Thanks for the post. But I would be willing to wager that a significant percentage of members here have most if not all of that document committed to memory.
-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The quoted above is the most important part.All complaints on this board about government can be properly dealt with by the people using their right to alter or abolish.
Welcome to the forum.We sit at the precipice...
Yes we do. The one choice we really have is to use our exclusive right to define constitutional intent.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?
Welcome to the forum.The founders gave us the amendment process to make changes to the Constitution. For over 200 years that process has served us well. The challenge we face today is not that the Constitution, but the possibility of corrupt people changing or abolishing the whole content of the Constitution. The concept of separation of powers is sound as long as a single corrupt group does not control all three or one of the three allows corruption.
Completely true.But for the entire time it has been congress amending. And then, only when the states threatened their prerogative of using 3/4 of them. That threat was not even formal, just implied.It is time to use the constitution to protect itself because the federal government infiltrated since 1871, and it's un holy cohorts are trying scuttle it. Use of Article V's, 3/4 states with conventions in each is long overdue.But the purpose of free speech is abridged, therefore states citizens must work on their own to spread definition of prime constitutional intent to lawfully invoke the 9th amendment.
So are you suggesting a Constitutional convention? If so what should that convention do?
Firstly, assure all amendments have constitutional intent as Article V requires.If Article requires that, since only the people can define constitutional intent, the people have an unwritten right to prepare and assure states legislators are well directed by citizens while proposing and ratifying.A phase of, "Preparatory Amendment" changes conditions enabling the education and unity of the public upon diverse constitutional intent. After they has had opportunity to take effect, then the proposing of general amendment begins.Technically it is not a "constitutional convention", it is a convention to propose amendments.
So, if I understand what you are saying. A convention should be convened by at least 3/4 of the states. Their first step would be to confirm the Constitution as it is, but declare some amendments might be needed? Then, they would proceed with any changes?I have no problem with the convention since our congress has been totally ineffective doing anything, especially stopping Obama's total disregard for the Constitution.Just out of curiosity, what changes would you propose?
Changes which tend to prepare state citizens to use their exclusive right to define constitutional intent through the 9th amendment.The premise that the constitution needs some slight corrections to be a tool to defend itself."Preparatory Amendment" would logically be ending the abridging of the ULTIMATE PURPOSE of free speech, necessarily the same as a firearm. Two other preparations are securing elections and reforming campaign finance. The ultimate purpose of free speech in a legal, constitutional sense is to enable the unity adequate to effectively "alter or abolish". A revision of the First amendment something like thiIs draft here.REV. Amendment ICongress 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.
That is fine, but how would it improve what we currently have? A corrupt government would not be impacted by this.
The language of the revision of the 1st amendment empowers states citizens, in their states, as they have controlled their states to see their states constitutions and laws amended to be congruent with intent, to share information about the destruction of unalienable rights with citizens of all states regarding that destruction and protection of those rights. Based on that information all states citizens will find unity adequate for action to alter or abolish or protect said rights in some way.Citizens would have the right to serve a petition upon a state legislator signed by 200 other state citizens showing their understanding of the destruction of said rights and ways to protect them. The legislator would be bound by law to file the petition with the state Supreme Court. The state court bound by the same law must produce an order to the largest television broadcast network in the state to produce a documentary about the destruction of rights and protection of them. That order would require broadcasting of said documentary in all states.States have control over corporate licensure in states and the broadcast corporations corporate status would be lawfully revoked upon refusal to share said information in their states by agreement of states and amendment to creates laws supporting such action.The petition would have 30 days to be challenged in court and the challenge would be decided by a jury of random citizens.This will set a standard of disclosure and engagement for difficult or controversial subjects that commercial news media must logically meet or loose credibility then ratings.Based on this information, democratic, or other action can take place to stop the destruction or institute protection for unalienable rights.