capacity that most of the moral and ethical issues concerning cloning arise. Accordingly, the national legislature shall have the authority to regulate human cloning in accordance with the public interest.
The human species has demonstrated a virtually limitless reproductive capacity. Yet, we live in a world in which resources that are consumed by one individual are not available for consumption by another. In short, we now live under conditions of relative resource scarcity. In order for there to be enough for everyone, everyone must practice some restraint. The level of restraint that they are required to practice will be different at different times, and under different circumstances. Currently, the limits of our technology demand we control our rate of population growth, in order to preserve our quality of life and in order to protect the ability of future generations to enjoy life. Correspondingly, the national legislature shall have the authority to offer incentives and penalties designed to regulate the population in accordance with the national interest.
The following provisions are designed to arrest and reverse the phenomenon known as "differential fertility," or the tendency for the least successful members of society to have the most children. Ideally, the least successful members of society should have the fewest offspring, and the most successful should have the most offspring, rather than the reverse. To accomplish this, rather than giving incentives to low income groups that would encourage them to have more children, the state should begin to impose penalties on such groups for having more than their quota. That is to say, it should enact legislation designed to destroy incentives for people to behave irresponsibly. When people have children that they cannot support, and when they are allowed to pass on this cost to society, it amounts to an incentive to behave irresponsibly. We need to destroy incentives for people to have children who cannot afford them. Accordingly, the national legislature should insure that the people have incentives to have only those children which they can properly care for, and which are not likely to become a charge to the state.
General Eugenics Rights and Responsibilities
There are several subcategories of rights and responsibilities related to eugenics under natural law. First there is the subcategory of genetic rights of the unborn. This basically refers to the right of the unborn to have some reasonable assurance that they will be substantially free from genetic defects which might prevent them from becoming viable members of society. In addition, there is the right of the unborn to life itself, under normal circumstances, and in the absence of an alternative compelling state interest which would be sufficient to override this right.
Another important subcategory of natural law rights and responsibilities is designed to insure the preservation of human subgroups which have evolved distinctive characteristics. Basically, these subgroups correspond to what are more commonly known as "the races of man." As a matter of natural law, these subgroups are entitled to preservation. This is the primary right under this subcategory. As the primary responsibility under this subcategory, we are bound to propagate in ways that will tend to maintain the integrity and diversity of human subgroups with distinctive genetic characteristics which correspond to race. In short, as members of subgroups with distinctive characteristics that are worthy of preservation, we have a right to preservation, and we have an obligation to prevent miscegenation.
NOTES TO ARTICLE 2
We have a responsibility to practice population control in order to sustain our quality of life and our standard of living. We have a further responsibility to practice population control in order to safeguard the life chances of future generations. There is a close relationship between population levels, the sustainability of our standard of living, and the viability of our technologically based societies. Correspondingly, there is a close relationship between population levels and the survivability of the species. Once technologically related productivity gains have plateaued, or have begun to decline, the relationship between the rate of resource consumption versus the availability of resources will primarily become a function of population levels. Overpopulation occurs when there is an imbalance between the rate of resource consumption and resource availability.
While intense conflicts over resources have occurred between human subgroups in the past, the prospect of intense and violent competition over resources will naturally tend to increase when populations begin to exceed their natural limits (the natural carrying capacity of the planet, which is around 3 billion). Even given the extraordinary gains in productivity that have been made over the past two millennia, there is a point at which the law of diminishing returns must apply to productivity increases. There is a point at which the yield of an acre of arable land cannot be increased. There is a point at which additional acres of marginally arable land cannot be brought under cultivation. Such natural limits on our ability to produce food point to the existence of natural population limits. If current patterns of growth continue, human populations must reach a point at which they begin to press even harder against the resources needed for survival.
Personal freedoms can only be justified up to the point where their exercise does not adversely impact the public interest. And, some very convincing signs are beginning to emerge that the unrestrained exercise of reproductive freedoms has already reached this point. That is, there are clear signs that our population has reached a point where it will adversely impact everyone's standard of living and quality of life. Thus, the argument against population control from the standpoint of personal freedoms is unconvincing.
ARTICLE 3: PROVISIONS, RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO LANGUAGE ABILITY AND THE ABILITY TO REASON
Man is naturally predisposed to develop and use language and to engage in abstract thought on the basis of language. Certain rights and responsibilities naturally spring from the ability to reason and use language, foremost of which is the freedom of speech, or the freedom to articulate ideas.
Freedom of Speech
Along with all other freedoms, the freedom of speech is not an absolute, it is not unconditional, and it must be regulated in a way that will be consistent with the public interest. There are "dimensions" to the freedom of speech, and they vary in their importance to the community. The most important form of free expression, or the form that is most vital to the life of the community is "political" speech. Accordingly, freedom of "political" speech shall not be denied. Other forms of speech or expression may not be equally entitled to such protections.
When freedoms take a form which offends aspects of the psyche, or when they take an anti-social form, or a form which violates the innate moral sense, or when they oppose basic elements of human nature, they reveal their qualities as artifacts of culture, or conventions which have no justification in natural law. Thus, forms of expression which most find generally and "naturally" repugnant can have no protection under natural law. This serves as the natural law basis for decency laws which are based on community standards. The community (i.e. every local community) has the right to establish such laws, up to the point where such laws are deemed to be in violation of the greater public interest.
It has long been known that the freedom
of speech is not an absolute, and that it has always been subject to certain
restrictions in order to achieve the greater public good. Accordingly,
when there is strong evidence that a cultural form which is subject to
the strictures of community standards has violated those standards, or
that it has served as a vehicle for the transmission of dysfunctional values,
it shall be open to regulation. In those cases where it cannot be clearly
demonstrated that an artistic or a cultural work has socially redeeming
value, or when it cannot be clearly distinguished from a political work,
or when a deliberate attempt has been made to blur the lines between the
two, it shall be considered a cultural work which is subject to the same
restrictions as other cultural works. That is to say, it will be subject
to community standards of decency. Accordingly, the national legislature
shall have the authority to regulate forms of artistic expression which
sensibilities, and the authority to deny copyright protections on this basis.
The main mechanism for enforcement of public standards of decency shall be selective denial of copyright protection and a system of fines and other penalties for violations. The normal recourse for a violation will be to simply issue a declaration of "no redeeming social value," from which a denial of copyright protection will automatically follow. Censors shall be popularly elected and shall have the power to censor all "artistic and cultural works" which have come to their attention by way of some offense. Their powers shall not extend to scientific or political works, or to works that are judged to be "political speech," nor shall they extend to cultural forms which have not been brought to their attention by way of their "exceeding capacity to offend."
Freedom of the Press
Freedom of the press should not be considered an absolute. Under conditions of extreme malfeasance or under conditions in which the press has become ideologically polarized and no longer provides a venue for reliable information, the people shall have the right to revoke their charter and dissolve their businesses by popular referendum. Normally, free markets will go far in regulating the press without the need to resort to such drastic legislative actions. But, if there is strong evidence that a market failure has occurred, and that this result has not been achieved (due to the monopoly the press has on information), then the people should have the option of an additional check on the press. Specifically, the people (by way of their representatives) should have recourse to regulate the press so that it once again operates in a manner that is consistent with the public interest. Towards this end, the national legislature shall have the authority to sanction the press and to regulate it in a manner that is consistent with public interest, as expressed by the will of the people. In addition, the people shall directly have power over the press. And, if it is determined that certain organs of the press are not operating in the public interest, such organs can be dissolved or reconstituted.
In comparison to statist regimes, citizens' obligations under a democracy are generally minimal. The most basic civil obligation is for individuals to pursue a general course in life that will tend to result in their improvement, or to receive an education so as to be able to make a useful social contribution. Given the amount of financial assistance that is now generally available for this purpose, at least in developed countries, individuals have few excuses for not attaining a certain minimal level of education. Secondly, some civil service or military experience should be a part of every citizenís working life. And thirdly, citizens have an obligation to attain the minimal knowledge that is necessary for them to competently participate in the democratic process. These are among the most basic obligations a citizen has in a democracy.
Under a regime that is based upon principles of natural law, both voting and the attainment of a minimal level of competence needed to vote responsibly would be defined as obligations. Voting is an obligation that carries the corresponding responsibility to become well informed. People are not allowed to operate motor vehicles without first demonstrating their basic competence as drivers. Neither should they be permitted to steer the course their nation without first having demonstrated an ability to keep it on a proper heading. Accordingly, citizens shall be required to demonstrate a minimal level of political competence as a condition to vote.
NOTES TO ARTICLE 3
With regard to the freedom of speech, communities may sometimes find that they have an interest in proscribing the expression of cultural forms which they may deem offensive. Accordingly, a community can regulate the expression of such cultural forms in accordance their local standards of decency. Hence, some forms of "cultural" censorship are logical corollaries of the freedom of speech. One can be both a strong defender of the freedom of speech, and an equally strong proponent of "cultural" censorship.
ARTICLE 4: PROVISIONS, RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO SOCIAL HIERARCHY
From the basic human tendency to rank others socially, or from the basic tendency to form moral judgments about others based on the values we attribute to them, or those which we infer from something we know about them, we can extrapolate the principle that performing such social evaluations is natural and endemic to the species, and that this tendency should not be suppressed, but should be freely exercised.
Being born with many diverse talents and abilities, some of which are likely to be more highly valued by the community than others, man is necessarily born into a state of social inequality. More typically, the position that he will come to occupy in the social hierarchy will depend upon the degree to which he possesses or lacks talents, traits, or other characteristics that are valued by the community. Hence, the right to be evaluated as an equal by other members of society is not a natural right; it is a right that follows from the demonstration that one holds "a system of values" that is respected by others in the community to which one belongs. Accordingly, in their quest to to be evaluated as the "social equals" of others in their society, individuals are obligated to identify, form or adopt those values that are most valued by their communities.
We can extrapolate the further principle that in the degree that all in the community possess values that are equally esteemed or highly valued by all others in the community, members of a community will tend to regard one another as social equals. In turn, we can extrapolate the principle that despite the innate human tendency to evaluate others socially, or to socially rank them, that, in a society in which virtually all adults are "understood" to hold the same basic set of equally functional values, a condition of virtual social equality can exist. Accordingly, and other conditions remaining equal, states that have articulated, adopted and promulgated an explicit "national ideology" in the form of an optimal set of values, will be more likely to achieve the ideal of a high degree of social equality among their citizens.
Furthermore, from the basic tendency to evaluate others depending on whether or not they possess like characteristics or characteristics that we value, or from the tendency to rank people or to assign them a place in a social hierarchy, we can extrapolate the principle that more extreme forms of social hierarchy, or higher degrees of social inequality, will be more natural features of societies with very heterogeneous populations. Accordingly, states that attempt to maintain or establish a high degree of homogeneity in their populations will be more likely to benefit from the natural tendency to evaluate others as social equals, based upon their possession of similar or equally valued characteristics.
NOTES TO ARTICLE 4
Man is a hierarchical species. Man is predisposed to perform social evaluations or to rank others according to some traits they posses and according to how highly valued these traits are by the rest of the community. One of the most important traits that we use to evaluate others or to determine their social worth is the "values" that we believe they hold, or the values that we attribute to them based on something we know about them. As a result of this tendency to evaluate others on the basis of the values that we attribute to them, values emerge as the primary basis for our system of social ranking and classification.
The natural tendency to evaluate others or to assign them a social rank might lead one to the conclusion that "social inequality" is destined to be a permanent feature of all human societies. As it turns out, the ideal of social equality is no less consistent with this particular feature of human nature (the basic tendency to socially evaluate others) than is a state of social inequality. Rather, the probability that a society will have either a high or a low level of social inequality depends on the degree to which its members are likely to evaluate one another as social equals. In turn, the degree to which they are likely to evaluate one another as social equals will depend on the degree to which they share the essential normative (especially values) and genetic (especially racial) characteristics that most of the other members in society are likely to value.
ARTICLE 5: PROVISIONS, RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THE XENOPHOBIC RESPONSE
Man is a naturally xenophobic species, or a species that naturally responds with aversion to the perception of significant visible differences in others, such as differences that correspond to race. Accordingly, from this basic human tendency we can extrapolate the principle that a more racially homogeneous society is the more natural, desirable and stable social form, and that human societies should be organized along highly racially homogeneous lines.
Over time, and as the impact of exogenous events are felt, tensions and conflicts will tend to emerge along racial lines in societies with more racially heterogeneous populations. A more racially homogeneous society will tend to have greater stability and ability to resist stresses from exogenous events. Accordingly, men have a natural right to live under conditions in which they will be most secure. They have an additional right to live under conditions which are most natural for them, or they have a right to live among others who are more closely related to them racially and genetically.
The state has an interest in maintaining and increasing the homogeneity of its population to secure the natural bonds of affinity between men of similar disposition and characteristics. Accordingly, the national legislature shall have the authority to regulate immigration, and to offer incentives and penalties to achieve and maintain a high level of normative and racial homogeneity in the population.
NOTES TO ARTICLE 5
Because we evolved in racially homogeneous groups, this is our natural condition. That is to say, it is our natural condition to live in societies that are highly racially homogeneous. And, as the behavioral sciences are now revealing, we evolved tendencies (such as the xenophobic response) that tend to coincide with this condition. One of the primary aims of any "legitimate" attempts at social engineering should be to restore our societies to a more natural basis.
From what we now know about the evolutionary origins and functions of the xenophobic response, we have found that the concept of race is not without merit. It is not the product of socialization, and it has deep roots in human biology. The concept of race is fundamental to our nature as human beings. Racial differences are more than just skin deep differences in appearance. They extend to our temperaments, and to our cognitive capacities. They represent differences at a genetic level which pervade and define virtually every aspect of our being. For these reasons, a society's racial composition becomes an important consideration in its design. Specifically, our innate tendency to experience the xenophobic response tells us that in order to construct a society which is maximally stable, it should be highly racially homogeneous. Under natural law, there are other important purposes to be served by constructing societies that have a high degree of racial homogeneity.
One of the most important principles of Xenophytism is that human populations with distinctive racial characteristics are worth preserving. The best way to insure the preservation of human populations with distinctive racial characteristics is to maintain or at least attempt to partially restore the natural conditions under which they evolved, i.e. create societies that have a high level (in excess of 80%) of racial homogeneity, in order to take advantage of all the benefits that naturally accrue to human societies that are organized along more racially homogeneous lines.
A society which attempts to minimize racial differences in its population will naturally be more conducive to the preservation of racial subgroups than a society which asserts that there is no natural basis for xenophobia and no particular value in preserving subgroups with distinctive racial characteristics. The former type of society is in accordance with natural law and the latter is a violation of natural law. The former promises to have greater inherent stability and promises to be more conducive to the preservation of human subgroups with distinctive racial haracteristics. Conversely, the latter promises to be more unstable and to pose a greater threat to human subgroups. By extension, the former type of social organization is more conducive to the survivability of the species than the latter type. That is to say, the former type is in accordance with the Prime Criterion and the latter is in violation of the Prime Criterion.
It is noteworthy that the founders (of the US) assumed that the preponderance of the population in the US would be of Northern European descent, like themselves. Hence, they made no provisions designed to regulate immigration from other regions which would substantially alter the republic's composition. Once it became apparent that people from other regions that had not traditionally been sources of immigration would desire to immigrate, it immediately triggered legislation designed to restrict immigration from these regions. These measures were only subsequently overwhelmed by business interests who saw these immigrants as a cheap sources of labor, and who gave no regard to the long term implications that such patterns of immigration would have for the larger society.
ARTICLE 6: PROVISIONS, RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THE TRANSCENDENTAL SENSE
The predisposition to wonder, to contemplate the nature of reality, the infinity of time and space, and ultimately, the tendency to contemplate the meaning of life are all aspects of the naturally occurring mental activities which fall under the category of the capacity for transcendental thought. By extension, the tendency to develop transcendental belief systems (religions) which serve ontological, psychological and social control functions is a universal human tendency and an important part of our nature as human beings. Such natural tendencies form the basis for what we have come to know as the "freedom of religion" as a basic right under natural law.
From manís basic and universal capacity for transcendental thinking, certain principles can be extrapolated. Specifically, from the predisposition to engage in transcendental thinking, and within certain bounds that have been defined by reason and knowledge, man has the right to religious beliefs (and to associate with others on the basis of these shared beliefs). But, the grant of religious freedoms is not an absolute, and those beliefs and practices that the state is willing to sanction, or to tolerate, must be based upon functional considerations.
Because it is the nature and tendency of religious thought to spring forth from the imagination, and because such thinking can commonly assume forms that are based on myths and superstitions, we can extrapolate the further principle that the state must have some reasonable authority to determine those religious forms and practices that it is willing to allow. Accordingly, having been determined that the general normative thrust and orientation of Christianity (especially mainstream variants) and Buddhism (as well as Deism) can be rendered compatible as they are subsumed within the larger philosophical framework of the TXS (AKA the Church of Natural Law), on these grounds, as well as on grounds of their relatively greater functionality, the state should extend first preference to these religious forms.
NOTES TO ARTICLE 6
Those religious forms that we are willing to tolerate should be dictated by what reason and knowledge suggest would prove most conducive to human survivability, relative to other forms. In fact, the founders (the authors of the US Constitution) never intended to extend an "unconditional" or absolute grant of religious freedom. Rather, they expected religious beliefs and practices to be confined within certain "reasonable bounds." For instance, we don't allow religions which practice animal or human sacrifices.
Consistent with a naturalistic understanding of the universe, all religious beliefs and doctrines are deemed to be the products of the human consciousness alone (and can only be in accordance with divine will, rationally understood, in the degree that they are functional and maximally conducive to human survivability), that they can vary in their rationality and functionality, and that they can be qualitatively ranked. Accordingly, religious forms are only entitled to protection from the state in the degree that they are optimally functional and maximally conducive to human survivability. Necessarily, some should be favored over others. In the course of applying these criteria, Christianity and Buddhism emerge as the most functional variants, as does the TXS, which involves a synthesis of both, in addition to other sources of doctrine.
Christianity can no longer claim the level of moral authority that it did when it was regarded as the undisputed word of God. Rather, any remaining moral legitimacy that Christianity may be able to claim must have a functional foundation in a larger framework of natural law. That is to say, Biblical prescriptions can only be defended via a system of natural law, insofar as they are functional and, therefore, most likely to be in accordance with divine will.
ARTICLE 7: PROVISIONS, RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THE CAPACITY FOR SYNTHESIS
Notwithstanding that the process of evolution has endowed man with two opposing cognitive and temperamental poles, or two sides to his psyche, as a general rule, and on average, man is more naturally predisposed to think "synthetically" than in polarized terms. Because man's capacity for synthetic thought is the stronger and more representative tendency of the species, man is more predisposed to adopt a system of values, attitudes and beliefs that is more synthetic, rather than one which is more polarized. From this stronger and more representative human tendency we can extrapolate the principle that some form of ideological synthesis is the most natural basis for a system of political beliefs.
From the basic human predisposition or capacity to think synthetically, combinatorially, or in integratively complex terms (as opposed to black and white polarized terms) we can extrapolate the principle that a one party political system based upon the principle of ideological synthesis, and on the Xenophyte philosophy more generally, is the most functional form. Accordingly, "Synthesis" Parties shall be the only officially recognized and legally sanctioned parties within states that are members of the SXS.
Political parties that are not based upon natural law, or the principles of Xenophytism, and the principle of ideological synthesis in particular, cannot be allowed in a state that has been founded on the basis of such principles. Although, the "functional equivalents" of parties within the state's one official party (i.e. its Synthesis party), can be allowed, to facilitate the selection of candidates for public office, provided that these "intraparty" parties do not give rise to ideological divisions or "factions" within the party. Accordingly, to facilitate the smooth operation of government, and to preempt the tendency towards faction that a proliferation of parties tends to create, all states within the SXS shall have a one party political system.
NOTES TO ARTICLE 7
See the Xenophyte Perspective Concerning Political Engineering, esp. the concept of X and Y parties. These "intraparty" parties rotate with one another and swap identities at the end of every election, thereby preventing either one of them from assuming a clear ideological identity of its own. Such identities could be divisive or could give rise to factions within Synthesis Parties, These intraparty parties (i.e. the X and Y parties, or Y and Z parties, or whatever) are only designed as mechanisms to facilitate the selection of candidates for public office that have otherwise qualified for public office through a merit system, and based upon their objective qualifications.
In contrast to the tendency to form or adopt polar or valenced ideological belief systems on the basis of a global affect, most people have more balanced and affectively neutral cognitive and temperamental tendencies. These tendencies predispose most people to form or adopt more ideologically neutral and "synthetic" belief systems and approaches to life. This is the more representative tendency of the species. (This also helps to explain why most people are "apolitical" and why they do not normally have much interest in politics. And, as well, it helps to explain why most people do not have highly developed polarized belief systems, such as those which correspond to the contemporary ideologies of liberalism and conservatism.)
At the species level, there is a general human tendency to hold views that are more balanced, more ideologically eclectic, and more synthetic. This is the tendency that is most representative of the species, for it reflects the kind of response that proved to be most adaptive for us over the course of our evolutionary experience. This is the tendency which continues to be most adaptive for the situations that most people find themselves in most of the time. As a general approach to life, it is simply more adaptive to have a more balanced approach than a more polarized approach. Or, it is simply more adaptive to have an approach that is not dominated by tendencies that are more closely associated with one pole or the other, except in response to the unique demands of special situations. Hence, the tendency to form a more polarized perspective, or an approach to life which is dominated by tendencies more closely associated with one pole, to the near total exclusion of tendencies associated with the opposite pole, evolved as the weaker tendency in the species.
The ability to perform synthesis and the tendency to balance the elements that comprise one's world views thus emerges as the more representative tendency among human beings. We simply evolved this predisposition because it proved to be more adaptive, or because it allowed us to respond to the broader range of environmental conditions that we were likely to encounter over the course of our evolution. Thus, the tendency to synthesize and the capacity for synthesis emerge as one of those main tendencies or capacities from which we can extrapolate certain fundamental principles for organizing human societies.
Specifically, from the predisposition to think in integrative and synthetic terms (as opposed to any tendency to form or adopt more polarized belief systems or principles, or belief systems or principles that are more exclusively associated with one pole to the exclusion of those that are associated with the other), we can extrapolate the principle that "ideological synthesis is a more natural and functional basis for our political institutions, and for society more generally." That is, the concept of ideological synthesis is one of the main considerations that should guide the values and ideals we adopt as a basis for the construction of our social, economic, political, legal and theological institutions.
Synthesis serves as a more natural and better organizing principle for social, economic and political institutions, than principles which have become more exclusively associated with either liberalism or conservatism. And, legitimately understood and conducted, any attempts at social engineering should be based on a synthesis of values and ideals that have drawn from both poles, or they should be based on the principle of ideological synthesis. That is to say, an ideology that is "synthetic" and which draws its core principles, values and ideals from different points along the ideological spectrum will prove to be more functional than one which draws its principles, values or ideals more exclusively from either one or the other cognitive or temperamental pole, largely to the exclusion of principles, values or ideals that are more closely associated with the opposing pole. Synthesis is both the stronger and more representative tendency within human nature, and it is the more functional tendency.
Finally, it is also worth noting that the authors of the US Constitution made no allowances for political parties, and they would not have approved of such organizations. In their view, such organizations would be too likely to create factions that could have a disruptive effect on the operations of government.
ARTICLE 8: PROVISIONS, RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
Man is generally predisposed towards activity and acquisitive behavior. From this basic human tendency we can extrapolate the rights of private property and basic economic freedoms. More specifically, we can extrapolate the principle that in order to facilitate commerce and industry, as well as to maximize revenues for the state, an economy that works largely on the basis of free market principles is to be preferred.
As it constitutes an unnecessary encumbrance on their economic activities, and as it tends to reduce the state's own revenues, once it has exceeded a certain point, an oppressively high level of taxation is to be avoided. Accordingly, the national legislature should take steps to insure that taxes on both individuals and businesses can be reduced to the level at which its own revenues will be maximized, or to the bare minimum level that is required to make necessary capital improvements and to support the operations of government.
The General Power to tax
The general power to tax by the most equitable means, including the levying of income taxes, sales taxes, customs duties, wage equalization duties, etc. or any other forms of revenue generation that the people and their representatives shall find acceptable shall be vested in the national or federal government. The national or federal government may delegate other such powers to tax or raise revenues to states, provinces or municipalities under their jurisdiction in order to meet their needs.
NOTES TO ARTICLE 8
Generally, governments should limit the degree to which they finance their debts, and should even have the aim of accumulating substantial surpluses, at least during peaks of the business cycle. In cases where they must secure financing due to revenue shortfalls they should generally undertake aggressive means to restrict the operations of government to the provision of the most essential services, or those services which the people regard as essential to their welfare, and to which they have given their consent.
ARTICLE 9: PROVISIONS, RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THE INNATE MORAL SENSE
Man has an innate moral sense and a corresponding ability to make moral judgments. From this basic capacity we can extrapolate the principle that man has a duty and a responsibility to make moral judgments, or that he has a responsibility to be "judgmental." We can extrapolate the further principle that, in general, and in order to be exercised correctly, the moral sense must be mediated by knowledge, or it must be used in conjunction with knowledge. This imposes the additional responsibility upon man to seek out the knowledge that he will need to make moral judgments correctly. Accordingly, man has a duty and a responsibility to make moral judgments, and to actively participate in the political life of his community on the basis of these judgments. The forms of such participation include, but are not limited to, voting, and serving on juries.
WRITS OF BANISHMENT AND EXPULSION
From the capacities to reason and to make moral judgments, the right and the responsibility can be extrapolated to make such judgments correctly, or in a way that will serve the interests of the community. Accordingly, when it has come to the community's attention that one or more of its members have violated certain standards, or have broken certain laws, the community shall have the right to banish them. And, more specifically, if they belong to the Party, it shall have the right to expel them from the Party, and to bar them from further political participation, whether they belong to the Party or not. This shall include the revocation of voting rights and of the right to hold public office. The legal instrument that is to be used to accomplish these effects shall be termed a "writ of banishment and expulsion."
Writs of banishment and expulsion, which will have the force of law, can be applied at either the state or provincial levels or at the national level. At the state level, they can only be issued by a 2/3 vote of the state or provincial legislature, with the concurrence of the chief executive. In the case of Synthesis Parties at the national level, they can only be issued by a 2/3 vote of the national legislature, with the concurrence of the chief executive. After a 10 year period, one who has been expelled from the party can apply for reinstatement. The legislature that was originally responsible for issuing or approving the writ shall determine the conditions for reinstatement.
WRITS OF EXILE AND DECLARATIONS
OF PERSONA NON GRATA
If one expects to enjoy the benefits that come from living in a society, and in a regime that has been constituted according to principles of natural law, there is a certain presumption of loyalty to that regime. And, failing this, or in the case of individuals who have made themselves pariahs, the regime should have certain means at its disposal to reduce the influence or the harm that such individuals could bring to the community, inadvertently or otherwise. Accordingly, member states of the SXS shall have the option of issuing legal instruments for these purposes. Such instruments or orders shall be termed writs of exile and declarations of persona non grata. Typically, declarations of persona non grata will be issued as a "warning shot" to encourage individuals to conform more closely with the standards of the community, or to cease and desist from those activities that the state finds harmful of offensive. This shall be regarded as the milder form of punishment in this category. The more severe form of punishment in this category shall be termed a writ of exile. A writ of exile will result in the revocation of all rights of citizenship, and will require one to relocate to a society that is not a charter member of the SXS. In either the case of declarations of personal non grata or in the case of writs of exile, such orders can only be issued by either the legislature at the national level, with the concurrence of the chief executive, or by the chief executive at the national level, with the concurrence of 2/3 of the national legislature.
NOTES TO ARTICLE 9
From manís ability to reason, and from the innate moral sense that he has been endowed with by the process of evolution to help him make moral judgments, we can extrapolate certain principles. First, the ability to reason and to make moral judgments imposes certain obligations on man. Specifically, from the ability to reason, and in conjunction with the innate moral sense, comes the obligation to be judgmental, or the obligation to make moral judgments. We can extrapolate the further principle that with the ability to reason and to learn, and with the capacity to make moral judgments, comes the moral obligation to acquire the knowledge that is necessary to make moral judgments correctly.
ARTICLE 10: PROVISIONS, RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THE CAPACITY FOR EMPATHY
Man has a capacity for empathy. The degree to which he is likely to be able to feel empathy for others is largely based on his ability to see others as reflections of himself. In turn, his ability to see others as reflections of himself depends mainly on the degree to which they resemble him, or on how closely they are related to him racially and genetically. Empathy is a capacity that is more naturally and easily extended to those with whom we share a relatively higher degree of genetic similarity. Accordingly, from this basic human tendency and capacity, we can again extrapolate the principle that, as much as possible, human societies (i.e. nation states) should be arranged along racially homogeneous lines.
From the tendency to empathize with others with whom we share a higher degree of genetic similarity, additional principles for social organization can be extrapolated. First, in order to foster a sense of noblese oblige in a society (which may be necessary in some degree in order to provide material support for those who may be thrown out of work during economic downturns), immigration policies and fertility incentives should be designed to minimize its level of racial diversity. In addition, the minority racial populations of which a society is composed should collectively remain below the 20% threshold, in accordance with the requirements of the "cosmopolitan" model of social organization.
NOTES TO ARTICLE 10
Humans evolved in highly racially homogeneous groups. In this natural state, where there tends to be a high degree of similarity between our own characteristics and the characteristics that we observe in others, we would be much more able to see others as reflections of ourselves. Consequently, we would be much more likely to feel empathy towards other members of our group. It is simply much easier and more natural for us to feel empathy towards those who come closer to sharing our essential genetic (racial) characteristics. That is to say, purely as a natural response and inclination, and in the absence of socialization that is designed to counteract or suppress this innate tendency, we are more likely to feel empathy towards those who are more closely related to us genetically.
ARTICLE 11: PROVISIONS, RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THE HUMAN CAPACITY FOR POLARIZATION AND RIVALRY
Man has a natural capacity to compete with other individuals and groups over limited social, economic and political resources. The basic human capacity for competition manifests itself in a number of familiar forms. These include, but are not limited to, economic competition between businesses and individuals, competitive political contests, and rivalries in athletic contests and in competitive sports. The capacity for competition can also manifest itself in the closely related complexes of rivalry and polarization.
From the general capacity for competitive behavior, we can extrapolate basic principles of economic competition and a free economy. From the human capacity for competition, rivalry and polarization we can extrapolate the principle that a competitive economic system, or one which operates on the basis of free market principles, will be generally more productive and more likely to produce a higher standard of living for the people than alternative forms. The further principle can be extrapolated that an economic system must be inherently competitive in order to operate at its maximum efficiency. Accordingly, governments should support and encourage an economic system based upon free market principles, and they should not burden the private sector with an excessive and unnecessary level of either taxation or regulation.
ARTICLE 12: PROVISIONS, RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THE CAPACITY FOR HUMAN AGGRESSION
Although humans are more characteristically sociable and gregarious, they also have a capacity for aggression, especially when their vital interests appear to be threatened. From the basic capacity for aggression, a number of principles can be extrapolated. First, we can extrapolate the principle that man's capacity for aggression confers upon everyone else the right to use aggression (potentially violent means) in their own self defense. And, from this, we can further extrapolate the right to bear arms for the purpose of self defense. Additionally, we can extrapolate the moral obligation to volunteer for military service, at least when oneís nation is in imminent danger, or in time of war.
Although man is more naturally inclined to avoid conflict and violence, he retains a capacity for violence and aggression in the defense of his vital interests, or when he perceives that he is being threatened. That is to say, as part of his evolutionary legacy, man retains a capacity for violence and aggression, as the situation in which he finds himself may demand. This capacity translates into a predisposition to resort to potentially violent means, especially when one perceives that one's vital interests are being threatened by groups that do not share one's essential normative or genetic characteristics. Accordingly, the right to be secure in one's person and property is best and most naturally achieved in a state with a highly homogeneous population.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SXS PART III
ORGANIZATION AND PROCEDURES
ARTICLE 1: PURPOSES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE SXS
The SXS has been established for the following purposes.
The foremost purpose of the SXS is to uphold, promote and defend the principles embodied within the Xenophyte Code, which is the most concise expression of a personal code of conduct and belief based upon natural law. Towards this end, the SXS is tasked with identifying, compiling, and promulgating the most functional ideology, or the social, economic, political, legal and theological philosophy that will prove maximally conducive to the survivability of the species.
Additionally, the SXS is tasked with recruiting and organizing supporters of the Xenophyte philosophy; helping these supporters get elected to public office, or appointed to government posts; establishing governments on the basis of this philosophy; instituting social, economic, political, legal and theological reforms based upon this philosophy; drafting and passing legislation that is consistent with this philosophy; drafting, instituting or reforming constitutions to bring them into closer accord with the party's natural law doctrine; or in order to bring them into closer accord with other elements of the party philosophy; providing technical assistance and funding for members who run for office; soliciting funds and conducting all necessary business for the above functions.
The SXS is tasked with clarifying and promulgating matters of doctrine; with communicating information that is critical to its mission, with distributing organizational directives; policies and procedures governing Synthesis Parties and affiliated organizations; with serving as the primary source of standard interpretations of the party doctrine, and with serving as the arbiter of last resort in settling disputes over the party doctrine.
The SXS is further tasked with with chartering, denying, or revoking the charters of Synthesis Parties and affiliated organizations at the national and subnational levels. In this capacity, it will either affirm or deny the status of these organizations as official representatives of the SXS. In addition, as the de facto headquarters of the International Synthesis Party, the SXS performs the following functions:
1) To keep records and chronicle all major
developments and events within Synthesis Parties around the world.
2) To maintain membership statistics and to collect demographic information about members to be compiled in a membership database.
3) To conduct searches of the membership database to locate qualified personnel for filling vacancies within the party.
4) To render technical and financial assistance to local and national party organizations.
5) To insure that all party organizations and affiliates conform to the Xenophyte philosophy, and act in accordance with established policies and
procedures a condition of maintaining their charters, or to insure that any exceptions to standard policies and procedures are authorized and
based on local customs, and do not constitute a violation of the central doctrine.
6) To serve as a principal news organization for the promulgation and dissemination of important information throughout the party.
7) To be active in drafting legislation which is consistent with the party philosophy.
8) To establish policies and procedures and to compile these in policy and procedure manuals covering all aspects of party operations,
and to distribute or otherwise make the content of these manuals available to all chartered Synthesis Parties.
9) To organize travel and good will tours between party members of different nations.
10) To serve as the final authority for all standards, practices, policies and procedures for Synthesis Parties and their subsidiary organizations,
including, but not limited to: GUPTA (Global Unity Philosophy Training Association), the ACC (American Centrist Coalition), SST (Social
Science Tech), CONQUISTACORPS, and the TXS (The Transcendental Xenophyte Synthesis), etc.
11) To monitor all Synthesis Parties and subsidiary organizations for compliance with SXS policies and procedures, and to insure that all
Synthesis Parties conform and remain true to the principles of the Xenophyte Code and the principles of The Xenophyte Perspective.
12) Additional purposes of the SXS include, but are not limited to: helping Synthesis Party candidates get elected to majority, executive or ruling positions within their governments; and assisting those nations where representatives of the Synthesis Party have been elected to majority, executive or ruling positions within their governments.
ARTICLE 2: OBLIGATIONS TO MEMBER AND NON-MEMBER STATES
In addition to its primary purposes and mission listed in Article 1, the SXS has the following obligations to member and non-member states.
To form an international alliance for the mutual benefit and defense of member states.
To form a working alliance between the peoples of states who have demonstrated a desire to live in accordance with the principles of natural law, as explicated in the Xenophyte Perspective, and as embodied in the Xenophyte Code.
To assist governments that have been founded on principles of natural law, and which, through their official representatives, have sworn an oath to uphold, promote and defend the tenets of the Xenophyte Code.
To render limited financial and technical assistance to the governments of member states.
To assist non-member states in their movements to create governments and forms of social organization based upon natural law.
To assist any political movements which also have conformity with natural law as their principal aim, but which have not yet become formally affiliated with the SXS.
To achieve closer cooperation between member states for their mutual defense, and in order to further their mutual social, economic and political interests.
To facilitate the development of compatible legal codes within and between member states.
To facilitate commerce between member states.
To propose solutions to problems within and between member states, to mediate conflicts between member states, and to resolve economic, trade, cultural or territorial disputes between member states.
To respect the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of all member states.
To serve as mediator to resolve all disputes between member states in a peaceful manner.
To provide such assistance to member states as they may request in times of national emergency, including, but not limited to, humanitarian aid, and military assistance to aid in the repulsion of attacks by non-member states.
To assist member states in counter-terrorism activities.
To provide technical and financial assistance to Synthesis Parties of non-member states which aspire to become charter members of the SXS.
To compile useful data, statistics and reports for the benefit of all member states.
ARTICLE 3: THE CHAIRMAN AND THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
The executive branch of the SXS shall immediately consist of the Chairman, other members of the Executive Council, and all personnel, facilities and resources thereto assigned. For most purposes, the Chairman will be considered the presiding member of the Executive Council.
The chief executive of the SXS shall be designated as the Chairman of the SXS. The current chairman will serve until the year 2024, barring death, infirmity, or incapacity which would prevent him from performing the duties of office. In the event of the Chairman's death or infirmity while in office, the EC of the SXS will select an alternate from among its members to serve out the remainder of his term.
From among the members of the EC, the Chairman shall have the authority to appoint a Vice-Chairman (VC) to serve in his absence.
The Chairman of the SXS shall be a voting member of the EC, and shall have the veto. A 2/3 vote of the GA is sufficient to override the veto.
After the initial 12 year term of office for the current Chairman has elapsed, the Chairman will be selected by a 2/3 vote of the EC with the approval of 2/3 of the delegates to the General Assembly (GA). The Chairman must be at least 35 years of age, and must be a sworn Class A member of a charter member of the SXS. The Chairman will serve 12 year terms.
The current Chairman may serve in multiple capacities within the SXS, and may hold multiple offices within the SXS, or between the SXS and Synthesis Parties at the national level.
Removal from Office
The Chairman of the SXS can be removed from office due to incompetence, criminal offenses, negligence, or incapacity. The removal process requires a 2/3 vote of the EC with the concurrence of a 2/3 of the GA.
The Executive Council
The Executive Council of the SXS (EC) shall consist of 9 members, including the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the SXS. The Chairman shall have the authority to appoint members to serve on the EC, with the consent of 2/3 of the GA. The Chairman shall also have the power to remove members of the EC, with the consent of 2/3 of the GA. Prospective members of the EC can be selected from among the delegates to the GA, or from other Class A Synthesis Party members of SXS member states.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
The EC shall be tasked with the oversight of Synthesis Parties and governments of member states, and shall serve in a monitoring and advisory capacity. Accordingly, and when necessary, it shall issue findings and recommendations to the chief executives or to the legislative bodies of member states. These findings and recommendations shall not have the force of law, but may have a bearing on the membership status of member states.
In its advisory capacity, the EC shall be tasked with monitoring Synthesis Parties and governments of member states for compliance with SXS rules, regulations, policies and procedures. It shall be further tasked with issuing directives designed to correct deficiencies or insure compliance with rules, regulations, policies and procedures, etc.
The EC shall be further tasked with initiating actions designed to secure the welfare of the people of member states, and the common defense of member states. The EC shall also serve as the security council of the SXS.
In its capacity as an advisory body to the Synthesis Parties and governments of member states, the EC can propose and submit drafts of laws, proposals, reports etc. to the chief executives or national legislative bodies of member states or even non-member states, with the approval of 2/3 of its members and with the concurrence of 2/3 of the GA.
The Chairman or any other member of the EC can request, and expect to receive in due course, reports from any sub-organizations of the SXS.
A summary report of the formal proceedings of the EC shall be made available to the public and to the GA, at the end of every session.
Records of the proceedings of special or closed sessions of the EC shall not be made available to the public, but may be made available to selected committee members of the GA on a need to know basis.
Under normal circumstances, the Chairman will convene, call to order and preside over the meetings of the EC. The Chairman must be presiding for matters that require a vote, as the VC cannot exercise the veto. The VC may convene, call to order and preside over meetings of the EC in the Chairman's absence. The VC may also be called upon to convene, call to order, and preside over meetings of the the GA in the President's Absence.
The EC, or its designates shall compile the annual budget of the SXS and shall make copies available to the general public and to the delegates of the GA.
The annual budget of the SXS shall be subject to the approval of 2/3 of the GA with the concurrence of a 2/3 vote of the EC.
Matters of executive compensation shall be determined by a 2/3 vote of the GA, with the concurrence of a 2/3 vote of the EC.
The legislative branch of the SXS shall consist most immediately of a General Assembly and all supporting personnel, facilities and resources thereto assigned.
The SXS General Assembly (GA) shall consist of the delegates of the member states. Each member state will be allowed two delegates. Every delegate will have one vote in the GA.
From among its members, the GA may appoint a President to preside over the full assembly. When the VC serves in this capacity in the absence of the President of the GA, the VC will not be considered a voting member of the GA.
Selection of Delegates
Each member state shall either appoint or elect a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2 delegates to represent their nation in the SXS General Assembly. All delegates shall be sworn Class A members of the Synthesis Party of the nation that they are to represent in the GA. No one shall serve in this capacity who has not attained the age of 35.
Additional qualifications of delegates to the GA include: The Oath of Office, passage of Level 3 exams, membership in the Synthesis Party of the state they are to represent for at least 10 years.
Delegates to the GA must be confirmed by a 2/3 vote of the EC, with the concurrence of 2/3 of the GA.
Removal from Office
Members of the EC can be removed from office due to incompetence, criminal offenses, negligence, or incapacity. The removal process requires a 2/3 vote of the EC with the concurrence of a 2/3 of the GA.
Session and Terms of Office
The session of the GA is one year. Each delegate to the GA shall be selected/elected to serve a 4 year term.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
In the interest of efficiency, the GA shall normally conduct all routine business remotely. This includes teleconferencing and secure internet websites for the purpose of voting on measures that come before it for resolution. In order for a measure to be passed by the GA, it must be voted on by at least one of the two representatives of every member nation, and, the measure must have the support of 2/3 of these members.
Along with the EC, the GA will share responsibility for monitoring Synthesis Parties and governments of member states for compliance with SXS policies, procedures or doctrine; with clarifying matters related to policies, procedures or doctrine, and with settling differences over matters related to policies, procedures or doctrine. In cases where the GA has been unable to resolve such differences, and depending on the nature of the differences it has been unable to resolve, the GA should refer the problem to either the EC or the JC.
In cases where differences over matters more closely related to doctrine cannot be easily resolved by members of the GA, and with the consent of 2/3 of the EC, the problem should be referred to the JC for final determination.
Although it will serve in a supervisory capacity, which it will share with the EC, the GA shall not have the authority to unilaterally pass legislation that will have the force of law for member states. However, with the concurrence of 2/3 of the EC, it can pass resolutions that may affect member states, and the membership status of member states.
The GA shall be further tasked with peacefully resolving disputes between member states and with designing concerted courses of action to address collective problems of the member states.
The GA will also be tasked with determining eligibility for and granting or denying financial or technical assistance to Synthesis Parties of non member states. In cases where the eligibility for such grants has been determined, the grants will requires a 2/3 vote of the GA with the concurrence of 2/3 of the EC.
From among its members, the GA shall establish such committees and or subcommittees as it finds necessary to execute its responsibilities.
Drafting Legislation and Proposals
In its capacity as an advisory body to the Synthesis Parties and governments of member states, the GA can propose and submit drafts of laws, proposals, reports etc. to the chief executives or national legislative bodies of member states or even non-member states, with the approval of 2/3 of its members and with the concurrence of 2/3 of the EC.
Composition and Submission of
Reports and Recommendations
The committees within the GA will be tasked with compiling reports and making recommendations over their areas of jurisdiction, and with submitting these reports to the full assembly as well as to the EC. Reports need not be actionable, and can be compiled and disseminated for general information purposes. Official reports, studies, etc. should be commissioned or formally authorized by the committee or committees that have main jurisdiction, and should be accompanied by acceptable documentation of the credentials of the principal authors.
A general summary of annual reports of the GA is to be compiled and submitted to the full assembly of the GA and to the members of the EC under the title: Annual Summary of Reports, preceded by the year in which the reports have been compiled.
For purposes of their annual meeting, members of the GA may choose to convene at the SXS headquarters in Zurich, Switzerland, or in any other location. In either case, the choice of location for the annual meeting must be agreed to by a 2/3 vote of the GA.
Transcripts of Annual Proceedings
The GA shall have the responsibility for compiling, publishing and distributing The Annual Report of the Proceedings of the GA. The Report shall be made available to the EC and to members of the GA, upon request. The report shall include: Tabulations of all votes by delegates, listing the delegates names and how they voted on every measure that came before the full assembly for a vote; a summary of all measures which came before the full assembly for a vote; transcripts of the formal proceedings of the annual meeting in Zurich, or any other location.
The annual budget of the SXS shall be subject to the approval of 2/3 of the GA with the concurrence of 2/3 of the EC.
Matters of compensation for the delegates of the GA shall be determined by the EC with the concurrence of 2/3 of the GA. Normally, increases in compensation for members of either body shall be restricted to cost of living adjustments.
ARTICLE 5: THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE SXS
The Judicial Council (JC) of the SXS, and all immediately supporting personnel, facilities and resources, etc. shall comprise the judicial branch of the SXS. The JC shall be composed of 12 members.
Members of the JC may be selected from among the delegates to the GA, or from among members of the EC, or from any other Class A party members. Nominees for the JC can be proposed by either the EC or the GA. Appointments to the JC must be approved by a 2/3 vote of the EC and confirmed by 2/3 of the GA.
Removal from Office
Members of the JC can be removed from office due to incompetence, criminal offenses, negligence, or incapacity. The removal process requires a 2/3 vote of the EC with the concurrence of 2/3 of the GA.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
The JC shall be mainly tasked with resolving questions and issues related to the Synthesis Party doctrine, as explicated in the Constitution of the SXS, the Xenophyte Perspective, and in the Xenophyte Code. The JC shall also be tasked with the review of Constitutions of member states and prospective member states to insure their conformity with principles of natural law, as explicated in the Xenophyte Perspective, in Part II of the Constitution of the SXS, and as embodied by the Xenophyte Code.
The JC shall be further tasked with reviewing proposed or actual modifications or amendments to the Constitutions of member states to determine their conformity with principles of natural law, as explicated in the Xenophyte Perspective, in Part II of the Constitution of the SXS, and as embodied by the Xenophyte Code, as a condition for continuing membership in the SXS.
The JC shall also be tasked with resolving disputes between member states as well as with the review of laws of member states that have been brought to its attention, in order to determine their conformity with Part II of the Constitution of the SXS, or in order to determine their consistency with other elements of Synthesis Party doctrine, as explicated in the Xenophyte Perspective, and as embodied in the Xenophyte Code. The decisions of the JC shall not be legally binding upon the member states, but they shall be highly instructive, and may serve as grounds for continuing or denying a state's membership in the SXS.
To have full force and validity, decisions of the JC must be passed by at least 2/3 of its members.
Clarification and Resolution
of Matters Related to the Party Doctrine
If any provisions, rights or responsibilities addressed in Part II of this Constitution, or any others which may be associated with the Xenophyte Code shall be absent, or unclear, they will likely be addressed somewhere within the Xenophyte Perspective. This body of documents shall be considered the final and definitive resource for answering questions related to the Synthesis Party doctrine and for resolving disputes over matters related to the doctrine.
Compensation for the members of the JC shall be determined by a 2/3 vote of the GA, with the concurrence of 2/3 of the EC.
ARTICLE 6: SYNTHESIS PARTY MEMBERSHIP AND CANDIDATE QUALIFICATIONS
INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS
AND CANDIDATE QUALIFICATIONS
To become a regular member of a chartered Synthesis Party, individuals must meet the following qualifications. They must be at least 18 years of age. They must be legal residents of the nation of the Synthesis Party in which they are seeking membership. They must have passed their level one exams. With the exception of minor traffic offenses, they cannot have a criminal record, unless the record is solely related to "political offenses" which no longer have standing and which may be expunged from their records.
Class A Membership
To have the opportunity to advance within the Synthesis Party, or to run for public office as a Synthesis Party candidate, one must be a Class A member. In addition to the requirements for regular membership, Class A membership requires that one read, understand and agree with the Xenophyte Code and that one take an oath, swearing that one has read, understands, and agrees with the Xenophyte Code. The Xenophyte Code is the most concise statement of the Xenophyte or Synthesis Party philosophy. The Xenophyte Code is also the code of personal conduct and belief that is based on natural law and the principles that have been explicated in the Xenophyte Perspective. A more complete understanding of the party philosophy, as demonstrated by the passage of Level 3 Exams, shall be required for all higher posts within the party.
Class A Membership Oath
An oath stating that one has read, one understands and one agrees with the Xenophyte Code, that one will live according to the principles of the Xenophyte Code, and that one will uphold, promote and defend these principles, shall be incorporated into the Oath for Class A Membership. Accordingly, the preferred form of the Class A Membership Oath shall be as follows:
I do solemnly swear that I have read, I understand, and I agree with the Xenophyte Code; that I will live according to the principles of the Xenophyte Code; and that I will uphold, promote and defend these principles.
Selection of Candidates for Public
All Synthesis Party candidates for public office shall be required to meet the following qualifications. All candidates shall be sworn Class A members of the Synthesis Party in the nation in which they are running for public office. All shall have passed their level 1 exams with a score of at least 80%. All candidates must be party members in good standing. All candidates must currently be citizens of the nation in which they are running for public office, and must have been citizens of this nation for at least 10 consecutive years. All candidates must be at least 25 years of age. All candidates must not have been convicted of a criminal offense, with the exception of minor offenses, or "political offenses" against former or present regimes, which may be expunged from their records.
In addition to meeting the aforementioned requirements, all candidates for public office shall be required to demonstrate basic competence and fitness for the posts to which they apply, which may or may not have been demonstrated by the passage of their Level 2 or 3 Exams. All candidates for public office shall be selected on the basis of merit, as demonstrated through a process of competitive examinations, in lieu of, or in addition to, other qualifications.
A series of exams shall form the basis for the merit selection process for candidates for public office within Synthesis Parties. These exams shall fall into three main categories, according to their level of difficulty.
Level 1 exams: Test of basic knowledge
required to vote and to hold lower public offices.
Level 2 exams: Test of more advanced knowledge required to hold intermediate positions within the party, and higher public offices.
Level 3 exams: Test of the most advanced knowledge required to qualify for the highest public offices and highest posts within the party.
The Oath for Synthesis Party
Candidates of Member States
In addition to meeting all the other requirements for Synthesis Party candidates, all candidates for public office of Synthesis Parties in states that have been admitted to the SXS shall be required to swear an oath to uphold the national constitutions of their respective states.
The Oath of Office for Officials
of the SXS
All official representatives of the SXS, including, but not necessarily limited to, the members of the EC, the GA and the JC, shall be required to take the oath of office for the SXS.
The oath of office for the SXS may vary somewhat, but it must nonetheless contain the following three components. First, it must contain an oath to uphold the Constitution of the SXS. Secondly, it must contain an oath to promote, defend and live according to the principles of the Xenophyte Code. And third, it must contain an oath to faithfully execute the duties of the office to which the person swearing the oath has been elected, appointed or assigned.
The standard form of the oath shall be as follows:
I (name of individual being sworn) do solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the SXS, to promote, defend and live according to the principles of the Xenophyte Code, and to faithfully execute the duties of the office to which I have been (elected, appointed or assigned).
ARTICLE 8: PARTIES AND OTHER SUBDIVISIONS OF THE SXS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL
Initially, the following sub-organizations have been authorized within the SXS. First and foremost, Synthesis Parties at the national level, of which the SXS is considered to be the parent organization, are hereby authorized. National Synthesis Parties are authorized to form their own sub-organizations to meet their specific needs, and such sub-organizations will be their responsibility. The Conquistacorps and the American Centrist Coalition are authorized sub-organizations of the American Synthesis Party. The Transcendental Xenophyte Synthesis, or the TXS (AKA the Church of Natural Law) is authorized as an independent, stand alone organization. Additional organizations or sub-organizations may be created as needed by a 2/3 vote of the GA with the concurrence of a 2/3 vote of EC. The use of either the tempest or the radial, the two primary graphic symbols of the SXS, is authorized by any Synthesis Party, its sub-organizations, or by the TXS.
ARTICLE 9: NATIONAL PARTY CHARTER REQUIREMENTS
The SXS shall have the authority to charter or revoke the charters of Synthesis Parties at the national level. A charter shall be considered the document by which the SXS extends formal recognition to Synthesis Parties at the national level, in return for their having met certain requirements. The most important requirements for obtaining a charter for a Synthesis Party are the personal credentials of the principal applicants. If applicants have distinguished themselves professionally in some field, if they have a working knowledge of the party doctrine, and especially if they are registered as the founders of the Synthesis Party in their country, then they will be more likely to receive a charter.
The benefits of charter membership include access to technical and financial assistance needed to build or operate Synthesis Parties, and the exclusive right to use the name "SYNTHESIS PARTY" in their native language, to be either preceded or followed by the designator of their nationality.
In addition, the principal applicant or applicants should be knowledgeable of the election laws, and the laws governing the establishment of political parties in their country.
Applying for Official Status
or a Charter
Individuals applying for a charter will be required to meet the following qualifications. First, the principal applicants must be at least 25 years of age, they must have been citizens of the nation for which they are applying for at least 10 consecutive years, they must currently be a citizen of that nation, they must not have been convicted of any criminal offense (other than political offenses which may be expunged from their records), they must be sworn Class A members of the Synthesis Party for which they are applying, and they must have passed their level 3 exams.
In addition to the foregoing requirements, the principal applicants must be able to document that their Synthesis Party has at least 1000 regular members. A one time fee of $100,000 will also be assessed to the principal applicants to complete the requirements for admission.
Revocation and Reinstatement
Once a Synthesis Party has become a charter member of the SXS, it becomes subject to the same regulations, policies and procedures that apply to all other Synthesis Parties that have been chartered by the SXS. And, it can have its charter revoked for non-compliance with these regulations, policies and procedures.
If a Synthesis Party's charter has been revoked for non-compliance, in order to be reinstated, the principals must reapply through the normal application process, and they must have corrected the original deficiencies that led to the revocation of its charter, as well as any other outstanding deficiencies. However, no additional fees will be assessed as a condition for reinstatement.
ARTICLE 10: STATE MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS
The SXS shall have the authority to admit states and to determine the conditions of their membership in the SXS, in accordance with the following requirements.
1)State membership in the SXS will only be open to those states in which national Synthesis Parties have been chartered.
2)The national Synthesis Party of the state that is applying for admission to the SXS must already be the controlling or majority party in that state.
3) The national constitutions of prospective member states shall generally conform with the SXS guidelines for drafting national constitutions, as determined by 2/3 of the EC, with the concurrence of 2/3 of the JC.
4) The national constitutions of prospective member states shall be generally consistent with the principles of natural law as explicated in the Xenophyte Perspective, and in Part II of the Constitution of the SXS, as determined by 2/3 of the EC with the concurrence of 2/3 of the JC.
5)Appointment or election of two qualified official representatives or delegates to the GA.
6)A two-thirds popular majority in the referendum of the nation seeking admission to the SXS.
7)A democratic or republican form of government and a political party system based upon the principle of ideological synthesis.
8)An economic system that is generally consistent with free market principles, and which addresses fundamental social welfare concerns.
9)Election to office of a chief executive and a majority of legislators who are sworn Class A members of their nation's Synthesis Party .
10)A one time payment to the SXS of a filing fee in the amount of one million US dollars.
The SXS shall have the authority to issue or revoke the charters of member states for compliance/noncompliance with these requirements.
The SXS shall have the authority to fund or withhold funding for Synthesis Parties at the national level in prospective member states, and in member states. Admission to the SXS as a member state will be generally regarded as a "demonstration of viability" of the Synthesis Party of that member state. Upon such a demonstration, Synthesis Parties of member states will generally no longer be eligible for certain forms of financial assistance from the SXS, for which they may have previously qualified.
ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES
Commencing one year after its admission to the SXS as a member state, and as a condition for the continuation of its membership in the SXS, every member state of the SXS shall pay dues to the SXS in the amount of not less than 2 cents per capita and not greater than 40 cents per capita for every member of its population. Any change to the per capita assessment must be approved by a 2/3 vote of the GA with the concurrence of 2/3 of the EC. Adjustments to this assessment for inflation/deflation will be made every 10 years, beginning in the year 2025.
The annual dues or the per capita assessment for member states shall be factor weighted according to the member state's per capita GDP. For instance, the member state that has the highest per capita GDP will be assessed at the maximum rate of 40 cents per capita, and the member state that has the lowest GDP will be assessed at the minimum rate of 2 cents per capita. States which fall in between these two extremes will have their annual dues adjusted accordingly.
No dues shall be assessed to national Synthesis Parties themselves. Rather, any assessments shall be submitted to the governments of the member states themselves for payment, and all payments from these governments should be remitted to the SXS. Payments to the SXS shall not come from the treasuries of Synthesis Parties themselves or from party funds, but shall be allocated from the national treasuries, or other designated funds of the member states.
The SXS shall not be authorized to levy any taxes or assess any charges to member states, other than the initial filing fee, and other than the small annual per capita assessments listed above.
ARTICLE 11: SANCTIONS AND REVOCATIONS
The SXS shall have the authority to sanction or expel member states for non-compliance with the requirements for their membership in the SXS, and to revoke the charters of member states for non-compliance with any of the requirements for membership in the SXS. Either sanctions against member states, or the expulsion of member states from the SXS, shall require a 2/3 vote of the GA with the concurrence of 2/3 of the EC. Member states that have been determined to be in non-compliance with the conditions for continued membership in the SXS can also have their Synthesis Party charters revoked by a 2/3 vote of the GA, with the concurrence of 2/3 of the EC.
Upon being sanctioned or expelled from the SXS for non-compliance, all privileges associated with membership in the SXS will be terminated, unless it can be demonstrated that non-compliance was beyond the control of the sanctioned or expelled member state.
If a member state's charter has been revoked for non-compliance, for reasons other than those which were beyond its control, and from the point at which it has been expelled, it will again be held to the same membership requirements as other non-member states. An additional filing fee will not be charged as a condition for reinstatement.
ARTICLE 12: AMENDMENTS TO PROVISIONS
For the duration of his effective term, the original chairman of the SXS shall have the authority to change, rescind or amend any provisions of the SXS Constitution as needed. But, any changes to the Constitution that occur during this time shall not be considered amendments to the Constitution, and shall be considered part of the original document. At this stage, the document's form, as opposed to its substantive content, is considered to be "protean." Accordingly, any changes or additions to the document that shall be made within the 12 year period following its initial completion and publication on January 12, of 2012 shall be considered part of the original document and shall not be considered Amendments. Any substantive changes or additions that occur after this 12 year period has elapsed, or after January 12, 2024 shall be considered amendments.
The provisions for amending the Constitution of the SXS are as follows. Amendments to the Constitution of the SXS shall require a 2/3 vote of the GA, with the concurrence of a 2/3 vote of the EC. In addition, they shall require a 2/3 vote of the national legislative bodies of all member states, and a 2/3 popular vote of the citizens of all member states.
NOTES TO ARTICLE 12
Over time, efforts will be made to make the documents that comprise the primary doctrine and core philosophy of the SXS more concise, readable and easier to understand. But, the substance and principles on which these documents are based should remain unchanged.
NOTES TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SXS
Notes on the Presumption of a
Democratic Form of Government
A form of government is not automatically in accordance with natural law, just because it is based upon democratic institutions. Without the proper normative foundations to back them up and to give them substance, democratic institutions can become a hollow shell. Democratic institutions are more likely to operate in a functional manner, or in a manner that is consistent with natural law, and with the interests of the species, when the people, as well as their elected representatives, are required to meet certain minimal standards of political competence, and when their elected representatives have been sworn to uphold a set of principles that is consistent with natural law.
Notes on Population Control
One of the most glaring contradictions in "liberal" democracies is the insatiable appetite for consumer goods on the one hand, and the limited resources available for the production of these goods on the other. The only way to resolve this contradiction (other than collapse), is to limit the number of consumers, i.e. to exercise population control. Population control necessarily entails a restriction on the people's freedom to have as many children as they want, even as it is designed to insure them a freedom that is ultimately more important, namely, the freedom to enjoy a high standard of living and a high quality of life.
A government that restricts the people's freedom to have as many children as they want might not be any less democratic that a form that would not restrict it. For, presumably, at some point, people can recognize the need for such measures as population control and they can democratically adopt such measures. That is to say, they can "voluntarily" elect to restrain certain freedoms, such as reproductive freedoms (among other freedoms) for their own long term benefit. While such a form of government would not be any less democratic (because the people "democratically" adopted restraints on their own freedoms), it would be less "liberal."
Notes on the Scientific Basis
of Natural Law and Its Implications for the US and other Constitutions
In the last century, the investigation of human nature via the social and behavioral sciences has been conducted on a large scale. As a result, these sciences have revealed many essential things about our cognitive, affective and behavioral characteristics that were unknown to both the ancients and to the authors of the US Constitution. To the extent that the authors' ideas about human nature were not based upon science, at some points, they may deserve reexamination in light of what we have learned. It is difficult to believe that what science has revealed about human nature since the founding will not have important implications for the US Constitution and for our understanding of natural law. On the other hand, to the extent that the authors had some considerable practical understanding of human nature, we can be confident that the existing Constitution already rests on "scientifically valid" natural law foundations, in some degree. Consequently, we have good reasons to believe that much of the founder's work will not be invalidated by what science has revealed about human nature since the founding. Rather, it is likely that what science has revealed about human nature since the founding will tend to corroborate certain elements of the US Constitution all the more firmly. But, in other respects, we must be prepared to accept that the behavioral sciences may have revealed some things about human nature that were unknown to the founders, and which may have implications for the US Constitution, and for our laws more generally. In addition, because important contextual changes have occurred since the founding which are directly relevant to the survivability of the republic, if not relevant to human survivability more generally, these will also have implications for the US Constitution. These contextual changes may demand that we place certain values ahead of those which the founders believed should have priority in their own time. Hence, fundamental changes to the US Constitution may still be required in order to place our legal and political system on terra firma with regard to natural law.
Also, since the founding, there has been an enormous expansion in knowledge that relates directly to our survivability. Similarly, the world has become more interdependent than ever before. As a result, the public interest must be defined in considerably more comprehensive and interconnected terms than was true at the time of the founding. National policies must reference a much larger set of considerations, and, in effect, they must be designed to be consistent with the "species interest." Certain revisions or additions to the US Constitution may be justified on the basis of what science has revealed about human nature since the founding, and which have implications for natural law. In fact, this new knowledge of human nature can completely overturn the natural law tradition as it has come to be known to us.
The natural law tradition is steeped in the traditions of ecclesiastical authority. A rational system of natural law must be grounded in what science says is true about the nature of man, and in what experience says is most likely to prove maximally conducive to human survivability. By grounding it in what science has revealed about human nature, natural law can be placed on a rational footing. Currently, with its basis in ecclesiastical tradition and humanist values, what is understood by most as the "natural law tradition" rests on an irrational footing. As such, it prescribes an irrational course for human society and a course which is at odds with important elements of man's nature. The more traditional natural law scholars appear to want to mold man into what they believe he should be, without giving due consideration to what man actually is, as a product of evolution. That is to say, they have an artificial conception of man which is based upon their ideals.
To attempt to cast man in such an unnatural mold, or to insist that he live under artificial social arrangements which are not maximally in accord with his nature is the most egregious violation of natural law. No man should be forced to live under circumstances that are not maximally in accord with his own nature. For, to the extent that man's nature is a product of evolution (and, by extension, a product of God) to create any social arrangements which are counter to his nature or counter to his naturally prevailing behavioral tendencies, is an affront against God. Rather, the aim of a society based on natural law is to allow man to live in social arrangements which are maximally in accord with his nature. Forms of social organization which have the sanction of nature are more likely to prove stable, enduring and maximally conducive to human survivability. Evolutionary models bear this out. Consequently, from the standpoint of a rationally and scientifically based system of natural law, man evolved the traits he has because they were generally conducive to human survivability. In short, man evolved these traits because they were functional. That which is functional is conducive to the survivability of the species. That which is conducive to the survivability of the species is in accordance with divine will.
As it now exists, the US Constitution is a document that is only "incidentally" in accordance with natural law. This incidence with a rationally and scientifically grounded doctrine of natural law was based upon the founders' personal experience, historical evidence and anecdotal understanding of human nature. The founders created a system that came closer to conforming to natural law than any other that has ever existed before. Hence, we owe them a great debt. But, the founder's work is unfinished. What remains for us to do, by way of a new Constitution, is to make sure that what they left us can be placed on a rational and scientific footing, where possible.
We have learned much about human nature since the founding. And, where this knowledge has important implications for our forms of social organization, it should be factored into the Constitution. In addition, circumstances have changed which warrant additions and revisions to the Constitution, even as we should make a considerable effort to remain true to the spirit of the original document. Hence, important elements of the US Constitution can be expected to survive and to find their way into the new Constitution. But, on the other hand, the US and other Constitutions will still be subject to substantial modification according to what our more extensive knowledge of human nature suggests are our rights and responsibilities under natural law. A document should not be revered merely because it has the weight of tradition behind it. Reason and logic tell us this. Reason and logic also tell us that we should only decide to change such documents after careful deliberation. There are certain timeless essentials in the US Constitution which should be preserved, even as there are others which call for reinterpretation or negation in light of current knowledge. The aim is not to revere what has been left to us by the founders, but to insure that it conforms with natural law.
Notes on the Establishment of
Religion and the US Constitution
As one of its more salient features, the new Constitution of the US should include a more loose interpretation of the establishment clause. At the time of the founding, the founders set out to produce a secular state, but one which tacitly accepted a generic and non-denominational God. But, certainly, no one would dispute that, as far as most of the founders were concerned, God took on a Christian form. The United States was founded by Christians and it has historically been a predominantly Christian nation. On these accounts, Christianity should receive "first consideration" under the new Constitution. Christianity no longer poses a potential threat to the secular state, and is in fact well on its way to becoming a secular philosophical-moral system itself. There is no longer any need to maintain a complete and total separation between the state and religion, which was never intended by the founders to begin with.
The United States has traditionally been a Christian nation, and it would not even violate the current establishment clause to say this is more explicit terms than the founders used. The founders had no issue with other denominations or faiths because, for all practical purposes, there were none. That is to say, at the time of the founding, the number of Jews in the United States was insignificant, and, effectively, there were no Moslems. The nation was overwhelmingly Christian at the time of the founding.
The establishment clause was only intended to insure that the church or ecclesiastical authority did not compete or interfere with the affairs of the state. But now, in an environment in which Christian denominations compete head to head with other denominations, it is perhaps a good idea to state publicly what the founders took for granted. In addition, the new Constitution should clearly favor those religious doctrines which subsequent experience suggests are the most functional. And, based on the historical affinity for the Christian religion, it should favor the Christian religion over some others, even as it does not favor any denomination within the Christian religion. That is, it should favor what amounts to a non-denominational generic Christian religion, for this is the religious form whose aims are most consistent with the aims of the state (-i.e. to produce a well ordered and smoothly functioning society) Accordingly, Hindus, Jews and Moslems are not automatically due any equal consideration or parity with Christians, merely by virtue of the fact that they have historically been religious minorities in this country, and were not taken into account at the time of the founding.
Though the original Constitution did not mention Christianity by name, the founders clearly had it in mind. And while the practice of non-Christian faiths should be allowed within reason, those who practice these faiths should not expect civil authorities to extend the same privileges that are extended to Christians. For instance, by virtue of their minor historical status, and by virtue of their current minority status, Hindus, Moslems and Jews should not expect the state to observe national holidays which are coincident with their religious holidays. By contrast, the principal Christian holiday (Christmas) is both a secular and a religious holiday. It is both a commercial and a traditional holiday. This means that nativity scenes in public places (or, for that matter, in a government building) do not violate the establishment clause. They are traditional cultural and historical symbols, but not necessarily religious ones. One can impute religious significance to them if one chooses, but one is under no obligation to do so. If Jews or members of other religious minorities resent the fact that their own religion does not have the same historical and cultural standing in our country, it is not the obligation of the larger society to accommodate them or make them feel co-equal with the majority.
Furthermore, the new Constitution should include language designed to achieve greater uniformity and homogeneity of religious beliefs. Towards this end, it should consider a doctrine's functionality and its traditional standing in American society. And while the state should not go so far as to establish any religion, the state clearly has an interest in creating an environment in which the most functional religious doctrines will be likely to flourish, and an environment that will discourage less functional religious doctrines from taking root. The level and manner of the state's involvement in religion is a natural extension of that which is specified in the original Constitution, in light of changes that have occurred in the authority of the church and the state since the founding. This new level of involvement would more explicitly guarantee the right of secular authorities to use and make reference to religious symbolism, such as the generic and non-denominational references to God which have been traditionally observed in the proceedings of our government (in blessings, ceremonies, coinage etc.) Effectively, this would both constrain and guarantee religious freedoms. A constitutional article specifically addressing this new understanding of religion will serve these purposes.
Note on Lessons to be Learned
From America's Urban Experience
One of the main reasons why Jefferson had a preference for a pastoral society over an industrial one is that he knew that a population of urban industrial workers would become dependent on their employers for their livelihoods, and this would tend to give their employers too much power over them. Jefferson wanted to prevent the growth of dependent urban workers that he saw becoming concentrated in the cities of Britain at the early stages of the industrial revolution. Similarly, Marx would take up the same issue again at a later date as the excesses of the industrial revolution became more apparent in his own day.
Aside from Jefferson or Marx, and solely from the standpoint of natural law, it is just unhealthy for a society to have large wage dependent urban populations (if they are captive and have no recourse) of the kind that we now have in many of our major cities today. Although this workforce has become much more fragmented and diffuse, with the demise of American industry, it still represents a population with a largely unstable basis. That is to say, it has become very dependent on either government services or on unpredictable economic cycles. On these grounds, we would want the new Constitution to contain provisions that are designed to reduce the differential fertility which gave rise to these populations in the first place; and to reduce their dependency on either commerce, industry or government for their sustenance. Cities of the future are not likely to be patterned along lines of existing urban models anyway (see www.linearc.org).
We have large urban populations which have become totally dependent on a system of wages to earn their living. Admittedly, at various points in our recent history, cities have been magnets of employment which have improved the personal fortunes of millions by drawing them out of rural poverty. Over the last century our great industrial centers became Meccas of employment. But now, in many instances, they are largely devoid of industry. Hence, there are reasons to believe that in a prolonged period of economic retraction (such as that which can be foreseen to result from considerably higher oil prices, and from a collapse in the availability of other critical commodities), that the cities will lose their luster and that millions of people in urban areas who have become dependent on either government largesse or on an unsustainably high level of economic activity for their subsistence will be thrown out of work. The millions of wage dependent people in these cities will need some form of subsistence in the event of a potentially dramatic and prolonged economic decline.
The fact is that we should have never allowed such concentrations of dependent workers to develop in the first place. Population control measures should have been in place long ago to prevent their occurrence. In short, we should have heeded some of Jefferson's concerns, and we should have melded them with some of Marx's forecasts. Certain provisions of the Constitution should reflect these concerns. For even as Jefferson and Marx may not have been totally right in all respects, they were right in some respects. A key point to learn from their writings is that any time you have a wage dependent urban population in a society, and especially if that population has not been normatively well constituted by virtue of having internalized an optimal set of values, attitudes and beliefs, that society will have a built in element of instability. Other than being normatively well constituted to begin with, the best way to counteract this instability is for the people to have some ability to be self-sufficient. If the people cannot be self-sufficient in some minimal degree, they will become dependent on either large corporations or government. In the degree that they become dependent upon either large corporations or government for their subsistence, their view of the world is likely to be skewed accordingly.
It is possible to have a very stable urban
society, provided that everyone has some place where they can go to conduct
subsistence farming or fishing if things were to go terribly wrong in the
economy. This built in element of security and independence allows people
in the urban centers to think for themselves, rather than having their
thought process enslaved by their immediate economic interests. It allows
them to make political choices without being duressed into believing certain
things by larger economic or governmental interests to which they may have
become indebted, or to which they may owe their means of making a living.
In short, it empowers them, and it takes away power from commercial, and
governmental interests. So, melding basic principles of Jefferson and Marx,
the ideal society involves a combination of Jefferson's citizen farmer,
the industrial working class of Marx, along with a vestige of the capitalist
class, which is allowed to retain "partial" ownership of the means of production.
The terms "STATE" and "NATION" have been used interchangeably throughout this document.
The term COMMUNITY has sometimes been used interchangeably with the terms STATE and NATION.
COPYRIGHT 2012 BY ALEX VAN ALLEN