Constitutional Amendment to Protect our Inalienable Rights

great post!

yep everyone likes to complain about the feds intervention in the states however the corruption at the local and state and far worse the county city and muni level is off the charts.

btdt bought the t shirt. if you go after them legally they simply forgive themselves of all wrongdoing unless it rises to the level of murder they turn a blind eye because it brings in money. The kool think is that more people are going in thinking they will get a fair shake and are experiencing this first hand.

I'd feel far more comfortable in an Al Capone protection racket than the 'strawman' US protection racket.

 

What "delegates are you speaking of? If you mean nominating delegates, they are a function of the party.

 

Nope, all you need do is sue the government to get a first hand taste of the corruption. What is being said about the courts is absolutely true, and in fact not to long ago we just had another judge that stepped down due to rico and collusion. nothing ever happens to them. spanky spanky you cant be a high priest any more, for your punishment you must remain an ordinary citizen for the rest of your life and no problem you can keep your retirement accounts.

 

the constitution is nothing more than a franchise contract. a business deal between 2 parties. no different than going to work for IBM where you make agreements with the company from everything down to how you will conduct yourself while in their employment.

the difference is that IBM should you terminate your association with them, that is where it ends. they have no long arm to reach out and grab you anyway. the corporate US on the other hand as well as all other countries 'today' have constructed their governance so that there is no escape. 'no redress' for those who want out.

The US is a trading company.



of course the will of the people generally is not expressed unfortunately until it rises to the level of a revolution.


we only need one amendment is true, but that of jury and grand jury for 'every' case right down to a parking ticket as part of the judicial process.

Judges as advisors to said jurys, not jury heir commandants as we have now. All decisions made by jurys, not corporate priests.

 

I'm a supporter of the ACLU and that organizaiton, which is the foremost legal organization in defending the Constitutional Rights of the People, has never complained about any problems with access to the courts or of any improper behavior by an individual court that couldn't be addressed by appeal.

Have there ever been problems with our courts? Yes, but such cases are anedcotal and not chronic or systemic in nature and all court decisions are subject to appeal where such problems can and are corrected by the higher courts. I'll also note that while I don't agree with the opinions expressed from time to time by members of the US Supreme Court I find no problems related to the individual integrity of the Supreme Court justices.

 

This is actually true in it's initial statement. The US government is a subcontracted entity created by the State that are a contracted entity created by the People of the States.

I like to use the example of a automotive service center where I take my car for a brake job. I agree to a repair contract with the automotive repair shop to fix my brakes and it authorizes the shop to do that which is necessary to fix the brakes. If the rotors require turning the repair shop is authorized by the contract to send my rotors out to a machine shop for the work. Several automotive repair shops can also contract together to create a machine shop to handle their mutual needs for the machining of parts authorized by the repair contracts they have with customers.

There is an inherent limitation in the contract of course. The automotive repair shop cannot perform any work on my car that I didn't authorize nor can it send my car out to another shop to have unauthorized work done. The States cannot logically grant any authority to the US government by Constitutional Amendemtn that the people didn't first delegate to the State in the State Constitution.

Using the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) as an example did the State Constitution of 3/4ths of the States delegate the authority of the States to ban alcoholic beverages? We're not discussin whether the States could regulate or ban it's commercial sale (most if not all states allow this) but instead did the State Constitution authorize the prohibition for personal production and personal use of alcoholic (or other) beverages? We have the same problem today with the drug laws because I don't believe that any State Constitution allows the government to prohibit the use of a plants or there derivatives by the individual. We know that the US Constitution doesn't authorize it and the States, under contract law, could not ratify a Constitutional amendment that allowed this prohibition.

We, the People, have never authorized our State government to prohibit the use personal growing of plants or the use of plants for products that are exclusively for individual consumption. Regulate commerce? Yes. Prohibit a person from growing a natural plant for non-commercial products? No.

Few people understand the "contract law" behind the US Constitution.

There are three possible ways a state, as a representative of the People, can theoretically withdraw from the United States provided for by the US Constitution.

One is to file a lawsuit based upon "breach of contract" which is grounds for the Supreme Court to nullify the contract (i.e. end the statehood of a state). The state merely has to prove that the US government is violating the "contract" (US Constitution) with the State. It would also have to establish that the only means of redress is dissolution of the contract. That is not likely to happen but it is possible under the Constitution.

Second would be a simply Constitutional Amendment where 3/4ths of the States are willing to allow one or more states to withdraw from the United States or where 3/4ths of the States could even agree to repeal the US Constitution that would desolve the entire United States.

Finally it could be as simple as the US Congress and the State Legislature simply agreeing to desolve the statehood of the state as those are the two contracting entities and any contractual agreement can be desolved based upon the mutual consent of the contracted parties.

 

You had the Right of Appeal. What did the Appeals Court decide in the case?

If it was a state lawsuit case where a violation of due process under the law occurred then you could have filed in a federal court as that is a violation of the US Constitution.

 

There are actually many times when we think we have a case for a lawsuit but in fact don't. I'll point out one where historically the cases failed based upon arguments by the plaintiffs or the failure to address a Constitutional issue.

There have been several cases where plaintiffs have filed lawsuits in an attempt to get the Federal Reserve to redeem Federal Reserve notes in US Mint produce gold and silver coinage. The law states that Federal Reserve notes (promissory legal tender notes) "can" be redeemed on demand in "lawful money" (gold and silver coins produced by the US Mint) but a person can't do that because the Federal Reserve simply says "No" when the person makes that demand.

The problem for the Plaintiffs is that they can't establish that they suffer any "harm" by the refusal because, under the law, a $50 Federal Reserve note is identical in value to a $50 American Gold Eagle. They're not equal in the "Free Market" but under the law they are and this relates to an issue of "law" and not commerce. If the plaintiff can't establish a loss based upon the enforcement of the law they lose the lawsuit.

There is an issue under the US Constitution that has not been adjudicated though. Under the US Constitution a State can use nothing except "gold and silver" in payment of debts.

To date no plaintiff has taken a check issued by the State to a State Treasury and demanded payment in gold and/or silver coinage. If the State refuses then it becomes a question of Constitutionality because the state is using something other than gold and/or silver for the payment of it's debt and that's prohibited by the Constitution.

We've also not seen a case where a State Treasurer has taken the State tax revenue to the Federal Reserve and demanded replacement in American Gold and Silver coins so that it could pay it's debts in nothing but gold and silver as required by the US Constitution.

Two possible cases based upon Constitutionality as opposed to a "market loss" that the Court will not address as the plaintiff cannot establish "harm" based upon market conditions.

 

Firstly, I am not an attorney and have ADHD. Secondly the first suit was a personal injury tort. It was a psychological injury that exacerbated the ADHD.

On the second lawsuit I did appeal, denied.

As I said years later I managed to structure a filing that would get away from the same federal judge that had been dismissing. Then they secretly revised the court rules to deprive us of a new judge.

After being ripped off for $1500 by a fraud attorney, the only one who take the case, I realized the judicial system IS NOT FUNCTIONAL.

 

Overall, it is well shown that courts are not functional for defending or enforcing the constitution. Accordingly we are back to using an amendment. The question of "what amendment" to a constitution which cannot be enforced will cause a change whereupon the constitution will be enforced. The question sounds paradoxical but is not. In order to see this we have to look at how enforcement of the constitution can occur without the authorities charged with that duty acting with discretion according to their oaths.

It's absurd to consider that IF 250 million Americans wanted to enforce the constitution, that they could not. At this point in time, it is safe to say a majority of Americans know it os not enforced to some degree, and would act to enforce it if they lnew how. It comes down the information Americans have about unconstitutional government acts, non enforcement or need for enforcement which compells Americans to UNIFY.

What I've just done is brought this discussion full circle through the dysfunction of the courts to the issue of INFORMATION VITAL TO SURVIVAL being shared or understood. Through fulfillment of the purpose of free speech, the right to alter or abolish can be rendered functional with unity.

Paradox's have elements of circularity. All that needs to be done to overcome the circularity, is to understand how it depends on linkage back to the origin of the paradox. In this case it is simply that the people do not know how badly the constitution needs enforcing, and how to enforce it. That is the intellectual paradox. The material paradox is HOW to inform them. That is our job, to take the need to amendment and WHAT to amend to those that actually already know how bad the constitution needs enforcing. And, at this point there are quite a few.

Americans that understand the constitution have been made afraid of Article V by the infiltrations exploitation of the intellectual paradox, in hopes that would prevent our challenging the disabling of the material paradox. The intellectual paradox is dispelled by the concept of "Preparatory Amendment". Accurate provision of a short list of WHAT to amend.

1) End the abridging of free speech
2) Secure the vote
3) Campaign finance reform.

Nearly everyone knows of the problems associated with 2) & 3). Once they hear the purpose of free speech, a way to oppose the killing of innocent Americans by law enforcement or involvement in foreign wars will become evident. Not to mention ending the danger the destruction of the American economy's has out us all in starting with the savings and loan ripoff of the 1980's, through NAFTA & GATT, Enron and the more recent mortgage loan and foreclosure scam following the collapse of the banks.

 

And the reason for the denial of the appeal? What was the Constitutional issue involved?

We're only addressing the Supreme Court predominately and not subordinate courts with my proposed Amendment although addressing the issue of Constitutional Standing, not included in my Amendment, would address all federal courts. Did your suit address a Constitutional issue and was your appeal rejected based upon a lack of standing (the two issues I address)?

 

The second suit included the deprivations of constitutional due process that the first suit encountered as one of many reasons for the court to address the neglect by the municipality. The suit was dismissed for lack of stating a cause of action. Which is an intentional misrepresentation commonly employed against pro per litigants. This was the case where the court granted a continuance to the municipality 3 days after the hearing continued. Also a local court rule, NOT in the rules was cited. The appeals court denied on the basis of lack of standing.

 

Only the supreme court can write court rules for circuit courts. That is the same court that revised local court rules in 2005 with no note of revision, and took some 1880's civil rights reformation era rules that gave a new magistrate and judge to pro se plaintiffs that joined together with a previously dismissed pro se civil rights case to re file; and removed them from the rules.

It is clear to me that an earlier revision was intended to facilitate this unconstitutional action because the reassignment rules were moved from deep in the main body of rules where the "related cases" issue and judicial assignment is located, and placed in a separate section on top of the main body of rules.
In order to effect this relatively secret abrogation, all that was needed to be done was to take the separate section relating to assignments off the top, the replace the index in the main body of rules.

Knowing this, I also know the scotus is not going to make any amendments that will empower us to escape the coming tyranny.

Are you perhaps in the 9th circuit?

 

Andrew Johnson was a Democrat. I thought you were more honest than that. As long as you get to feel morally superior, the truth really just doesn't matter at all to you people, does it?

 

No such thing as an inalienable right despite what the Constitution calls them. The only rights you have are those on which you and society agree and those you are willing to take and keep. No mysterious power grants you life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.

 

I agree, but perhaps there is a simplification that disallows functionality.

There was/is an agreement that the society was based on principles that the high authority of law had a duty to protect. That authority was infiltrated and has now reneged on the contract, but maintains a deception system, media, that keeps people thinking it somehow still performs its duty.

The agreement is/was between the people, but they no longer understand aspects of the agreement, disabling them from unifying for enforcement of the agreement. The process of unification implements freedom of speech for the purpose of preserving the highest principle, life.

Therefore reminding people of the purpose of free speech, is the first step to unity because they can easily see that the purpose cannot be served in the society created by the infiltration which controls the media only for deception and misleading or the maintenance of its illegitimate authority.

 

A bit off topic but I'll address this quickly. Andrew Johnson was a social conservative and the quotation I use from him reflects that fact. While the party hats have changed a social conservative is still a social conservative. Prior to the civil rights movement of the 1960's the "Dixicrats" were soclal conservatives seeking to retain the status quo of racial segregation and racial oppression in the Southern States. Today the Republicans, the party of social conservatism, control the Southern states and their agenda basically advocates many of the same policies of the Dixicrats.

There is, for example, no fundamental difference between the $2 poll tax Virginia had to prevent poor blacks from voting and the new voter ID laws that force a person to purchase a $40 certified copy of their birth certificate so they can obtain a "free" voter ID card. A poor black person couldn't afford $2 in the 1950's and a poor black person can't afford $40 to purchase a copy of their birth certificate today. Jim Crow that existed under the Dixicrats is alive and well in the Republican party today. The "hats" have changed but a social conservative is still a social conservative. The Republican Party has actually transformed itself from being "classic liberals" to "social conservatives" since the 1960's.

Think about it. In the 1960's Republicans overwhelmingly supported the Civil Rights Act, moreso than Democrats, and supported the Voting Rights Act. Today Republicans have worked to overturn the Voting Rights Act gutting it's enforcement provisions. That is a complete 180 degree reversal of their political ideology since the 1960's. The key difference is that in the 1960's minorities didn't threaten "a government for white men" but today they do.

It really is about the fact that a "social conservative" is a "social conservative" regardless of the fact that over the last 100 plus years party hat has changed from Democrats like Andrew Johnson to the Republicans of today. The most dramatic change, as noted, has been since the 1960's when Southern Democrats rebelled against the civil rights movement under first Kennedy and then LBJ. The political ideology of 'social conservatism" in the South switched party hats from Democrat to Republican.

With that I'll return to the topic.

 

Constitutional standing has always been an issue and I can certainly see how an appeals court can dismiss a case based upon a lack of standing. In your case I can only assume that the fact that the same judge presided over the case did not, in the opinion of the appeals court, have any bearing on the outcome of the case. In short you suffered no "harm" based upon which judge heard the case (i.e. another judge would have reached the same conclusion) so the decision was left to stand.

I believe, although I merely speculate, that your case you would have had to establish judicial malfeasance by the judge that resulted in an erroneous outcome. That would have been very hard to establish. Of course this is speculation.

The fact is that in your appeal you failed to establish Constitutional Standing. That is not the Court's problem. That was your problem.

 

You don't "know" anything about what the Courts are going to do. You have an opinion that is predominately held by conspiracy theorists.

You refer to the "coming tyranny" when, in fact we've seen an expansion of the protections of our Constitutional Rights historically. It has always been a case of "two steps forward and one step back" but were gaining slowly. For example in the 1960's we had the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act remains basically intact but Republicans have gutted the Voting Rights Act and we're seeing the return of Jim Crow voting laws that disenfranchise millions of poor minority, predominately black, citizens depriving them of their Right to Vote.

We've seen the end of discrimination in the US military with the ending of DADT. We're seeing equality of marriage being imposed by the courts related to same-sex couples. Two recent steps forward in the protections of the Inalienable Rights of the Person protected by the US Constitution. At the same time we've seen women being denied equal protection under the law when their employers do not have to provide medical benefits based upon claimed religious beliefs. Yes, the employer is entitled to their religious beliefs but the woman is still entitled to the benefit established by law.

Two steps forward, one step back.

As long as we're moving "forward" then tyranny is decreasing and not increasing in the United States. The United States is far less tyrannical today than it was 200 years ago, 100 years ago, or even 20 years ago.

 

I didn't mean to derail the thread. I apologize for that. I just happened to notice your signature, and there wasn't really any other way to address it.

The rest of your post here is bull(*)(*)(*)(*), though. But part of you already knows that. How exactly does that quote reflect social conservatism? Do you even understand what social conservatism is? Because it doesn't sound like you do. Pro-slavery Democrats were liberals, not conservatives. They took very liberal interpretations of the terms outlined in the Constitution which allowed them to exclude equal rights to certain people based on arbitrary criteria. The same way we see them doing today with children in the womb. Same attitude. Same rationalizations. Just different criteria for exclusion.

Leftists always try to make this ridiculous claim that the parties magically switched sides around the time their current generation popped up because they are ashamed of their own history and have to find a way to distance themselves from it. But their hero LBJ that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the same LBJ that took all the power of Eisenhower's Civil Rights Act of 1957 to make sure it didn't do anything. Democrats only publicly embraced civil rights once it became politically expedient.

And the comparison of voter ID laws to poll taxes is just disingenuous political rhetoric. Poor people need an ID for a thousand other things in this country, and you people never make a peep about it. You need a valid ID to even get welfare. Do you realize that? But you guys never say (*)(*)(*)(*) about that, do you? You never call that racist or claim that it prevents people from getting welfare. So then explain to me how all of these people that have all of the proper documentation to receive welfare somehow can't vote? All they have to do is present the exact same ID they already have.

The real truth is that leftists hate voter ID laws because they feel the need to keep their options open in case they cannot win an election honestly. And voter fraud is a backup plan to ensure victory at the polls. In case of emergency, break glass and cheat. Because winning is more important to these people than behaving honestly. They have no sense of losing gracefully. No sense of sportsmanship. You will never hear a leftist say, "Congratulations, you beat me fair and square." Ever.

 

As I see it, the authority and duty to protect was delegated by people who were willing to take and keep purely made-up rights. Some people call collectivism a right that is totally different than our own way of doing things. Once again, I don't believe that rights were handed down from the stars. They are just the way we wanted things and they will eventually be replaced by a stronger group of people. Nothing magic about it.

 

Actually the continuation of slavery when American was founded was based upon "conservative political ideology" that retained a system established before the Declaration of Independence. The Southern Plantations were America's version of "Titled Land" established by the Divine Right of Kings. The plantation owners were basically the aristorcrats of America carried over from English tradition. The oppression of blacks in the South was based upon a "conservative" ideology of suppression of blacks that had always existed in the South. The KKK was (and is) a very "conservative" terrorist hate group in seeking to keep blacks oppressed and under the thumb of whites in the South.

Social Conservatives align themselves with the Republican Party and if you check the demographics of the Republican Party it represents "White People" and when it comes to elected members of government it has aways been heavily WASP males that are elected even since the Civil Rights movement. The Republican Party is very much anti-minority which is why so few members of minorities are members of the Republican Party and why about 95% of Blacks and 75% of Hispanics won't vote for Republicans.

The Republican Party remains predominately the Party of White Men today and Andrew Johnson's statement in 1866 is very accurate in describing today's Republican Party.

If we look at the vast majority of hate groups in the United States they are right-wing hate groups such as Aryan Nations and the KKK. In the 1960's the KKK was aligned with the Dixicrats (that were not like liberal Democrats in the rest of the US) and today the KKK is closely associated with the Republican Party as exemplified by former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke becoming a Republican politician.

But enough of this off topic discussion. If you want to create a thread on the issue then do so and I'll provide extensive documentation to support my signature. Just PM me and invite me to the discussion.

 

That is not what the foundation of our government is. As expresed in the Declaration of Independence, and enumerated by statute in the US Constitution, the propose of government is to protect our "Inalienable" Rights and not "made up" Rights. The problem is that few understand what a "natural/inalienable right" actually is.

The key is understanding what Inalienable Rights are because they are not arbitary and cannot be made up. They have to meet the following very specific criteria:

An Inalienable Right is inherent in the Person, not subject to another Person, cannot violate the Inalienable Rights of another Person, and cannot impose an involuntary obligation on another Person.

By way of example the US Constitution refers to "natural born citizen" when it comes to the office of president. The term "natural" is based upon a "Natural" (inalienable) Right of Citizenship and it was always based upon Jus Soli (i.e. Latin - Right of Soil) and cannot be based upon Jus Sanguinis (i.e. Latin - Right of Blood) because the "Right of Blood" is dependent upon another person (the parent) where the "Right of Soil" is not. Based upon the "natural (inalienable) right of citizenship" John McCain, born in Panama, and Ted Cruz, born in Canada, cannot be "naturall born citizens" of the United States and, in fact were it not for our naturalization laws they wouldn't be citizens of the United States. Both McCain and Cruz became citizen based upon statutory naturalization laws created by Congress and not because of an Inalienable Right of Citizenship.

It's a pity that our school system doesn't teach about Inalienable Rights but instead just refers to them without providin an in depth understanding of them. It's not like understanding them is really very hard because it all hinges on the criteria that establishes what is, and what is not, a "Natural (Inalienable) Right of the Person" which I've provided above.

 

Actually Phoebe, it is about NEEDS, not wants. America is deeply confused about this because of media manipulation using semiotics for 30 years. Instincts have been unconsciously invoked over and over then falsely demonstrated as functional by television. Many of us grew up with it and really do not have other connections to use to create feelings that thoughts are then based upon.

A stronger group of people will defend the rights that are vital and adequately state, and they will also clarify those that are not, but only if enough rights are preserved to assure our survival. Considering what the post civil war infiltration has done making America dependent upon corporations, and now that infiltration has sabotaged the economy, we are in trouble.

- - - Updated - - -

You are very correct about this. But it is worse than that. The teachers do not know. Really, the basis for the natural law rights which are unalienable are twice removed from the generation teaching children now.

 

No disagreement from me except I'd state that we're far more than just "twice removed" from a fundamental understanding of natural (inalienable) rights of the person. For example I provide the criteria for determining what is an inalienable right but that wasn't something condensed that I merely copied from a book. The criteria is based upon years of research on the issue of natural (inalienable) rights and it condenses the criteria into an easily understandable sentence. It is the foundation for all natural (inalienable) rights that could easily be addressed in a single high school class.

An Inalienable Right is inherent in the Person, not subject to another Person, cannot violate the Inalienable Rights of another Person, and cannot impose an involuntary obligation on another Person.

That is all a person really needs to know and then apply it. No guesswork, no speculation, no BS at all. How can something so fundamentally simply be something that so few understand?