States as Independent Nations

 

 by Chuck McGlawn 10/24/2019

^{[See definition of State at the bottom.]}

In the normal process of things when the former ruling body (In this case it was Great Britain.) is deposed a new ruling body is established to fill the void. The American War for Independence against Great Britain lasted from 1775 to 1783. At the beginning of the war, the governments of the 13 colonies were faced with a dilemma. America was striving for independence from the administration of the British but America had not separated from Great Britain and therefore an American government had not been established. During the early stages of the conflict, it was not then supposed that the quarrel with the 'Mother Country' would end in separation.

The existing Colonial governments represented an extension of the British government with a Governor, governor's court, and legal system. In 1773 the Governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, disbanded the Virginia House of Burgesses for insubordination to Great Britain. This led to the creation of the Continental Congress. The role of the First Continental Congress was to set forth the views of the people and remonstrate against the conduct of the King and Parliament.

The First Continental Congress (Still an extension of British rule.) petitioned the King and fixed May 10, 1775, as the date on which a second Continental Congress would meet to consider the response to their petition. They didn’t have to wait till May. The response came in January 1775. Britain sent orders prohibiting another meeting of the Congress and sent additional troops to America. In February 1775 Parliament declared that Massachusetts was in a state of rebellion. Matters quickly escalated and on April 18, 1775, the American War of Independence began. The 13 Colonies asked Congress to adopt the American army that had gathered around Boston, and direct the war. Through this chain of events Congress, unexpectedly, became an informal governing body, and began to act as an advisor to each of the colonies.

When the Continental Congress met at Philadelphia on May 10, 1775, The Boston based British government was out and the government of the Massachusetts colony was in their own hands. The Continental Congress advised that no obedience was due to the governor and advised the people to make a temporary government until the King should restore the old charter. Later in 1775, the Continental Congress gave similar advice to New Hampshire and South Carolina.

By the spring of 1776 all of the British Governors of the 13 colonies had either fled or been thrown into prison. The demise of the royal governors had effectively put an end to the colonial government. Continental Congress realized that reconciliation with Great Britain was impossible. On May 15, 1776, Congress advised all the colonies to form their own separate governments. [Note, this is pre-Declaration of Independence.] All but two made new constitutions, but Connecticut and Rhode Island used their old charters. They ALL adopted constitutions, and by doing so turned themselves from British colonies into sovereign and independent States.

 

Here are the dates that the separate colonies became sovereign Nations, by adopting their own National Constitutions. 

Before Independence was Declared, and long before the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, even longer before the Adoption of the Constitution, and with no clear evidence that there would ever be a separation from mother England, New Hampshire's was the first American colony to adopt a constitution of its own, formally replacing British rule on January 5, 1776. 

The Provincial Congress of South Carolina approves a new constitution and government on March 26, 1776. The legislature renames itself the General Assembly of South Carolina and elects John Rutledge as President, Henry Laurens as Vice President and William Henry Drayton as Chief Justice. 

South Carolina took this action towards independence from Great Britain four months before the Continental Congress declared independence and five months before South Carolina learned of the Declaration. 

Georgia's first attempt at constitutional government was initiated in April 1776 by the Provincial Congress called by the Georgia Trustees in response to a series of mass meetings held throughout the colony. This document provided a framework for the transition from colony to State. 

New Jersey’s first Constitution was adopted on July 2, 1776, shortly before New Jersey ratified the American Declaration of Independence  

The Virginia Convention met in Williamsburg from May 6 through July 5, 1776, unanimously adopted a Declaration of Rights. Then on June 12 and about two weeks later, on June 29, unanimously adopted the first Constitution of the independent State of Virginia.

 

This constitution was framed by a Convention which assembled at New Castle Delaware, August 27, 1776, in accordance with the recommendation of the Continental Congress that the people of the colonies should form independent State Governments. It was not submitted to the people but was proclaimed September 21, 1776. 

 The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 (ratified September 28, 1776) was the State's first Constitution following the Declaration of Independence. 

As a member of the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1779, John Adams was the document's principal author. Voters approved the document on June 15, 1780. It became effective on October 25, 1780, and remains the oldest functioning written constitution in continuous effect in the world.  

Maryland’s first constitution was written in 1776 and adopted by the Ninth Provincial Convention meeting at Annapolis in November. Out of all of the documents adopted during the revolution, it was the least revolutionary. Its frame of government was designed to perpetuate the current government and social order minus the crown. The constitution gave its citizens certain rights and freedom that had not been expressed before the revolution took place. 

The first North Carolina Constitution was adopted on December 18, 1776, after the American Declaration of Independence. 

The first New York state constitution is formally adopted by the Convention of Representatives of the State of New York, meeting in the upstate town of Kingston, on April 20, 1777. 

 

Rhode Island finally approved its State Constitution with provisional amendments. On August 31, 1790, three months after May 29, 1790, when Rhode Island became the 13th state to enter the Union after ratifying the Constitution.

 

Connecticut was the last State to draft a State constitution, In 1662, Connecticut was granted governmental authority by King Charles II of England and royal charter. These two documents laid the groundwork for the state’s government but lacked characteristics of what is generally thought of as a constitution.^[1] Separate branches of government did not exist during this period, and the General Assembly acted as the supreme authority.^[1] A true constitution was not adopted in Connecticut until 1818.  

After most of the Constitutions were written and debated, and finally adopted The Constitutional Convention was ready to submit the US Constitution to the full delegation, but there was just one more choice to make would the Preamble read:  

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.  

Or would they use the original version? 

We the people of the States of New -Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New -York, New -Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity.

 

***States as Independent Nations here is the Google Dictionary delimitation of State as a noun: 

1.     the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time. "the state of the company's finances"

synonyms: condition, shape, situation,

2          a nation or the territory considered as an organized political community under one government. Germany, Italy and other European states Synonyms: country, nation, land, sovereign state, nation-state, kingdom, realm,        power republic, confederation, federation "an autonomous state"      (emphasis added) Usage: (Declaration of Independence) “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the  British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which the Independent States may of right do”... (All emphasis added) United Nations = Nations united  United States = States united or a union of States.

 

Introduction: Recapturing the Single Plane Left/Right Political Spectrum

by Chuck McGlawn 12/03/2020

The Most Powerful Tool and the Roadmap to Liberty

The one thing on which almost everyone agrees; Is that the DC Government is too big. Almost all, of the problems faced by the American people can be traced back to the DC Government overstepping its constitutionally delegated powers. Source Debate.org reported recently that 83% of the American People say The government is too big. (https://www.debate.org/opinions/is-the-u-s-government-too-big.

First, the DC Government Growers discredited the SIMPLE left/right political spectrum. Tell me what could be more descriptive than 100% government [Communist & totalitarian] is the extreme left end of the spectrum. The communist Karl Marx said so. And 0% government [anarchy no government] is the extreme right end of that same spectrum. The Greeks said so. [Anarchy is Greek for no-government.]

 

Therefore, if your candidate or your issue calls for an increase in governmental power, it does not mean that you are a communist, but you are advocating a move TOWARD 100% GOVERNMENT ON THE LEFT. Conversely, if your candidate or your issue is calling for less governmental power, That does not make you an anarchist, but you are advocating a move TOWARD 0% DC GOVERNMENT ON THE RIGHT.

 

Things Get Confused

Liberals advocate programs that call for more government most of the time. However, when it comes to personal liberties like cutting the DC Government's power over marijuana use, prostitution, censorship, sex between consenting adults, same-sex marriage, and especially the military draft liberals are decidedly anti-big government. 

 

Confusion continues; Conservatives advocate programs that call for more government some of the time. However, when it comes to  economic liberties like reducing corporate welfare [that is financial aid to corporations and corporate agriculture], reducing Social Welfare by weeding out fraud and corruption, and advocating free-market principled that generate jobs for all economic levels, reducing foreign aid, getting the DC Government out of Health Care, and Public Education, and local policing Conservatives are mostly anti-big-government. 

 

 Murray Rothbard was not confused 51 years ago when he referred to himself as an “extreme right-winger” in “Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal” published in 1969 and the author of the first political Platform for the Libertarian Party. Additionally, different segments of the Libertarian Movement was not confused when some dubbed themselves “Minarchist” advocates of minimum DC Government, “Anarcho-Capitalists”, advocating no DC Government in the economic and free-market systems. and “Anarchist”, advocates of no DC government at all.  All of the names have a historical and linguistic connection to the right end of the Single-Plane Left-Right Political Spectrum. 

 

To end this confusion we need to, Recapture The Single-Plane Left/Right Political Spectrum that being a spectrum where 100 percent government is the extreme left, and 0% government is the extreme right. See below.

100% government--------------------------------------------------------------------------0% government

                                          ^{Left                                                                                                                        Right}                                                                                            

Editor’s note: Your screen should show “left” directly under 100% and “Right directly under 0%s.

 The Single-Plane left/Right Political Spectrum will end the confusion that has labeled Conservatives “right, rightist and right-wing” when some of their agendas call for more government This will end the confusion that has labeled Liberals “left, leftist and left-wing” when some of their agendas call for less government.  

 

The Single-Plane Left/Right Political Spectrum clears up all the confusion. It will end the marriage of “liberal and left”, and it will end the marriage of “conservative and right”.

 

The following is very important, read carefully, The Single-Plane Left/Right Political Spectrum will 

divide the small-government conservatives, the ones that are more concerned with  Economic liberties, from the big-government conservatives that are trying to dictate the lifestyles of everyone else. This will unite the small-government conservatives and the libertarians in the mutual-quest to reduce the power of the DC Government. 

 

The Single-Plane Left/Right Political Spectrum  will divide the small-government liberals the ones that are more concerned with personal liberties, from the big-government liberals the ones concerned with fixing the disparity between the rich and the poor. This will unite the small-government liberals and the libertarians in the mutual-quest to reduce the power of the DC Government.

For the first time in history “divide and conquer” will be on the side of liberty.  

            .

 

And gentle reader, the timing could not be more perfect. There is so much confusion surrounding “Right, Rightist, and Right-Wing, that it literally has no real functional meaning at all. This is a perfect time to recapture its real functional meaning (That being right, rightist, and right-wing means an advocate of less government.) A survey about the meaning of “right, rightist and right-wing” would yield a spectrum of answers spanning from “White Supremacist”, “isolation"  "Nationalist”, evangelical and Christian rightist, conservative rightist and arch-conservatives, and libertarians". A survey about the meaning of “left, leftist, and left-wing” would not be as broad but it would still be confusing.

 

  Here it is in one place: Left, Leftist, and Left-Wing is an advocacy of more government

                                  Right, Rightist and Right-Wing is an Advocacy of Less government

 

PS If you can make it more descriptive and or more instructive and or more SIMPLE then post it quick Liberty needs the help in reducing the source of all of our problems, the power of the DC Government.

How Conservative Are you? How Liberal Are you? … How Libertarian Are you?

 Pre-Instructions: Highlight and copy (ctrl c) everything below starting with "How Conservative..." Go to a new blank Word Processing and Paste (crtl v)  Duplicate copies are generated with every ctrl v. Take the survey on one of the blanks score it and then send it to chuckest@aol.com.

How Conservative Are you?   How Liberal Are you? … How Libertarian Are you?

Read each statement. If you Lean Toward or are Generally Closer to agree then respond with an A. If you Lean Toward or are Generally Closer to disagree then respond with a D. Enter your first response Quickly, do not over-think the statement, it may lead you to an answer that is contrary to your general feelings.  1-10 part one   11-20

 

Part One

Place an A if you agree with the statement and D if you Disagree. Can’t decide or no opinion just leave blank.

1.      ___ I am generally for strict enforcement of drug laws

2.      ___ I am generally for reducing US foreign aid to other nations 

3.      ___ I am generally for internet sex/porn sites being blocked.

4.      ___ I am generally for the 2nd amendment gun rights.

5.      ___ I am generally opposed to stem cell research.

6.      ___ I am generally for the reduction of Federal taxes

7.      ___ I am generally for more US border control to stop illegal immigration.

8.      ___ I am generally for reducing social welfare.

9.      ___ I am generally for marriage to be defined as between 1 man & 1 woman.

10.    .  ___ I am generally for reducing corporate welfare.

        ^{Corporate welfare is Federal financial assistance to businesses or farms.}

Part Two

Place an A if you agree with the statement and D if you Disagree. Can’t decide or no opinion just leave blank.

11.   ___  I am generally for increases in the minimum wage laws.

12.   ___  I am generally for the continuation of NO military draft.

13.   ___  I am generally for saving the Social Security System as is.

14.   ___  I am generally for NO internet censorship.

15.   ___  I am generally for mandating that medical and family leave be paid for by the employer. 

16.   ___  I am generally for fewer laws criminalizing sex between consenting adults.

17.   ___  I am generally for tax-supported preschool.

18.  ____ I am generally for decriminalizing victimless crimes.

19.   ___  I am generally for more stringent pre-gun-sale background checks

20.   ___  I am generally for decriminalizing Prostitution.

 

Scoring the Survey

How Conservative Are You?

Count the “A^s” in statements   1 – 10. ___  X 10   = Line 1   ___ 

Count the “D^s” in statements   1 – 10. ___  X 10   = Line 2  ___

Count the “A^s” in Statements 11 –20  ___  X   5   = Line 3  __ Line 1 minus lines (2&3) ___ =___  Conservative

 

How Liberal Are You?

Count the “A^s” in statements   11 – 20. __  X 10   = Line 1   __ 

Count the “D^s” in statements   11 – 20. __  X 10   = Line 2  __

Count the “A^s” in Statements   1 – 10  ___  X   5   = Line 3  ___ Line 1 minus lines (2&3) ___ =___  Liberal

 

How Libertarian Are You?

Count  “A^s” in even No. statements 2-20  ____  X 10=Line 1___

Count “D^s”  in even No. statements 2-20  ____  X 10=Line 2___

Count “A^s” in odd No. Statements 1-19  ____   X  5=Line 3 ___ Line 1 minus lines (2&3)___ =___ Libertarian

 

Scoring the survey may contain some flaws but give it a go.

McGlawn’s Mantra

 

By Chuck McGlawn 2018

 

In the US today we have approximately 160,000,000 adults, divided between men and women, divided again among 50 States, divided again between employment in the public or the private sectors, divided again between hundreds or thousands of professions, careers and duties. These millions separate themselves again by personal interest, hobbies, and different activities physical and mental. Additional diversity manifests itself by political division (Rep. Dem. Lib. Grn. ETC.) Additional diversity arises from attitudes toward each issue, (Conservative, Liberal or Libertarian). All of these differences are inputs to some degree in creating diversity.

 

The diversity that I have so inadequately tried to describe above does not even scratch the surface of the diversity that exists within the borders of the US. We are a collection of people that are so individualistic that no two have the exact same total agenda. Talk about people as snowflakes, with no two alike. Is it any wonder that with all that individuality and diversity with its accompanying multiple cross purposes that is built into our system that grass roots efforts to change or divert the bulldozer of government expansion has failed. We need a way to coral all of this individual diversity regardless of their far-flung self-interest, to somehow move in the same direction.

 

There are two ways to accomplish this seeming impossible end. The first being, to educate enough American voters so, that will then take an active role in legislative selection, so as to vote out the tax and spend law makers, in favor of economically conservative lawmakers. We have been engaged in that effort for the last sixty years, to no avail. The second way is; if, and it is a gigantic if: We have been suggesting this as your mantra since 2005.

 

 “Reduced the size of the DC Government to its constitutionally limited size, this would create a vacuum in the taxing and regulating departments. (The Constitution did not delegate to the DC Government a lot of taxing and regulating powers.) If this were to happen the 50 State Governments would quickly fill these vacuums, separately. With the 50 separate States, tinkering with taxation and regulation powers some State would stumble onto a formula of governance that would produce a bump upward in prosperity. Other States would see and begin to imitate the prosperous State, modifying their taxing and regulating slightly to better accommodate their unique location and their unique population which produces even better results, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth”   [You have my permission to use the mantra early and often you may even have it printed on your business card.]

 

Frankly, I am not sure the second step can ever be accomplished. But, let me quickly say, it is the shorter of the only two routs toward prosperity. Gentle reader the first process was started in the 1950s. Let me ask, how that has that approach worked out for us? The answer is that, while we have been working tirelessly to reduce the size of government for sixty years, there is no indication that we have slowed the process one iota. From Liberal Presidents like Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama through Moderate Presidents like Eisenhower, Ford and the two Bushes, to Conservative Presidents like Reagan. The growth in the size and intrusiveness of government has remained unchecked.

 

Over the past 60 years we have vacillated between tax and spend Democrats. who never saw a social program they didn’t like, and the borrow and spend Republicans. who never saw a war making program that they didn’t like. During those Sixty years we have not produced a single Administration that successfully reduced the size and reach of government. Toward being able to accomplish the second method, remember we have a roadmap, to a small DC Government, we have a blueprint for small DC Government; we have clearly defined guidelines for a small DC Government. The roadmap, blueprint and guidelines for a small DC Government have been right before our eyes for almost 242 years. I refer to the Declaration of Independence. Within the Declaration of Independence, in the second paragraph we have a clear description of man’s proper relationship to his DC Government. If enough voters accepted this paragraph, that is just one sentence, as the “Mission Statement” for our DC Government, we could easily use that blueprint to create a DC Government of a size that would fit into the Constitution.

 

In just a few words, one can show clearly, the definition of our DC Government. Using the highly respected and much supported Declaration of Independence, to achieve this clarity. Direct your attention to just the first sentence of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. A carefully thoughtful reading of that simple sentence can provide the understanding necessary to fashion a small DC Government.

 

The Declaration of Independence says, 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…

 

What powerfully insightful words; that the truths therein are “self-evident” and confirmed by observation. Then it goes on to reveal, that man’s rights, (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness) are “unalienable”, which means they cannot be taken away. It includes the dictum that these rights are granted by the Creator or nature, called natural law.

 

Looking closer, you have three and only three RIGHTS. Simply by being born you have the right to LIFE. Moreover, you have the RIGHT to do with that LIFE anything you want to do. That is LIBERTY. You have the RIGHT to plan and conduct that LIFE in a way that you think will maximize your happiness. These are all yours ostensibly without any interference from the DC Government, so long as what you do does not interfere with another’s RIGHT to do what he/she wants to do with their LIFE. I make a distinction between DC Government and State Government because we have a blueprint for a DC Government, but not a blueprint for State Governments. State governments will be molded and modified not by a blueprint of central planning, but by the “Invisible Hand” of the Free Market competition between the States for populations, (Read populations as their tax base;No one wants to lose their tax base.)

 

Next, the framers make a vitally important assertion. “That to secure these rights”, (notice here, that these are rights that we had even before we had governments to "secure" them.) “Governments are instituted among Men”. Please note exactly what is taking place here, the people within each of the thirteen former British Colonies converted automatically into separate sovereign States are going to engaged in a compact with our (soon to be formed) DC Government to “secure” (that is to protect) our rights. It is also important to note that delegates from the thirteen separate States fashioned a Constitution that limits the DC Government, and therefore the States precede the DC Government. This means that the DC Government is the agent of and servant to the States and the people within those States and not the reverse. A reminder is necessary here. We are talking about our DC Government, State Governments are not held to this high standard. Remember that States had established governments before these criteria were laid. Some States had State religions, other States allowed slavery. It was clear that the DC Government was not brought into existence to “fix” the State Governments. It was representatives from the sovereign States that convened the Constitutional Convention. Their goal was to knit the thirteen sovereign States into a Federation.

 

The separate sovereign States were jealous of their powers, and the powers they delegated were few and well defined, reserved powers of the States and the people within those States were many and undefined. (See The Fedeeralist Papers #45.)

 

Now the framers are going to designate from where our DC Government gets its powers, and at the same time put an important limitation on that DC Governmental power. The Declaration of Independence says, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” There you have it. If our DC Government gets its powers from the governed, it would naturally follow that man cannot create a DC Government and give to that DC Government powers that individual man himself does not have. Let me say that again. If government gets its powers from the governed, then the DC Government being created cannot have powers that individual man does not have.

 

A question or two are in order here; does man have the right to defend his own life and property? YES is the answer. Therefore, man can institute a DC Government and share with that government the power to protect life and property, and tax himself to finance that shared function. In fact, the ability to share these powers is the justification for a military and a judicial system.

 

Now, do you as an individual person, have the right to take money from others and give that money to someone else that you think needs it more? The answer is NO. Therefore, it would follow that if man does not have that right to do it as an individual, then he cannot create a DC Government, and to give to that DC Government powers individual man does not possess. This means our DC Government can have no justified power to extract taxes from you to educate children. Our DC Government cannot be empowered to educate children, no matter how badly the population may think children need educating. Educating children can be the job of the States if they choose to take on the job. It means that our DC Government can have no power to extract taxes from you to fund social welfare, no matter how needy the population may think some people are. It also can have no power for health care providing, business promoting, Park building. The DC Government should not be involved in educational standards setting, régime changing, weather reporting, democracy spreading. The DC Government should not be spending tax monies on aid to other Nations, database keeping, farmer saving, speed limit setting or toilet designing. No matter how large a budget surplus our government may have it should never spend taxes on E-Mail reading, phone tapping, corporate bailouts, or the dozens of other things that the DC Government is either financing or regulating.

 

Let me mention just one natural result of this change. If the Declaration of Independence is adopted as the “Mission Statement” for our DC Government, and if all of those broad powers, and many many more too numerous to mention, were to be removed from our DC Government, would there be a need for an IRS? The answer is a resounding NO.

 

By creating a DC Government that is limited to the powers that individuals had before he had a DC Government, would in effect divide all of that power that is exercised by our DC Government among the 50 State Governments and the people within those 50 States, as it was originally intended. The DC Government would still have the power to maintain a DEFENSIVE military. You may be asking why I emphasized defensive? It is because DEFENSIVE is the only power YOU have that you have to share with the DC Government. The DC Government would still have the power of the Judicial Branch to settle disputes between States.

 

This would in effect impose the “the invisible hand of the Free Market System” onto the 50 separate States and turn our States into Wal-Marts and K-Marts competing with each other for populations. Would we have to pass laws to stop those “Horrible” lobbyists? No with no power to peddle at the DC Government level the lobbyist would just go away like the buggy whip disappeared in the 20th century. Then Corporations that had been paying to lobby huge amounts of money to garner a corporate advantage would be forced to maintain a market advantage through product or service improvements. Without lobbyist on the payroll corporations would dirvert that money to--- actual product improvements, or increase dividend payouts to stockholders or paying higher wages to their employees, or perhaps a little of all three.

 

Trickle-Down Efficacy

With the DC Government’s power in check we turn to the States. Today there are approximately 5 million State Government employees. Let me ask, what is the main concern for most of those 5 million? The answer is to have a job next year, that gentle reader is a formula for inefficiency. There is no real thought of those State employees toward delivering “Betterment” to the citizens of their respective States. However, if States had to compete with 49 other States for populations it would convert most of those well trained and well educated State employees into more conscientious employees, always seeking lower operating cost, always striving to become more efficient, always thinking of ways to deliver “betterment” to the populations of their State so as to maintain their tax base, and therefore their jobs.. This would convert our State lawmakers into writing and passing or repealing laws that would benefit the populations of their State. In addition, the questions about term limits would become moot. Because if some lawmaker maintained his/hers pattern of voting, he would be looking for a job after the next election. It would turn our State legislature into a meritocracy. The more efficient State Governments, would begin to pressure County Governments, who would in turn pressure City Governments

 

Another unintended consequence that would begin to surface would be the knowledge that the voter within a State County, or City could affect their governments through the voting. Our lawmakers would be beholden to voters and not Corporate or special interest. This would make interest in governmental matters higher among an individual’s priorities; likely way ahead of knowing the scores of the last sporting event, or who the starting pitcher or quarterback will be in the next big game.