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

Only the people can define constitutional intent, AND, it will require that the people can share the truth, form opinions based in it. This must happen on a massive level to be effective.

Article V also is about a structure of power that first mentions congressional control over a convention, then finishes with the fact that conventions within 3/4 of the states can amend and that manifests constitutional intent.

The point is that the koch bros have secretly financed COS and corporations will end up controlling states who will ignore constitutional intent and amend to favor corporate profits. ALEC was the original organization that began developing many other organizations and the clandistine systems of supporting them economically.

Here is the proof of that. A 2014 video featuring Mark Levin, invited by COS, to a conference financed by ALEC in Manhattan.

http://algoxy.com/poly/a5hijacking.html

What I am proposing is the ONLY effective opposition to that hijacking.

 

Umm... It is there because it was required in order to get small states to agree to join the union. Without the electoral college, small states or even territories thinking about joining the union would have said no, and refused to ratify the constitution.

Prior to the constitution, there were just territories that had some semblance of a government. We managed to win the war of independence, but it was dicey because there was no cohesion amongst the various states. It would have been won much easier if there was a central power that could have taken command of the various militias. However, without the electoral college, nobody was going to join some stupid union where they would have absolutely no say in anything.

The anti-federalists are responsible for both the electoral college, as well as the bill of rights. Without those concessions, we wouldn't have a nation now.

In hind-sight, it was a mistake to join the union.

 

I am still having trouble understanding. It seems to me that "constitutional intent" is more of a stylized abstraction. The constitution was written and adopted by the collective colonies (states). The constitution included a prescribed mechanism for amending or changing the constitution in Article V. Amendments could be proposed, with a couple of exceptions, by a 2/3 vote in Congress or by a convention of states if suggested by 2/3 of the state legislatures. Then any proposed amendments can be added to the constitution by 3/4 vote of state legislatures or conventions. I can't see where something called constitutional intent imposes anything different. What triggers either congressional action or a convention of the states is irrelevant, yet you seem to say that a COS backed by the Koch brothers is somehow tainted, untoward, or unconstitutional. How so? What if a COS was backed and supported by General Motors? a bunch of governors? the NY Times? the NAACP? the DNC? the RNC? the Clinton foundation? So what????

 

This is pretty much what I said, though your words are better than mine. I agree with all you say except it being a mistake for the states to form a union. I do not see that in the slightest.

 

Gee, a cognitive disorder.

If they will not discuss constitutional intent with the only entities that can lawfully define it, likely because they intend treason against the constitution. You okay with that?

~~~Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.~~~​

 

If I choose to support an effort to get a COS, I do not need permission from anyone, and I certainly do not have to review my idea and plan with some entity that claims some sort of jurisdiction over something called "constitutional intent."
How the 9th amendment fits in with this is even more baffling. You quote the 9th, but do you know what it means???

 

Apparently your reading skills are honed by tyrants.

Article V has this passage, " in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof. It is a convention to propose amendments to the constitution conducted by states legislations and represents the orderly lawful method of altering or abolishing government destructive to unalienable rights. States do not have the right to define constitutional intent, so if an intent is not written, states cannot recognize it unless the people define it under law.

Entity?

~~~Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.~~~​

Again, the tyrants have cornered your intellect if you think the people cannot claim jurisdiction over the definition of constitutional intent. No other entity has a written right to define it. Only the people can while in lawfully control of their states as majorities.

 

Actually I agree almost 100%. I am still hung up with the "intent" business. I don't know what that is or how it fits in with changing the constitution. One cannot literally change the constitution without some sort of intent. Maybe it's a semantic difficulty.

All the 9th amendment says is that the rights listed in the constitution does not mean that there might not be other rights that the people retain.

 

Yea, one cannot re write the constitution, but a majority of Cotizens in 38 states can. They will not, and do not need to. Certain, specific corrections must be made with use, then enforcement of rights the infiltrated post 1871 government covertly abandoned observance of.

Yes, we retain whatever right we need. The “we” part lawfully requires public expression to be observed as “the majority”, therein the power is generated to ”retain the right”.

 

O

Allow me one small change that fixes that.

All the 9th amendment says is that the rights listed in the constitution does not mean that there ARE not other rights that the people retain.

 

The only natural right is the right of survival. All other rights are concepts created by societies.

 

you have the right to gravity

anti gravity would be liberating for humanity

 

Actually it was designed to prevent high population states from overwhelming lower population states in presidential elections.

 

Nobody has a right to survive. Animals must work to survive. It isn't presented on a silver platter.

 

It's called a failure of our schools.

 

True democracy, what the left pushes for, always fails. The Framers understood this, the new left doesn't.

 

I said might be, you say are. I could quibble with that but such quibbling would be pedantic and picayune; so I won't. I can live well with "are."

 

You are in disagreement with the founders and framers (and me....) over a fundamental lynch pin of our constitutional republic.

 

Nobody is lawfully opposing degradation of our rights comprehensively.

Change that, see the people take control, lawfully and peacefully becoming the rightful masters of the congress and the court.

Masters because we invoke our exclusive, supreme right to define right and constitutional intent.

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 free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling the peoples unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

With a legal process, not taught in schools.

http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html

 

The lion's right to eat, live, supercede's the gazelles right to live, if caught.
Might makes right.
But if the gazelle is quick and smart, it's might to live takes precedence.

 

If rights are indeed natural, won't every human on the planet have those rights?

 

True democracy has a fully informed majority. No party works for that, so is not credible if cleiming to support “true democracy”.

These natural law rights being defined and affirmed are for the purpose of ending the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech, which includes enabling an informed majority.

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 free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling the peoples unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.f

And here is the legal process, not taught in schools, to use a majority opinion through a super majority of states.

http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html

 

Indeed they do, and animals too. We are truly a part of a natural balance.

The enforcement occurs by majority recognition and acceptance then use of historical law underlying all government, ideally.

Cannot give up on ideals.

 

In the animal world that is true.

The ideal is that we can rise above the animal level maintaining balance with reason, mostly between wants and needs as humans If there is a need, we might eat lion steaks

 

As long as humans are in a civilized area/place without threats to life and/or livelihood, we can push and have 'natural' rights.
But if life or livelihood is threatened, then it becomes survival of the fittest. IE might makes right.