The United States Government Is Illegitimate

This book is a draft of chapter one of Mr. Beard's dissertation, The Impact of Constitutional Interpretation on Individual Freedom. He was kicked out of the J.S.D. program by a Dean, who graduated from Harvard Law, because this project was, to put it politely, "politically incorrect;" justification was that it would not contribute anything new or important to the existing scholarship. Once the Dean was no longer at the law school, Mr. Beard's supervisor and co-faculty director of the program invited him back to finish this project. The purpose of this dissertation is to explain how power-elites and branches of government have reinterpreted the U.S. Constitution to increase government power and authority at the expense of individual freedom. There are only two ways to interpret the U.S. Constitution: (1) Under the freedom doctrine; or, (2) as a master-slave relationship, which is what has been going on for the past 100 years. If Americans are not slaves, then the U.S. Government is Illegitimate.

When is a de facto authority not entitled to be considered a `government' for the purposes of International Law? International reaction to the 1991-4 Haitian crisis is only the most prominent in a series of events that suggest a norm of governmental illegitimacy is emerging to challenge more traditional notions of state sovereignty. This challenge has dramatic implications for two fundamental legal strictures: that against the use or threat of force against a state's political independence, and that against interference in matters `essentially' within a state's domestic jurisdiction. Yet although human rights advocates have begun to speak of state sovereignty as an `anachronism', with some expansively proclaiming the emergence of an international `right to democratic governance,' international law literature lacks systematic treatment of governmental illegitimacy. This work seeks to specify the international law of collective non-recognition of governments, so as to enable legal evaluation of cases in which competing factions assert governmental authority. It subjects the recognition controversies of the United Nations era to a systematic examination, informed by theoretical and comparative perspectives on governmental legitimacy. The inquiry establishes that the category of `illegitimate government' now occupies a place in international law, with significant consequences for the legality of intervention in certain instances. The principle of popular sovereignty, hitherto vague and ambiguous, has acquired sufficient determinacy to serve, in some circumstances, as a basis for denial of legal recognition to putative governments. This development does not imply, however, the emergence in international law of a meaningful norm of `democratic governance,' nor would such a norm serve the purposes of the scheme of sovereign equality of states embodied in the United Nations Charter.

This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press’s mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact. Drawing on a backlist dating to 1893, Voices Revived makes high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship accessible once again using print-on-demand technology. This title was originally published in 1987.

The threat of terror, which flares in Africa and Indonesia, has given the problem of failed states an unprecedented immediacy and importance. In the past, failure had a primarily humanitarian dimension, with fewer implications for peace and security. Now nation-states that fail, or may do so, pose dangers to themselves, to their neighbors, and to people around the globe: preventing their failure, and reviving those that do fail, has become a strategic as well as a moral imperative. State Failure and State Weakness in a Time of Terror develops an innovative theory of state failure that classifies and categorizes states along a continuum from weak to failed to collapsed. By understanding the mechanisms and identifying the tell-tale indicators of state failure, it is possible to develop strategies to arrest the fatal slide from weakness to collapse. This state failure paradigm is illustrated through detailed case studies of states that have failed and collapsed (the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, the Sudan, Somalia), states that are dangerously weak (Colombia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan), and states that are weak but safe (Fiji, Haiti, Lebanon).

Classic Books Library presents this brand new edition of “The Federalist Papers”, a collection of separate essays and articles compiled in 1788 by Alexander Hamilton. Following the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776, the governing doctrines and policies of the States lacked cohesion. “The Federalist”, as it was previously known, was constructed by American statesman Alexander Hamilton, and was intended to catalyse the ratification of the United States Constitution. Hamilton recruited fellow statesmen James Madison Jr., and John Jay to write papers for the compendium, and the three are known as some of the Founding Fathers of the United States. Alexander Hamilton (c. 1755–1804) was an American lawyer, journalist and highly influential government official. He also served as a Senior Officer in the Army between 1799-1800 and founded the Federalist Party, the system that governed the nation’s finances. His contributions to the Constitution and leadership made a significant and lasting impact on the early development of the nation of the United States.

Questions of police governance, accountability and independence have been subjected to thorough research before. That the issue still draws critical attention more than twenty years after the McDonald Commission of Inquiry into Certain Activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police suggests that understanding and a resolution to the issue still eludes us. Despite the modifications to police practice that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has brought, there is still concern over the degree of independence the police exercise, and debate over where the line between legitimate government direction of the police and illegitimate political interference should be drawn. Police and Government Relations explores the question of police governance and independence from a number of different points of view. Editors Margaret E. Beare and Tonita Murray offer multi-disciplinary, comparative, and case-study methodologies written by scholars from law, political science, and criminology to illustrate the diversity of opinion that exists on the topic and to explore how the operating tension between police independence and democratic governance and accountability has played out, both in Canada and other countries. This book does not attempt to find final answers; its goal is to provide a framework for a continuing discussion that may lead to helpful and workable recommendations for the future. It serves as an academic and intellectual contribution to an important matter of public policy.

This book contains essays by A. John Simmons, perhaps the most innovative and creative of today's political philosophers.