THE HERALD PROFILED ME AS A GUEST CONTRIBUTOR - THE GRAPHIC WAS PROVIDED BY THE HERALD

In the litigation I am preparing this piece is key to challenging immunity.  The argument is methodical and based 100% on historical fact.  Immunity exists because academics take it as true, when it is not.  

A great tragedy in our Republic is we have no great minds to challenge the establishment.  It is an endless tit for tat without any substantive challenge to any of the premises upon which speakers rely.  

As an academic I am frustrated when I read commentary about how the Constitution works that is dead wrong. The worst part is when the commentator is normally adopting an interpretation of what they believe, and it is wrong, they are arguing against their own belief system.

The Constitution is a trust agreement instituted by the true sovereign, the people. There is no government until it is instituted by and among the people.

Government is the creation of the people. Without the people there is no government. This is why it is a trust. As the creators of the trust, we reserve the right to abolish it when the trustees, the government, no longer honor its terms.

In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson clearly stated government is instituted by the people and is abolished when it no longer serves the people as designed. One of the greatest rights Jefferson said the king abolished is redress. The right to hold the government accountable.

Immunity is entirely a defense by the judiciary to avoid government accountability. If you believe in immunity, you do not believe in the foundation of law, which allowed the colonists to abolish their ties to the king.

This is so important that the Founding Fathers put it in the First Amendment to the Constitution. When the Supreme Court first addressed the idea of immunity from suit, it rejected it for the very reasons I have outlined. The government then amended the Constitution to bar suit by a resident of one state against another state. This is the only place where immunity can be found in our great charter of government.

After the Civil War the Supreme Court abolished the legal basis for government. Of note to Texans was a financial case known as Texas v. White. In the single most egregious ruling ever by the Supreme Court, they found that when Texas joined the Union it agreed it could never secede, and therefore never did. Having never seceded from the Union, the original state of Texas had to pay Mr. White on the confederate bonds.

This changed the nature of government. The sovereign went from the people to an entity created by the people. The sovereign was now the government. The people, in one opinion not based on any document, went from holding on to the right to abolish non-responsive government to being permanently tied to a non-responsive government. We were now enslaved to a non-responsive government.

The ruling appears to violate the Thirteenth Amendment.

Unfortunately, people interpret my understanding of the inception of government to favor slavery. This is a false assumption. It is no better when an entire nation is enslaved to a non-responsive government, than an entire race is tied to slavery. Both are wrong.

The point that is missing is that the Union won the war and thereby had the authority to end slavery. What is lost on so many people is, had England won the Revolutionary War we would still be tied to England, and the words of Thomas Jefferson would be meaningless.

To the victor go the spoils, rightly or wrongly.

As we accepted the idea We the People surrendered their right to throw off a non-responsive government, we failed to see what in fact we did was surrender our status as the sovereign over a subordinate government instituted by the people and among the people. In effect we have agreed to be slaves to a non-response government.

The creation of immunity by the judiciary was the single most egregious act by the Supreme Court in our history as a republic.