How would you amend the United States Constitution?

I agree, until prohibition ends, let's give them all a daily test

 

Why?....

 

so they end prohibition

 

Why would it do that? I doubt many use illegal drugs and catching a few would not in itself change the law.

 

oh I bet many do, especially with weed being legal in WA now

 

Of course you could.

 

They are?

Then how is it that we have such a drug problem?

The government hasn't tested me for drugs since I left the military 40 years ago (if they even did then)

 

Absolutely. There are several default legal structures that would enforce liability, and far better than it is now.

Aside from that, consider this; do corporations have an obligation under law to oppose treason? Are they liable to follow federal laws against treason? Or can a corporation even commit treason or acts aiding and abetting it as it is structured now?

 

Two factors. American government officials involvement in drug smuggling and psychology barred from developing effective treatment of addiction.

Such treatment must be administered direct to the unconscious mind. Secret societies having many members in government and academia prevent psychology from developing such treatment because very similar techniques abusing the unconscious minds of individuals are used to create the ultimate forms of secrecy used in treason and crime, smuggling.

 

Define general welfare clause eliminating all of the derivative power it allows the federal government to assume.

Define interstate commerce clause more specifically.

Cap on fed government expenditures to 18% of GDP less government spending.

 

List the reasons for drug testing anyone, either pre-employment or at random? Same reasons.

 

You know I didn't mean literally everyone. Employers test virtually everyone in the workforce. When was the last time you applied for a job?

 

Doesn't answer my question. It's 1804...and ONE VERY wealthy man buys ads in every newspaper from Savannah to Boston praising Charles Pinckney and disparaging Thomas Jefferson....every day....for months before the Election. Even anti-Federalist newspapers who would support Jefferson accept "Ebeneezer Koch's" money and place ads against Jefferson.

Jefferson, though well-to-do, cannot compete with that.

Is that "free speech" or a wealthy man buying an election? General Washington? Dr. Franklin? Mr. Madison? Mr. Hamilton?

First, you think the Founders would consider a bazooka to be an "arm" that the average citizen is "guaranteed the right to own and bear"? How about a fuel-air bomb?

Second, our citizenry is armed now....how many belong to a militia...a WELL-REGULATED militia?

So a State could declare that a man could NOT marry a red-headed woman....and it would be approved of by the Founders who spoke of liberty???

 

This post exemplifies why the 1st amendment needs revision. Here is a draft.

REV. Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the purpose of the unity of the people in order to alter or abolish government destructive to their unalienable rights, or with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.​

The wealthy can still take out ads, but citizens that can prove they have real information that protects unalienable rights, with valid threats against them shown, while the information is also shown to not generally be available and requires massive funding to make available, gets national primetime TV production, 100's of airings, free.

This occurs through states powers over corporate licensure of TV broadcasters.

 

Can you show me a law that Congress passed that requires such pre-employment testing?

And members of Congress are not government employees, they are elected officials.

I find it rather silly some want an amendment to the Constitution to drug test them and other high government officials.

 

And newspapers and magazines have to print their writings too of course.

And who produces these TV shows and what 1000 people apply every night?

 

Free speech, buying an election is buying votes. Sobthe rich guy works 80 hours a week can't get out and support his candidate the poor guy doesn't work but goes out and talks to 100 people a day, is that buying an election?

Has nothing to do with anything

The militia is every able bodied citizen. Well regulated means with arms in good working order and they know how to use them.

How do you make that leap in logic and why would they?

 

Only applications having 200 signatures on a petition which verifies a threat to unalienable rights and that the information can protect those rights and that the information is not known by the public. Promoting knowledge of the threat and it's defense must cost over $100k.

Media corporations, all applied for to serve the purpose of free speech, would pay for the productions which would be deducted from the amounts they normally pay into PBS and public access TV.

 

What? And how does the "verifying"? 200 signatures, I could get than in an hour standing outside 30 Rock..... So when everyday they have more who have met your qualifications then what? Their entire schedule is taken up by your "free speech", they can make no money and go off the air.

No they didn't but do show me the application and you do know this would not apply to cable networks.

So what about the newspapers? They use the public roads to carry their message, so why do you not apply this to them?

 

Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, along with the Federal Reserve Act, the Patriot Act, NAFTA, FTAA.

 

1) Clarify that only well regulated militia members have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms
2) Specify that corporations are not people and are not allowed to fund or give money to politicians or any reason, including campaigning.

 

Uh, from what I remember you are not accountable to being an American that recognizes prime constitutional intent. And your post again indicates that.

Actually, all of your questions are answered in the post you quote. Accordingly, I need to know you are not a covert agent infiltrating this forum to confuse people. Please answer these questions.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

 

Term limits for the House and Senate. Career politicians are ruining the country.