Constitutional Questions...

This section is for discussing the Northwest Front, its mission and projects.

Constitutional Questions...

Postby SupplyScout » Fri Oct 25, 2013 7:54 pm

I have been listening to RFN working through various podcasts and reading the Draft Constitution and have several questions. I will begin with my first one so as not to slam you with so many at once.

Section 2, Article II, Subsection 1 & 2:

In reading this I believe that I am correct in their will be no "state" governments of Washington, Idaho, Oregon, etc. There will only be the central State authority of the NAR and below that there shall exist Counties and Municipalities.

As a segway my reading of the two subsections was at first glance thought to be contradictory but on second reading realized that section one referred to the abolishment of the rules/ordinances/departments/etc of local governments and not the actual boundaries and entities themselves.

I look forward to your response and I will be posting more questions and perhaps looking forward to some of them perhaps being answered on RFN!!
Anyone within driving distance of the metro Atlanta area can PM for an offline meeting if interested.
SupplyScout
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:25 pm
Location: Canton, Georgia

Re: Constitutional Questions...

Postby andydonner » Fri Oct 25, 2013 9:38 pm

I would say you more or less have it correct. Subsection 1 is more or less a "clean slate" clause. Subsection 2 implies a very interesting observation. Localities just exist apart from one or another. In fact, the people who don't live in cities but are nevertheless somewhere between two or more highly populated places tend to think of themselves as distinct entities. Because of this, people who consider themselves neighbors (which is what more or less defines a local area) will want to pick the people they deal with on a day-to-day basis.

That being said, the local governments are going to be expected to implement the laws of the National Convention (or whatever it ends up being called.) There's not a whole lot of point in having localities create laws no one else knows about or could even imagine. In fact, there's not a whole lot of use for local regulation in general. This goes doubly in a country where one of the main ideas of government is that there should be the same very small set of laws everywhere so that everyone can know each of them and defend themselves without the aid of an attorney paid by the government accusing them.

In a situation where localities have abilities beyond enforcement and basic administration, it's impossible for everyone to know all the laws they might need to be accountable for and the serious possibility of Amurrican-style injustice arises due to the ability of a municipality to implement some absurd, incomprehensible penal code. Were it allowed, it would be almost totally impossible to hold them accountable for doing so simply because their prerogative to do so was established by the Constitution.

--------------------

Now that I've typed that mess out, I need to say how great the question was. We don't get too many people willing to ask questions on that level simply because doing so requires a certain amount of understanding and deliberate consideration. I'm sure Mr. Covington will be around soon and he's quite keen on discussing topics like this.
A. W. Donner
Facebook
Twitter
User avatar
andydonner
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:09 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Constitutional Questions...

Postby SupplyScout » Sat Oct 26, 2013 9:36 pm

Thanks for the response....now onto question two!!

If the Northwest Front is a one party system and the NAR will be unicameral in nature then why the need for an Opposition party? My assumption is this would be to keep a balance and let dissenting voices be heard hence the once per month day of allowing for such a "party" to have a voice in the NC but since I have no real experience with such an idea I would love some in-depth explanation.

Gonna throw out question three too...since the Homeland will be open to all whites and the NF/NAR are going to allow "freedom of religion" how will a community of Amish be dealt with when it comes to the requirement for military service. Would they be exempt even though able bodied and thus automatically be given the community/state service option. Basically I see the NAR as not allowing whole communities to declare themselves not apart of that society but wonder if they moved en mass to the NAR due to conditions in their traditional area how they would be treated. I see nothing in the DC that would allow or prevent either situation and would love to hear thoughts on this.
Anyone within driving distance of the metro Atlanta area can PM for an offline meeting if interested.
SupplyScout
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:25 pm
Location: Canton, Georgia

Re: Constitutional Questions...

Postby andydonner » Sat Oct 26, 2013 10:06 pm

SupplyScout wrote:If the Northwest Front is a one party system and the NAR will be unicameral in nature then why the need for an Opposition party?


Minor note (of significant import): Note the wording you've used. One Party and an Opposition Party. There isn't an Opposition Party because there is only one Party. The Opposition is a constitutionally-recognized segment of the national body which is allowed to demand explanations of the Government when they deem it required. There's nothing wrong and everything right with a segment of the government working its best to poke holes in anything and everything. Recall that the delegates to such a body will be kept busy since this isn't Amurrica. These people will have very important duties to take care of on a day-to-day basis and it makes that much more sense for some of them to ask for explanations of what their peers are up to. After all, it will come from people who understand more than enough to ask legitimate questions and raise legitimate problems.

Discourse in government is excellent; artificial competition between two (or more) machine-like organizations for who controls the government which always inspires sports fan-like devotion isn't helpful in the slightest. Citizens which desire a role in politics must join the Party in order to be inducted into the workings of the government at which point they're perfectly free to disagree with prevailing opinion. This is far superior to a system where one Party can shut the other out. In this arrangement, the Party is required to justify its governing actions and decisions and has no ability to free itself of this obligation.

SupplyScout wrote:... since the Homeland will be open to all whites and the NF/NAR are going to allow "freedom of religion" how will a community of Amish be dealt with when it comes to the requirement for military service[?]


The draft is just that - a draft. It's been deemed in the general opinion that everyone has the service requirement after which the men will go on to the military (and then the reserves.) The Amish may live in whatever way they wish, but there must not ever be a class of people whose children are not subject to the exact same requirements as every other class. The challenges faced by one's offspring are a very good indicator of one's class and when one's class denotes extreme privileges outside societal norms, there will be class warfare and this must not be allowed under any circumstances. Further, this would confer the benefit of military protection without the requirement of participation and contribution to such.

SupplyScout wrote:Basically I see the NAR as not allowing whole communities to declare themselves not apart of that society but wonder if they moved en mass to the NAR due to conditions in their traditional area how they would be treated.


Once again, you've got it more or less right. Residents have right and they also have responsibilities (denoted by the different sections of the document.) If a group moves in, they're residents. If they want citizenship, they're going to have to earn it just like everyone else. Further, if they're of the right age, they're going to be made to earn it even if it's not wanted. Remember - they're going to get the benefit of living in an all-White society and they must absolutely be required to contribute nothing more or less than each other segment of society or the whole thing is going to collapse like every other society has when those conditions are brought about.

SupplyScout wrote:I see nothing in the DC that would allow or prevent either situation ...


This is another good observation. Someone sent Mr. Covington a question about who would handle citizenship rank promotions, which is also not drafted into the material being discussed. Essentially, this is one of those things the national body is able to sort out. It goes without saying that Zionism of any sort won't be permitted since it's noting short of counter-revolutionary (in the NAR) and thus, if started up, even on religious grounds, it would be on the receiving end of some state-sanctioned violence. Anyone using religion as a shield to avoid societal standards (sincere though they may be) probably doesn't need to be in the NAR since they think they're better (even if they use the word "Holier") than everyone else.

And no, for anyone reading this that thinks we're trying to forbid religious freedom, we're not. This is no different than people who disagree with swearing on a Bible in court even though they do it because they know what happens if they don't. Should Scout's example of a group moving in ever happen, it will be, just as he says, because of conditions where they came from. That being the case, wouldn't they be willing to defend their new country? If not, they don't really need the benefit of living in it, now do they?

----------

I see Mr. Covington has been online yet didn't get to this thread. I'll specifically mention it to him since I'm sure he'd like to chime in.
A. W. Donner
Facebook
Twitter
User avatar
andydonner
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:09 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Constitutional Questions...

Postby SupplyScout » Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:21 pm

Thank you for the responses on all fronts.

To level a couple of more blows at this dead horse :D there will be no "official" oppostion party but any dissenting voices will be considered in opposition to a specific piece of policy/legislation and those same folks will actually be members of the Party?

Onto the next question. It is clear that the Party position on schooling is the State is responsible for ensuring that children are trained/mentored/etc to become productive residents & /or citizens so where will the concept of Private schools and homeschooling end up within the legal boundaries of NAR policy? It would seem logical that if Private schools or homeschooling were allowed they could be vehicles for enemy agents to use as platforms into childrens minds (just as government schools are now in the USA).

This also leads me into a touchy subject and I hope not to offend anyone but with "traditional" Christianity (vs CI) being (in my opinion) a weapon created by Jews to infiltrate and destroy Rome (and thus Western/White culture/society as a whole) how will this Jewish poison fit into the Republic? I mean, the whole love your enemies sermon on the mount crap is designed to turn white men into cowardly lions (which it has done).

I would assume that within a few short years of a new country the version of what a Baptist or Methodist looks like in the NAR vs the USA would be very different.
Anyone within driving distance of the metro Atlanta area can PM for an offline meeting if interested.
SupplyScout
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:25 pm
Location: Canton, Georgia

Re: Constitutional Questions...

Postby andydonner » Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:50 pm

I'll have to stop the religious discussion cold since that tends to draw out the crazies. You've asked a fair question, but there's a certain premise that has to be challenged and it's that the religion itself has been a problem. The various varieties of Christian Identity didn't exist until fairly recently yet Christians were wreaking havoc on jews all over Europe every few decades or so. I'm certain there's a very good and beneficial question in there somewhere, but I'd like to remind you that, regardless of one's opinion of Baptist and Methodist ideas or even Christianity itself, both denominations used to be quite racist to the point where niggers weren't allowed in those churches and had to go form their own.

Is there any chance we could get you clarify what you're asking? I'd like to see you get the answer you're looking for since that's a large part of the reason the owner of this message board runs it, but I'd rather not give the religious crazies on every side a reason to raid this thread.

----------

Religious crazies: Don't start your nonsense in here. Just don't.
A. W. Donner
Facebook
Twitter
User avatar
andydonner
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:09 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Constitutional Questions...

Postby SupplyScout » Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:59 pm

Apologies. The last thing I want is to cause waves concerning religion.

In short would private schools be allowed (I got off on the religion tangent because so many private schools are "christian" in nature).
Anyone within driving distance of the metro Atlanta area can PM for an offline meeting if interested.
SupplyScout
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:25 pm
Location: Canton, Georgia

Re: Constitutional Questions...

Postby andydonner » Tue Oct 29, 2013 5:55 pm

I can't think of a reason they wouldn't be. In theory, they would be required to teach Moral History and Philosophy (or whatever it ends up being called) where proper White Nationalist doctrine is imparted to the students, even if the students choose not to agree with it. I don't know that there would be any system of accreditation, but it would be easy enough to have social stigma against those who aren't teaching proper racial fact. Zionism, by nature, would be counter-revolutionary and so would any anti-White racial material. The State could quite easily come down on someone engaging in these behaviors without outlawing private schools.

To answer the other end of your question, a private school with religious emphasis of any faith wouldn't be a problem according to the proposed draft. Each faith has the same standing and the Republic doesn't have a religious horse in the race. The flip side of that coin is that the Republic doesn't have any opposition to any faith (bearing in mind that Judaism is a race and Talmudism is an anti-White set of religious beliefs, which would obviously not be permitted.)
A. W. Donner
Facebook
Twitter
User avatar
andydonner
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1167
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 7:09 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Constitutional Questions...

Postby MAC » Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:34 pm

I would think (my opinion only) that with the State ultimately controlling the education of our children that it would create a curriculum that would mandate a certain base level of education for everyone, say Algebra by age 12 or 14, basic chemistry by age 16, that sort of thing. By creating a base goal for all schools, then setting a standard curriculum for the State run schools, that would set a standard for private or home schools to aim for or beat. Then they would simply have a standardized set of tests that every child takes every so many years, just to be sure they're reaching the goals. The aim isn't necessarily to make every child a rocket scientist, but to make sure they can read, write, speak and comprehend the English language at the University level by age 16 or 18, math at least to Calculus by 16 or 18, Chemistry, World history (not the jew lies but the truth) including the true US history, History of the NAR, etc. etc.. You get the picture. If the private schools then want to add art, religion, agriculture or what have you, then great. Then the universities could teach advanced courses in everything and by cutting out the liberal BS we could get actual MDs out of med school in 6 years instead of 8 or 10.

Along with that we would need to be sure children were actually educated in how to deal with conflicts, losing, sportsmanship, marksmanship and the like. Because learning that you can lose or that there is conflict in life at age 19 or 20 is not the time to be having to learn how to deal with it.

So long story short, private and home school would be encouraged so long as a base level of certain courses was maintained. And if kids need a little extra tutoring to get through a course, great. But for those truly mentally challenged, then we would have to work out a system where we can train them to be the best of their ability then find a place where they would fit into society and help it, rather than simply sitting at home collecting welfare.
"Guard well the words you use, for they can be the keys to your freedom or the manacles of your slavery." - me
MAC
Site Admin
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 11:38 pm
Location: Homeland

Re: Constitutional Questions...

Postby SupplyScout » Wed Oct 30, 2013 6:02 am

Thanks to everyone for the replies. This subject is fascinating to me (when thinking about how education would work in an all white society) because I have had my kids in all three systems. The private school my children attended & would attend mandates that all Freshman take Latin their first year. Other than the christian nature of the school the academic curriculum is amazing.
Anyone within driving distance of the metro Atlanta area can PM for an offline meeting if interested.
SupplyScout
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2013 7:25 pm
Location: Canton, Georgia


Return to About the Northwest Front

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron