Tag Archives: reform

A New Bill of Rights

Amendment I – No law enacted by electoral initiative or otherwise shall promote the practice of or the belief in a religion, a factional political doctrine, or a cultural tradition, nor suppress the lawful, orderly practice thereof; or abridge the right of the People to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances; or the freedom of the press, or of any citizen, to convey or to express, absent implied or express threat, a reality to another adult citizen, unless the imparting of such information, or the manner or timing of its expression, would likely cause said citizen injury without sparing any other from the same or from worse.

Amendment II – The right to own or to acquire weapons manufactured for defense of person or private property, or for the hunting of game, shall not be denied to any adult citizen whose self-sovereignty never shall have been suspended by arrest and incarceration or by short-term mental health commitment; nor revoked by criminal conviction or by long-term, mental health commitment; but the right to manufacture, own, acquire, or utilize a weapon manufactured for indiscriminate or mass killing or mass destruction shall be reserved to the military of the United States, unless authorized by a unanimous vote among the Defense Cabinet and the President of the United States.

Amendment III – No law enacted by electoral initiative or otherwise shall compel military service or the quartering of military personnel in a time of peace, or in a time of war, but in a manner to be determined by a unanimous Defense Cabinet and a three-fourths majority among the Governors of the states; nor shall any law bar or substantially hinder the travel or communications of self-sovereign citizens between the states or the precincts, or between the United States and foreign nations; or appropriate private property for public use without just compensation and the consent of the owner.

Amendment IV – No citizen shall be deprived of life, liberty, privacy or property without a reasonable, impartial application of law: issuance of criminal bench warrants for specific objects, persons or places to be searched or seized following lawful establishment of probable cause; or else reasonable suspicion of criminal activity established on scene by direct police observation, credible witness affirmation, reasonably incriminating circumstance, erratic or desperate behavior, or suspect self-incrimination; impounding of property only for evidentiary purposes, in forfeiture, or for safekeeping with the consent of the owner or possessor; use of physical force sufficient only to subdue physical aggression, fleeing, or other bodily resistance to lawful detainment or arrest; use of deadly force only against ongoing, lethal endangerment of the public or of law enforcement itself.

Amendment V – The intentional, knowing, reckless or criminally negligent infliction of death or of a grave physical or psychological injury, i.e. a disabling injury not susceptible to humane, restorative care or natural, restorative healing absent professional medical or mental health intervention, by an adult upon a minor, a postpartum human being younger than eighteen years of age, henceforth shall constitute a high crime: an offense so heinous and degenerate that, upon conviction and exhausted appeal of the convicted, the latter shall be confined by the state, apart from the public, until death.

Amendment VI – In all criminal suits the accused shall have the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation upon arrest; to have assigned to the case, upon incarceration, an impartial clerk of the court at public expense, who shall verify the legitimacy of probable cause by examination of reports and other evidence and by direct, recorded interview of the accused; to attend an information hearing, where said clerk and the accused shall be queried by a judge other than the trial judge, who shall review the evidence and determine which charges, if any, to file; or in the case of an infamous crime, whether to impanel a grand jury and with which indictments pending; to be arraigned before the same court and afforded a plea offer and, absent a guilty plea, to be informed of the witnesses to and evidence of guilt and afforded a second plea offer; and to be provided sufficient time prior to trial to obtain witnesses and evidence of innocence by compulsory process, with the aid of a publicly funded clerk of the law, while confined or on bail, at the discretion of the trial judge as to admissibility—to whom any other citizen with probative evidence may submit a request for permission to volunteer the same at trial after full discovery.

The accused shall enjoy the option of a speedy and public trial, in which the accused alone shall present a defense before an impartial jury of the state and the district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law.

At any time the accused may waive the right to a trial by jury; or the presiding judge may issue a ruling, upon examination of the accused and with the assent of two mental health physicians, that the accused is incapable of presenting a coherent, effective defense; whereupon the judge may appoint the same clerk of the law to act as a surrogate defendant, enjoying all the rights and privileges of the accused in the presentation of a defense; or may commit the accused to a mental health facility for treatment in preparation for trial.

An examination of prospective jurors and selection of fourteen shall be made by the presiding judge, subject to challenges for cause by the defendant, from among adult citizens whose self-sovereignty never shall have been revoked; and who shall be compensated per hour an amount no less than, but not more than twice, the federal minimum wage, to be determined by the Governors of the states, respectively. The accused shall then dismiss any two of the fourteen jurors by peremptory challenge.

The right to a neutral audience from the jury shall attend the accused; and at the opening of trial the jurors shall be informed of this right and of the nature and cause of the accusation against the defendant, who shall take the witness stand to respond under oath to any germane questions of the presiding judge and the jurors.

The defendant, or the surrogate defendant, shall subsequently call and question witnesses and present evidence, equally subject to the direct examination of the trial judge and the jury, and subject to the rulings and directives of the former, who shall guide the proceeding in a manner conducive to a full, reasoned and swift finding of fact and law.

Upon the ruling of the court that the defense has exhausted all relevant, material evidence, the judge shall call to the stand for the same full, direct examination any public officer materially engaged in the investigation, arrest or interview of the accused, including the clerk of the court, concluding the process by calling the aforementioned voluntary witnesses and their evidence.

Except in the case of confession the jury shall retire to decide only a general verdict of “not guilty” or “guilty” of the charged, criminal action: All special qualifications and classifications arising from intent or bearing upon sentencing shall be a finding of the presiding judge, who shall abide statutory guidelines in identifying the class and degree of a crime and imposing the designated sentence where applicable; or else exercise the reasonable discretion afforded by law. But no defendant ruled incompetent to present a defense, or having pled insanity as a defense, found guilty of the criminal action by an impartial jury after a competent defense, shall serve less time in state confinement than could a competent defendant convicted of an equivalent offense.

The inability of more than two jurors among at least nine remaining to assent to the majority verdict after twenty hours of deliberation shall result in a mistrial and a retrial at the earliest, reasonable date. And when, in the judgment of the jury, a material finding of the judge or the sentence imposed is in error or unreasonable, the jury by a unanimous vote may effect the filing of a notice of appeal of the decision in the name of the defendant.

Amendment VII – In civil actions where the damages in controversy involve an infliction of grave physical or psychological injury or death, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States or the several states than according to the rules of equity and the common law.

Amendment VIII – Excessive bail shall not be required; but no bail shall be granted to any person accused of a felony, a high crime or treason. Punishments other than the death penalty shall not inflict physical injury—nor psychological injury, except that which results from the predicament of confinement itself.

Accused, convicted or committed adults shall be confined apart from such minors and the sexes separated according to their sexual physiology. All methods and locations of confinement shall reflect every reasonable precaution in favor of a protection of the community, as against a conveniencing or rehabilitation of the accused, convicted or committed; while taking every reasonable precaution to protect the confined from one another, from themselves, from the misconduct of institutional staff, and from the community at large.

All convicted prisoners shall labor no less than eight hours per day, five days per week, unless two physicians certify that they are physically or mentally incapable of as much; and only in so laboring shall able prisoners earn the privileges of hot meals, visitations, educational and recreational opportunities and personal, non-toiletry possessions within cells.

No amnesty, commutation, pardon or appeal shall be necessitated by the ratification of this Constitution.

Amendment IX – The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others inherent to the self-sovereign. To this effect, no state or precinct shall deny to any non-resident within its jurisdiction an equivalent application of the law; the privilege of the writ of habeus corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it; no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed; nor any title of nobility granted within the United States; and no person holding any public office of the United States or the several states shall accept any emolument or other consideration, office or title from any foreign nation, sovereign or political group.

Amendment X – No law enacted by electoral initiative or otherwise shall establish a debt, project or fiscal program where the financing thereof would obligate future citizens to the financial commitments of current voters. Appropriations shall be drawn from revenues collected within one year of their appropriation through floating debt and the collection of these fees and revenues only:

-Usage fees levied upon persons whose activities degrade or monopolize public property;
-Usage fees levied upon persons enjoying exclusive use of land, in proportion to its acreage and the volume, mass and scarcity of natural resources therein;
-Usage fees levied upon foreign governments for involvement of United States military personnel, equipment or weaponry in operations outside the territory of the United States, at the request of said governments, which would otherwise be the responsibility of any sovereign nation to itself;
-Misusage fees levied upon persons whose activities, whether intentional or negligent, damage public property;
-Misusage fees levied upon persons whose activities damage the private property of another person, or impede its exclusive use by barring lawful access to it, or operation of it; by physically altering it or its value, or otherwise converting or making improbable its peaceable, lawful, exclusive enjoyment, thereby necessitating the intervention of law enforcement or courts of law;
-Misusage fees levied upon persons who assume unnecessary risks or file frivolous complaints that require emergency public services or courts of law;
-Sales of forfeited, seized property;
-Sales of goods processed or manufactured by state-confined workers; or revenues from the contracting-out of their services;
-Sales of government property to allies of the United States, upon a two-thirds majority vote among the Governors and a unanimous vote between the President and the Cabinet—or the Defense Cabinet, in the case of military property;
-Duties, imposts and excises;
-Safety-inspection and handling charges;
-Any fiscal-program funded by income deduction annually re-authorized by electoral initiative.

All fees shall reflect the actual duration and costs of use or misuse, so that collections in anticipation of use may necessitate reimbursement.

No law enacted by precinct electoral initiative shall institute or increase an appropriation from revenues derived in part or in full from another precinct, unless with a fifty-one percent consenting vote within the latter precinct, or unless authorized by this Constitution; nor withhold or disburse revenues lawfully collected for and due to a city, county or state government, or the federal government.

Amendment XI – The power to appropriate revenues and the exercise of oversight, investigative and regulatory authority formerly delegated to the United States Congress by the original Constitution, where not previously delegated by the former, shall be delegated by the Attorney General to, and in turn by, the appropriate executive appointees, whose official acts then may be halted by the President, the Attorney General, or by a three-fifths majority of the Governors, when deemed unlawful, wasteful or predominantly political in nature. Accordingly:

The Secretary of the Treasury shall have the power to assess and collect the fees and revenues enumerated by this Constitution; to issue one-year Treasury notes on the credit of the United States; to pay the debts and expenses of the United States; to coin or print money, stabilize the value thereof, and of foreign money; to fix the standard of weights and measures; to establish uniform guidelines on the subject of bankruptcies; and to safeguard against the devaluation and counterfeiting of the securities and current money of the United States. But no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations authorized by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

The Secretary of Commerce shall have the power to ensure public safety through regulation of commerce with foreign nations and among the several states and precincts, and with the Native American tribes; to lay and collect all duties, imposts and excises uniformly throughout the United States; and to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited time to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writing and discoveries. But no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state or precinct; and no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state or precinct over those of another; nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state or precinct, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.

The Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the power to monitor and to regulate entry into and exit from the United States; to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and deportation; and to make rules for domestic capture of foreign enemies.

The Secretary of State shall have the power to define and process piracies, felonies and other non-military transgressions committed by United States citizens on the High Seas, or in any international space, and offenses against the law of Nations.

The Secretary of Defense shall have the power to provision and maintain the armed forces; to maintain rules for the government and regulation of the armed forces; and to make rules for the capture of foreign enemies abroad.

The Postmaster General shall have the power to establish post offices, post routes and postal rates.

Amendment XII – Any self-sovereign adult citizen shall be welcome to purchase or to lease property, or to contract services or employment, private or public, subject to equivalent qualifications and on equal terms. But no contract entered into with a minor, or made by force or fraud, shall be enforceable by law.

Amendment XIII – Citizens shall retain the right to form workers unions whenever the labor at issue is a service for which any citizen can refuse to pay by refusing the service itself and the product of such service.

Lawful unions shall retain the right to strike whenever an interruption in work would not endanger public safety, withhold labor for which a prospective striker was previously paid, or withhold a service or product for which a person cannot lawfully refuse to pay.

No corporation reporting no current earnings or profit, or a loss, shall award raises, bonuses or other extraordinary emoluments to its executives for or within the same fiscal period, unless with the express, contemporaneous assent of all of its owners.

No person to whom any of the several states or the United States has granted a license to render a service, or to own or operate a device intended to provide a service, or to provide a good, shall retain such licensing upon exacting a rate for the service exceeding twenty times the federal minimum wage; a fee for operation of a state-licensed device exceeding twice the actual costs of operation or disproportionate to its diminished value and cost of replacement; or a price for a state-licensed good exceeding twice the cost to replace the good.

No administrative rule or regulation, except those indispensable to the protection of public safety, shall be enforceable where, regarding the regulated, a presumption of malice, neglect, or imbecility inheres to the requirements thereof: But any injury to person or to property, private or public, whose proximate cause is a business or governmental standard or procedure violative of due care and common sense shall nullify the limited liability or the official immunity of the authorizing and enforcing officers, respectively, both in civil and in criminal suits.

Amendment XIV – All adult foreign citizens who apply for United States citizenship shall be denied the same until they shall have demonstrated in English, by written and verbal examination, a functional comprehension of written and spoken English, of simple algebra for common usage, of the system of government established by this Constitution, and of the everyday practices conducive to good health.

All minor children of citizens of the United States shall enjoy the right to be educated at public expense; but within two years of the ratification of this Constitution, none shall be graduated from the sixth grade of any school, public, home or private, until they shall have passed the citizenship examination.

The minor children of parents who are not citizens of the United States but who have maintained a domicile therein for at least seven years, and their self-sovereignty along with it, shall establish citizenship by passing the citizenship examination. Whenever all minor children of such parents, and the parents themselves, shall have passed the citizenship examination, then all shall be granted citizenship.

Amendment XV – The manufacture, sale, transportation or use by citizens of the United States, twenty-one years of age or older, of any intoxicant which is not likely to induce severe physiological addiction and withdrawal or temporary insanity, as understood by law, is hereby legalized and made subject to all laws respecting regulation of agriculture and commerce.

But the use of any intoxicant, legal or illegal, concurrent with a violation of a federal, state, local or precinct law shall be a felony crime: an offense that suspends the self-sovereignty of the accused before and during trial and revokes it upon conviction; until the accused shall have been exonerated, or shall have served no less than one year in state or federal incarceration.

And the use of any illegal intoxicant by a custodial parent shall be, ipso facto, felony child neglect and cause the immediate loss of custody of all minor children upon arrest; whereupon custody shall be restored only upon exoneration, or completion of sentence and judicial consent.

Human Nature and Regulation

 When the Founding Fathers within Article 1 Section 8 of the newly signed Constitution granted to Congress the power to regulate commerce, these distinguished gentlemen naturally knew nothing of gasoline, electricity, or bacteria. At the time, workplace and product safety standards constituted for them nary an afterthought. In a nation built upon the backs of slaves this hardly seems surprising.

But after years watching the nation falter under the Articles of Confederation — years of state to state tariff wars, deep recession with dire inflation in state currencies, and both rising debt and unremitted taxes — simply wresting from these foundering states their power to erect tax barriers that impeded foreign and interstate trade was one of their most pressing goals.

Yet in modern America we taxpayers now spend over $2.5 trillion per year footing the bill for both government regulatory enforcement and for public and private compliance.

Possessed of today’s scientific knowledge, would our Founders have designed such an economic burden as a part of their “original intent?”

Must we yet speculate? They died.

We the People must today answer for ourselves which if any measures are necessary and which would best ensure the safety of honest, productive citizens in the free exchange of goods and services — in our daily commerce. No doubt every political ideology will have its own argument for the proper regulator — whether government agencies, private associations — or no regulators at all..

But within both the public and private sectors the one inescapable constant is human nature itself: the power corrupts us; favoritism takes hold; complacency grows; and money talks.  Behold the current global financial crisis. Moody’s Corporation and Standard & Poor’s, two private rating services, were no more trustworthy or reliable than the SEC, a government regulatory agency, in warning Americans of our impending financial securities meltdown.

Fallible human beings man every organization, public and private.

Is the answer then no regulation at all? Ought we discover then only after a high-rise apartment collapsed that the foundation was laid with faulty concrete? Are compensatory lawsuits enough justice, or low rents enough inducement, for the harm visited upon honest, unwitting citizens and their surviving relatives?

Any regulator, public or private, might at any time prove derelict in its duties. But this cannot be reason enough to forsake reasonable public standards, particularly within industries where the public safety is at risk.

In the IT world we see competing models of innovation with widely divergent industry standards: the closed-source operating system and the open-source system. Public safety is nowhere here at risk; and innovation is thriving without such regulation. Let then the hand of the free market and the demand of the consumer determine the course of commerce.

Required is a common-sense rule of thumb, a rule with which to gauge the propriety of imposing a regulation: Does it directly, materially enhance public safety while minimizing costs of compliance — minimized to a degree that would still justify the enterprise in the first place?

But here we return to our human nature: Who shall write such regulations and for which industries? Who shall enforce them? And shall any citizens enjoy immunity from them? What will be the consequences for over-regulation, for under-regulation, and for non-compliance?


First and most importantly, no one must be immune from the law.

And it would be public employees not private interests or even associations of private interests who surely would make for the most impartial enforcers of public safety regulations.  Private self-governance of public safety, where profit and market share would always be in play, more widely opens a backdoor to our darker human nature.

Industry experts, logically, ought to write the specific standards within their respective fields of mastery. And our own elected representatives, each subject to the recall vote, ought to select such experts as impartially as this our human nature allows.

Finally, we the People, as jurors within the courts of law, will decide both culpability and consequences for the misuse and violation of such regulations.

And the rule of thumb?

No administrative rule or regulation, except those indispensable to the protection of public safety, shall be enforceable where, regarding the regulated, a presumption of malice, neglect, or imbecility inheres to the requirements thereof: But any injury to person or to property, private or public, whose proximate cause is a business or governmental standard or procedure violative of due care and common sense shall nullify the limited liability or the official immunity of the authorizing and enforcing officers, respectively, both in civil and in criminal suits.

(from Amendment XIII)

Some might object here that revocation of the limited liability of CEOs and the official immunity of politicians opens wide the front door to endless litigation. But is this not what hurts us most today — their immunity from accountability?

The broader expansion of citizen accountability — of personal accountability — will serve as the foundation of our collective moral growth. No citizen, and particularly not those in positions of responsibility and power, ought enjoy immunity from our collective judgments and from their own accountability.

So, what then would constitute “due care and common sense?” That would be a definition in our own collective hands, as jurors at trial, to decide — a de facto form of common law for we the People. And this same critical judgment would be brought full circle against ourselves and our own frivolous lawsuits by a provision written as a revenue source into this new direct democracy constitution:

Misusage fees levied upon persons who assume unnecessary risks or file frivolous complaints that require emergency public services or courts of law;

(from Amendment X)

Morality and the Minimum Wage

 Were America to be invaded by a massive foreign force and all able-bodied, law-abiding citizens called upon to act courageously in defense of our common homeland, would it not then seem a vulgar injustice after repelling this formidable enemy were any such patriots then relegated to working at wages below a level providing even a subsistence lifestyle — while yet others returned to their newly secured private wealth and their well-paying positions? Ought not the diligence and the integrity that protects and preserves the free enterprise system for all citizens at least earn for hard-working individuals an escape from a life of dependency, indebtedness and drudgery?

Here our common values and our underlying morality are on trial. Does honest work merit an honest pay? Is there inherent value in integrity and hard work? Let us leave aside for the moment those who free ride upon society and even those who bring children into poverty. Must single working Americans in order to live independently as adults toil at more than one job, live with relatives, and assume personal debt for training and education — all as the price for survival in a supposedly just nation?

Might this be where a free market forces the hand of the invisible individual?

Is modest living and quiet dignity then impossible, or perhaps just unacceptable, for those who, though their skills are limited, would yet be content with their lives? Must fast food workers and janitors be ashamed of their stations? Ought we pity them? And is the price of being an American that all must ambitiously scramble toward the next tax bracket?

Instituting a minimum wage sufficient to guarantee a law-abiding full-time single worker his basic needs — food, shelter, clothing — would stand as proof that we Americans value the very values that sustain us. This would not, however, be a redistributive scheme for expropriating all wealth. Nor would any direct transfer of either an interest in, or the control of, private property be defensible — let alone feasible.

In fact with any hypothetical employee or stockholder control of business a more wasteful use of resources would likely follow: as each citizen would vote for his own self-interests, interests determined by both short-sighted and far-sighted perspectives and by the individual’s share of common sense — or lack of any. The result would be an averaging out of good with bad ideas. While the decision-making of a CEO is more often directed by experience and by a single-minded, highly competitive and so, more often than not, efficient use of resources.

By no means, though, ought the nation’s highest goal be the greatest economic output. Capitalism may indeed deliver the most efficient use of resources and provide us the highest floor of subsistence for all. But is this necessarily moral — or even wise? Ought irreversible environmental damage and mass species extinction be of eventual concern to us? And ought our system be measured by quantity of human life, instead of by the quality of it?

The idea of putting more capital into more hands, as the minimum wage seemingly would do, isn’t necessarily a desirable goal in itself. This would undoubtedly accelerate the destructive exploitation of our natural world through an overproduction of material goods. With more income most people would simply purchase more products and services — each requiring its own natural resources. And thanks to their marginal increase in wealth, some people would also have larger families — children who would themselves consume additional resources.

So what’s so good about a minimum wage then? Isn’t the consequent overpopulation and environmental destruction also immoral? Yes, of course it is. But because the minimum wage sets the wage floor artificially high — i.e. higher than would support the fullest employment possible — it also limits job opportunities and so exerts pressure on those who cannot afford children not to have them: it thereby moderates both population growth and economic growth — this otherwise-destructive, immoral, runaway economic growth — even as it rightly rewards honest work.

That our government currently provides a ready alternative to low-skill, low-wage labor in the form of welfare programs — food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc. — only rewards people for not working, for bringing more children into poverty, and for scamming honest citizens. These safety-net provisions would have to be sunsetted over the course of no more than a few generations, so that each successive generation would face increasingly fewer alternatives to responsible family planning and honest full-time work.


Value itself is subjective. But values are indispensable. Honesty and hard work ought not be relegated to an economic model of subjective valuation. It stretches credulity to believe that the salary of a CEO is 500 times greater than the company’s lowest-paid laborers; either because the market “demands” such an arrangement, where in other companies it apparently does not; or because this disparity reflects an objectively demonstrable, just valuation of his unique contributions to the survival of the enterprise — as though CEOs, with their obnoxious salaries, weren’t often replaced.

The entire compensation system of the mid-sized or larger company could adjust to accommodate a higher minimum wage, as anyone who has any experience with the wasted time and resources, the general incompetence and the typical redundancy inside most companies could confirm. There are also fortunes spent on ineffective advertising and government lobbying — another advantage of direct democracy — and the consequent tax shelters and special provisions in law. Suffice it to say that most companies are grossly inefficient.

The federal minimum wage acts with a blind uniformity and with a public transparency. It helps those who are actively helping themselves. A regionalized CPI could be used to determine a level for the minimum wage that would provide a local resident sufficient means to afford the necessities of life in his area, as represented by a “basket” of goods and services that all independent, hardworking Americans deserve.

The most obvious alternatives to a moral minimum wage are to continue this amoral welfare state, which now threatens the fiscal life of the nation; or to be rid of the welfare state altogether and the minimum wage with it: Let then the free market flex its invisible hand. Perhaps all honest, low-skilled, hardworking Americans would earn only two dollars an hour; but the price of basic needs might drop in some relation to the lowered cost of labor; such that marginally more poor people could live in relatively more widespread poverty. And the planet could be exploited and overrun until we’re all equally damned.

Or we might express our sounder values through our policies and our polity. We might institute a moral minimum wage and ratify a direct democracy.

The “Virtue” of Partisan Loyalty

 Humans, should they mature into strongly moral individuals, must first acknowledge and endure the broader consequences of their actions, directly and personally. But most do not. Instead they cede their own free will to others; they shelter themselves within groups — whether familial, political, sports, religious, etc. — or they act in the names of those whose causes they arrogate unto themselves.

And within these groups this loyalty is widely considered to be a great virtue. More commonly though, it proves a great vice. For the truest test of one’s loyalty to any group comes not with a righteous defense of the truly innocent but with a bold-faced, spirited defense of the unquestionably guilty. Loyalty, in this sense, perpetuates immorality.