I pre­dict that much, if not all of the oppo­si­tion, will come from Chicago. Chicago is a bas­tion of cor­rup­tion, power, and money. The prob­lems inher­ent in such an urban envi­ron­ment set the tone for other com­mu­ni­ties in Illi­nois. Let’s face it. Chicago pretty much runs Illi­nois. Whether it’s polit­i­cal cor­rup­tion, nazi-like police tac­tics, crime, cor­po­rate pro­tec­tion­ism.… Chicago picks the playlist we all dance to. Read on… →

Case Law, Court Rul­ings, Inter­pre­ta­tion Brown v. City of Chicago 42 Ill.2d 501, 250 N.E.2d 129 Ill. 1969. May 28, 1969 42 Ill.2d 501, 250 N.E.2d 129 Supreme Court of Illi­nois. Joseph I. BROWN, Jr., et al., Appel­lants, v. The CITY OF CHICAGO et al., Appellees. No. 41550. May 28, 1969. L.it gets bet­ter. Read on… →

Leg­isla­tive There is a legal doc­trine named “void for vague­ness”. Exam­ples of the appli­ca­tion of this doc­trine can be found here, but in essence it states that “All laws should receive a sen­si­ble con­struc­tion. Gen­eral terms should be so lim­ited in their appli­ca­tion as not to lead to injus­tice, oppres­sion,it gets bet­ter. Read on… →

Research and Resources Research, com­men­tary and analy­sis of Illi­nois Con­sti­tu­tions past and present. (This page is a work-in-progress. Some of the files can be quite large. Please be patient while infor­ma­tion is com­piled and uploaded to the site.) Back­ground I would like to rec­om­mend this pam­phlet writ­ten by the Amer­i­can Barit gets bet­ter. Read on… →

The Illi­nois Con­sti­tu­tion, the­ory of gov­ern­ment in gen­eral and a “sov­er­eign peo­ple”. Let me begin by stat­ing that I do affirm to being some­what of a hyp­ocrite. Here I am, tak­ing much time and effort to con­struct a site with infor­ma­tion to edu­cate peo­ple about the the­ory regard­ing our sys­temit gets bet­ter. Read on… →

What is a con­sti­tu­tion and why do we need one? Let’s take it a step fur­ther and dis­cuss first who We are. With­out We, there is no con­sti­tu­tion. We are our own mas­ters. We are the Peo­ple. The Peo­ple are Sov­er­eign. Sov­er­eignty is an impor­tant word. It is impor­tant thatit gets bet­ter. Read on… →

The Com­mit­tee Pro­posal is Ambigu­ous and Self– Con­tra­dic­tory. It is dif­fi­cult to deter­mine the mean­ing and effect of the Com­mit­tee pro­posal. The pro­posal declares an unde­fined indi­vid­ual right to keep and bear arms. The right is, how­ever, com­pletely sub­ject to the vague con­cept of the “police pow­ers” of the State. What kinds of laws would be pro­hib­ited by the Com­mit­tee pro­posal? The major­ity report states that the pro­posed con­sti­tu­tional pro­vi­sion would not pro­hibit cer­tain types of firearms laws which have been upheld by the courts, such as laws pro­hibit­ing the car­ry­ing of con­cealed weapons, gun reg­is­tra­tion laws and gun owner licens­ing laws. The major­ity is silent, how­ever, as to what new lim­its, if any, the Com­mit­tee pro­posal would place on the power of the leg­is­la­ture to enact other types of gun con­trol laws, laws which are not now on the books and have not been passed on by the courts, but which may be needed in the years to come to deal with the “extra­or­di­nary threat to the safety and good order of soci­ety” posed by arms. Read on… →