Proposed Constitutional Amendments

Discussion in 'Law & Justice' started by Bob0627, Jun 18, 2017.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,585
    Likes Received:
    978
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As most of us know, despite the limitations imposed by the 10th Amendment, all 3 branches of the US government operate mostly outside the Constitution and exercise powers never granted to them by the founders. In another thread, I proposed 8 Amendments that I believe would serve to reign in the now rogue US government and bring it much closer to the type of government idealized by the founders and within the principles of our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. This is my list:

    1. We need a legitimate process to enforce the Constitution on government. That would mean among other things, taking away qualified and absolute immunity for government servants.

    2. We need to repeal the Federal Reserve Act and enforce Article I Section 8 Paragraph 5 (To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;).

    3. We need to remove the seized power of the judiciary to "interpret" the Constitution. With that, we need a system that reviews all proposed legislation for constitutional compliance and return all non-compliant bills to the legislature for correction. This should be controlled similarly to a jury system (in the hands of The People). Judicial review would be limited to interpreting laws for constitutional compliance, not the Constitution itself. Judges should be also be elected and serve no more than 2 terms of no more than 6 years each.

    4. We need to make corporate lobbying illegal. Only people lobbies would be legal.

    5. We need to make corporate campaign contributions illegal (overturning SEC vs Citizens United and along with it protected corporate "rights"). Only contributions by ordinary people would be legal and limited to a maximum per person per candidate per office.

    6. We need to repeal the 16th Amendment and end the income tax permanently. Along with that disband the IRS.

    7. We need to enforce Article I Section 8 Paragraph 11 (To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;) and remove all such decisions from the Executive.

    8. All candidates for public office should be required to pass a rigorous test on the Constitution and be barred from running for office if they cannot answer at least 90% of the questions correctly.

    (add your own)

    Opinions please.
     
    Matt22yuc and Satirical like this.
  2. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Don't know why nobody has responded to your post but it is something that needs to be discussed. Now this may not be the discussion you wished to have but it will be a discussion. As addressing this as a whole would be a gross injustice, I intend to address each item separately.

    Before I address your proposed amendments, let me ask just what restriction is imposed by Amendment X? Does Amendment X not say powers have been delegated? Does it not say some powers have been prohibited to the States? Does it not say that unless prohibited, some sort of powers are reserved to the states? And gee, if something is left over those powers go to the people? While we are on the powers of the people, let's look at Amendment IX.

    Amendment IX, does it not say "construed"? Does not construe mean interpret? Have you not asked before in another thread what gave those mystical beings in black robes the right to interpret the constitution? Does it not also say that there are other rights retained by the people?

    Does it not seem funny to you that representatives chosen by the states (not the people of the states), meet to amend the Articles of Confederation and end up with a new document with all these national powers. A document that was ratified by representatives appointed by the legislatures of the states, not the people and it's somehow a mystery of how we got to this point?

    But let's not forget that most wonderous of amendments, Amendment 14. Ever research how that came about? Ever research just what it means? Does it really address freedom for the slaves? Or is it about equality?

    And now you want to amend a document that really had no problems until in the name of democracy, it was amended beyond a reminder that the people had rights. So perhaps if this thread progresses beyond this reply, perhaps it would be prudent to address those amendments and how they contributed to the problems of today.

    Now let me give my opinion on your proposals.

    This is sort of like the gun control crap wherein we need more laws because the ones currently in effect aren't being enforced. Perhaps those infamous words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence would help:


    No one has absolute immunity, no such thing.

    Repealed, doesn't need to be repealed, as that is an impossibility. There is another path, a constitutional challenge that those supposed representatives (well they are representatives but of whom?) have been very careful to avoid.

    The only other path is by the people, stop accepting their script and insist on being paid lawfully. That sir is enforcement!!!

    So why do you need this amendment? Because you are unwilling to enforce what already exists?

    I'll agree that the judiciary has seized power beyond all conceivable boundaries, that is if you somehow believe that a man putting on a black robe rises to the status of a god. Let's start with the biggest scam, traffic court wherein all rush in and pay as fast as possible before that little god decides an even worse penalty. For what? Just whom was harmed?

    And you are proposing to do what, challenge the supreme gods when you don't even have the backbone to stand up to an administrative magistrate?

    There should be no judges, men are not gods. Even magistrates should not be appointed nor elected but hired by parties to ensure actions of parties are fair and keep moving toward resolution. The only ones to judge should be those 12 peers that adjudge the evidence and make a decision that settles the matter.

    Lobbies, you mean legal bribery? Laws are immutable and instilled by your creator. Laws never change and to break them is to accept the consequences.

    Legal is the prohibitions of man against another man as a means of control. So what would you lobby?

    Here we are at "legal" again, malum prohibitum. How about if you just stop electing those bought and paid for crooks that you somehow believe have any interest in you outside your vote.


    Why does Amendment XVI need to be repealed? Those supreme mystical beings in black robes have declared so many times in the past that they refuse to even hear new challenges, it imposes no new taxes. It is totally constitutional but likewise totally misunderstood.

    The problem is not the amendment but all those little souls that would sell their souls to insure you pay your fair share. Fair share of what?

    Article I is the legislative, not executive. The executive only executes what has been authorized by the legislative. Perhaps one should become familiar with the emergency war powers acts to understand what is happening.

    Perhaps all the people allowed to vote for representation should have to take that test before they select these clowns that think represent them. No, you do not elect them, voter just get to select those approved to be selected.

    Opinion, just another post with much ado about nothing.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2017
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,585
    Likes Received:
    978
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I completely agree. Perhaps no one wants to defend the Constitution because they feel so secure that the government servants who are mandated to take the Oath of Office will all actually honor that Oath. In any case, you chose to respond and all it takes is one other person to engage in a discussion. I wasn't ready to have a discussion with myself so I left the thread. Thanks for joining so I can return to it.

    As long as posters stick to the topic and leave out the insults, it's the discussion I wish to have. I don't dictate or expect posters to discuss only what I want discussed. It wouldn't much of a discussion then and it would be the same as discussing the topic with myself.

    Not to mention your response is quite lengthy so I'll break up my responses in kind.

    Yes to all those. So the limitations imposed on the powers of the federal government are strictly those enumerated. In other words, the feds (all 3 branches) are prohibited from seizing powers not specifically granted to them by the Constitution.

    Yes.

    I don't remember asking. In any case they have powers, not rights, there is a difference. I may have said they seized that power in Marbury vs Madison (1803) despite the 10th Amendment (see bolded above).

    To be accurate, it implies it. The first 8 Amendments are those enumerated, the 9th asserts remaining individual rights cannot be denied (by the feds) to The People. IMO the 9th and 10th Amendments would have fully covered the Bill of Rights.

    (to be continued)
     
  4. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,585
    Likes Received:
    978
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well it is historically accurate so I'm not sure why you believe it's a "mystery of how we got to this point". Mystery to who?

    Yes on the first 3. Some historians claim the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified. Other historians claim it should actually be the 15th Amendment because there's a 13th Amendment (Titles of Nobility) that was ratified before the current 13th Amendment (Involuntary Servitude). The 14th Amendment is a double edged sword. While it allegedly seeks to protect equality, it is the first one that mentions "citizens" and "subject" as opposed to person or The People. So in effect, it creates slavery status for all Americans.

    I disagree that it had "no problems" before the 11th Amendment. It had several problems that I am trying to address and correct using these proposed Amendments.

    To correct you, you're actually addressing my proposed Amendments which are (hopefully) designed to correct the entirety of the current federal Constitution, not just the Amendments to it.

    Not at all. The vast majority of laws target ordinary Americans, not those in our 3 branches of government. The original Constitution is actually a contract (or supposed to be) between The People (the employers) and their government (the employees). It is also a law (the Supreme Law of the Land by its own embedded clause) that government employees must abide by. But it is being violated 24/7 with near impunity by those very employees. We have no practical provision in the Constitution to enforce it on these civil servants. Hence my proposal, the actual mechanism to be determined.

    I wasn't talking about literal "absolute immunity", I was talking about the case law doctrine of absolute and qualified immunity protections granted to various civil servants by SCOTUS in violation of the 10th Amendment. I know these exist because I personally read and wrote several legal briefs addressing these in a federal lawsuit. See the following:

    Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807, 810-11 (1982); Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54 (1967); Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 335, 347 (1872); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978 ), etc.

    Also in Mariani vs Bush, et al, Judge Hellerstein rejected it on immunity grounds for those in the Bush administration.

    I didn't post all those proposed Amendments based on what's possible or impossible. So if you're saying it doesn't need to be repealed because it's impossible to do so, it's irrelevant to this discussion.

    That may be but it's not practical.

    Well that goes back to proposed Amendment #1. Yes we are unable to enforce what exists and the Federal Reserve Act violates Article I Section 8 Paragraph 5, what already exists.

    (to be continued)
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2017
  5. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I would be more inclined to question just who is the servant. As to oaths, politicians are liars. How can one really expect a liar to have any honor. so much for oaths.



    This begs the questions, not answer them. To repeat what was asked


    You originally stated that Amendment X imposed some sort of restrictions. To further clarify my question, what objective restrictions does Amendment X impose or is it all really subjective? Scholars have always implied the genius of the founders in such a profound document is so few words. I agree with the so few words, but what did they really say? Can you know the exact objective meaning, or does it lend itself to having to be subjectively interpreted?

    Prohibitions would be Article I, Section 9 for the fed. Powers denied to the states by this document are Section 10. While we are passing through Section 10, let me draw your attention to clause 1 wherein: "...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts...", but the states are forbidden to coin Money. Funny how in Section 8, Clause 5, the new government gave themselves the power to coin money and regulate the value. No mention of gold or silver at all.

    So what exactly does Amendment X really mean as it seems to be the lead in to your whole argument.


    So we agree that "construe" means to interpret. Do you see where this is leading? Do you somehow believe this was by accident?


    Absolutely not, rights instill powers. A right surrendered becomes a power to another. You have stated numerous times that somehow power was seized via Marbury v. Madison. As much as I totally detest anything to do with the views of that psychopath Marshall, Marbury v. Madison was one of the most magnificent pieces of law bull ever written. His logic is above reproach as he meticulously defines the supreme law of the land and its meaning to arrive at a conclusion that the court had no jurisdiction to determine the issue.

    You keep stating that Marshall's gang of mystical being in black robes upsurped or seized power. What part of Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 did they violate?


    You are aware that originally there were 12 articles submitted to the states whereas 10 were ratified and became the Bill of Rights. One of the none ratified amendments was addressed by an act of Congress but the 12th was finally ratified on May 7, 1992 as Amendment XXVII.

    Now you state that Amendment IX and X could have covered all, really? The arguments of the Federalist against needing to have a Bill of Rights were the absolute enumerated powers granted by the Constitution, how did that go? And to think there is a Bill of Rights that spells out prohibitions in plain language and still there are violations. So how can you believe that the two most ignored amendments would somehow have sufficed?

    As this is where you have taken a break, I will also. But there is so many things you have ignored in presenting your theory.
     
  6. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    6,774
    Likes Received:
    504
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I want to abolish state governments and hand full authority to the Federal government the counties and cities, towns would be the only direct influence on the people and then add two changes besides that.

    1. Amend the 14th Amendment to limit natural citizenship to those born of one citizen or to properly naturalized citizens, and limit many other Constitutional protections to citizens including all programs. Naturalization would be also careful described to include living in the nation, being employed most of the time, not committing any felonies, learning English and assimilating into our society and require a period of say 12 years we can borrow Switzerland's standards. Military veterans and such might be an exception to the rules in that if they served in combat and were disabled or served at least 6 years.

    2. Assure the government must provide clear cradle to grave rights and protections to citizens to eliminate gross needs.
     
  7. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Nothing to do with the mystery of whom as that would be obvious, the brain dead masses that have no clue along with the almost brain dead with no desire to know. The real mystery would be the mystery of why and as there is only you and I in this discussion, my guess, I addressed to to you.

    To solve the mystery, their is no real mystery. Where we are today was understood back then to be preordained. They know many things that have not been retained by the people.

    And those historians would be absolutely correct, but it was declared ratified regardless of the methodology so let's just go from there. Again that would be correct as the original article 13 was declared not ratified by those most dishonest Abe Lincoln through manipulation of the rules but that is an aside so let's address the issue, the 14th Amendment as it is relevant to the issue of Amendment X.


    That negates Amendment X, goodbye states powers, adios to the people with rights and welcome to the good little citizens with privileges. But beware, it doesn't say "subjects", it says "subject to", a totally different connotation. As Amendment XIV is not the subject of the conversation I'll skip the detail as the real point of this whole discussion is adding new amendments. My point is one of the whole problems with this concepts needs to deal with the reality of the damage done by the past addition of amendments.

    In that context, let's stop for a moment and examine some of the destructive tactics of the republic using amendments. Let's start with Amendment XII which led to the party power structure. Amendment XIV we have already discussed as the destruction of the state by subjugation of the people by the Federal. And of course we can't forget the largest scam ever induced upon a free country, Amendment 16 that destroyed the fiscal relationship of the federal and state governments.

    But nothing can compare to Amendment XVII that forever detached the trustor from the trustee to the determent of the intended beneficiaries. The total decline of a republic by instilling the operations of democracy.

    And still you want to propose even further destruction by Amendment. I find that faintly amusing.

    Do not try to put your words in my mind, I do not need correcting as at this point I have not addressed your proposed amendments, I am asking that with what has happened in the past isn't what you are trying to propose should be seen as absurd.

    Laws, what laws? Laws are immutable and not subject to the whims of man. You are speaking of the prohibitions of man, malum prohibitum, better know as legal. Laws against man are malum in se, evils in themselves wherein another being has been harmed.

    The constitution is not and never has been a contract. A contract is between interested parties as a meeting of the minds wherein a offer was made and accepted followed by consideration and performance. A fiction, government can never have a meeting of the mind, period.

    The constitution is a trust document wherein the trustor, the states, initiated an agreement wherein the trustee, the government, agreed to govern for the benefit of the intended beneficiaries, the people. This trust has enumerated powers to act on the behalf of the beneficiaries to their prosperity, not their detriment.

    Law, the supreme law by their own declaration. Imagine psychopaths somehow believing they are gods and can rule supreme. Well, only about as idiotic as others somehow believing that a country formed with the statement:


    can so easily accept the chains of bondage because a group of elitist wrote a document that was approved by other elitist in the then states declaring themselves to be masters and the sheeple to be their subjects.

    This is all total rubbish and not worth my time spending hours reading case law on a mute point. Immunity is a very narrow privilege and rightfully so when used within it's intended scope.

    That may be but it's not practical.

    Well that goes back to proposed Amendment #1. Yes we are unable to enforce what exists and the Federal Reserve Act violates Article I Section 8 Paragraph 5, what already exists.

    (to be continued)[/QUOTE]

    Then what did you base them on? You want to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, by what means? Are you even aware what you are asking?

    Practical, what is practical, begging? The money trust has already factored that into the equation. If the people are unwilling to take action on their own, then they will just have to wait until the problem corrects itself. Sure hope that goes the right way but that will be decided in the not too distant future.
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,585
    Likes Received:
    978
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry I can't respond to the rest of your responses until I've responded to your original response first. So continuing.

    Agreed to a certain extent. Traffic court is obviously just another way to rob The People under pretext of "law". So is the civil and criminal justice system. At the end of the day, it is nothing short of a highly lucrative legal industry. There is still a need to control drivers to ensure safety.

    Who is you?

    That's correct except there still has to be a neutral director who has procedural control and an arbitrator of a sort who has the power to resolve standoffs. Unfortunately, virtually all judges will proclaim that it is THEIR courtroom (it isn't, it belongs to The People) and will immediately tamper with the jury when they "instruct" them, misleading them into the belief that they must decide based on the law and the evidence "beyond the shadow of a doubt". No judge will ever explain the juror's right to jury nullification, always avoiding it like the plague and sometimes sanctioning anyone who brings it up.

    "Everything Hitler did was legal" - Martin Luther King Jr.

    A lobby should never be "legal bribery" because it should never be about money as it exists today. It should be a petition platform for The People, again, not corporations.

    Sure, how is that working so far? We have no choice. We have 2 exclusive parties that are 2 sides of the same coin serving the same master(s) giving the illusion of choice. Divide and conquer. And it's all under the complete MONEY control of those who can afford it most, namely corporations. They select the candidates and fund them to serve their interest. So who are you going to elect exactly when it's all being manipulated?

    Regardless, it exists, it is constantly being misapplied because it is misunderstood and needs to be repealed. I didn't propose any of these Amendments on the basis of whether they can ever actually be incorporated into the Constitution or not. This is still all hypothetical.

    The "War Powers Act" is unconstitutional as written and applied and certainly not part of the Constitution. The power to declare war is an authority granted by the Constitution to the Legislative branch, not the Executive. Any modification to it requires an Amendment, not a law.

    The voters are not the ones who need to be qualified for the office. Although I agree that all voters should receive a thorough and mandatory education on the Constitution, it is the candidate that needs to be qualified.

    But yet you're posting your opinions here quite prolifically might I add. That's what a discussion forum is all about.

    (I will address your responses to my responses when I continue)
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2017
  9. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    As my granddad used to say so many decades ago, want in one hand and take a dump in the other, see which one gets full first. But in today's world of A is non A, I no longer can say that old axiom has the same validity.

    But to address your comment, why be delusional on such a small scale when your feeling can be so much larger. Imagine a world where there is not federal, there are no states but one big world collective. Imagine not even having to leave the homeland of your birth to mooch on what would be diminishing producers a half a world away. Imagine being born with a silver spoon as a descendant of unknown linage of a trait of never having done anything in life.

    So there would be no need to amend anything, it wont exist anymore. All will be citizens of the world and can travel to what ever part of the world that the mooching would be the best or just stay where they are and accept whatever moochings are available. And why would you need Switzerland's standards when the best would be no standards at all.

    And then your number 2 desire would be a given and would need no consideration at all.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2017
  10. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Understood but after this round the discussion will need to be consolidated to a series of two to three issues or it cannot continue as an intelligible discussion. More about this after I have addressed your comments.

    Now you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Something either is or it isn't, it can't be both. Traffic court is one of the largest scams in history. Just speeding ticket over one 12 month span a few years ago had a market value of some $8 billion and that was just the fines not the costs. Now throw in all the other little "infractions" and what is the real market value? $100s of billions? Throw in all those costs and what do we have $1 trillion? Now consider, what part of this whole affair resulted in harm where the responsible party did not compensate the harmed.

    As to the world of criminal law, another huge scam that supports another fragment of the "legal" industry. Criminal law, what a travesty that would be best stated as a private civil matter that has been usurped as a public affair for profit. This is totally immoral but demanded by all the little sheeple without a clue of what they demand. Sort of like the most dangerous propositions is to point out the concept of slavery to a slave that believes he is free. Criminal law is the credo of the slaves that worship that most dangerous god of government. And then they wonder why they are always abused.

    But civil law, that is the realm of free men. It is the non-aggression methodology of resolving controversies that cannot be resolved by the parties. If you have harmed me and refuse to make things right then I can either kill you wherein we stand a chance of wiping out both of our families in the ensuing feud or we can resolve the matter in a civil action to a jury of our peers.

    If their are only two involved in the discussion and it's not me....

    Your understanding of law is naive at best, dangerous to your well being in reality. Director/Judge, still some being of authority that have a power to be a god and judge things. I would suggest you research the real meaning of a magistrate and why they are so important to a civil proceeding. A magistrate keeps the civil in a civil proceeding. He is not empowered to make any decisions but does certify the proceedings.

    Judges incorrect about being judges, they are magistrates in which the courtroom is their assigned place of business and their responsibility to keep the peace in their courtroom. Not that they own it but it is under their control as the magistrate but the court. Where the magistrate is incorrect is that it is their court, it isn't. By the way, the problem is not in the court. The problem can best be seen using a mirror.

    While Dr. King had a valid point in what he was implying using "Everything" invalidated the comment. While Hitler's rise was legal, his actions were those of a psychopath and costs millions of lives. But again we are back to that word "legal", one of the most dangerous words in the English language.

    A lobby is always bribery. It is a effort to "bribe" someone with a power to diminish the right of another for their advantage.

    For me, that is working fantastic. You elect them, I correct them.

    Of course you have a choice and you have made it. Your fear keeps you electing those that have been selected for you and somehow believing that which can never be will somehow materialize. But the problem keeps coming back to the same thing, you. You that does not believe in equality. You that believes there must be a master. It is only your indoctrinated belief in authority that keeps you in that corner.

    Again, it does not need to be repealed. With your admission here you are saying that not only do you have no clue how it operates in reality and have no desire to learn but you are somehow qualified to hypothetically propose other matters that could end up being much worse.

    And as the answer above, it is not being misapplied because it is misunderstood but because of a belief in authority where the slaves should just comply until the master says you don't have to any more. So the real question is how one lives their lives, either on their knees or standing tall. It seems this once proud nation is now a nation of knee walkers.

    Let's see,


    really?

    Are you aware what you are actually saying? First the Constitution leaves elections up to the states except for amendments that declared the age, gender and race qualifications for federal offices. As to the states, only "qualified" voters need apply to vote or run for office. The question would be, what is the difference between a voter and a qualified voter? That answer would show the fallacy of your statement.


    This is leading to a nightmare for response. I will leave it to you to try and consolidate the issues to 2 or 3, otherwise it will become impossible to follow.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,585
    Likes Received:
    978
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously the sheep are unless and until they march on Washington wielding pitchforks. Once in a while in history sheep are inclined to do that if pushed far enough. That is how this nation was founded.

    Of course, that's why I proposed Amendment #1. The Oath today is nothing more than ceremonial, to get the job and to be used in propaganda speeches when the politician claims his/her duty is to defend the Constitution. And the sheep say amen.

    I'm guessing from the above you're getting at the implied (then seized) power of the judiciary to interpret the Constitution. Sorry I stand by my claim, they have no such (implied) power, as it certainly isn't spelled out specifically in the language of the Constitution. That power belongs to The People, the employers (see proposed Amendment #3) for the same reason that no employer would ever allow his employees to interpret their employment contract. So the 10th Amendment still limits the powers of the federal government to those specifically spelled out and the rest of the powers belong to the states or the people. However, state government have the same standing as the federal government (on a local level), they are the employees of The People of each state and are bound by the respective State Constitutions, all of which have a section similar to the Bill of Rights.

    That doesn't change the point. Only The People have the power to interpret the Constitution (see above).

    The power to interpret the Constitution is NOT one of the powers granted to the judiciary anywhere, certainly not in Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 or any clause.

    "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution...etc."

    So the power applies to law and equity, UNDER this Constitution. It does not apply to the Constitution itself.

    Yes.

    Yes. The 9th could have simply stated that it is the absolute mandate and duty of the federal government to protect and defend all individual rights without spelling out any specific ones. The 10th Amendment covers powers.

    They wouldn't without a practical mechanism to enforce the Constitution on government. Nothing within the Constitution works without that. And that's why proposed Amendment #1 is a critical requirement.

    Maybe. But as you can see, I responded to ALL your concerns with regard to my theory thus far. So that's why I asked for opinions, in case I "ignored" something necessary. Thanks for your input.

    (to be continued)
     
  12. AlNewman

    AlNewman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    105
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Sheep are normally sheared for their wool up to the point of hunger wherein a rack of lamb is delicious. The tough ones make a good mutton stew. That is not how this nation was founded, there was not a sheep among them. All of the signors of the constitution pledged their lives and their fortunes, many paid exactly that.

    When people speak of the men that paid with their lives for our freedom, these are the men they never honor. It is not the order followers that go to foreign lands to kill people that did nothing to us, those are but the sheeple.

    Your Amendment 1 is just as invalid in this iteration as it was in the first one. Government is about power, power is about psychopathic behavior. Psychopathic behavior is all about a morality that is relative. History throughout the ages has always proven this to be so. So long as you believe in a statist environment wherein there is a ruling class dominating the slave class it will remain so.

    This is really the whole meat of the discussion, your belief in statism without the understanding that it is but an endless circle as anyone that has studied history understands.

    What part of the constitution are you having a problem understanding? Article III, Section 2 is very short and leaves little to doubt. Let's reiterate the relevant part:


    Now with that said, the only point remaining is jurisdiction and I love this one.


    Remember those traffic tickets? But then there is the rest of Clause 2:


    Therein comes Title 28 United States Code.

    The people do not have the power to interpret the constitution much less a claim to only. Sir I would suggest you always hire an attorney as in court, you will always end up as socks or stew.

    And then came Article VI:


    What part of "Law" do you have a problem understanding. You may cry, you may shout, you may hold your breath but none of that changes anything, they have the power, you do not. That again leads us back to square 1, why does it need to be changed? The only thing that needs to be changed can be best viewed in a mirror.

    You keep stating that you are aware but I am seriously doubting that implication. You seem to be aware of the words but not of the understanding of their significance. The Federalist had the view that a bill of rights were not needed as this was a government of enumerated rights that could never violate the rights of the people. Of course the Federalist was mainly Hamilton with a splattering of Madison (you know the defendant in Marbury v. Madison) and a smidgen of Jay.

    Now those Anti-Federalist (some 89ish strong) were totally against this new constitution but somehow lost out to the Federalist with the exception of some states requiring the attachment of a bill of rights or they wouldn't ratify or if you will a conditional ratification based on a bill of rights.

    Again, your argument was the Federalist argument on the bill of rights but the Anti-Federalist insisted to the enumeration of certain rights followed by the provision of Amendments IX and X. But here we are some 247 years advanced today and look at where we stand, almost back to ground zero.

    And you want to add more amendments that just reword what is already there.

    The only thing you have ignored is the responsibility for the current manifestation of reality. Outside the bill of rights, the constitution has been amended 17 times, to what avail? And you cannot see the fallacy of your proposal, shame.
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,585
    Likes Received:
    978
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well you originally said mystery as to how not why and that isn't a mystery to me. Regardless, we ARE here and whether it's a "mystery" or not it's not as relevant as the fact that we are here and hence the reason I started this thread in the first place.

    Yes and no but you're mostly correct. The first half of Section 1 refers to "citizens", a new class of people and the second half refers to person. The second half is redundant to the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights is part of the Supreme Law of the Land. It does however establish that "citizens" are subject to federal laws first and foremost and state laws second.

    For me if you're "subject to" it implies you're a "subject".

    I see it as one picture, the entire Constitution as it exists today, damage done by Amendments or not.

    Sorry I don't see any such thing, amusing to you or not. I left open the text required for those proposed Amendments to properly fulfill the corrections and whatever other Amendments or repeal of Amendments could be added or accomplished to fix the document so that it would yield the Republican (not the party) form of government guaranteed by the Constitution and plug as many loopholes and weaknesses as necessary. The primary motive being that it accomplishes the primary function(s) that our founding document wanted to establish.

    "... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

    You certainly did since you quoted them.

    I'm not operating under the illusion/delusion that any of my proposed Amendments will ever become part of the Constitution. This is all hypothetical and I only wish it were not, so "absurd" or not it is the topic we are discussing. But if we ever want a proper form of government that actually serves The People (a fantasy given human history), issues such as this one absolutely need to be discussed.

    I'm not sure what you're talking about in the context of a mechanism to enforce the Constitution on government.

    While it certainly isn't an ordinary contract, it is still a contract. One whose basic requirement for all civil servants (employees) is binding by Oath of Office.

    It is that too and the idea is to try to take out the "trust" factor in favor of an enforcement factor.

    Ok, it is what it is and we have what we have today as a result. The alternative is either no government (an unfortunately necessary evil to maintain some sort of order) or a government without a Constitution (an absolute dictatorship). Again, this is why this topic exists and is being discussed, to hypothetically find ways to have a government that's much closer to one that actually serves The People. So we need to plug the holes, not trash the whole document and start over from square one. The current Constitution is a very workable document that just needs tweaking. And fortunately, the provision for tweaking exists in Article V.

    The point wasn't to get you to read the case law on the subject of immunity, it was just a list of examples where absolute immunity is central to these cases since you claimed there is no such thing. And this is the point of proposed Amendment #1 (sentence 2).

    Yes. I understand the process has to be gradual but these MFers wield an enormous amount of power, more than the US government itself and must be removed.

    "You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out... If people only understood the rank injustice of the money and banking system, there would be a revolution by morning." - Andrew Jackson

    I'm afraid so.

    (to be continued)
     
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,585
    Likes Received:
    978
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm trying to respond to your posts chronologically. Unfortunately there are multiple issues here that have been addressed and multiple responses. Hopefully the quotes with the responses will keep the discussion somewhat intact.

    I agreed with you that it is a scam but we must also account for traffic safety somehow and legitimately. That is not "talking out of both sides of [my] mouth", it's strictly logic.

    Agreed. The "plea bargain" rendering the system no better than any banana republic's kangaroo court, among other travesties.

    However in practice, it's as fair as the depth of one's pockets in most cases. The best justice money can buy. This needs fixing too. Perhaps the loser pays all court costs and legal fees for both sides, among other things. That would certainly cause one to weigh the financial scales before filing a potentially frivolous lawsuit.

    My question was to this:

    You also added this:

    You're discussing these issues with someone who filed a Section 1983 federal lawsuit vs the State, the County, a judge and several other officials as well as an attorney, as a sui juris (pro se) plaintiff. Hence my intimate knowledge of absolute and qualified immunity defenses. I'm admittedly no legal maven and have had to learn an awful lot on the fly but I held my own quite well vs these high priced attorneys through a barrage of briefs and motions. The case was eventually settled in my favor, not to the extent I would have liked but nevertheless, I received a satisfactory result. In my lifetime, I have never lost a case (2 federal 3 local) where I acted as a sui juris plaintiff or defendant. You know nothing about me so please leave your delusions of grandeur and mild insults out of these discussions. I have no problem taking on anyone in any courtroom, rigged or not.

    Sorry not interested in your belittling lecture.

    Nevertheless, it was absolutely valid, period. The LAW is whoever is the highest authority to claim is the LAW when there is no restraint to that authority. As opposed to:

    "The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

    Unfortunately, the Constitution never prevented CONgress from creating and enacting unconstitutional legislation or the President to sign these into "LAW". And thus proposed Amendment #3 second sentence.

    Not when there are specific limitations to lobbying that would prevent that.

    And how pray tell do you "correct them"?

    If you're going to make ignorant claims about me personally, you're treading into insults, which I've already gone over earlier in this discussion. If you want to make general claims about the majority, that's another matter. I haven't voted in decades because I've known for decades that there is no choice. I have no clue how you gathered that I do not believe in equality, that's 100% false. As to believing there must be a master, that's also false. Government is a necessary evil to maintain order, but it should not be a master/slave relationship. It's a potential monster that requires chains under the control of The People.

    I've admitted no such thing. Whether you personally want it repealed or not is your choice. For me, I not only want it repealed, I also want to eliminate the serf income tax and the IRS along with the 16th Amendment.

    It is generally being misapplied and misunderstood. How many are actually aware that SCOTUS ruled the 16th Amendment changed nothing? Why would SCOTUS have to rule it changed nothing if it wasn't misapplied and misunderstood in the first place? I agree with the rest of the above (bolded).

    Yes really, see key words. In other words, all laws must be constitutionally compliant. So Congress can only make laws necessary to execute its granted power to declare war (in this context). It cannot abrogate its powers to another branch by any legislation, only an Amendment can do that. Therefore, the War Powers Act is absolutely unconstitutional and must be repealed.

    “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed … An unconstitutional law is void.” (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178 )

    A qualified voter is one who is procedurally qualified to vote. That includes an uneducated/ignorant fool. That has nothing to do with the candidate, whose qualifications MUST INCLUDE significant knowledge of the Constitution (according to proposed Amendment #8 ). Then at least even an uneducated/ignorant fool can feel secure at the very least that the choices he/she has are strongly familiar with the document they must take an Oath to preserve, protect and defend.

    Well do the best you can. It seems to be working so far, at least for me.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017
  15. flewism

    flewism Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2017
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Some of your thoughts have merit, some are over the top, but getting the legislative, executive an 2/3's of the states to agree on anything is a farfetched dream. Fifty percent of this country's citizenry wants a excessively strong federal government to take care of them.
     
  16. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    8,921
    Likes Received:
    6,077
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmm... seems to be another sovereign citizen thread. In any event, my observation is that taken individually, any or all of the above don't require constitutional amendment. Legislative effort perhaps, but certainly not constitutional effort, (well except the repeal of the 16th). But even the 16th is shaped by legislative effort.

    I don't disagree to the idea of government being something that is something of value, not something that oppresses. We simply have to work inside the rails that already exist to shape or reshape the legislative adventures that require modifications to ensure that the rights of our citizens, localities, states are fairly protected. Liberal adverturism into federal state dominion must certainly be contained.
     
  17. Hotdogr

    Hotdogr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    8,473
    Likes Received:
    2,478
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just so I'm straight here: No one in government upholds the Constitution. So, to fix that, we need to amend the Constitution.

    How about this: As a BEGINNING, we hold our elected representatives responsible and accountable at election time, and those who do not adhere to their oath to uphold the Constitution and to represent their constituency, we send packing... back to whence they came. Then, we tell who we elect to replace them what happened to their predecessor.

    Once we have representatives who adhere to the Constitution, then we can talk about amending it. It does no good to do so prior
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,585
    Likes Received:
    978
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As already stated, nothing proposed has anything to do with the likelihood or unlikelihood that any of these will ever become reality. It's all strictly for education/discussion purposes which hopefully will eventually lead to changes for the better (when and if enough Americans wake the **** up and learn to understand reality). Definitely not in my lifetime and likely not even my grandchildren's either.

    If not more. But that's no reason not to try to restrain government from being the rogue criminal cartel it currently is.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,585
    Likes Received:
    978
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you're not sovereign, you're a slave and have waived all your rights. No, this is a thread for the purpose of education/discussion.

    I strongly disagree. In the first place, some of these proposals cannot be legislated as they tend to directly modify the Constitution. In the second place it seems you want to leave it up to CONgress, a partisan body whose allegiance is to the highest $$$bidder$$$ to correct itself. That's totally counterproductive.

    Amendments certainly are "work inside the rails", they are well within the purview of the Supreme Law of the Land.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    5,585
    Likes Received:
    978
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is the objective.

    That's the objective to proposed Amendment #1, at least within the constraints of the Constitution. Enforcement could include, besides impeachment, prosecution for crimes against the Constitution and perhaps treason, depending on the severity of the failure to uphold Constitution.

    That's putting the cart before the horse. If there's no practical provision in the Constitution to enforce it, as it now exists, the above does not work, as evidenced by today's standards. Voting obviously does not work because most if not all those in Washington (all 3 branches) violate the Constitution 24/7. And their replacements do the exact same.
     

Share This Page