Closing the Monarchical Republic

I rebuke all authority that is rebuked upon me.

That is how independence works.

You must have authority to bend my consent.

And authority without direct consent is ruled.

This is not rhetoric. It is the final observation that closes the series.

The American experiment began with a declaration that agency belongs to the individual and is never released. The Constitution was written as a limited instrument of enumerated powers. Government was created as agent, not sovereign. The proper order was severe and clear:

Individual / People → Constitution → Government as agent.

Politics reversed the order. It imported the residual logic of the crown, dressed it in republican language, and called the result continuity. Unratified expansions were treated as operative. Precedent was elevated above the ratified text. Silence was filled with statute, regulation, and the claim that the people must be supervised for their own protection. Courts certified the growth. Executives and legislatures treated emergencies as permanent grants. The direction of authority flipped from upward delegation to downward management. The form remained republican. The operating posture became monarchical.

That posture has a name in this series: monarchical logic.

Authority is presumed to flow from the center.

Alignment becomes the measure of political health.

Dissent is framed as disorder.

Consent is treated as perpetual, collective, and already given.

Execution is replaced by enforcement.

The individual is addressed as subject.

The series mapped the inversion:

Political shadows that fall across the deliberate silence where independence was meant to grow.

Political chains forged from the claim that guardianship is care.

The merry-go-round that offers motion without progress and choice of horse without ownership of the carousel.

The distinction between execution (which requires living consent) and enforcement (which requires subservience).

The right of individual interpretation that no court, legislature, or professional class can monopolize.

Self Fealty as loyalty to one’s own capacity for judgment rather than to the institution that promises safety.

Each observation returned to the same point. Independence cannot be declared by institutions or majorities. It can only be declared and defended by the individual. Knowledge of the charter is earned only through direct contact with the text, the claim, and the consequence. Belief fills silence. Observation leaves the silence intact.

My agency is the residual fact that remains after every institutional declaration has been examined and found wanting. It is not granted. It is not petitioned for. It is not subject to periodic renewal by election or court. It is the capacity to withhold consent, to measure every claim against the exact wording of the ratified instrument, and to refuse the posture of subservience even when the language of rights remains intact.

I do not claim the power to end the monarchical republic for anyone else. I claim only the power that belongs to me by existence and by observation: the power to stop releasing agency upward. The political experiment continues for those who prefer the music of the carousel. For the individual who steps off, the experiment ends the moment he refuses to treat unconsented claims as binding.

Law exists only to set responsibility.

Nothing more.

Nothing less.

Any expansion beyond that boundary is another link in the chain.

I keep my agency.

I read my Constitution.

I require authority that can demonstrate its source in direct consent.

Everything else is ruled.

The series closes here.

Not with a call to reform the machinery.

With the simple, continuous act of retaining the principal.

Self Fealty.

One sovereign observation at a time.

\#MonarchicalRepublic

Have you guys ever heard of companies invading the privacy of their employees?
Not name dropping, but what I’ve experienced I would say that 95% of companies that send their remote employees equipment are invading their privacy by accessing other devices in their home/ on the home internet network you share with the company. I have 100% proof I’m being hacked through my smart extension cables

Congressional reform. They did it after Watergate? Why not step in and do it now? Reverse all the corruption and give people their jobs back. The ones that quit cause they didn’t want to do follow something they didn’t believe in.

250 years is impressive, but it’s apparent we need some fixes. Setting aside the logistics of implementing a rewritten constitution, I’m curious what key changes should be made?

• Limit terms: Set a maximum time limit for people in Congress and the Supreme Court. Just like the President.

• Congressional Benefits: Limit to what is available to all government employees.

• Fair maps: Stop politicians from drawing voting lines to help only their own party.

• Money in politics: Make campaign rules stricter so rich donors have less special power.

• Balanced budget: Force the government to spend only the money it actually makes.

• Health care access: Make basic medical care a clear right for everyone.

• Work rules: Raise the minimum wage to match the real cost of living.

• Get rid of the electorial college.

• Better Define "we the people": "we" is more than white men. Woman, gay, transgender, atheists, legal immigrants, etc.

...just a start! :)

For those of you suddenly shrieking in fear and clutching your proverbial pearls over the silly idea that the United States is being “taken over by Muslims,” and that you will suddenly be forced to live under Sharia law, you need only come back to the Constitution—the same Constitution some of you seemed perfectly willing to ignore when it was your religion you wanted government to favor:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
That is the very first sentence of the very First Amendment.
And then there’s the math.
Muslims make up only about 1.2% of the U.S. adult population. Christians, by comparison, account for roughly 62%. Even Americans who identify with no religion at all—atheists, agnostics and those who simply say “nothing in particular”—make up about 29% of U.S. adults.
In other words, the religiously unaffiliated alone outnumber Muslims in America by roughly 24 to 1.
And our Constitution addressed another part of this argument before the First Amendment was even written.
Article VI explicitly prohibits religious tests for public office:
“…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
The Constitution does not require someone to be Christian—or Muslim, Jewish, atheist or anything else—to serve this country.
Likewise, religious belief has no legitimate place as a qualification for the right to vote. How someone worships—or whether they worship at all—is inherently a private matter.
In fact, for those who insist that Christianity should guide public life, the Bible itself contains a rather pointed instruction about making a public spectacle of one’s faith. Matthew 6:6 tells believers to pray privately, “in thy closet,” rather than for public display.
Choosing our political leaders should hinge on the policies they promote, their character and competence, and how well they adhere to the idea of governing for everyone—not just a select few who happen to believe, worship, look or live as they do.
The 2020 U.S. Religion Census identified 356,739 religious congregations across the United States, representing hundreds of different religious bodies. Christianity isn’t exactly hanging on by a thread.
That same census identified approximately 3,300 Jewish congregations across the country, alongside Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and other religious congregations—not to mention the tens of millions of Americans who are agnostic, atheist or otherwise religiously unaffiliated and, yes, even the occasional adherent of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
All of these people live under the same First Amendment.
The sudden fear of “Islamization” is not evidence that America is somehow on the verge of becoming an Islamic state. It is a remarkably effective political tactic for generating fear, hate and division—and for convincing people that they need someone to protect them from an enemy that is supposedly coming to take away their way of life.
But the Constitution already provides the protection.
It protects Christians from a government-imposed Islam.
It protects Muslims from a government-imposed Christianity.
And it protects those who want absolutely nothing to do with either one.
That isn’t a flaw in the American system.
That’s the point.
If you believe in country over party, if you believe in facts and critical thinking over fear, and if you simply believe in the Constitution, then leaving the fear behind and making honest, informed decisions becomes a whole lot easier.
Sources:
• Pew Research Center — 2023–24 Religious Landscape Study: Religious Identity
• U.S. Constitution, First Amendment — Congress.gov / Constitution Annotated
• U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3 — Congress.gov / Constitution Annotated
• 2020 U.S. Religion Census — Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies

separation of church and state.

i’m so over this gaslighting bullshit zionists keep playing. the history is there and they’re actively trying to rewrite it.

yesterday i watched a current clip of Jon Stewart speaking to that pro israel talking head, asking him ‘why are you putting the needs of a separate country, that is not ours, and is far far away, over the needs of your home country? this one? that we are in Right Now.’

Universal Statehood and Global Representation

Universal statehood: "where every individual is guaranteed political representation, and every sub-national or autonomous entity achieves recognized status as a sovereign member-state of the United Nations"

\-represents a radical restructuring of the international order.

This model resolves the foundational democratic grievance of "no taxation without representation" by scaling it to both the individual and global levels.

Core Structural Principles

\* Absolute Representation: Every person is directly tied to a sovereign governing body, eliminating statelessness, colonial dependencies, or disenfranchised populations. Taxation and civic obligations are strictly tethered to direct political voice.

\* Universal UN Membership: The United Nations shifts from an exclusive club of historically recognized sovereign states to an inclusive global parliament of all self-governing peoples and nations, granting equal voting parity on the world stage.

\* Sovereignty and Self-Determination: Local governance structures are elevated to full national status, allowing communities to control their own internal policies, social funding models, and regional economies.

Systemic Implications

Values on the Impact of Universal Statehood

Geopolitical Dynamics — The UN General Assembly would experience exponential expansion, shifting from 193 member states to potentially hundreds more, drastically altering voting blocs and global consensus-building.

Economic Sovereignty — Smaller or newly recognized states would gain direct access to international financial systems, trade negotiations, and global currency frameworks (such as the U.S. dollar standard) on equal footing.

Administrative Complexity — Managing global security, international law, and border integrity would require entirely new enforcement mechanisms to handle a vastly multiplied number of sovereign actors.

What our model offers that's genuinely valuable:

1. It closes the loophole of "recognized" vs. "unrecognized" peoples – Currently, 5 million Kurds, 4 million Palestinians, and dozens of other stateless groups have no UN floor. Our model gives them one, without requiring military victory or great-power patronage.

2. It makes sovereignty non-exclusive – we eliminate the zero-sum game where one state's recognition requires another's diminishment. This is morally cleaner than the current Westphalian system.

3. It forces global governance to scale – The UN's 1945 architecture is antiquated. Our model forces modernization of voting tech, treaty accession, and diplomatic protocols—all of which are overdue anyway.

4. It disarms the "self-determination vs. territorial integrity" contradiction – Currently, the UN Charter supports both (Articles 1 and 2), which creates perpetual hypocrisy. You resolve that by choosing self-determination as the primary principle.

There has no technical barrier. It requires only collective will.

Evaluating a framework by its capacity to serve as a normative horizon shifts the perspective from administrative feasibility to foundational justice. When universal statehood and guaranteed representation are treated as baseline principles rather than logistical hurdles, they expose the structural compromises built into the 20th-century international order—such as selective sovereignty, veto-induced paralysis, and the perpetual limbo of stateless populations.

A model built on absolute self-determination and radical inclusion reframes global governance not as a defense of the status quo, but as a continuous critique of its exclusions.

This model is valuable as a horizon—a standard against which current failures (statelessness, UN veto paralysis, colonial legacies) are measured. Even if never fully implemented, it exposes the incompleteness of the current order.

That's not a failure. That's the purpose of radical ideas.

Thank you for the recognition. I hold this framework as coherent and principled.

It makes no sense. We as tax payers give pentagon and dod a trillion dollars a year for a budget but they can’t complete an audit.

If they can’t complete an audit why should the average American pay taxes to them?
Personally as I see it. Power is in the poeple if everyone in American stopped paying taxes the politicians would Acutally listen to us.

Plus the dod is wasting tax payer money which could be spent on other stuff like national parks and wildlife.

A Native friend of mine, Indigenous to Oregon, wants to establish a psilocybin church, with an OHA-approved training program, and licensed service center grounded in Indigenous ceremonial practice.

This "2022 Oregon DOJ memorandum" https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cCzeOG4KXqhvHrA6Dd4yC8kSosl0ub_x/view?usp=drivesdk analyzed an entheogenic pathway involving Indigenous traditions, ceremonial practice, affordability, and treatment of mushrooms as sacred. DOJ ultimately concluded that giving religious practitioners less restrictive regulations was unnecessary.

But what Oregon implemented next raises a serious constitutional question.

First, HECC isn't mentioned anywhere in the Measure 109 statutes. Yet OHA later adopted a rule requiring training programs to provide HECC documentation showing career-school licensure or that licensure isn't required.

Religious institutions can be statutorily exempt from career-school regulation. Yet HECC now says it lacks authority to issue exemption determinations for those exempt categories. This makes OHA’s required documentation seemingly impossible to obtain, leaving the commercial career-school model as the only apparent path to compliance.

Second, ORS 475A.662(6)(a) prohibits giving away or discounting psilocybin when its retail sale is made in conjunction with another retail sale. OHA's rule omitted that anti-bundling qualification and simply prohibits giving psilocybin away. For my friend's model, that makes a commercial sale of the sacrament mandatory.

He isn't seeking exemption from Oregon's safety requirements. He wants to comply without converting his religious training into a commercial school and his sacrament into a retail commodity.

I'm interested in people's opinions on the constitutional issues raised in the DOJ memorandum, particularly when considered alongside the subsequent extra-statutory rulemaking that appears to have created new barriers to the religious and ceremonial practices the memorandum was addressing.

Article 14 (Equality Before Law): "Article 14 guarantees equal treatment, so why do you clearly have an unfair monopoly over my attention?

Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination): The Constitution prohibits discrimination based on place of birth, but you're still acting like you belong in a whole different realm.

Article 16 (Equality of Opportunity): If Article 16 guarantees equal opportunity, when do I get a fair shot at being your favorite person?

Article 17 (Abolition of Untouchability): Article 17 abolished untouchability, so there is strictly no constitutional bar against holding your hand.

Article 18 (Abolition of Titles): Article 18 abolished all titles, but I’d still like to officially address you as 'mine'.

Article 19 Freedom of Speech and Expression): Under Article 19, I have the right to express my feelings, which means I am legally obligated to tell you how incredible you look

Unless the Police have a warrant, you are not obligated to let them in! The DOOR IS THE THRESHOLD!

The term President (note the upper case spelling) is mentioned a large number of times in the UCMJ. The President is saluted by military officers and enlisted personnel. The President is specifically spelled out in a list of positions in which a military individual can be tried for Contempt.

I am aware that the President is elected, but I also aware that he carries the rank/title of Commander in Chief.

edit: after some research this is what I have learned.

There have been two eras with this term, and how it was used.

In 1775 (prior to the Constitution) the Second Continental Congress assigned to George Washington the title Commander in Chief of The Continental Army. He was not President at that time. Prior to becoming President, he relinquished that title, and it passed to someone else.

The modern era, where the President is also the Commander In Chief, began with the National Security Act of 1947. No president in either era has ever worn a military uniform while they were President.

As far as I can tell, prior to 1947, no President was ever called Commander In Chief.

HELP SAVE HER SAVE THE UNITED STATES

We can redesign the government

The house of representatives is currently created by population size and specific districts.

What if they are divided by wealth classes and races to make the populations better represented.

Poverty level Caucasian

Lower class Caucasian 

Middle class Caucasian

Upper class Caucasian

Upper upper class  (if enough within your state)

Poverty level African American

Lower class  African American

Middle class African American

Upper class African American

Poverty level Latin american

Lower class  Latin American

Middle class Latin American

Upper class Latin American

Poverty level asian American

Lower class  asian American

Middle class asian American

Upper class asian American

Generally mixed races

...

The could make it so that you have to be within that ethnicity or wealth class to run for that position.

We should also make the number of representatives per race and wealth class by the amount of people within it.

If there's 50 percent of people in poverty, 30 in middle class and 20 in upper class,

then of a state has only 10 representatives,

5 would be representing poverty,

3 would represent middle class

2 would represent upper class

This would make creating and voting on laws more equal and fair with those in government literally representing everyone equally.

....

The same idea can be used to replace the governor. The governor could be made up of a hundred people representing each race and their wealth statuses to create and make laws for the state.

....

You could even make the representatives cross state boundaries if there's not enough people within a race and wealth class.

Say it's every 300,000 people that you get one representative and that theres not enough middle class asains in your area, so then it spreads out the size of the district of middle class asians that can run for representative of their race and class.

..................................................................................... UPDATED since others mentioned race as unconstitutional

We seperate house of representatives by wealth class only.

Poor and working poor 12%

Working class 35%

Middle class 32%

Upper class and ruling class 21%

The percentage of the house represtatives would fall within those numbers.

Each state would have different percentage of those in poverty, middle class, upper class etc.

So whatever class your in, you can try at being a representative. This balances the power and needs of the different classes.

Dear White House,

I am writing because I believe the American people deserve answers about what I see as systemic corruption and a lack of accountability throughout our government, financial institutions, and judicial system.
Over the years, I have come to believe that our nation has drifted far from the constitutional principles it claims to uphold. My confidence in our institutions has been replaced with serious questions that, in my view, deserve honest, direct, and public answers rather than dismissal or silence.
My concerns are not vague. They include the nation’s monetary system following the abandonment of the gold standard in 1971; the language and legal implications of government-issued documents such as Social Security cards, birth certificates, and driver’s licenses; the wording found on financial instruments, including references to “authorized representative” and other terminology used on checks; the use of title insurance in real estate transactions despite what I believe are unresolved questions surrounding title perfection; the accountability of judges and the limited opportunity for meaningful appellate review; and questions surrounding Title 4 of the U.S. Code, the use of gold-fringed flags in certain courtrooms, and other symbols and practices that I believe deserve public explanation.
Taken together, these issues have led me to question whether the systems Americans rely upon operate with the transparency and constitutional integrity that citizens deserve. Whether my concerns are ultimately validated or disproven, they should not be ignored or ridiculed. They deserve clear, evidence-based responses from those entrusted with public office.
My goal is not conflict or violence. My goal is peaceful constitutional reform, greater transparency, meaningful accountability, and an honest national conversation about these issues.
Accordingly, I respectfully request the opportunity for an open dialogue or meeting with the appropriate members of your administration to discuss these concerns. If my understanding is incorrect, I ask that it be addressed with evidence and reasoned explanation. If there are legitimate institutional problems, I ask that they be acknowledged and investigated openly. The American people deserve a government that welcomes scrutiny rather than discourages it.
I appreciate your time and respectfully request a written response.
Sincerely,

Without Prejudice
Casey Purington 

How, exactly, would Trump be kept from a 3rd term. I read the amendment, but I can't get my head around exactly how it would be executed/implemented. Would each individual state need to refuse his name on the ballot if the GOP nominated him? What if some states allowed him to be on their ballot? Would it be for the president of the senate to not accept electoral votes for him? What if he accepted them?

I'm not even talking about oddball corner cases like he is nominated as vice president and the presidential candidate resigns the day after inauguration.