Found at outpost-of-freedom.com/plan.htm
The Plan for Restoration of
Constitutional Government
A means whereby we can restore the government and country which was passed down to us
by the Framers of the Constitution
Gary Hunt September 2, 2012
Copyright by Common Law.
Portions may be copied, so long as credit is given and
quotes are provided with sufficient information to avoid misrepresentation of what was intended in the original article.
The Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government Preface:
This Plan for the Restoration of Constitutional Government, as explained in "The Question", is purely hypothetical. It is, however, a natural evolution from the "You Have Tread On Me - Petition", as the Revolutionary War was a natural evolution from the Olive Branch Petition.
In adapting this sequence of events to modern times, it needs to be understood that times have changed and the possibility of a gathering of "revolutionary" delegates in one place would be fatal to the cause.
Understanding this difficulty, the expedient for today is that individuals would sign and submit, to their respective representatives in the federal government, individual petitions as "redress of grievances, as per Article I of the Bill of Rights.
Absent a positive response to the Petition, one could safely conclude that the government had no more intention of addressing the grievances than King George III did. This, by colonial standards, would put one in a "state of nature" -- absent an operating Constitutional government -- wherein he, as a free man, has every right to associate with others of similar circumstance.
An earlier article, by the author of this Plan, provides some insight into this aspect of the Founders' thinking process when they realized that they could no longer live under government that did not recognize their rights (see Sons of Liberty #14).
As you progress through this hypothetical Plan, you will note that there are short sketches (Historical Perspective) that provide a brief example of the historical conditions that can be equated with each part of the Plan.
The Plan, then, is an effort to parallel the activities of the Founders into a theoretical plan that emulates the progression of events, culminating in the creation of the United States of America.
The Plan is made as detailed as expedient for the variety of possible circumstances that might arise. Plans, however, can never be made so rigid that they will work under all conditions. Therefore, it is intended to provide sufficient detail so that creative minds could easily refine the Plan into a working model for immediate and local conditions.
Often, elements of the Plan call to mind other works by this author, and, works by others, in which instances, links are provided to those works to provide additional insight which might assist in more detailed planning and understanding.
The Plan is provided for your pleasure and education. What you do with it is up to you, and, what you do not do with it is a point of consideration for your posterity.
G. H.
Table of Contents
1 Preface
2 Table of Contents
3 The Question
I. Small units, small acts of aggravation
II. Units join together in small regions (counties), greater acts of aggravation
III. Connections created between county elements, offensive and defensive operations
10 Scenario for Larger Population Areas
IV. Coordinated efforts, securing facilities, allegiances and prisoners
V. Institution of governmental elements (county)
VI. Continuation of flow of goods, utilities and communications
VII. Extension of influence into State government
Declaration of Dissolution of Government
29 Solution for Unwanted Immigrants
31 State Advisory Council
VIII. Extension of influence into federal government agencies
IX. Extension of influence into federal government
X. Restoration of Constitutional Government
42 Constitutional Compliance Convention
XI. Conclusion
The Question:
A question was raised, a few months ago, in a conversation with a friend. The question was, "Could a Revolution be conducted in the modern world considering modern technology, extensive government troops, and battle field weapons?" At first thought, the task seems so ominous, so daunting and against such odds, that it would be impractical, if not impossible.
Upon reflecting on what must have been equally daunting to the Founding Fathers, it is not, as first anticipated, such an ominous task.
The Founding Fathers faced British forces -- the best-trained and most successful military in the world. Its navy was master of the seas; its land forces had recently defeated the French and had forced colonization around the world. It controlled the local government, and had enacted laws that gave it nearly arbitrary control over the colonies.
The colonies had few things working for them. They had a lack of experience, except those who had recently fought alongside the British in the French-Indian Wars; some had learned to defend themselves against hostile Indians, and thus learned fighting tactics used by the Indians. They had local knowledge of the topography. And, they had the fortitude and persistence that had helped their forefathers, and themselves, overcome the obstacles of taming a land that had been little changed from its natural state.
Against them were: Substantial numbers of highly trained soldiers; Unlimited supplies and resources, although most of them were located across the ocean and had to be transported, this taking months; A multitude of locations, bases, within and around the colonies; Mastery of the waterways; And, many of the military leaders had experience both with fighting Indians and working alongside the colonists.
In those first eventful days of April, May, and June 1775, the colonists learned what their weaknesses were and what some of their strengths were. They learned that they were not trained, nor were they inclined to fight face-to-face on the battlefield. They learned that the tactics of the Indians, ambush by surprise and hit and run tactics would damage both morale and manpower of the British. They learned that living to fight another day was more important than victory in a single battle; that skirmishes were the best tactic, unless a major battle had a high degree of probability of being won. One of the major drawbacks in their efforts was that of selecting officers who were astute enough to challenge the ways of traditional warfare.
But, they did, with their persistence and their faith in God, prevail -- not by might, rather by tactics and fortitude.
Just how would they fight, today? Surely, they would adapt their tactics to the 'battlefield' and would realize the political necessity of securing faith and assistance from the non-combatants. There are many other generalities that can be addressed, but of greater importance will be the actual circumstances of today's world and the necessity to develop new tactics in order to overcome obstacles that present themselves, as the battle begins. This is a theoretical answer to that question.
1
A Foundation Upon Which to Build
To undertake the task at hand, we must understand some concepts that were common knowledge to those who gave us this great nation though have since been lost, by various means, to our current process of thought. The principle concept is an understanding of "the State of Nature". That is the condition in which we find ourselves, if there is no government.
If we find ourselves in a State of Nature, we are living in a world absent de jure government. Each does by only his own moral and ethical constraints, absent legitimate government constraints.
Within a community, it s necessary to moderate each of our individual characteristics and develop a common set which all are bound by. This is the simplest form of government outside of family. It is a community with common goals and constraints -- and, a method of dealing with those who violate others within that community.
Common elements for such a community are language, moral values, and heritage. These three common elements provide for a cohesive community. Similarly, a state and a nation must also have the common characteristics, though being a much more diverse lot, the larger the government, the less imposition on individual rights.
However, those common elements must, to some degree, be existent, for a nation to truly have the proper foundation to preserve the traditions of its past, to have a cohesive present day, and, a model for its future.
For nearly a century, the fundamentals of those elements within the United States were clearly defined. However, in more recent times, those "truths' have been distorted and been lost to our contemporary thoughts. To better understand those founding principles, see "We the People", but, Who are We.
Since our purpose is to Restore Constitutional Government, as intended by the Framers, perhaps it would behoove us to establish some principles on which to judge whether and individual has sufficient understand of, and, respect for, those principles. The Principle Faction its relationship to lesser factions is discussed in "Factions -- the Chains of Oppression".
Some Thoughts
This plan, after years of discussion and contemplation, coupled with an understanding of what the Founders did to challenge the authority of the power of government, was developed as a guideline that would answer the question of whether it would be possible, today, to emulate the actions of those Founders to achieve the same end.
The desire to change government back to its Constitutional limitations would best be served if no blood were shed. The impracticality of achieving that end, along with the knowledge that blood has already been shed, moves us to the second position -- that the minimum amount of blood be shed, and, that of if blood is to be shed, that it include an absolute minimum of innocent blood.
There is little doubt that during a conflict, blood will be shed, when necessary, in the course of that conflict. Knowing that any innocent blood shed is a detriment to the image of those who seek to return
2
to Constitutional government, every effort should be made to "pick the ground" for open conflict, with special consideration to locations that will have the least impact on innocent bystanders.
In the selection of 'targets', outside of the normal area of conflict (aggravation), the following should be taken into consideration.
Though accident, error, and, perhaps, judging wrongly, the actions of those who might be targeted, it is far better to isolate those errors to people who, if not guilty, at least are in a position and have acted in such a manner that their guilt is probable.
There is also the moral consideration -- that those who are willing to strike, as the Founders did, do so in violation of the laws, as they exist, today. When they make a decision to "target" someone, or, something, they should consider just how the "target" would be construed by those who will, eventually, make judgment on their actions. The most important consideration, however, would be the judgment made by God and the person doing the act. If that act is motivated for purposes of revenge, God will judge, and, the person will have to live with, the consequences.
On the other hand, if the act is one that is surely one of retribution for acts of the target, whether corporate property or an individual life, and has clearly demonstrated by a pattern on the part of the person or entity, then, surely, God will judge as necessary, and, the actor will have a clear mind.
Where possible, all players in the act, and, even more desirable, others who can safely be associated with and brought into, if not the plan, at least the determination of the validity of the 'target', the collective judgment, serving as a sort of jury, considering both the guilt and the demonstrable necessity of the action, will provide the best assurance of a desirable final judgment, and a clear conscience for those involved.
If blood is to be shed, every consideration should be made that the blood deserves to be shed. Some considerations for the evaluation of a 'target':
Have lives been lost as direct, or indirect, result of the actions of the 'target', acting in violation of the Constitution or constitutional laws of the land?
Has there been a continual loss of property by people who should have had that property protected, under the Constitution or constitutional laws?
If a foreign nation, say, Russia, were to invade the United States, would the target become a collaborator, turning against the United States and the Constitution?
Note: The possibility that if there were sufficient 'friends" (collaborators) of a foreign power, these 'friends' who might encourage participation by that foreign power, is to be considered. The discouragement of his sort of person (potential collaborators) would be as desirable as the discouragement of all other potential 'targets'.