If approved by each state, the initial RWA will include twenty-seven states. At last count, multiple polls have predicted that nineteen of the twenty-three states will pass this referendum, including Texas and California. Individual primaries have been, and will continue to be, held around the west, leading up to the national election in November.”
A spontaneous round of applause rose from the assembled delegates and just as quickly ceased.
“With that in mind, let’s begin the process. I am very pleased that General Robert Del Valle has joined us for this seminar. It has been my privilege to work with the general over the past several years, both as a National Guard attorney, under his command, and as a member of the California state legislature, working with Governor Dewhirst and General Del Valle in the formative aspects of California’s future. I trust and respect General Del Valle more than any other single individual I know. We should listen carefully to what he has to say.
“I am also pleased to introduce Dr. Roslyn Chambers from the Montclair Advocacy. I have worked with her this past six months on the California constitution development. Dr. Chambers holds a J.D. from Yale Law and a Ph. D. from Stanford, specializing in the economics of constitutional taxation. She comes from a solid background in governmental law, including twelve years as a professor at the Pepperdine University School of Law before accepting appointment at Director of State and Local Government at Montclair. As a graduate of Yale, she somehow escaped the liberal slant that so often accrues to those from the Ivy League legal fraternity, but we should all understand, Dr. Chambers is not a dedicated conservative thinker, ignoring all information contrary to that point of view. To quote her own bio,” Dan said, looking down to read from a prepared script, “she is not ‘… afraid to access, analyze, adapt, or even implement the positive elements of liberal thinking.’
“I stand in awe of her understanding of the meaning of these formative and historically important documents and have been led to appreciate her judgment on more than one occasion. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Dr. Roslyn Chambers.”
Chambers rose from her seat to the left of the podium and came to stand in front of the group. She was dressed in a lightweight, two-piece business suit, burgundy in color, an off-white silk blouse, and a matching forest green and burgundy scarf tied around her neck. She was about fifty, had short dark hair, expressive hazel eyes, and stood about five feet, five inches tall.
“Thank you, Mr. Rawlings. It is a pleasure to be with you this morning. Our opening comments will likely be surprising to this assembly, given the nature of our assignment to help you form a new nation. We ask you to give us today, and perhaps a bit of tomorrow, before you reach any conclusions.
“We understand that you have allocated five days to form the foundational documents for a new nation, or at least the principle philosophical components of those documents. That time frame, in and of itself, speaks volumes about the nature of the task you have asked us to perform. It’s very quick. Almost impetuous. Democracy involves what has been termed a pluralistic, incremental society. Significant movement is slow, painstaking, and often painful for those involved. Along the way, many citizens do not like the direction, the encroaching philosophy which varies from their vision of the future. One single, important issue will turn someone against a philosophy that otherwise is completely in accord with their beliefs. But, if a democratic nation has any future, it will lie within the foundation of its core values. The most significant aspect of American democracy, as it has been practiced for over two hundred years, is that it is changeable, reversible in application, but, and this is my key point this morning, irreversible in principle.
“The Montclair Advocacy’s director, General Robert Del Valle, will address this point after my opening remarks, but from my perspective, please understand that if America is to maintain those core values, I firmly believe we must use the system in order to change the system. I ask you to keep an open mind this first day and allow us to present the issues as we see them. Perhaps, in the process, you may see a different path from the one you have chosen.
“So,” she said, pausing a moment and taking a sip of her orange juice she had brought from her table, “in considering the foundation for a government structure, let’s consider what we already have. The Constitution of the United States of America has served us well for two hundred and twenty-four years, with only twenty-seven amendments. Ten of those were added immediately. Some of them were to rescind earlier amendments, basically social experiments that failed. There are also concepts that the founders knew should have been included initially. ‘ All men are created equal’ springs to mind, but was politically unpalatable and required postponement. That correction did not occur until the thirteenth amendment in 1865.
“Essentially, there have been very few changes in this seminal document that founded the United States of America. It would seem that the ‘old boys’ got it right, didn’t they? And this time, in our modern, collegial atmosphere, we’ve added the ‘old girls,’ so the decisions we reach in this century should be a far better product.”
Again, laughter and a smattering of applause filled the room.
“I have created an agenda, at least for the first four sessions, morning and afternoon, today and tomorrow. We will take it from there as we jointly see fit. After General Del Valle’s remarks, we will discuss the structure of our government, the three branches of government, and the primary functions of the federal system, as originally intended. I’m quite sure the founders didn’t intend for your six-year-old to learn about sex from an action video.
“I’d like to establish one basic premise: if the ‘old guys,” whom we lovingly call the Founding Fathers, got it right, why should we deviate? I propose that we review and analyze what’s in the original documents, at least philosophically, and see how they apply to us today. Two hundred years of judicial interpretation has certainly changed the meaning, or the apparent meaning, the politically acceptable meaning, but perhaps that is the crux of where we stand as regards the need for change.
“And please, throughout the day, this is a seminar, not a single-voiced lecture, so speak up at any time and let’s have an actual discussion. Let’s see how long it takes us to get into an argument. Perhaps the first thing I should do is to introduce our team. We’ll learn more about the rest of the staff-some of whom suggested that they should wait by the pool until their turn on the agenda-over the next several days, but for today, our primary moderators will be myself and Major General Robert Del Valle, who will address us now, and continue his comments after lunch. General Del Valle, as has been stated, is the new Executive Director of The Montclair Advocacy. Formerly, he was the Adjutant General of the State of California. He is a graduate of West Point, holds a Masters degree from the National War College, and took his Ph. D. in public policy from the University of Southern California. His doctoral dissertation was ‘Honor in Public Service: Roosevelt to Roosevelt, The Early Twentieth Century.’”
Del Valle took the floor at 9:25 A.M. “Good morning, ladies and gentleman,” Del Valle said. “I believe it important for me to establish some understanding with each of you from the outset. In the planning stages of any military exercise, we employ what is called the OPFOR. It stands for opposition or opposing force. I stand here with you today to represent the OPFOR. If, in my assumed role as OPFOR commander, you determine that Montclair’s advice and counsel is not what you expected, there will be no consulting fee. I am that determined to represent the opposing force.
“I won’t mince words this morning. Here is the executive summary, the bottom line and the underlying principle of our presentation to this committee: under my direction and with the concurrence of my colleagues here today, The Montclair Advocacy is opposed to the establishment of the Republic of Western America. We are opposed to the singular secession of California and always have been. Secession of several states of our union, a division of the nation of states we have formed, goes against the basic mission statement of The Montclair Advocacy: Strength through Unity of Purpose.
“Look around the room. Of the eight delegates, not one of you is over fifty. Perhaps only two are over forty. And from our former association, I know that Mr. Rawlings is under thirty. Compare that with the Montclair staff. We average fifty-seven. Certainly age is not the criteria by which we should judge people or their accomplishments. Some of my staff, myself included, envy your youth, your vitality. The future is in the palms of your hands. All of the delegates here today are smart. You’re well educated. And you’re well intentioned. But you are not wise. That, ladies and gentlemen, is something that does come with age.
“Over the next two days, as we examine America’s governing documents, her process of change, even her failures over the past century, I hope to be able to convince you of the error of your ways, and at the same time, demonstrate to you how you may bring about the change that you desire. Valid change. Dramatic change. But honorable change that results in a stronger, more capable and more vibrant United States of America. Do you want
