Are Basic, Natural Law Rights More Than America Can Understand And Entertain?

If yes, then these definitions of right and this thread will fall off this page into oblivion.

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech be to enable Americans to unify under law in order to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

If no, then the creative, smart people, the true patriots, will keep this thread pinned and find many more places to share

 

Article 5 of the Constitution gives us this right. There is a group pushing for it. Conventionofstates.com.

 

I think everybody understands the basic concept. It's just that most simply don't believe in natural rights. They believe in what D'Souza refers to as "You work and we eat".

 

Whereas most people understand the concept of natural rights, the fact remains people overwhelmingly don't believe in natural rights.

 

It's not about believing, but rather valuing. Negative / Natural rights are a moral principle based upon freedom. A lion doesn't value a gazelle's freedom. It values meat, and gazelle's are made of meat.

 

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

 

I think most Americans understand the very basics of natural rights, they just fumble to grasp the ways that, say, free speech and property rights interact. Some mistakenly believe, for example, that their right to free speech entitles them to the use of someone else's platform for that speech.

 

They didn't intend that. The framers intended to further strengthen and consolidate aristocratic control over American society. The creation of the US Constitution was motivated almost exclusively by the economic interests of politicians, bankers, lawyers, merchants, and manufacturers, not only in America, but in England as well.

 

At the time of Washington only 6% of the population could vote.

 

The lion does not believe in the gazelle's natural rights, and Trump does not believe in mine, I believe.

 

This is unequivocally false.

 

How's that Jake?

 

Think about it, Oh Yeah.

 

The Electoral College was designed to keep the new aristocracy in power. None of this democracy stuff for them.

 

Likely the answer is YES.

Most of today's americans understand only what authority figures tell them. They are not the least bit sophisticated in understanding their rights and the government's powers.

 

What has he done to infringe on your natural rights?

 

Those extremists on the right attacking the American institutions today have no sophistication or understanding of American civil liberties and freedoms.

 

I think it is more a matter of indoctrination than understanding. This is the price paid for public education.

Contrary to the DOI, there are that people actually think their rights are derived from government.

 

Yes, but from research they are funded by the Koch bothers. Neither COS or ALEC will discuss constitutional intent but A5 State all Amendments must have it.

The fact that only the people can define rights that are unwritten indicates the difficulty states or congress has in attempting A5. It appears that since a convention should have been called in 1911, but on April 15 1912, the titanic took out 40 of the wealthiest people in the nation opposing the federal reserve, (1913) congress is now waiting for ALEC to assemble 32 states ready to amend favoring corporate profits with no regard for constitutional intent.

The people could define constitutional intent if they could dialogue, but they cannot and controlled media will not give them truths needed to direct their states.

The definition 1), is an absolute, as you say, proven by the presence of A5 and 2) is required for the unity required in the people to form majorities that can direct states and conduct A5 constitutionally.

The 9th Amendment provides retained rights and constitutional priorities indicate that the purpose of free speech is to enable majority needed to lawfully define constitutional intent.

Without that structure it cannot happen, and has not happened indicating that eventually something else less desirable will happen.

 

Natural rights are contained in phylogenetic DNA, and yes there are base instinct that control people often these days, or at least what media shows us about people, which is not to be trusted.

 

Certainly the empire tried to keep it that way, but the existence of the ideal of the 9th Amendment indicates origins of the First Nations people, the “reserved rights doctrine”. And the 1st Amendment originated with the Firsf Nations people as well.

They called it “The Greater Meaning Of Free Speech”.

From a practice of free speech between people understanding can be formed, ~~~From the understanding can come; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.~~~

The torys were secretly paying off the society surrounding the framers with gold to get them to oppose the full doctrines inclusion in the Declaration of Independence. Within 100 years the deprival allowed for the division in the people that was the civil war and the empire covertly abandoned the constitution in 1871.

The origins you describe come from that infiltration rather than the true conditions the framers worked in. They respected the Native people so greatly that the 13 states confederacy originated from advice from a chief of the Iroquois, Cassanatango, and gave the name of a revered Greek philosopher to another tribe who accepted the name of “Seneca”.

Our histories are quite different than what has been published.

 

No, it is 100% true and easily verified by their own actions, words, and economic holdings.

 

I'm not following. Article 5 is about, and only about "constitutional intent." What point are you trying to make?
I'm very familiar with CoS but not familiar with ALEC.

 

The electoral college was designed to keep mob rule and a centralized federal government in check Aristocracy had nothing to do with it.

 

Correction: it is the progressives who have been focused and diligent for 100 years in destroying American institutions, and it is the right wing Republicans who fought hardest for civil rights.