Is the American sense of justice and morality dead?

Our captain is reason and understanding the true intents of the framers and how the social structure limited what they could include in the framing documents and how they could state it.

There was intense competition from loyalists. That caused compromises that we must over come by using the the 9th amendment, inference, implication and deduction with Article V to agree upon prime constitutional intent and thereby become "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" through our lawful and peaceful revolution.

 

Just out of curiosity, what percent is their fair share? Please be specific.

 

I would never support a Constitutional Convention.

Whatever makes you think the process could be controlled when it would only be by the skin of your teeth that you could get one called in the first place?

You IMO might as well be campaigning for the abolishment of our Bill of Rights.

I would like to add, in addition, since this is already an interruption of the flow of this thread, that it is foolhardy to try to separate our electoral process from the influence of money.

Politics is the process that takes the place of active warfare, and warfare is what the powerful do if they don't get their own way.

 

You are not reading or you would realize that it's firstly based on "preparatory amendment" which puts the people in control of their states.

These 3 amendments happen first, and no other amendment occurs until the people have tested themselves and can agree upon constitutional intent .

1) End the abridging of the purpose if free speech.

2) Secure the vote.

3) Campaign finance reform.

Getting one with preparatory amendment as a beginning will be easier because control over the convention is the first thing that happens. And, that will be through the citizens of 3/4 of the states controlling their states, proposing and ratifying amendments.

Congress is too FU to be involved with restoration of constitutional government.

 

I certainly agree with your last point, but quite frankly your process is so complex I don't know how you think you can ever get it across to a voting public that tends to vote more by name recognition than anything else, if they vote at all. IMO most of your posts on the subject are so incomprehensible that even I, who have honestly tried to read them, have a hard time telling them from gibberish. IMO unless you simplify your language your campaign is doomed to failure.

 

When people cannot understand simple things like the following questions with simple explanations, the explanations do not get simpler, they diverge further to try and relate to what perspective people may have.

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?

It's not hard to understand , it is simply out of the box you are used to thinking in.

If that is not true, you will be able to tell me how the framers intended the people to have the power needed to alter or abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights if they did not intend for that power to come from the peoples unity enabled by the purpose of free speech.

If it is not free speech that has that purpose of enabling unity, what does?

 

We already have the structure we need for self government.

Most of us up to now have simply not chosen to use it.

We do not need a Constitutional amendment, IMO; we need an awake and aware citizenry that realizes getting someone elected is just the first step--and that getting them elected means that they have to help fund the campaign that does so.

 

It's incorrect to implicitly liken an A5 convention to the 1787 Convention, which was not conducted under the auspices of the Articles of Confederation then in force.

Not seeing what the first has to do with the second.

If 3/4 of the states are of a mind to repeal the BoR, we might as well know ASAP.

 

Do you understand that ending the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech is what awakens and educates the citizenry?

The PURPOSE of free speech is to awaken, to educate and to unify the citizenry by developing them in their opinions for democratic action?

Do you accept and agree with these prime constitutional intents?

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?

 

Good point relating to a convention now as compared to 1787. We've had 228 years to review the deficiencies and oversights, as well as appreciate the great functions or their potentials. A considerable desire to enforce all if that has also been inspired.

I feel it was mostly loyalist interference which caused deficiency or what appears as oversight, and that despite our great populations, using communication technology, we can get a far greater percentage of the population involved with prime constitutional intent to manifest legislation which reflects it than was possible then.

Your comment about the BoR indicates you've read the strategy proposed in the thread about our lawful and peaceful revolution, because the peoples actions in states does exactly that.

It tests state legislations for their level of constitutionality via their agreement and acceptance of the most prime constitutional intent, which WE define with our agreement.

It's hard to imagine that Merwin has not seen how this draft revision of the 1st amendment consolidates unalienable rights, currently not in the constitution, except for the somewhat self defeating 14th amendment, and mention of "alter or abolish" which only exists as Article V, while most people do not realize that it is the codified right.

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.

Seems fitting to have the 1st amendment encapsulate the greater functions of our republic rather than having them spread out over the 3 framing documents.

 

If we've got them all already, what is the point of meddling with our core documents?

 

My comment indicates no such thing, I assure you.

 

The purpose of free speech cannot be served currently. Unalienable rights are only mentioned in the 14th amendment which is self defeating.

The vote has no way to be uniformly secure across the states. Campaign finance reform is badly needed.

All good reasons to amend.

 

Well you should read it then, because the strategy does exactly what you suggest while also providing a locus for constitutional legislators to unify with informed and motivated citizenry in defense of the prime rights the BoR stands for.

 

I have already stated why campaign finance reform will not work. Those grasping for extreme power are perfectly willing to use force if all else fails. If you need proof of this look what was done in the Ukraine and is being done in the Mideast.

As far as changing the wording on our core papers, FGS they do that all the time with whatever comes before Congress already. I don't want them a mile from our Constitution or other core documents.

Whatever you think you can do will not happen. They will control the process whatever you think. That kind of person spends their whole life amassing formal and informal forms of power. They can easily defeat an ideological dabbler like you. You would end up being their cat's paw. One of their goals has been to get to the Constitution and destroy it for years now. They find the workarounds our Constitution requires of them annoying.

I resent your attempts to destabilize our form of government. You would only make things much, much worse-ie you would give them an excuse to, by opening this can of worms.

The reason our present form has worked to some extent for so long is that, if they are totally determined, they can find ways around our government to get what they want without violence. They already do use violence in select incidences and with targeted people and get away with it.

They would simply use the same methods to destroy our Constitution altogether. The entire upper middle class has sold its soul to them and depends upon employment by them for its income. That means all the people in power in all our companies and institutions are complicit.

You can't defeat that. It is much easier to defend the Constitution by opposing any Constitutional conventions at all. It was a miracle that our present Constitution ever passed in the first place. Leave it alone.

 

How exactly would you propose they do that? And, who are "they".

 

They're in control of everything, so they can do anything they want to do, from having a person picked up by police on false charges to having a person's house repossessed. They can make up the charges. Look what they're doing to Hillary. They can hire people to murder others or simply make them disappear. They can take over governorships and displace people by eminent domain. A person's house can mysteriously blow up or burn down, with them in it.

If you do not know what they can do you have not been paying attention, and you most certainly have not listened to the video posted in this thread or what I already said in my posts.

They usually do not have to resort to such extremes. The implied threat of loss of job or pension is enough to control most people.

If you got such a convention going they could easily threaten enough people to get it to go as they wish. There are few that are not already ensnared in their net, whether they realize it or not. They soon will, if you open Pandora's box.

It's an informal and self healing organism. They find each other, and discard those who no longer meet their criteria for membership. They know what their rules are, and if you break them you are no longer a member.

 

This is contraindicated by your proposed bastardization of 1A which, had it been in force in 2009, would surely have been employed in such a manner that those of us who appreciate freedom of the press would have longed for the days when three whole networks provided the lion's share of our information.

 

Wrong.

At least two profound facts, truths about our world would have seen 30 hours of nationally televised, prime time broadcasts. That information would have changed our nation.

But you have no idea, and probably do not want to know.

The 1st amendment right of free speech has a purpose, just like the gun of the 2nd amendment right has a purpose. They are the same purpose.

It is absurd to consider that the 1st amendment has no purpose, or no ULTIMATE purpose, because a gun does and we all know it.

Freedom of the press does not exist, but you don't know that because you've never tested it with great controversy. I have. I gave a copy of a lawsuit to a reporter at the leading local paper. The reporter had done a story called "Meths toll on kids". Two weeks later she was fired/resigned. Within six weeks 16 other reporters and editors joined her. They were all gagged by the local court.

The press and the courts are colluding to keep us ignorant.
​

http://algoxy.com/law/no_free_press/sbsecretsofmedia.html

 

Indeed. I would like to make human labor expensive so as to put money in the hands of those who spend instead of the clamps of robots who do not spend.

The stronger the middle class, the better a nation does and you wish to keep the middle class poor.

Regards
DL

 

That is the problem with a two party system.

People forget that two balanced wings are required for the best flight.

Regards
DL

 

Your framers thought in the old ways. People and thinking have progressed and your constitution as well as your whole inept political system has to be changed.

Perhaps some day, you will elect a president with enough balls to tell you the truth. Then again, most people do not want the true.

If they did, the majority would not be following long dead Gods.

Regards
DL

- - - Updated - - -

I think this graph shows what most think is their fair share.

http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2

Regards
DL

 

There is no free press in the U.S.

If there were, we would all know what the cartoon looked like that got the Hebdo group killed.

Regards
DL

 

They all career criminals

- - - Updated - - -

There is no doubt in my mind that the government is destroying the middle class. The poor are more easily controlled

 

I would say thinking has regressed if freedom and independence are the criteria.

The regression was led by the political corruption that parties without principle carried.

Firstly, America could not learn of anyone with enough balls to tell the truth, running for office or not. The purpose of free speech is to share truth. It is abridged.

The Gods you refer to never lived, the notion is a misconception, but the deceptions and manipulations to the people about them are still controlling through FEAR.