IN FAVOR OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

(Quotes are from “Shield of Achilles” by Phillip Bobbitt, unless otherwise noted)

During a discussion about Consensualism, described as one school of thought on international law, Mr. Bobbitt says “Because states are the only entities capable of endowing international law with authority (on this view), only law created by states can legitimately bind them; and because states are sovereign, they can only be bound by that law to which they consent.” He also says “Consensualists share a fundamental premise: because international law is made and implemented by states, the consent of states, as manifested in their original intention memorialized in explicit or implicit agreements, is the only basis on which rules may legitimately be said to govern state behavior.” This idea, that states are sovereign, that they are only bound by international laws to which they consent, according to their Original Intent, led me down a thought path to the idea that if individuals are sovereign then they are bound only to those laws to which they consent, according to their Original Intent. What does this mean to an individual citizen of the United States of America?

First, some definitions are in order, since we are discussing the concept of Original Intent, I will use the 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster (1818) and Black’s Law Dictionary (BLD).
Sovereign: one who possesses the highest authority above all (1828); a person, body, or state in which independent or supreme authority is vested (BLD).
Civil: that which is natural or proper to a citizen of a free political community (BLD); that which is between citizen and citizen, not criminal which is between state and citizen (1828).
Disobedience: non-compliance (definition 2 – 1828)
Original: first in order, preceding all others (1828); primitive, first in order, bearing its own authority, and not deriving authority from an outside source (BLD).
Intent: a design, a purpose (1828); design, resolve, or determination with which a person acts.

To interpret what Mr. Bobbitt states above as Consensualism’s creed, using these definitions, in any international organization capable of making law, states are only obligated to comply who have consented to the laws. For instance, if all the Pacific States, i.e., United States, Chile, Mexico, Indonesia, etc., except Japan consent to the Law of the Sea Treaty (aka LOST), then the signatory states would no longer harvest sea life from the designated areas, but Japan could. In this case, the Original Intent of the LOST would be to cease all harvesting in designated areas, but it would not achieve this aim if a state harvesting sea life in those areas did not sign the treaty. Japan would be asserting its sovereignty which pre-exists the treaty and is therefore Original. The international community could then impose sanctions against nations who purchase Japanese sea foods with in its member nations, but Japan could sell inside its own nation or to other states not members of the international community, that would be Civil Disobedience.

How would this apply to the average citizen in the United States of America in the 21st Century? Suppose there is a voluntary National Animal Identification System (NAIS) program. Under this program all livestock and domestic animals enrolled would be required to have an RFID implanted, would be subjected to spot tracking, movement of animals off or on an identified and registered premise would be mandatorily monitored and registered online or by phone. This would prevent all disease from being passed from one animal to another, thereby ensuring the safety of the food supply. Since this is a voluntary program, only the signatories would be bound to obey its regulations. However, if a livestock producer or a domestic pet owner does not wish to become a signatory to the NAIS, that producer would still be free to sell, trade, or move its animals whenever or wherever they choose to. This would mean that some animals would be unmonitored and therefore perceived to be potential disease carriers. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) could then issue sanctions against them by requiring all meat packing houses and stock yards to only handle NAIS stock or lose their license for all animals, which would close these businesses down. These businesses would tell no NAIS producers that there is no market for their product, thereby forcing compliance on pain of death when the producer can no longer provide for his or her own family. Remember NAIS purports to be a method of preventing the spread of disease within the food supply chain, yet the USDA will not allow private packing houses to check each animal for mad cow disease, even when it costs the taxpayer nothing, but USDA approved packing houses only check randomly, if at all.

How would Civil Disobedience work? Japan and other nations could simply say we will write our own treaties with each other and we do not recognize your right to exclusive ownership of the Seas resources. We think they should belong to all and we have a need for them. The livestock and domestic animal producer could say, this is a voluntary program and we will not comply. Meat packing houses and stock yards could create a coalition that would simply say, “We will not comply”. We will produce and process with each other, label our product as being non-compliant with NAIS and let the consumer decide which is preferred. If everyone, or a significant majority, just said “no” to laws and regulations designed to control or inhibit freedom of choice, then the government, “ deriving [it’s] just powers from the consent of the governed.” In other words, we are the government and we are sovereign and we are bound only to obey those laws to which we have consented, not regulations which change at the whim of an administrator, and un less we come to this conclusion and exercise those rights to civil disobedience, we will have to declare our independence a second time and fight to restore the Constitution on the streets rather than in the halls of Congress.

Declaration of Independence (1776): www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm.