Welcome to our FAQ
Thank you for choosing to find out more about us. This page is intended to answer most of the major questions you might have. For further detail on any point, please follow the imbedded links to read more comprehensive explanations, or contact us directly.
Who are you?
We're a non-profit organisation campaigning for the completion of Constitutional due process in matters relating to the Evolved and to the Registration legislation introduced earlier this year. To put it simply: we want the Supreme Court to decide whether recent legal changes are Constitutional.
What does that mean?
The Constitution of the United States of America was designed to provide a balance of power. Unlike many other systems, the politicians at the centre don't wield ultimate authority. That ultimate authority is held by the people, who delegate some powers to the components of the United States. The component with responsibility to ensure that the other parts of the system behave properly is the Supreme Court.
Are you saying that the administration can't make laws?
No. But the administration is bound by laws, and above all by the Constitution: it cannot enforce any laws that are unjust or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court was brought into being as part of the country's design precisely so that it had the power to judge whether or not the actions of politicians were in line with the Constitution. The Supreme Court has the ability to overturn unjust decisions taken by the legislature or the president, and can require them to prove their arguments in a court of law.
What does this mean for us?
Liberty is campaigning to bring recent legislation before the Supreme Court. To achieve this, we are appealing to you for help.
Why should we care?
The Constitution is quite explicit about the source of all power in the United States of America: "We the people". As part of that, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution state that all powers not delegated to another authority (such as Congress, the President, the States or the Courts) are automatically retained by the people. In other words, any new rights and powers an administration grants itself are taken from you as a citzen of the USA.
What powers do you think we're losing?
Until recently, it took a court order to force someone to give DNA to the authorities: a legally-sound case had to be made to a judge, who could approve or deny the request. Now, no one has that protection - everyone's DNA is fair game, the most fundamental elements of everyone's identity are pried into, and anyone who tries to retain their rights is treated as a criminal.
Is this a problem?
At the very least, this challenges the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution, and it would also be in breach of the privacy implications the Supreme Court has previously read into the Fourth Amendment (see the Legal Arguments page for detailed discussion of relevant cases). Whether or not you think that compulsory Registration is a good idea, a law that seems to breach at least three parts of the Constitution is one that is bound to run into serious difficulties. Only by a Supreme Court ruling can it possibly be confirmed as legitimate.
For more on concerns relating to this issue, see our discussions on The Uses of DNA and Data Insecurity in the USA.
What do you want?
Our goal is to be able to cover the expenses of taking a case to the Supreme Court. As a result, we're asking people to pledge money for this cause. Whether you support or oppose the laws, they need to be considered by the Supreme Court. You can help us to make that happen.
How will that work?
We're not asking you to pay anything now. Instead, through technology provided by our partners in PledgeBank, we are able to accept commitments from you to contribute a certain amount of money when our campaign succeeds and the Supreme Court starts considering cases.
Who controls that money?
Unless you want to donate funds immediately, you keep your money until the pledge is activated. Should your financial circumstances change, you can alter the pledged amount up or down to suit your new ability to assist. Whenever the pledge is activated, the money will go into a bank account set up solely for the purpose of paying the costs of taking the necessary case or cases to the Supreme Court. Whoever takes a case forward - whether it is the Supreme Court stepping in of its own accord, or someone else appealing to it - will have access to the funds in the account for the sole purpose of covering their costs. We're not out to make a profit for ourselves or anyone else - we just want the Supreme Court to be brought into play in accordance with the Constitution.
Will donations be secure?
In present times, there are understandable concerns about data security. We have taken the best steps available to us, and provided our data-stores and core servers with the strongest possible legal protection, while the holding account for money pledged to the Supreme Court case is similarly protected. Neither us nor anyone else can touch the money in that account for any reason other than paying the costs of a Supreme Court review. For more details, see Protecting Your Money.
How are you funding yourselves?
Various concerned individuals have contributed to our start-up costs, with our chairperson Adelaide Naimarc making a substantial donation of her own money as well as time. Other volunteers have provided technical and legal advice. Our running costs are handled entirely separately to all pledges, and we will never have access to pledged money in order to pay our own expenses.
Can this work?
In the UK, the No2ID campaign against a compulsory identity registration scheme raised pledges amounting to the equivalent of over $1,000,000 - and that registration scheme didn't require DNA samples, and was being implemented in a country without the explicit protections provided by the United States Supreme Court and the Constitutional amendments cited above. With five times the population, a more invasive set of laws, and better systems for reviewing them, we are hopeful that the people of the United States will exceed the British campaign.
As for whether it can work: the British scheme was cancelled by the new administration that came into power earlier this year - the campaign worked without even needing to go to court. In the USA, the Constitution and the Supreme Court exist to protect the people of America. You have a right to make use of them, just as the administration has a duty to obey them.
What about other problems?
There have been recent accusations of other breaches of Constitutional rights, but evidence for these has not yet been considered by our legal advisors - whereas the administration's own laws are unquestionably real and are automatically subject to the Supreme Court's rulings. Should anyone provide firm evidence of unconstitutional activity that our legal associates find compelling, we will do what we can to support them in seeking legal due process and consideration of their case.
What are your political affiliations?
None. We don't campaign for or against any party, and we deal only with matters of justice under the Constitution. We cooperate with the American Civil Liberties Union and the Fund for Constitutional Government, while questions relating to legal matters have been run past the American Civil Rights Union, Privacy International and the Project on Government Oversight to ensure that we receive a wide range of opinions. All we are campaigning for is to have the Supreme Court fulfill its Constitutional role.
OOC Notes
- This is a civil liberties campaign set up by Adelaide and Ygraine after months of research and consultation with lawyers and civil rights groups.
- Adelaide is very much the public face of the organisation (and provided the voice for the song Liberty), though it was Ygraine who ICly proposed and handled the initial research for the idea (e.g. Both Sides of the Issue and We're All Mutants). As a foreign national, Ygraine is formally listed merely as a "technical advisor" in relevant documents.
- Participation, support, and debates are warmly encouraged, as are ties to any other civil rights / Evolved-rights organisations. Please do get in touch!
- At present, Koshka has worked as a distributor of posters and flyers, while Graeme has done some preparatory media work, Alia has volunteered to help with online promotion, and Jaiden has begun to help - but we're keen to involve more people. Musicians in particular would be welcome at present, for a project in the works.
- Further detail can be provided on various elements of the case they believe can be made - but we don't want to swamp players in legalese.
- In line with increasingly-common practice, data servers and bank accounts for Liberty will be located in countries that provide guaranteed legal protection against external interference - as seen most prominently with WikiLeaks. The core systems are likely to be in Sweden, with mirrors for the website (to protect against denial-of-service attacks) elsewhere in Europe as well as the USA. Data transfers will be protected by measures such as anonymous Tor routing: again, see WikiLeaks as a model.
- There is a real civil rights organisation called Liberty, operating in the UK: this fictional US group has no connection to it whatsoever.