THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION FOR THE 'NEWSTATES OF AMERICA' An analysis by E. Stanley Rittenhouse This new constitution would replace the present U.S. Constitution and would dissolve the States as we know them into Newstates, "each comprising no less than 5 percent of the whole population." This new constitution with its regional government would bring about an oligarchy at the expense of our Constitutional Republic. This form of dictatorship that is planned for America would bring into even more prominence and power the crowd who wants a "New World Order." This proposed constitution is, in itself, a vehicle for the transition from our proven, tried and true, divinely-ordained Constitution to the New World Order that man, in his own efforts, hopes to impose upon mankind. The first eight words of the preamble clearly spell out all of the above. "So that we may join in common endeavors" assumes that everyone wants to support their endeavors to destroy America's sovereignty, states rights and the individual's God- given liberty and freedom. Should this be accomplished, the states would be abolished in favor of regions known as "Newstates." By their assumption, the initiative is taken and the momentum gained. The "common endeavors" in this case is the destruction of our U.S. Constitution so as to replace it with a dictatorship. The new would have the form and appearance of the old but there the similarity would end. The Newstates of America Constitution is merely a form of the old in order to pacify those still remembering the liberty that is guaranteed. The new constitution is a bridge, a part of the hopefully peaceful transition from a Constitutional Republic to an oligarchic world dictatorship. The mere fact that this new constitution is to be in effect only 25 years and that many opportunities are provided to revise and rewrite it in those years, indicates the role of transition. Article XI, Section 2 declares: "When this Constitution shall have been in effect for twenty-five years the Overseer shall ask, by referendum whether a new Constitution shall be prepared." And should those in power be defeated in the case of amending their new constitution, they won't take no for an answer. To quote Article XI, Section 1: "If rejected (that which they proposed), it may be restudied and a new proposal submitted." So evidently, it is not possible for the people to totally reject that which the appointed Principal Justice and that which the appointed Senate proposes. The word "emergency" appears frequently in the proposed Constitution but is never mentioned in our U.S. Constitution. Consequently, an "emergency" is used to impose new dictates-- which could only be accomplished at the expense of the U.S. citizen's liberty. Much of the language is vague leaving it wide open to various interpretations--and of course the ones in power would control the courts as our judicial system would be restructured to favor the continuance of power. This would be accomplished by eliminating the present checks and balances so established within the present Constitution. The legislative, judicial and executive branches would be replaced with six branches, all designed and structured to perpetuate those in power. Article XII spells out clearly the awesome dictatorial power that will be put into the hands of a few. Section 1 states: "The President is authorized to assume such powers, make such appointments, and use such funds as are necessary to make this Constitution effective as soon as possible after acceptance by a referendum he may initiate." Section 4 says, "the president shall cause to be constituted an appropriate commission to designate existing laws inconsistent with this Constitution, and they shall be void." The new order would bring about land use--the federal control or "use" of private property. (And we all know there can be no human rights without property rights!) The Newstates Constitution declares: "No property shall be taken without compensation." By leaving the word "just" out, the compensation becomes very arbitrary and the final decision would rest with the government. Article VI, B, Section 16, states: "To acquire property and improvements for public use at costs to be fixed, if necessary, by the Court of Claims." The Court of Claims will be made up of appointees. In order for the One-Worlders to maintain themselves in power, the key positions would be filled by appointees with the authority as well as the power being given to these unelected bureaucrats. Such officials as the Overseer, the Watchkeeper, the National Regulator, the Intendant, the Principal Justice and his appointed members of all national courts, the Public Custodian, the chairman of the National Planning Board, Chancellors of External, Financial, Legal & Military Affairs and the appointed Senate, to name a few will be the unelected. This approach would tend to continually bring to power only those of like mind. This is completely contrary to the attitude and approach our Founding Fathers had back in 1789 when writing the U.S. Constitution. Their concern was with the individual, his life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; certainly not with an obsession of bringing more power to themselves and perpetuating themselves in power. The fact that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely still applies today as it did then and should make us eternally vigilant against such a trend ever developing toward absolute power. Article I, Section 1, states: "Freedom of expression of communication, of movement, of assembly or of petition shall not be abridged except in declared emergency." In other words, all freedom is dependent upon whether the government would declare an emergency or not. But freedom is a right not to be revoked; they make it a privilege and at the mercy of their whim. This would be government by men, not by law. As this constitution states throughout, so much is dependent on certain conditions which can be determined at a later date, "Except in declared emergency;" "except in the interest of national security;" "Existing states may continue and may have the status of Newstates if the Boundary Commission, hereinafter provided, shall so decide;" "except they be approved;" "unless authorized;" "shall conform to his regulation;" etc., all point out that the form of government proposed by this document would be very arbitrary and dictatorial with the individual being forced to yield to his government. The result would be very little individual liberty. Article I, B, Section 8 would establish federal gun control and at the same time the dissolution of our 2nd Amendment which guarantees the citizen the right to bear arms. This proposed new government would control the elections. Political parties would need the approval of the Overseer and elections would be controlled by controlling the spending; this, in turn, would control the legislature.