​
​
Part X of XIII

“… Happy Constitution Day Yank.”
“Smudge Day Johnny.”
“Yupper.”
“Tell the story again, about how George had the founders put a smudge on the Constitution.”
“I thought you might ask Gus.”
“Oh?”
“Yes.”
“So you have something prepared?”
“Let me present, Constitution Day 1787.”
“Let’s go Reb.”
“Nowhere to go Yank, as we can story-tell right here.”
“Okay.”
“Conjure and imagine, if you will, the interior of …

INDEPENDENCE HALL, PHILADELPHIA PA – DAY 17 SEP 1787

GEORGE WASHINGTON (55) is chairing the Constitutional Convention and it is the last day, signing day, 17 September 1787. The hall is full of founders, such as ALEXANDER HAMILTON (30), JAMES MADISON (36), and BENJAMIN FRANKLIN (81); they are all gathered to conclude the convention and begin their journeys home. The (almost) completed Constitution is read aloud as well as a speech written by Franklin. WE HEAR the MURMUR of restive and attentive voices as NATHANIAL GORHAM (49), someone known to all in the room, rises to speak; he is a Massachusetts delegate, Chairman of the Whole during the convention, and Washington acknowledges him from the podium.

WASHINGTON
I see Nathanial, the honorable Mr. Gorham, would like to speak.

GORHAM
Gentlemen, if it is not too late, I would like that the clause declaring, 'the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every forty Thousand,' be reconsidered.

WASHINGTON
You mean the representation clause.

GORHAM
Yes, and since it produced so much discussion, perhaps we should reconsider it.

WASHINGTON
Your proposal?

GORHAM
For a greater representation of the people, I propose we strike out 'forty' Thousand and insert 'thirty' Thousand.

HAMILTON
Agreed!

FRANKLIN
Yes!

Madison nods agreement.

WASHINGTON
(pauses) 
Although my situation has hitherto restrained me from offering sentiments on questions before the convention, and perhaps ought to now –

LAUGHTER. 

I can’t forbear expressing my wish that the change proposed might take place.

HAMILTON
Say more.

WASHINGTON
It is much desired that the objections to the plan recommended might be as few as possible, and the smallness of the proportion of Representatives was considered by many members of the Convention, an insufficient security for the rights and interests of the people.

FRANKLIN
Yes.

WASHINGTON
The representation ratio had always seemed to me to be the exceptionable part of the plan, and late as the present moment was for admitting amendments, I believe it of so much consequence that it would give much satisfaction to see it adopted.

The founders then vote and the change is unanimously accepted. Madison and a clerk make the edit to the Constitution by altering the word 'forty' into 'thirty,' and in doing so leave a smudge.”

“Thanks for The Story of Smudge Day Johnny.”
“You’re welcome.”
“What’s the word on the usurpers and the surrender?”
“Merrick Garland.”
“Who’s that?”
“The Attorney General for We the People.”
“Word is?”
“We’ve asked for support.”
“I like it.”
“Also, there’s some news about Sarah.”
“Berry?”
“Right, …”

Next Up: 1 October and part XI of the series Johnny Reb and Gus Yank Berryvillin’: Sarah.

Posted by Bryan W. Brickner

​

Part IX of XIII

“… How’s this?”
“Thanks Reb.”
“Them crows got to ya Yank.”
“I wasn’t sure what to think?”
“I heard ‘em too.”
“There are a lot of crows in Berryville.”
“Yes.”
“There’s even a street named Crow.”
“That’s for a family.”
“I thought so too, and said so to the crows.”
“And?”
“The crows, they wondered who that family would be named after, if not them?”
“Crows.”
“What is with these obelisks Johnny?”
“Good question Gus.”
“They’re … ”

​
​“… How much slavery was there here in Berryville?”
“Clarke County was about half enslaved in 1860.”
“Berryville’s in Clarke.”
“County seat.”
“These stone obelisks, crosses and testimonials, were built with slave coin.”
“I hear ya.”
“The stained glass windows, the brick church.”
“Economy of slavery.”
“We can see what enslaved people built, what their labors contributed.”
“We can.”
“It’s right here, here in these stones.”
“And the stained glass.”
“What’s next Johnny?”
“Got some news Gus.”
“Do tell.”

​

“The truth has come.”
“The thirty Thousand.”
“And the falsehood shall vanish.”
“The usurpation.”
“And shall not come back.”
“Sounds like you’ve gotten word.”
“Word is expected by 17 September Gus.”
“Constitution Day.”
“Yes.”
“What if no word?”
“Then the Office of the - ”
“- Don’t say Reb.”
“Right.”
“Soon enough, we’ll all know.”
“Meantime … let’s look for some Berrys.”
“Johnny: I had forgotten our purpose.”
“This way Gus …”

Next Up: 17 September and part X of the series Johnny Reb and Gus Yank Berryvillin’: Smudge Day 2021.

Posted by Bryan W. Brickner

​Part VII of XIII
 
“… Something is happening Gus.”
“Tell me more Reb.”
“There doesn’t appear to be any resistance.”
“No one will defend the 435.”
“Correct.”
“Have the usurpers surrendered to the Constitution?”
“No.”
“I remember that feeling.”
“What do you remember?”
“Well, as Gus Kotka, I didn’t know about the thirty Thousand.”
“Right.”
“But as Gus Yank, well lots of Yanks knew, just like Jefferson Davis knew.”
“I hear ya.”
“Since we didn’t surrender to the Constitution until later …”
“… It makes sense they are feeling what we felt.”
“What would George say?”
“Political theory: George would ask Madison.”
“James would say?”

​

​


“Build a coalition of the constitutionally willing.”
“Sounds like us Reb.”
“Madison said there is a peculiarity in the Constitution.”
“What peculiarity?”
“With the Senate designed to represent states, and the House population, the peculiarity is that the largest populated states will align against the smallest concerning representation.”
“California vs. Delaware you’re saying Reb.”
“Texas vs. Rhode Island.”
“I understand.”
“That’s what’s happening Yank.”
“The formation of a coalition of the constitutionally willing.”
“In support of constitutional representation and the Seventh Amendment.”
“America’s been doing We the People wrong for 230 years.”
“Time to do We the People right.”
“Let’s visit a Reb.”
“Over here Yank, and up close …”
 
Next Up: 21 July and part VIII of the series Johnny Reb and Gus Yank Berryvillin’: Greenland Gap.
 
Posted by Bryan W. Brickner

There is one cat in the picture.
 
That is the actual (cat) enumeration.
 
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the US Constitution details the purpose for taking the “actual Enumeration,” the formal count of the people of the several states, and it doesn’t mention a census or the logic for asking the people questions. It simply states:
 
“The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every …”
 
Congress does the count, the enumeration, by law.
 
Then Congress is to divide by thirty Thousand, by law and as Washington taught in the first veto, for a state’s federal representation.
 
That aggregate creates the House of Representatives for We the People.
 
No questions asked.
 
We the People represented according to numbers is constitutional fact, just like there’s one cat in the picture.
 
One people.
 
One constitution.
 
One cat.
 
2020.

*Next Up: 9 June and a 2020 update focusing on Hannah Arendt, American Greatness and Constitutio Libertatis.
 
Posted by Bryan W. Brickner

Absenting creates a presence: presenting creates an absence.
 
This creates a political problem, meaning one of value.
 
John Locke, James Madison and Robert Dahl were political theorists who worked on this problem, the problem of a presence creating an absence (and vice versa).
 
Locke’s work presented liberalism and a way for particular groups to make absent other groups; this has worked against the likes of tribes, nation-states and monarchies.
 
Madison’s work presented the US Constitution and a way for a particular group (We the People) to make present and absent other groups (representation); this is done via the decennial census and the ratio of “one Representative for every thirty Thousand.” Madison’s presence is law, yet absented by the usurpation.
 
Dahl is simple, so to speak: he absented Madison’s presence by ignoring the “thirty Thousand” found in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. This makes Yale’s Professor Dahl the 20th century political theory front man for the representation usurpation; the 21st century Yale front man for the usurpation is Sterling Professor of Law Akhil Reed Amar. Amar is simple too, so to speak: he just argues / presents by absenting one of the two shalls in the aforementioned Article.
 
Viewed from the past, the constitutional concept “We the People” has been an absent presence; viewed from today, it looks like a presenting presence; viewed from the future, that would be a constitutional We the People and an end to the representation usurpation, or simply, 2020.
 
*Next Up: 14 November and a new pamphlet release, A Dissenting Opinion from Johnny Reb and Gus Yank about George Thomas.
 
Posted by Bryan W. Brickner

​Willis and Millie
 
The phrase ex falso quodlibet / from a falsehood, anything (follows), is known as the “principle of explosion” because it blows-up (makes trivial) how true and false work.
 
The book Farm Boy by Archie Lieberman (1974) depicts my maternal grandparents, Willis and Mildred (Evans) Hammer, as they farmed and raised a family. I’m pretty sure Willis and Millie didn’t know any Latin other than what they learned in Bible study; they would have understood “from a falsehood, anything (follows)” though, and even taught a similar lesson: two wrongs don’t make a right.
 
There are two great wrongs involving We the People and the usurpation of representation according to numbers. The first involves the usurpation that happened 9 April 1792, when, in response to President Washington’s veto of the first bill sent from Congress regarding the enumeration (census of 1790) and representation, the House of Representatives usurped a shall; the House ignored Washington’s veto and the constitutional ratio of "one for every thirty Thousand" and passed a number more likeable to the usurpers: one for every 33,000.

The original constitutional ex falso quodlibet may appear small and perhaps harmless, but consider this: it created the conditions for the second great usurpation, the one that began in 1920. With women getting the vote and other social disruptions within the WW1 era, the House of 1920 did something extraordinary for the second great wrong: nothing. Since the first usurpation, Congress had at least kept using a number, they just kept increasing the ratio in favor of the usurpers; instead of using the census as intended, the counting of We the People for representation, the 1920 House openly ignored Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of our Constitution. It wasn’t until 1929, with the next decennial enumeration looming, that a law was passed setting House representation at 435, regardless of number, thus counteracting the definition of We the People.
​
​Things tend to end as they began. The original usurpation of 9 April 1792 was a fill-in-the-blank moment; the bill was prepared with a blank left for a number and then the usurpers wrote in 33,000. We the People might follow a similar plan, one of mimicry; the 1792 usurpers read the Constitution and acted with pen and paper: nowadays, it feels like We the People are beginning to do the same thing.
 
Veritas.

​ 
*Next Up: Gus Kotka and Johnny Reb begin a summer series on Juneteenth 2018, Somewhere On Our Way.
 
Posted by Bryan W. Brickner

​

V of XIII

“Steppin’ Johnny.”
“With ya Gus.”
“On our way again.”
“With a gain.”
“Which one?”
“Clarity.”
“Regarding the paths?”
“Yes.”
“Agreed.”
“The two paths to 2020 step differently.”
“Say more.”
“One is already law.”
“Article 1 and its thirty Thousand.”
“And the other path is in the hands of individual states.”
“You talking states’ rights Reb?”

​“More like amendment rights by states.”
“So We the People have options.”
“We do.”
“To be constitutional, we can enforce the representation ratio in Article 1.”
“True.”
“And the other option, the one involving states: how would that work Johnny?”
“Complete the ratification of Article the first of the Bill of Rights.”
“How many states have ratified Article the first?”
“Eleven.”
“Indiana?”
“No.”
“Virginia?”
“Yes.”
“Do you know the other states that have already ratified Article the first?”
“Sure.”
“Which ones Johnny?”

​“New Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina.”
“Okay.”
“Then New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.”
“That makes eight.”
“Then Vermont, Virginia and Kentucky.”
“Eleven.”
“Of the original 13, only Delaware voted no on Article the first: Massachusetts, Georgia and Connecticut never voted.”
“That’s interesting.”
“What are you thinking Gus?”
“About fulcrums.”
“Fulcrum states?”
“Yes: fulcrum states shift the weight.”
“Good point Gus: by ratifying Article the first, those eleven states reveal evidence of the representation usurpation.”
“Otherwise why did they vote for the amendment Johnny?”
“Exactly.”
“So We the People have eleven state allies against the usurpation.”
“We do.”
“That is a gain Reb.”
“Yes it is Yank.”
 
*Next Up: Sunday 29 October and Thereat part VI, Gus Kotka and Johnny Reb On Our Way Not Tumid.
 
Posted by Bryan W. Brickner

​I of XIII
 
 


​
“Here Gus.”
“This is On Our Way Reb.”
“Thereat.”
“Where’s Virginia?”
“There.”
“Ahead of us.”
“Directly.”
“So this is a threshold moment?”
“For We the People.”
“Good for us.”
“Might be what Morgan meant.”
“Our Teamster’s ‘What are you two doing?’ moment?”
“That one.”
“Asking two citizens what the hell they be fighting about.”
“Right.”
“We ‘Mericans.”
“We are.”
“We’re not … what are the people called who take rights not granted in the Constitution?”

​





​“Usurpers.”
“We’re not Usurpecans.”
“Usurpecan: an American citizen who supports the usurpation.”
“That.”
“It’s Constitution Day Gus.”
“Nice: must be about 230 years ‘eh?”
“Yes.”
“We can also call it Smudge Day.”
“That’s right, thanks to George.”
“Did he just tell’em to make the change Johnny, and they made it – changing the ‘forty’ in forty Thousand to ‘thirty’ in thirty Thousand?”
“It was a request.”
“And the vote?”
“Unanimous.”
“Then they made the change and left the smudge.”

​“Yes.”
“Nice of George to do that.”
“Strengthened We the People.”
“That and leaving us some physical evidence.”
“The smudge is in Washington DC Gus.”
“Okay.”
“Maybe that’s where we go after Berryville?”
“Us in DC: I like your thinking Reb.”
“First though we have to get back to Virginia.”
“Threshold you said.”
“Yes I did.”
“Happy Constitution Day Johnny.”
“Happy Constitution Day Gus.”







*Next Up: Sunday 24 September and Thereat part II, Gus Kotka and Johnny Reb On Our Way ‘Mericans.
 
Posted by Bryan W. Brickner

Simulations, Jean Baudrillard (1983)
Translated by Paul Foss, Paul Patton and Philip Beitchman
“The Precession of Simulacra,” pages 11-12
 
This would be the successive phases of the image:
            -it is the reflection of a basic reality
            -it masks and perverts a basic reality
            -it masks the absence of a basic reality
            -it bears no relation to any reality whatever: it is its own pure simulacrum.
 
In the first case, the image is a good appearance – the representation is of the order of sacrament. In the second, it is an evil appearance – of the order of malefice [evil enchantment]. In the third, it plays at being an appearance – it is of the order of sorcery. In the fourth, it is no longer in the order of appearance at all, but of simulation.
 
Baudrillard was harder to explain before our current political situation: now the first through fourth orders of the image (this is the “I m age” / ego) can be clearly discerned.
 
Imagine “We the People” as an image.
 
Is “We the People” a first order reality, one based on the constitutional representation ratio found in Article 1? Or is “We the People” a simulation of the usurpation and therefore a fake representation?
 
Perhaps the nativity scene is a useful image for understanding Baudrillard’s four orders. To begin with, to understand there is a baby Jesus missing, one has to know of the first order, of a complete Jesus nativity. Take Aspasia or Socrates, for example, individuals living 400 years before Jesus; they would have difficulty imagining the setting; even more difficult, meaning for the bottomless manger, absent baby Jesus and the third wise man represented as an ass. A Socrates might also see the angel more as a guiding spirit, a daemon, more than we allow ourselves to see directing signs and spirits.
 
Baudrillard also noted, to quote in paraphrase, that nostalgia assumes its full meaning when the real is no longer what it used to be.
 
We the People: to be or not to be first or fourth order? – To be constitutionally real or constitutionally fake?
 
The answer is on the horizon we call now.
 
*Next Up: Wednesday 19 July and a 2020: In High Spirits, a Seven-Twenty Preamble.
 
Posted by Bryan W. Brickner

​


​Jesus, son of Mary, was a poor man overflowing with riches.
 
The Gospels, in Matthew, Mark and Luke, report Jesus being asked by a rich man what actions lead to eternal life.
 
Follow the commandments Jesus said.
 
The rich man said he did: what else?
 
Sell all your possessions and follow me Jesus said.
 
The rich man was distraught, the disciples confused.
 
Jesus continued: How hard it is for the rich to enter the Kingdom of God / Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.
 
The disciples asked: Who can be saved?
 
What is impossible with man is possible with God said Jesus.
 
Possible.
 
Jews, Catholics, Muslims and Protestants agree; Jesus was a teacher of being rich in things other than worldly riches: someone poor in materialism, yet rich in material.
 
Citizens gathered in a US House according to numbers would represent our beliefs ~ the beliefs of We the People, poor and otherwise.
 
*Next Up: Wednesday 12 July and a 2020: The Four Orders of Reality in a Baudrillardian Nativity.
 
Posted by Bryan W. Brickner