America 2.0 - the next Constitution

reply to post by wytworm


Your taking this into a whole other thread. Time to move on.

reply to post by Wolf321


Thanks!

Originally posted by wytworm
So you are pro personal possession of suitcase nukes for self defense against the govt.?

You misunderstood & went to an extreme for putting your words into someone else's mouth. A nuke would be pointless for self-defense because, to actually use it for defense, you'd also be committing suicide...Sorta defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

Originally posted by wytwormI am more concerned with erring on the side of personal accountability and a nation of laws not men.

So am I...It's when the government itself becomes lawless, denies it's own accountability & violates the Supreme Law of the Land (ie: the Constitution) is when it becomes the responsibility of every Citizen to enforce the Law. Or have you forgotten that (according to Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 8 & 9 and Article 6, Clause 3 of the Constitution) all government Officers of all three Branches on both State & Federal levels must swear/affirm an Oath to obey the Constitution? Violating this legally-binding Oath means committing a Felony Offense against each & every Citizen of the whole nation.

It's not the Constitution that needs any fixing...It's the government that constantly violates it that needs fixed.

The Framers of the Constitution were all well-educated & knew from history that governments will always strive to create a nation of Subjects instead of a nation of People. Their efforts on the Constitution produced a work of sheer genius! For the first time in history, they envisioned a government that worked for the benefit of the People that makes up a Nation. A Nation under Laws, instead of promoting more of the "Divine Right to Rule" that has been the "status quo" throughout the history of human civilization. IMO, the Constitutional Republic of America was the start of the true New World Order...It's just that the Constitution had been getting abused by the "Old World Order" for so long that America is not what it should have been.

[edit on 20-5-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]

reply to post by MidnightDStroyer

You misunderstood & went to an extreme for putting your words into someone else's mouth. A nuke would be pointless for self-defense because, to actually use it for defense, you'd also be committing suicide...Sorta defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

I went to an extreme with my example. Why do you think I did that?

If you set the nuke off in your hand yes. It would be a similar effect to putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger. Neither of course would be acting in self defense in those cases. So now we have established that weapons can be used for both defense and for suicide. What is your point?

So am I..... America is not what it should have been.

These points are made over and over again on these forums. I think we all have read the Constitution and understand what it means. Where are you going? Are you calling for an armed insurrection on the basis that you feel the Constitution has been shredded?


[edit on 20-5-2008 by wytworm]

Your country is one big bung hole stinking up the world with ignoramus's running rampant,corporaTE GOVERMENTS monopolizing their capital gains, and material things clogging the thoughts of the masses.

It is sad to say this can never be corrected only by Order by your government military forces foriegn troops are trained to remove you from your home/livelyhood etc, your time is coming to fight once again for your life at least thats the way it looks.

[edit on 103131p://upTuesday by seridium]

some things I would consider for a second version or as amendments to the current one are...

+ National Referendum on all Constitutional Amendments needing to pass by a 2/3 majority.

+ A "Read the Acts" clause stating that all bills must be read aloud in their entirety, and all Congressmen must sign waiver stating that they read the bill personally. Falsely signing the waiver without reading the bill would be the legal equivalent of perjury.

+ Clarify gun rights to include the right to self defense.

+ Votes of confidence on Supreme Court members every 8 years; Judges on the Court less than 4 years would be excluded.

+ Right of Nullification - States that pass a resolution and a state referendum, both by a 3/4 majority, can nullify a federal bill

+ November elections held on the first weekend of November with voting on Saturday and Sunday.

+ All voting machines must produce a paper record of every vote cast.

+ Recognize marriage as a guarenteed right to any two people.

+ Waive the right of Presidential Signing Statements.

+ Legalize fusion voting, and enable runoff elections to be held the last weekend of November if needed.

All references below are from The Constitution:

Originally posted by abeyer
+ National Referendum on all Constitutional Amendments needing to pass by a 2/3 majority.

Article 5:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments...

Already covered...Even the States can propose Amendments, but have to run them to Congress for ratification.

Originally posted by abeyer
+ A "Read the Acts" clause stating that all bills must be read aloud in their entirety, and all Congressmen must sign waiver stating that they read the bill personally. Falsely signing the waiver without reading the bill would be the legal equivalent of perjury.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed....

Attainder:
attainder n. The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime. [< OFr. attaindre, to convict] Source: American Heritage Dictionary

In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder.

How could Congress determine "attainder" clauses in the Patriot Act if they didn't read it first? This was already a serious breech of Congressional procedure, there...In effect, the Patriot Act did not obtain the full "enjoyment of due process," therefore the Patriot Act cannot be enforced as law because it never became law.

Originally posted by abeyer
+ Clarify gun rights to include the right to self defense.

Second Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Infringe:
infringe vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass Source: New Merriam-Webster Dictionary

How does the addition of a specific clause for self-defense be construed as not already covered under the "shall not be infringed" part? This goes right along with the idea that the only limit to an Unalienable Right is if the exercise of a Right commits a violation of another person's Rights...In effect, "Your Rights end where my nose begins" & there's legally nothing that the government can do about it.

Originally posted by abeyer
+ Votes of confidence on Supreme Court members every 8 years; Judges on the Court less than 4 years would be excluded.

Article 3, Section 1:
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior...

Even though the Supreme Court has, within its Power, "interpreted" this term to mean "for life," this is meant that the Judge must still obey his Constitutional Oath of Office (Article 6, Clause 3) to confine his official actions with the goal to "act in pursuance of" the Constitution...Judges in violation of any Constitutionally-granted Judicial Power or acting in violation of the Constitutional limitations on Power still constitutes "bad behavior" & should still be subject to Congressional Impeachment.

This is the legal interpretation, but it's simply not practiced or enforced. Again, nothing that needs to be changed, only needs to be enforced.

Originally posted by abeyer
+ Right of Nullification - States that pass a resolution and a state referendum, both by a 3/4 majority, can nullify a federal bill

Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

In the context of the writing, "United States" means the "States of the Union." Basically, if the Feds step outside of these lines...

Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

...And since there's nothing else anywhere in the Constitution that specifically deprives States to do so, then the States or the People can intervene on their own behalf whenever any Federal Constituional Torts come into question.

Originally posted by abeyer
+ November elections held on the first weekend of November with voting on Saturday and Sunday.

Any employer that does not allow time off from work for employees to vote are in violation of the Right to Vote...So this problem really doesn't exist, except as a lawsuit to correct it if it happens.

Originally posted by abeyer
+ All voting machines must produce a paper record of every vote cast.

I would agree with this one, except there must also be an official, legal guarantee that all votes will be counted, regardless of any other controversy surrounding the overall voting process. It's not who votes that decide the President, it's the Electoral College that does & they are not required by law to follow popular vote...Other government Offices do rely on popular vote. The problem arises in deciding who is authorized to count the votes. Electronic voting if fine, as long as there is an infallible way to also produce an accurate recording of the votes.

Originally posted by abeyer
+ Recognize marriage as a guarenteed right to any two people.

Since this is not a Specific Power granted by the Constitution to any Branch or Level of government, but not denied to the States or the People, then this is where it must be decided. And yet, there exists the argument that, this being a social or religious issue, the States should also not touch it either...Even with popular vote in favor of either side of the issue. No matter how you slice it though, the whole argument is moot by now anyway...The Supreme Court (in California) has ruled that denying same sex marriages is Unconstitutional.

Originally posted by abeyer
+ Waive the right of Presidential Signing Statements.

Article 1, Section 1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Presidential use of "signing statements" is a Felony Offense against the Constitution, as it usurps Legislative Power from Congress.

Originally posted by abeyer
+ Legalize fusion voting, and enable runoff elections to be held the last weekend of November if needed.

There is nothing in the Constitution that grants any such Power to the Federal Level over the practice of "fusion voting" & nothing that denies that Power to the States or the People...If anything is to be done with this, that's the level where it must be decided.

[edit on 12-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]