A New Kind of Court

Garry Davis

"Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law."               

Article 6, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Unlike all preceding courts throughout human history based on local or national units, a "world court of human rights" must by definition be grounded on fundamental human rights already proclaimed and recognized universally. This is a juridical breakthrough unprecedented within the concept of nation-states from which all so-called international courts such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court and even the European Court of Human Rights -- though this court could be identified as a "half-way house" -- have derived to a world court grounded in the sovereignty of humanity itself.

The questions then suppose: From where does such a court arise and how can it be organized?

Given the potential destructive power of the present nation-state system, in short, absolute and "pointing" at humanity per se, global judicial procedures as exemplified by the Nuremberg trial and Principles -- without sanction, incidentally, of any constitutional reference -- must relate dynamically and juridical from humanity's primal and innate sovereignty in order to adjudicate its very fundamental safety, well-being and happiness.

Such an essential structure represents a primal shift in juridical thinking such as already indicated by the renowned Dr. Luis Kutner, author of World Habeas Corpus.[1]

Indeed, the very Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself, deriving irrationally and incongruously from the powerless United Nations[2], proclaims such a breakthrough -- both juridically, viz article 6 to 11, and socially, economically and politically, the last being mandated by both articles 21(3) and 28.

In short, a world court of human rights worth the name cannot derive from the nation-state dysfunctional system itself -- as aptly proven daily by the impotency of both the socalled International Court of Justice[3] and the ICC to adjudicate humanity's safety, etc. -- but must arise directly from the world citizen constituency itself as indeed the eminent consult-jurist Luis Kutner has advocated in his epic book, World Habeas Corpus. Myriad other jurists' notables such as Associate Justice, United States Supreme Court Wm. J. Brennan, Jr. have confirmed "Faith in fundamental human rights, and the dignity of the human person, is the inspiration and the guiding spirit of the movement for a world rule of law."

The Global Mandate

If "everyone" has the right "everywhere" to "recognition" before the law, as affirmed by Article 6, UDHR, such law must be global. So both the law and the person to whom it applies are global or citizens of the world community. A court of world law therefore adjudicates world law for world citizens. But, as sovereignty begins with the human being, a court of world law depends on world law relative to the conduct, rights and duties of humans who have asserted their world citizenship publicly. Otherwise such a court would have no advocates to service in legal jurisprudence. In short, the court's "constituency" precedes its existence just as citizens on any level of social life precede the government thereof.[4]

A "world court of human rights" therefore is the result of the recognition of a constituted group of humans having declared themselves "citizens of the world." In essence each so-called declared world citizen is a de facto world court of human rights-in-microcosm. The question, "Where is the real government" is likewise answered, "Within the affirmation of each citizen therefore." 

This in turn is the essence of sovereignty: the individual human exercising freedom of association within a social environment. The formal institution of a WCHR, therefore, is the result of the already-constituted constituency of humans having declared each one, a "citizen of the world" publicly.

Crimes Against Humanity

The Nuremberg Principles defined "crimes against humanity" as indictable under Principle VI.

"a. Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime."

Humanity itself, however, was not defined although described as a plaintiff for the first time in juridical jurisprudence. Neither was nuclear war described as the most self-evident "crime against humanity."

A World Court of Human Rights' primary ruling must per se indict world war as the ultimate crime against humanity itself. But war is not a cause but an effect. As Emery Reves wrote in The Anatomy of Peace[5], "Throughout the entire history of all known civilization, only one method has ever succeeded in creating a social order within which each man had security from murder, larceny, cheating and other crimes, and had freedom to think, to speak and to worship. That method is law."

The ultimate "crime against humanity" therefore, is world anarchy.

As nuclear war is the ultimate crime whereby humanity itself will be annihilated, a World Court of Human Rights' acting on humanity's behalf and defense, first juridical duty is to outlaw war itself by injunction.

What is the constituency of the WCHR?

The above reasoning leads to a startling and undeniable assertion: Just as every national citizen by definition is a potential advocate of the national legal system from birth, so a world citizen is likewise a "global advocate" of humanity's legitimacy, read "sovereignty," identified per se by such as the UDHR and, as of 1974, by the founding of the World Court of Human Rights.[6] Indeed, the very claim by a given nation-state that a human born within its artificial and arbitrary borders is ipso facto bound legally to that arbitrary legalism, confirms the verity of the civic reality of a member of the human species born within the confines of the planet itself.

Numerous jurists worldwide have advocated world peace through enforceable law such as have been gathering at the City Montessori School in Lucknow[7] since 2001.

As the already 60-year-old World Service Authority issues relevant documents pertaining to specific articles of the UDHR such as World Birth Certificates, World ID Cards, World Passports and World Marriage Certificates, it will issue to all registered World Citizens a World Court of Human Rights Advocacy Card attesting to that human's affiliation of world legitimacy vis-a-vis the WCHR. In short, the individual World Citizen IS the legal personification of world law to which, incidentally, each and every member of the United Nations has affiliated vis-a-vis the UDHR.

Formation of the World Court of Human Rights

The actual formation and "sitting" of the court will follow inevitability and necessarily the rapid evolution of the "world citizen's legal advocacy" formation, potentially in the millions of already registered world citizens. This powerful and undeniable linkage of a world citizens with a logical juridical body designed to protect him/her vis-a-vis human rights violations can happen literally overnight given the communication facilities such as the internet, adequate funding, popular support worldwide, etc. The world citizen constituency will be assessed a modest sum to pay for the issuance of the WCHR’s "World Legal Advocacy Card" as well as enjoined to donate to the "WORLD COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS FUND" already registered with the Merchant's Bank, South Burlington.

A campaign is already underway to enjoin progressive philanthropists to donate to this vital, historic cause. In addition, a festival is planned to take place on December 10, 2013 at Griffith Park, Los Angeles, California to celebrate the 65th anniversary of the declaration of the UDHR with music and entertainment of leading personalities, information booths for world citizen registration, issuance of the "World Legal Advocacy Card," free UDHRs, books on world law, world citizenship, world travel, etc. (See www.universalhumanrightsfestival.org).

Moreover, the creation of its own web site – already registered as www.worldcourtofhumanrights.net will hasten the evolution of the actual sitting court as preliminarily outlined by Luis Kutner (See www.worldservice.org/wsalstat.html.)

************************************************

[1]  Oceana Publications, Inc, 1962: "Existence of World Man is founded on a fundamental identification of reason with law and that all his grievances, be they imaginary or real, shall have a forum of due process of law."

[2]  Rendered impotent from its inception due to its Security Council dictatorial system by which any change can be vetoed by the original 5 "victors" of WWII.

[3] 1996: In a split decision the International Court of Justice ruled that "There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such. But the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law; However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake."

[4]  Ref. Declaration of Independence

[5]  George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1946

[6]  Dr. Luis Kutner's Acceptance Speech as the Chief Justice of the World Court of Human Rights:

June 12, 1974, Sausheim, H.R., France

I am indeed honored by this appointment which I accept in all humility.

The international community has come to realize that human rights are not an issue to be left solely to the national jurisdiction of individual states. These rights obviously need protection at a higher level within the framework of international law.

If the principle aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of what Blackstone termed "absolute rights," then it follows that the aim of human laws should serve to promote and guard these rights.

As the World Coordinator rightly pointed out, this morning's trial dramatically exposed the dilemma faced by the sovereign state. While advocating human rights and even proclaiming them as a "common standard of achievement," as does the Preamble to the Universal Declaration of human Rights, it prosecutes blindly* -- as the spokesman for the French Government so vividly revealed* -- a stateless person who, to provide a legitimate framework for his own rights, was obliged to found his own government. I wholly support this action as a logical corollary of 'the U.N.'s proclamation of' the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

If we accept the legitimacy of individual choice in political matters-which is, after all, the essence of democracy -- then the legitimacy of a world government chosen by millions of ordinary citizens cannot be in doubt. What began as a declaration of intent on December 10, 1948 has been slowly evolving into a global compact, a set of rules that proscribe and prescribe the behavior of governments toward their citizens.

There exists today a codified body of international human rights laws that include conventions and covenants on genocide, civil and political, economic and social rights, refugees' ancl women's rights and racial discrimination. The international community is currently working on instruments to prevent torture, to protect the rights of children and to assure the freedom of religion. While these instruments are not self-enforcing, they do provide means for holding governments accountable. They lead inevitably to this assembly today.

We are the citizens concerned, We are the ultimate arbiters of human rights as they are innate and inalienable. Our action today in founding a new court to which the single world citizen can appeal falls within the historical evolution of law itself as an evolving institution. After all, the standards and norms enumerated and outlined in international human rights instruments have not been imposed on any of the nations that are party to then. They are, instead, obligations that governments, having assumed freely and voluntarily, cannot afford to abrogate or disregard under any pretext.

The World Court of Human Rights, while not operating under any written world constitution, nonetheless can embody a "world bill of rights" which defines guarantees relating to deprivation of life, inhumane treatment, slavery and forced labor, personal liberty, determination of rights, including procedural safeguards in criminal cases, freedom of conscience, expression, peaceable assembly and movement, freedom from discrimination and prohibition against compulsory acquisition of property without adequate compensation. Indeed the very enunciation and acceptance of these basic human rights implies due process to insure their implementation and punishment to their violators.

Such was the premise of the Nuremberg Court. No written world constitution sanctioned the Nuremberg Principles, Yet they were effectively used by the Allies to charge, convict and condemn those accused of the international crimes of war planning, war-making and genocide. tion replaces constitutional guarantees of personal liberty. The citizenry then is made to live in a perpetual state of emergency, When that happens, the state becomes an end in itself, a mere summation of the individuals within it.

Before this assembly, I pledge my best and most devoted endeavors as Chief Justice of the World Court of Human Rights in the service of the oppressed, the persecuted and the downtrodden. It has been said that the guarantees of personal liberty and impartial justice are the first causalities of a so-called national emergency. Civil courts are too often replaced by military tribunals and the writ of habeas corpus is usually suspended. Inevitablv the despicabie use of preventive detention replaces the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty. The citizenry then is made to live in a perpetual state of emergency. When that happens, the state becomes an end in itself, a mere summation of the individuals within it.

The World Government of World Citizens that you here represent, is the only effective counter-balance to national citizenry becoming national servitude due to suppression of civil liberties in the name of national security and public order. Now the newly declared World Court of Human Rights will take its place as a needful addition to provide a legal refuge, a global asylum, as it were, to our fellow citizens everywhere. I profoundly believe this day's work has the blessings of the Almighty. Thank you.

[7]  Largest high school in the world with 44,000 students under the direction of Jagdish Gandhi, all students indoctrinated immediately upon entrance as "World Citizens."

The AGE OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF HUMANITY IS UPON US

Garry Davis

JANUARY 1, 2013

   The definition of "humanity" is 1. "All human beings collectively; the human race; humankind."[1]
   As "sovereignty" is defined as "supreme," "preeminence," "indisputable sovereign power," humanity as such enjoys sine qua non such attributes.
 Sovereignty therefore has passed historically and legally from the nation-state to Humanity.
   The very Universal Declaration of Human Rights in its first article verifies and mandates each and every human as a fundamental unit of humanity in toto:
  "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
   Moreover, the UDHR's Preamble affirms that "whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..."
  Sages and prophets, scientists[2] and artists of all fields[3] have from time immemorial prophesied that Humanity one day would enter the Age of Enlightenment, the Age of Wisdom and the Age of Unity. Moreover, from the Decalogue through the 1215 Magna Carta, the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the 1789 Declaration de l'Homme et du Citoyen, the 1789 U.S. Bill of Rights, the 1914 Atlantic Charter, the 1945 Nuremberg Principles, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1953 Ellsworth Declaration (of World Government), and the 1974 Statute of the World Court of Human Rights, humanity has arrived, not without giant trials and tribulation, at the birth of the Age of Sovereign legitimacy and legitimate planetary citizenship.
  In addition, having entered the Nuclear Age in 1945, when destructive power has risen from relative to absolute, moreover becoming genocidal, humanity itself became potentially a global target of the nation-state war system, carried over from the largely agricultural 18th and 19th centuries.
     In brief, if humanity dies, so does the human race including all so-called fictional nation-states.
   Therefore humanity per se has entered the prophetic Age of Legitimate Sovereignty.
    Moreover, "Crimes against humanity" cited in the Nuremberg Principles, for the first time in judicial history, posited humanity as a reality and potential defendant.[4]
   Thus, under total threat of attack and possible elimination by the anarchic nation-state system,[5] Humanity, as an existent fact, has achieved, as of 1945, a de facto and per se legitimate sovereign status vis-a-vis the war-dominated nation-state world.
   In strictly legal terms, as of 1945, threatened by the obsolete national dysfunctional war system, humanity became a potential "plaintiff" beginning with the Nuremberg Trials following World War II, requiring legal defense. The nuclear "gun," in verifiable and judicial fact, was and is pointing directly at it: a "global felony."
   In short, if humanity can be wiped out via nuclear weaponry, it is therefore obliged to defend itself legally as a potential victim.[6]
   Thus, for the first time in juridical history, an indictment of "Crimes Against Humanity" entered international jurisprudence. A world court of human rights adjudicating world law is already mandated in the UDHR beginning with articles 6 to 9.
   In turn, as humanity by definition is composed of all humans, each human claiming, as an inalienable right, the addition of world citizenship, becomes, and is legitimately, also a micro-global plaintiff vis-a-vis the national war system under the sovereign protection of world law.
   Humans in society on whatever level become citizens and citizens form governments.
   Or else inalienable rights of political choice are meaningless.
   For it is only to protect these that individuals establish a social and political order, carefully defined and always at the consent of the governed.[7]
   The aware individual, therefore, faced with a worldly disorder, has first to declare and affirm his or her dynamic political identification with his/her human community.
   Also, in declaring ourselves citizens of the world community in which we currently live, we are affirming that essentially we are our own governors.
   The individual affirmation and registration of world citizenship therefore is the first step toward realization of human rights for all, the realistic path to world peace. Because it is world humans legally bonding with fellow humans for their individual and collective survival, well-being and happiness.
   We are establishing our innate sovereignty as humans in charge of our own destiny.
   This is the essence of the democratic principle and precisely where true sovereignty exists, is maintained and prevails for one and all.
   The process is in full progress and has been since January 1, 1949.[8]
   The benefits accruing to a sovereign humanity almost defy the boldest imagination.
   Released from the strangling entanglements of internal planetary war, a giant leap forward in civic and economic benefits for a world citizenry would automatically ensue. Such items are already mandated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights agreed upon by every member of the impotent and defective United Nations. Protection of Earth's environment itself would be the primary and immediate task.
 The greatest advancement, however, would be on the spiritual or consciousness level, already announced by such enlightened humans as Christ, Buddha, Mohammed, Lao-Tse, Vyasa, Diogenes, Socrates, Theilhard de Chardin, Plato, Thoreau, T. Paine, Gandhi, Einstein, H. G. Wells, Schweitzer, Buckminster Fuller, Martin Luther King, Jr., Emery Reves, and on and on, when the metaphysical development of our species would take a giant leap into realms only imagined today.
   Finally, in the cosmic sense, Humanity is but a speck of matter in a timeless universe.
And yet, IT IS HERE AND NOW and WE ARE IT!

           That is why we must survive and endure.

*********************************

[1] Random House Collegiate Dictionary
[2] Einstein: "A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels."
[3] Charlie Chaplin: "Charlot"  for instance
[4] (c) Crimes against humanity: Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.
[5] The 18th, 19th centuries witnessed the increasing dominance of the nation-state system in a largely agricultural world, pre-technological, pre-electronics, pre-nuclear and pre-space.
[6] Luis Kutner was one of the first to recognize the absolute need for the principle of habeas corpus to be raised to the global level since arbitrary detention, first achieved under the Magna Carta in 1215, was being violated throughout the nation-state system due to the anarchic condition prevailing between all nations by definition.
[7] Example: Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution.
[8] The founding of the International Registry of World Citizens from Paris, France by the author.

World Citizen Garry Davis Declares Obama/Romney "Foreign Policy" Debate "Double-barreled Deception:National and Global"

Washington, DC Sunday, October 28, 2012

"The cause of American is in great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which, their affections are interested. The laying a country desolate with fire and sword, declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the concern of every man in whom nature hath given the power of feeling; of which class, regardless of party censure, is the author."                                                                                                                                     --Tom Paine

Listening to President Obama and Governor Romney last Sunday in their 3rd debate deceptively dubbed "Foreign Policy," this activist world citizen, wondered how these two humans competing only for an 18th century national presidency, could be so oblivious of we, the world's people's needs and wants, even though one of them would be immediately obliged to address these politically from that now age-encrusted, largely irrelevant "branch" office when elected.

Recalling Norman Cousins' pertinent question, "Who speaks for Man? ", in the name of his fellow world citizens, we charge the two debaters with unconscionable and deadly deception. To start with "national deception, " moderator Bob Schieffer's final question:  "What is the original purpose and mission of the United States of America? " received from neither debater a direct response why the US was formed in the first place.

Answer in brief: "E pluribus unum" "From many, one." The primal civic code of all just human communities. Three million new state citizens along the eastern seaboard of the American continent in 1776 who had booted King George off their collective backs became a single, frontierless human community and with already-affirmed human rights in their various state constitutions. This perennial geo-dialectical formula, however, originated not from the actual construction of the United States of America in 1789, but from the first paragraph of the 1776 Declaration of Independence, 13 years BEFORE the Founders put together the united political body. Paine and a few others— Madison, Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton — considered the new fictional nation a mere stopgap political instrument to deal with a "local" situation when England's, France's and Spain's man-a-war's were anchored several miles away in the neutral Atlantic ready to knock off the new states one-by one, while Patrick Henry noted from the start that the U.S. Constitution itself "squints toward monarchy" by delegating dictatorial powers to the president when acting as the "Commander-in-Chief. " More to the point of "America's mission on the planet, " neither Obama nor Romney referred to these "inalienable rights" spelled out in the Declaration of Independence which defined not only America's mission but the entire human races': "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, " i.e.— and protected by government "with the consent of the governed" representing humanity itself! This fundamental civic formula is, was and always will be the "mission" of the United States of America: a community ruled by law . . . not disrupted and brutalized by anarchy as in these latter-days.

Later on in this history, confirming this initial global mission such notables as the Hon. Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States, added that "No more important common interest exists than our shared interest in a world ruled by law. " Thousands of other US citizens including Emerson, Thoreau, Walt Whitman, H.G. Wells, Judge Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King Jr., Carl Sagan, R. Buckminster Fuller, E. B. White, Philip Toynbee, Emery Reves, Judge Earl Warren, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy throughout the USA's turbulent 233 years, have echoed passionately the same essential requirement for global peace: the rule of world law. But neither candidate vying for this now 18th century and largely irrelevant office of US president in humanity's 21st century with instant communication, genocidal nuclear war, rapidly growing environmental disasters, global religions fighting to worship the same deity, considered "Foreign" as actually pertaining to extra-terrestrial species. As if to make the point, the Space Station above all our heads made one earthly rotation during the entire time of the debate. Indeed the 96% of humanity residing "outside" the 2½ centuries-year-old, now politically fossilized USA, having originated in a largely agricultural world now bypassed by 4 global revolutions: technical, electronic, nuclear and space, were totally neglected in the debaters programs. Who indeed does Obama and Romney think we really are if not members of the same species? Didn't they know that former prez John F, Kennedy had urged "We must create world-wide law and law enforcement as we outlaw worldwide war and weapons. "? Or that Einstein insisted that "Only world law can assure progress towards a civilized peaceful community."? And that "Henceforth, every nation's foreign policy must be judged at every point by one consideration: does it lead us to a world of law and order or does it lead us back to anarchy and death"?

That was the first major "deception" -- that neither candidate either knew the United States' real mission from the get-go or indeed even replied to Schieffer's fundamental question in response. President Obama and Governor Romney, supposed inheritors of the Founders initial political sagesse, both blatantly and in full defiance of history, contradicted or worse, ignored their American progenitors.

The second and more immediate global deception to the world public was concerning their overt "mission" as president desirous of representing "the American people." In short, to single out this 4.7% of the human race as their "only" responsibility for protection. Thus "National security" was the be-all and end-all for both candidates despite the global war potential. The self-evident fact that WWIII would be totally destructive, including the US citizenry, was missing from both Obama's and Romney's responses. Obama was adamant: "My responsibility as president is to protect the American citizens' Period."

Given the total war capability now available as of August 5, 1945, the US citizenry obviously cannot be protected by war which has become global as of 1914. Secondly, with nuclear weaponry available to the 9 nations "on the table" -- not to mention so-called terrorist groups -- with international anarchy dominating the space between them, (though the USA outdoes them all with 8000 nuclear warheads), "protection from war" by threatening war is the most insidious and blatant deception a public official could inflict on a given public. (Obama's mention, for instance, when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, both passionate advocates of world government, as being the two men he admired most, was a dramatic example of the duplicity of the office, not to mention being blatantly offensive to both their memories and to we who respected them in their total dedication to world peace and ultimate sacrifice as victims of violence. Moreover, in the President's address to the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 25th, Obama asserted blandly in that strictly diplomatic environment that, "I am convinced that ultimately government of the people, by the people and for the people is more likely to bring about the stability, prosperity, and individual opportunity that serve as a basis for peace in our world." And that "True democracy demands that citizens cannot be thrown in jail because of what they believe, and businesses can be opened without paying a bribe. It depends on the freedom of citizens to speak their minds and assemble without fear; on the rule of law and due process that guarantees the rights of all people." Hear, hear!  But then followed the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the same President Obama on December 31st, 2011 while the slaughter of civilians by drones, the increasing cyberwars, the revolts of oppressed citizens throughout the Middle East, the gross inequality of economic status, between rich and poor, in short, the increasing obsolescence of the nation-state system is overwhelmingly apparent in this turbulent 21st century world. As Alvin Toffler points out in The Third Wave, "All the political parties of the industrial world, all our congresses, parliaments, and supreme soviets, our presidencies and prime ministerships, our courts, and our regulatory agencies, and our layer upon geographical layer of governmental bureaucracy -- in short, all the tools we use to make and enforce collective decisions -- are obsolete and about to be transformed. A third wave civilization cannot operate with a second wave political structure. "

Finally, nowhere in the debate did either Obama or Romney refer to the Nuremberg Principles and the ICC Statute proscribing "enemies of humanity" as an indictable crime; nor the International Conventions mandated by the United Nation; the UN's Charter Preamble "… to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law…"; Article 2, (3) "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered, "; the myriad United Nations resolutions against the use of nuclear weapons; and above all, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the US as all member-states of the UN, which, in article 28 provides that "Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized"; nor did either acknowledge the thousands of human rights and juridical organizations and even high schools -- such as the Montessori School of Lucknow, India, whose 44,000 students add world citizenship as well as claim to speak for the 2.4 billion students throughout the world community -- all advocating the rule of world law. The only true "mission" of the United States president -- indeed of every conscientious holder of political office worldwide -- is to guarantee the protection of humanity itself of which the US public is but 4.7 percent. The deception, national and global, therefore of both candidates revealed startling the deadly irrelevance of a national presidential election in a world become one in which we, its citizens are sovereign and of one kind: human.

Bottom line: Our human hearts beat in cosmic rhythm; blood courses in the veins of all creatures; sleep beckons each and all at night; and finally, love and consciousness permeate all our being.

Final notice to President Obama and Governor Romney as well as all national officials throughout the community: The World Government of World Citizens is, in principle and practice, since September 4, 1953, that legitimate protector of humanity, acknowledged willfully and actively by each and every registered world citizen.

No deception there.

Garry Davis

Founder/President

World Government Of World Citizens

Washington, DC

Warren/Bill's "Giving Pledge" & the World Citizen's "Receiving Pledge"

Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and their billionaire buddies are trying to give away most of their money. No kidding. In letters to Buffett from the converted philanthropists (now numbering 73), [1] after all the years of struggle, enriching and distributing bits and pieces here and yon, it finally not only dawned on them they couldn't take it with them anyway when they cashed out of the Here and Now but that the world could go BANG! even before they reached the Pearly Gates...Besides, given that the majority of humanity is—what was that number again: 99%? —"disadvantaged", this 1% with their out-of-sight loot cannot but feel somewhat embarrassed if not humiliated to be counted in such a minuscule minority of humankind. So now they are professing publicly for all to know how happy they would be, thanks to Warren and Bill, to meet their Maker dead broke or near enough (as if He/She cared).[2]

In brief, the Nos. 1 and 2 (and spouses, no doubt) of this loaded hierarchy–excepting Carlos Helu of Mexico who tops both by an astounding $18 billion—considered it was high time what with all the irritating, public "Occupying" souls everywhere you looked.

Buffett/Gates calls it "The Giving Pledge."[3]

Their real problem, however, isn't the millions of deprived of the world but that the world’s people en masse are in danger of totally disappearing in a nuclear cloud, them (and their foundations) included. (See Ted Turner’s "problems" that concern him the most in the appendix of "quotes" from their letters to Buffett)

(Note: Warren, Bill, and all your flush if restless crowd: We proposed in 2007 a more relevant survival program[4]. I dubbed it "The Receiving Pledge" kind of) But nobody blinked so far

To those of us who are already broke, or slowly getting there, yet who have worthy humanitarian projects en route requiring serious funding, if there is new hope it is yet mixed with frustration. How to revive our own "Receiving Pledge" for this vaunted membership sheathed in layers of highly-salaried defenders?

We appreciate that giving billions away is hard, if highly rewarding work. First of all, how do you actually do it? Well, you don't. Your Foundation does except for drips and dabs. That spreads the work. It also complicates it. The staff takes the first bite. Then the board of directors. Next the lawyers, investment counselors and accountants. After that, the web masters, Facebook & Twitter coordinators and finally the public relations and media team. Finally, who or what is worthy enough to justify your largesse? OK, universities are a safe and obvious choice. Besides, you get a building, stadium or scholarship grants named after your demise. The U's are always seeking a handout especially from their own alumni. Then there are the never-ending religious supplicants, another safe choice, from the faithful. (with relevant quotes from the scriptures). Now the difficult part: who or what else do you donate to? I mean, most everyone else wants a handout, some more desperately than others. Choices, choices. And what kind of organization or individual can actually handle that much do-re-mi?

Well, for one, we world citizens could use a mite, say, a mere billion...for a start. What for? You see, we are intensely interested in surviving on the planet. (Many of you profess the same in your letters to Warren). And to do that we need a global code of conduct called "laws". World laws, to be blunt, to outlaw war which we consider the ultimate crime, not to mention insanity. And for that, we desperately need our own world court to defend our human rights, since our very lives are now threatened by the entire warring nation-state system.[5] We're talking here about World War III, the FINIS. It will kill us humans whatever our fictional nationality, religion, cultural linkages, or indeed, wealth or indigence.

After all, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights acknowledges that "Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law." But where is and what is the law for "everyone"? Sounds like world law to this writer (who in a former national life was a B-17 bomber pilot in WWII[6]). But law must be adjudicated. And, having been hauled into 31 national courts (and jails) since 1948 following my claim of world citizenship after becoming "stateless", I myself became "World Litigant No. 1" but with no world court to plead my case.[7]

Yes Siree, that billion bucks, (euros, yen, pesos, pounds, riyals, wons or whatever) would be a big start to staking our own World Court of Human Rights to the world map just for we humans, NOT nation-states. After all, it's our planet not the fictional nation-state and though we share it with millions of other species, we call ourselves "sovereign" which, in my Thesaurus, means "supreme." Indeed there is already uniform and enthusiastic agreement re the vital need for a world human rights court among all jurists of whatever ilk for a world community where war is still insanely considered a legitimate option despite its now genocidal character as of August 5, 1945. And there are already thousands of out-of-work judges for hire to exercise their legal expertise on such a court. Where is Judge C.G. Weeramantry when you need him? And, incidentally, what’s Sandra Day O’Connor doing now for heaven’s sake? Or Judge Goldstone? Indeed, the world-renowned City Montessori school in Lucknow has been having yearly meetings since 2001 of national Supreme Court judges conferring on and enthusiastically supporting the subject of "international law." Then the International Association of Women Jurists, 4000 members are devoted to justice for women (and men) sanctioned by human rights and world law yet has no court to adjudicate horrendous violations of womankind all over the world.

But Judges have to be paid, and operate in a court in a heated building with clerks and running water (maybe next to the ICC in The Hague or on an island in the Mediterranean) and a cluster of regional courts chaired with associate justices, etc., etc. A billion would do for a start but just think what a bargain if that court (ours) OUTLAWED WAR. (the Statute of which already does just that!)[8]

The nations' global military budget for 2011 was $2,157,172,000,000! That's 2 trillion, etc. And that doesn't count the environmental damage to the planet which is incalculable. A world without war would be a world of abundance. A metamorphic change in human affairs. A paradigm shift in human evolution. A blessing to all the kids of the planet who wonder now whether we adults are not stark raving mad to even contemplate genocidal war and why did we bring them into the world anyway if only to blow them up?

So, nothing to lose, I downloaded the letters the "Giving Pledge" member were obliged to write to Buffett explaining their reasons for wanting to participate, an extraordinarily revealing read. As I perused from letter to letter the intimate thoughts of these fellow humans, I realized to my astonishment (and some chagrin) that here were real concerned people, (like you and me) and many were couples. Indeed many were concerned about the state of the world. Take Joyce and Bill Cummings for instance who wrote that 1) "The lessons of the Holocaust are too vital to be forgotten or denied"; 2) "Genocides are still occurring around the world"; and 3) "We cannot simply sit quietly and let them happen.” Frankly, after reading that, my mind raced to find out what they intended to do about stopping the “Biggest-Holocaust-in-the-Making via The Bomb”. Alas, though they continued that “Convinced that real change can come from the next generation of world citizens, we created the interfaith ‘Cummings/Hillel Program for Holocaust and Genocide Education’ at Tufts University.” (Emphasis added) In short, let’s leave it to the next generation to make world peace cause we, the living, don’t know how to do it. (Note to Bill and Joyce Cummings: There may not be a “next generations of world citizens” if this generation of world citizens, you and your progeny, are blown away by WWIII).

The Cummings couple, however, did seem to recognize that peace and justice were corollaries since one of their subsidiaries, formed in 2010, is an Institute for World Justice, LLC. “which we hope will play a role in reducing genocide, as well as all the societal problems that lead to it…”[9] (Emphasis added) .” No further mention, however, in the web site of the Institute of the practice of “world justice” and its framework or adjudication process: “the maintenance or administration of what is just according to law.”[10]

The letter concluded: “…we welcome the support and partnership of others who share our belief that genocide should be a matter of great concern and responsibility for all people.” We heartily agree Richard and Joyce. Please make your check out to the “World Court of Human Rights Fund”[11] and forward to World Government House, POB 9390, South Burlington, VT 05407. Thank you in anticipation.[12]

Not to single out this concerned couple, I read every letter underlining passages relevant to our global project of world peace through adjudicated law. (Appended)

Thus for the rest of the “Giving Pledgees” (including, of course, Warren and Bill) we, world citizens, can employ your largesse beneficially as well for humanity’s benefit. Because the sooner the WCHR takes shape and begins adjudicating the inalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” along with the other inalienable rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the happier you all will feel and maybe even thank us for our initiative in unburdening you from a modicum of your earthly gains so that you can depart peacefully in good conscience before meeting face-to-face, as it were, with YOUKNOWWHO.

Appendix:

PAUL G. ALLEN

As our philanthropy continues in the years ahead, we will look for new opportunities to make a difference in the lives of future generations.

JOHN & LAURA ARNOLD

We view our wealth…not as an end in itself, but as an instrument to effect positive and transformative change. We are blessed to embark on this critical endeavor at a relatively early stage in our lives and with a great sense of urgency.

ELI AND EDYTHE BROAD

Those who have been blessed with extraordinary wealth have an opportunity, some would say a responsibility—we consider it a privilege to give back to their communities, be they local, national or global...We view our grants as investments, and we expect a return.

STEVE CRANE

…what really drove us was the mission of building a new medium that could empower individuals…we seek to inspire individuals to realize their potential to create change…We want to use all the tools available to us, to have the greatest impact, and to achieve the greatest good....We share the view that those to whom much is given, much is expected.…we also want to reaffirm our ongoing commitment to encouraging a citizen-centered approach to philanthropy…

LEON A. COPERMAN

…Andrew Carnegie said “He who dies rich, dies disgraced.”…Sir Winston Churchill observed that “We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.”…it is written in the Talmud that “a man’s net worth is measured not by what he earns but rather what he gives away.”

BARBARA DALIO

When we earned more money, we experienced relief and then the diminishing benefits of having more money...We experienced directly what the studies on happiness show—that once the basis are covered there is no correlation between how much money one has and how happy one is...We had planned to give most of our money to those it will most help anyway.

JOHN PAULK DEJORIA

Living is giving. I won’t deprive my family of knowing how good it feels to help those in need with some of the basics we already have…food, shelter, care and a future.I plan to help the world now and in the future…with half (if not more) of what I have been blessed with today.

LARRY ELLISON

I have already given hundreds of millions of dollars to medical research and education, and I will give billions more over time.…I have done this giving quietly….So why am I going public now? Warren Buffett personally asked me to write this letter because he said it would be ‘setting an example’ and ‘influencing others’ to give.

CHARLES F. FEENY

I cannot think of a more personally rewarding and appropriate use of wealth than to give while one is living—to personally devote oneself to meaningful efforts to improve the human condition....The challenges, even set backs, I have experienced in my decades of personal engagement in philanthropy pale in comparison to the impact and deep personal satisfaction we have realized.

SUE ANN HAMM

We have always felt a strong obligation to lead by example. Through our giving pledge, we hope to encourage others to commit their time and resources to worthy causes that will enable other people with ambition and tenacity to achieve their goals.

MISS LYDA HILL

I wish to make the world a better place….At my death my entire estate and my foundation will be distributed to charities I have designated....“Science is the solution to most of the world’s challenges, be they food shortage, energy, medicine or pollution. These matters have become my life’s interests….the (Hockaday) women who will solve many of these problems. I thought it would be fun to set the bar high.”

MARK ZUCKERBERG

People wait until late in their careers to give back. But why wait when there is so much to be done? With a generation of younger folks who have thrived on the success of their companies, there is a big opportunity for many of us to give back earlier in our lifetimes and see the impact of our philanthropic efforts.”

TOM & CINDY SECUNDA

We're honored to be in such great company and we pledge to do our small part to make the world a better place for our children and grandchildren.

CARL C. ICAHN

…those who have benefited the most from our economic system have a responsibility to give back to society in a meaningful way.

GEORGE B. KAISE

I suppose I arrived at my charitable commitment largely through guilt....I am entranced by Warren’s and Bill’s visionary appeal to those who have accumulated unconscionable resources, to dedicate at least half of them back to purposes more useful than dynastic perpetuation....If enough acolytes follow Bill’s and Warren’s example, then maybe we will more closely approach the idea of equal opportunity throughout the United States and the world

NANCY KINDER

…when we set up our personal foundation and committed to give 95% of our wealth to charitable causes whether during our lifetimes or at our deaths, we never dreamed that there would be such a gathering of like-minded individuals who firmly believe in the favorable impact of giving on the world.

KENNETH G. LANGONE

…..your graceful letter…conveys a spiritual purpose that has long been close to our hearts…It is inspiring how such a simple idea puts faith into action for the community as a whole.

LORRY I. LOKEY

I began to realize the importance of money consists of buying what is worth the price...Throughout the world without an exception, education is the determinant of a person’s intelligence level and possible success. And success is not making a million a month or a year. It’s earning enough to live comfortably and being able to finance children’s education...As we went into the 21st century, I began quipping that I want to die broke...The larger the estate, the more important it is to revitalize the soil.

GEORGE LUCAS

Storytellers are teachers and communicators who speak a universal language...Good storytelling is based on truths and insights, and a good storyteller is ultimately a teacher…We are the facilitators….This level of engagement dates back to the beginning of human life…There have to be universal standards…We need to build new foundations, fostering independent thought and a desire to keep learning….We need to promote critical thinking…prepare our children for the real world….working together and building character…as a means to a greater end.

DAVID & BARBARA GREEN

…God gifted me with a mind for understanding business, and that gift would allow me to carry out His work through contributions to great missions throughout the world…

TED FORSTMANN

…you save one life and you save the world.

THOMAS S. MONAGHAN

I came into the world penniless and as a Catholic Christian, I know I cannot take any of it with me...I knew that all these things would pass away and that the only think that really mattered was the state of my soul…I now began to look for how I could really be effective, really make a difference in what truly mattered; in people’s eternal lives….I realized that to have a more global impact, I would need to focus on Catholic higher education…

DUSTIN MOSKOVITZ

(Helped create Facebook) Today, I view that reward not as personal wealth, but as a tool with which I hope to bring even more benefit to the world...We will donate and invest with both urgency and mindfulness arriving to foster a safer, healthier and more economically empowered global community.

PIERRE & PAM OMIDYAR (Ebay)

Our view is fairly simple…There’s no need to hold onto it when it can be put to use today, to help solve some of the world/s intractable problems…Our common challenge is not necessarily about dollar’s raise, it’s about discovering the most efficient and effective use of our resources and leaving a legacy of hope for those to come.

RONALD O. PERELMAN

I have always been interested in giving to projects that may not get done otherwise. If the research wasn’t productive, I would have spent money to no avail, but if the idea worked, the potential was enormous—it was a risk I was willing to take…I can think of no greater example as to why giving now and seeing the benefits first hand can be the single most rewarding thing any of us can do.

DAVID M. RUBENSTEIN

…I recognize that to have any significant impact on an organization or a cause, one must concentrate resources, and make transformative gifts—and to be involved in making certain those gifts transform in a positive way. And I am heading in that direction…Everyone can and should give, and everyone can and should feel that their gifts may make the world a little bit better place...My hope, again, is that individuals of all levels of resources will also increase their giving, and feel they are helping their countries and humanity by doing so….so as to bring whatever benefits come from giving to the world a bit sooner.

HERBERT & MARION SANDLER

When you think about it, no other approach seems to make sense. Passing down fortunes from generation to generation can do irreparable harm. In addition, there is no way to spend a fortune. How many residences, automobiles, airplanes and other luxury items can one acquire and use?...The Buffett/Gates initiative is likely to be a major “game changer.”.Believe it or not, the psychic income — the highs if you will — associated with giving money away thoughtfully and effectively has even been more gratifying than running a successful business.

LYNN SCHUSTERMAN

…I also pledge to continue working to encourage others, including emerging philanthropists of all ages and all capacities, to join us in seeking to repair the world; the further we broaden our reach, the more we will benefit from a diversity of people, perspectives and approaches we strive to tackle problems of common concern.

SANFORD & JOAN WEILL

In the years we have left, we want to continue to try and do whatever small part we can to leave the world a little better that we found it. That return on investment would be unquantifiable and something we would cherish the most...We are firm believers that shrouds don’t have pockets.

TED TURNER

My experiences with organizations like the Better World Society opened my eyes to the power of assembling a team of international leaders to address global issues.…it was time for me to get out in front of the parade...After the billion dollar pledge, I challenged my fellow billionaires to do more.I’ve discovered that the more people you meet, the more you learn, and the more you learn, the more you want to help, and the more you help, the better you feel...These days I’m putting my resources and energies toward tackling the worlds more important issues...The three problems that concern me the most are the threat of nuclear annihilation, climate change and the continuing growth of the world’s population...“Ted, it could be that these problems can/t be solved, but what can men of good conscience do but keep trying until the very end.” (Cousteau to Turner)…at the time of my death, virtually all of my wealth will have gone to charity...I’m particularly thankful for my father’s advice to set goals so high that they can’t possibly be reached during a lifetime and to give help where help is needed most. That inspiration keeps me energized and eager to help keep working hard every day on giving back and making the world a better place for generations to come.

=============================================

[1] There are 1210 billionaires worldwide according to Forbes, Inc

[2] “He who dies rich, dies disgraced.” (Andrew Carnegie)

[3] http://givingpledge.org/

[4] See View From My Space, Memo To The World’s Billionaires, March 15, 2007 “I tell you what. Let's start a World Citizens' Billionaire's Club and you can all become members. The membership fee will be a paltry $50 million. That'll give it a starting net worth of $473,000,000. Then we'll start a bank, a world bank, and use the fees as capital, minus expenses and overhead, to print and issue world money against national currencies. (A Bucky Fuller idea, incidentally, who wrote that money was only 'crystallized energy' and proposed 'kilowatt dollars' as the world currency*). After all, national currencies are 'floating' out there between nations anarchically with no real solid base like goods and services….Then there’s wars to get rid of. Who can afford them anymore?....And besides, If WWIII starts, your billions won’t be worth the paper they’re printed on…”

[5] “Peace is order based on law. There is no other imaginable definition.” (Emery Reves, The Anatomy of Peace, 1946

[6] And before that an actor on Broadway who went to high school in a Rolls-Royce.

[7] See http://www.worldservice.org/cat.html?s=4#books

[8] See http://www.worldservice.org/wsalstat.html

[9] Another reason for a court on the world level which adjudicates violations of human rights including arbitrary detention only protected by the habeas corpus principle.

[10] Webster’s College Dictionary, 1991

[11] Peoples United Bank, Account #097802533335,

[12] See www.worldservice.org/cat.html?s=4#books

IS IT POSSIBLE TO GIVE UP
NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP?

Can you Become a Citizen of the World… Legally?

Garry Davis

"We are living in a geocentric world of nation-states. We look upon economic, social and political problems as 'national' problems. No matter in which country we live, the centre of our political universe is our own nation." -- The Anatomy of Peace, Emery Reves

People write to me at the World Service Authority from time to time asking if it is possible for them to legally and officially withdraw from the nation-state system and raise their allegiance to the global level. In other words, can they legally give up US citizenship and declare themselves World Citizens?

The answer is yes...But why? Before I answer that question, let me tell you that in 1948 I renounced United States Citizenship -- to prove that it is possible to exist in a new space, legally, above and beyond the nations that divide us, i.e., a world space! Well I’ve proved it. For 64 years I’ve been a citizen of no nation, only the world! Legally![1]

How did I do it? Following my stint as a B-17 bomber pilot in WWII, first I read the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940, an update of an act of 1868 when the United States was receiving tens of thousands of immigrants from Europe streaming into the US to take advantage of Lincoln's Homestead Act: Stake out 111 acres of land in the wild West, build your own log cabin, till the soil for 5 years, (don’t kill anyone except maybe some indigenous natives who might resent your presence on their ancestral land), and lo and behold, you could become a bona fide US citizen. However, due to the hallowed principle of reciprocity in law, a natural-born United States citizen could legally renounce his or her nationality but to do so represented a certain number of problems, the first three being, how, when and where?[2]

Now when we are asked this primordial questions, we have a totally different take on the answer.

"Why renounce your national citizenship," we ask, "when it no longer exists legitimately?" We receive blank, bewildered stares. "Or put it this way," we continue, "Shortly after the turn of the century around the time of the airplane’s debut but certainly after Hiroshima at the start of the nuclear age when wars became omni and genocidal, the United States ‘renounced’ you as viable citizens. It became a garrison state, a mockery of "We, the people..". Example: The oath of allegiance now incoming migrants must take today to become US citizens:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

"The reference to God," we note, "as the sanctifier for this modern garrison state exposes the shameless mockery of 'e pluribus unum,'  the underlying basis of the USA's founding two centuries prior. The code now is, 'From many, blind obedience to one'!"[3]

"Or look at it another way even more basic," we continue "Take a human birth. Did you choose your own place of birth? Can you be born into a political fiction? I mean, birth is a biological not a political fact. After all, you come out of your mother's womb into the world itself, a human being, member of humankind, not in a fictional state which claims you, body and soul. And since the technological, then electronic breakthroughs at the turn of the 19^th century-with so-called world wars starting in 1914-followed by the "Nuclear Age" and then space travel, wasn't the 18^th, 19^th century divided system of nation-states rendered increasingly obsolete not to mention totally dysfunctional and now mortal?"[4]

Our fellow human questioner, his (her) eyes wide with bewilderment and anguish, remonstrates, "Yes but they're in bloody power over us what with the national laws, police and damn armies."

"Yes, we know all that," we reply. "But the word 'power' brings up the idea of sovereignty. And most people don’t really know what that means. We haven’t yet figured out what really happened in that Philly hall in the summer of 1797 when those 55 citizens of their brand-new 13 states bordering the Atlantic Ocean, exercised sovereignty (or political choice) by artificially creating out of sheer imagination a new level of government.[5]

"Are you suggesting, Garry, that United States citizenship is a fiction and not real?" we are asked in astonishment.

"Let me give you a simple example of reality versus fiction," we respond. "When driving a car anywhere in the world you come to a crossing and the traffic light is red, what do you do?"

"I stop of course." is the instant reply.

"And why do you stop?" we ask.

"Because when it's red, that means stop. Green means go. Everyone knows that."

"Does everyone throughout the world stop at the red light at a road crossing?"

"They do if they have a brain in their head."

"Ah, you’ve just 'renounced' your United State citizenship," we reply, "by stating that 'everyone' knows that when a traffic light turns red, that means "Stop", therefore, not only a local "law," or a United States or even inter-national "law," but a universal traffic reality! In other words, a code of conduct for us human drivers. And no matter where you are in the world when you come to a traffic crossing and the light is red, you stop. and go when it turns green. But the traffic light itself is a "fiction". For instance, did you ever consider that principle behind that everyday global event?

"What do you mean, the principle? It’s just commonsense."

"And there you’ve hit on another 'renunciation' of nationality: 'commonsense.' And does not everyone at that crossing exhibit the same knowledge of commonsense?" we ask.

"Of course."

"Then haven't you defined a universal law based on commonsense or even justice since the traffic light is regulated for every driver who comes to that crossing and for the community of drivers taken together?"

A glimmer of light begins to shine in my friend’s eyes. "I'm beginning to see what you’re getting at," (s)he says. "The one and the many principle."

"Bingo! E pluribus unum on a world scale![6] Just like a symphony orchestra or a flock of birds. Or humankind. Now let’s go back to that meeting in Philly," we continue. "When the so-called Founders carved out a tiny part of the coastal area in the North American continent-part of the world territory actually-in which around 3 millions of their fellow humans resided, and circumscribed it with millions of 'traffic lights' called 'frontiers,' (continually expanding) weren't they denying the self-evident universality, both of their own humanity and that of everyone else's humanity?"

"Yes, but at that time the British, French and Spanish man'a'wars were still out in the Atlantic ready to knock off the states one by one if they didn't unite," he replies.

"The fictional 'states' yes, but not the people, and because of this fundamental difference, the founders were obliged to make a crucial and fatal compromise in the legal text they were preparing to impress on the 3 millions inhabitants now living no longer in mere colonies."

"I'm listening," he returns nervously no doubt wondering where all this led.

"Now a major dilemma had arisen: Who was going to represent the new fictional nation they were creating vis-a-vis the nations poised in the Atlantic and the rest of the world of similarly fictional nations, large and small? Well, they figured it had to be the president when he was acting as the 'Commander-in-Chief' of the army and navy in time of war. But then, who would be representing the citizen's rights? In short, which was 'sovereign,' the people or the nation? Remember, there was no bill of rights in the original Constitution they wrote. In time of war between nations, only the nation was considered 'sovereign.' And as the army and navies of the world operate in the anarchic space between nations, the national citizens were left without civic representation but on the contrary became mere subjects to the imperial state in which, as the prime executive, the president would be a virtual dictator. The people, in brief, in time of war would at his singular command. But the nation-state, by definition, is a war state. The rational? "National Security."[7] Now, are you beginning to understand why and when the United States 'renounced' the entire citizenry…right at the very beginning of its founding. Now today, when wars between nations have become global and genocidal since 1945, you want 'out' when you were always 'out' right from the start since in a world of anarchy, the fictional nation-state is in a continual state of war….with the people."

"Wow!, s(he) replies. “That’s quite a revelation!"

"But happily, there's an antidote, not only rational but the only road to a world without war. James Madison proposed when drafting the famous Bill of Rights between 1787 and '89 that there had to be included a legal remedy for the people when the president put his Commander-in-Chief war hat on. And it bears directly on your question of renouncing your United State citizenship because in effect it recognizes your already inalienable right to claim your own sovereign humanity."

"So what is it exactly," s(he) asks eagerly.

"It's the Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, the most revolutionary right ever included in any national constitution.[8]"

"And why is that?"

"Because it refers to that right we already discussed when stopping and going at the traffic light at the entire discretion of the driver of each and every car in the whole world community. In other words: world law at the command of each national citizen!"[9]

"Amazing! World law! Part of the US Constitution? How do you figure that?"

"Ah, because of Madison's genius The Ninth Amendment doesn't spell out any particular rights. But what it does reveal is that the eight rights he did spell out are not all there are BUT all the other human rights —and here is the universality built in to the US Constitution—are 'retained by the people.' That simply means they are inalienable which in turn means universal. So, you see, the United States of America 'renounced' or rather, recognized you right from the start as a sovereign human being! But, and here's the catch: Since inalienable rights belong to the people, YOU MUST CLAIM THEM YOURSELF AS THE SOVEREIGN IN QUESTION. AND THESE ARE BRIEFLY, 'LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS' AS PRESCRIBED IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.[10]

"And in political terms that simply means claiming world citizenship as the Founders claimed national citizenship in the 18^th century to embody those inalienable rights. And, almost miraculously, that claim is the beginning of a higher level of government.[11] So rather than renounce that now invalid and deadly national allegiance caught historically in an anarchic political world,, simply exercise your inalienable sovereign power by claiming the higher one relevant to fundamental and inalienable human rights.

"That's 'world government!' And that's what law-making is all about!"[12]

"Where do I sign up?"

"At www.worldservice.org"

Postscript: "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government..." Article 21(3), Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

**************************

---

[1] "…a reverence for our great Creator, principles of humanity, and the dictates of conscience, must convince all those who reflect on the subject that government was instituted to promote the welfare of mankind and ought to be administered for the attainment of that end." Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, 1775; "Every man... possesses the right of self-government. Individuals exercise it by their single will." Thomas Jefferson, 1790

[2] My latest book, World Citizen Garry Davis goes to Court, (World Government House, 2011) (www.worldgovernmenthouse.com) goes into these questions in detail

[3] "Any method of maintaining international peace today must eventually fail if it is not grounded on Justice under Law and the protection of the Individual under due process of law." World Habeas Corpus, Luis Kutner, 1968, p. 73

[4] [12] "Our so-called 'contemporary' political systems are copied from models invented before the advent of the factory system...They were designed in an intellectual world that is almost unimaginable -- a world that was pre-Marx, pre-Darwin, pre-Freud and pre-Einstein." The Third Wave, Alvin Toffler, Bantam Edition, p. 414

[5] Tom Paine, who sparked the revolution with his essay "Commonsense," wasn't taken in by the subterfuge noting that "Independence is my happiness and I view things as they are without regard to place or person; my country is the world; my religion is to do good and all men are my brothers."

[6] "Government can be safely acknowledged a temporal blessing because, in terms of the power it wields, there is nothing inherent in it. Government is not an end in itself but a means to an end. Its authority is the free and revocable grant of the men who have promised conditionally to submit to it. Its organs, however ancient and august, are instruments that free men have built and free men can alter or even abolish." Earl Warren, Chief Justice, Supreme Court.

[7] When the so-called "enemy" is "terrorism" the war becomes total virtually incriminating the human race itself as exclusive national citizens.

[8] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. --The Ninth Amendment

[9] "The inalienable human right of the United States citizen to add world citizenship -- as the founding fathers added United States citizenship to that of their state allegiances -- is incontestable and indeed the highest act of patriotism. For only in that planetary social and political level can the lesser members be protected and nurtured. The US Constitution itself, in the Ninth Amendment, provides for the rational extension of civic rights and responsibilities to the highest level as foreseen implicitly by the original founders." (From Dear World, A Global Odyssey, World Government House, 2000)

[10] "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness…"

[11]"I no longer find it compatible with my inner convictions . . . by remaining solely loyal to one of these sovereign nation-states. I must extend the little sovereignty I possess, as a member of the world community, to the whole community, and to the international vacuum of its government . . . I should like to consider myself a citizen of the world." (Original renunciation of US nationality May 25, 1948)

[12] "As nations are torn apart and restructured, as instabilities and threats of war erupt, we shall be called upon to invent wholly new political forms or ʻcontainersʼ to bring a semblance of order to the world – a world in which the nation-state has become, for many purposes, a dangerous anachronism." Alvin Toffler, The Third Wave