Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States reads as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
With that noted, I’ll point out that the enemies of our nation are mine as well, so I’ve obviously no desire to give them aid nor comfort. I’ll also note that I’m not levying anything against anyone, I’m just stating my opinion. Exercising my 1st amendment rights, as it were.So, do I believe it is too late to save our country from the corruption of our current political system without violence? That’s not an easy question to give a straightforward answer to. The answer of any politician, naturally, would be something like “of course. If the people vote the right folks into office, we can institute change in the way our system works and get our country back on track.”
That politician neglects to tell you that the only people who have the power to make the necessary changes to our government are the very same people who share responsibility for it being this way in the first place, and the chances that they’d ever vote for the required changes are, well, nil. The logical response then, would be, lets vote in the right people who would indeed be willing to enact those changes. Again, a stumbling block. The only people who would be willing to make the drastic changes necessary moving forth, are not career politicians, they would be citizens whose primary concern is the country, not their wallet. So how do we get those people into office? You don’t. In most states, getting on the ballot as a senator or a congressman is difficult at best, expensive, time consuming and nigh impossible at worst. The average citizen does not have the necessary resources, whether it be time, money or manpower (some states require a massive number of signatures to get on the ballot, and getting those signatures takes a lot of manpower) to get on the ballot in the first place. Then, do they have the money to run a campaign so people even know who the heck they’re voting for? Not likely, nor likely they have the time either. If they lose, they’d still need to maintain their job, which means they can’t exactly quit and hit the campaign trail.
Next problem, let’s say you manage to find a way to get on the ballot, and you find a way to run a sufficient campaign to get elected. Now you’ve got to do it (guessing here) about 240 more times. The House has 435 members, and I’m sure not 100% of them are scum of the earth corrupt politicians. I figure if you could put a large enough number of “real people” in Congress, say about 200, the real good guys would come out of hiding and help make the needed changes happen, same for the senate, I estimate maybe 40 votes needed to convince another 26 to lend their votes.
Can this be done? Realistically. Not without some very deep pockets lending a hand. If somehow, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates got on board and started funding campaigns, sure, you could find the districts with the worst of the worst *cough*BarneyFrank*cough* and replace them with middle class folks who know the score and are willing to fight to change the country.
But otherwise, in short, no. Without violence, we are doomed to continue down our current path of corrupt politics and bloated bureaucracy with little to no change that has any real effect on the majority of citizens. We are the modern Rome, in every sense of the meaning. The past decade has proved that our president is near powerless. All the real power lies in the Senate and the House. The Supreme Court wields a fair amount of power, but even though the president makes the appointments, the Senate can disapprove of any given appointee. The presidents last real power is the veto (which can STILL be overruled), which if you ask me, isn’t used nearly enough with some of the crazy shit our Senate and House pull off. He also has the “executive order” which I suppose can create some smaller changes without a fight in the Congress.
So, when the day for change finally comes, I do not believe it can happen without violence. But, I do believe it can happen without total chaos ensuing. Before such an uprising should ever occur, a few things would need to be in place BEFORE hand, in order to assure a smooth transition with minimal negative impact on the people.1. A new constitution would need to be drawn up beforehand. Some of the things that need to be changed exist in the very heart of our original constitution. A good draft would remain true to the basics of the original, but would be altered to include term limitations on both branches of the Congress, as well as elimination of the Electoral College. In addition, provisions would need to be made to more strongly assure enforcement of some of the regulations imposed in the original which are more or less ignored in present day, for example, Article 1 Section 2 of the constitution includes the following line:
a. No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen. – This is huge IMHO. Notice it states INHABITANT, not “resident” (residence merely you maintain a residence in the state in question, and pay your state taxes to that state). Common sense dictates this means you need to physically be within the state that elects you, most likely, to help you better understand the residents of that state, and their particular needs as they relate to, and can be impacted by, your position in Congress. This also prevents congress from becoming tighter knit with each other than with their own constituents, which eventually creates the system of internal corruption we see today. Almost no Representatives or Senators (section 3 makes the same statement in reference to Senators) spend a majority of time in their own home states, most instead residing in DC or the surrounding suburbs.
2. The original Bill of Rights should be included in the new Constitution, with minor wording changes to make undeniably clear for all time, the intent of each article. With the Bill of Rights being part of the initial constitution instead of a series of initial amendments, they would be basically become untouchable by later amendments (and the wording of said constitution would make this clear). Clarifying and SIMPLE language would mean no more arguments over something as simple as a comma, as we frequently see with the second amendment and our right to keep and bear arms. And no more debating "intent" as we see with several other early amendments.
3. Amendments to the constitution would require not only a vote from the Senate and House, but also a review by the Supreme Court to determine if it infringes on any other rights prior to being passed. Wording should e clear and simple to avoid any and all confusion in the future over the intent of the writers. They should also address only a single subject per amendment, and be limited in size so as not to make reading and understanding them impossible for the general populace. The intent being, that any high school graduate with a basic knowledge or reading, be able to read each amendment in it's entirety and udnerstand his or her rights without having to consult a lawyer. The constitution would also make arrangements for each state to have a Federal Court panel that would review the constitutionality of all laws passed at the state level (CA, MA, NYC % Chicago gun laws anyone? Shall not be infringed? These states/city’s stomp all over the 2nd amendment rights, they don’t just infringe on them) In order to prevent abuses at the state level at a later time.
4. A Declaration would need to be drawn up to clarify all grievances against our current government. I wouldn’t refer to it though as a “declaration of independence”. I don’t think anyone is seeking separation or independence from the United States. I think the purpose would be a removal of the current government, to be replaced with a new government properly restricted from infringing on the rights of the people, and indeed, designed specifically with the intent to PROTECT those rights by contrast. However, I believe the original document is, quite literally, the most important document ever written, and would certainly make for a good base, for the general points that it makes.
5. Provisions (most likely in the constitution?) need to be made allowing for complete and total transparency of all government actions. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but our government has, at times, acted with a level of secrecy that indicated it had something to hide from the people of the united states, which undermines the very meaning of the statement “of the people, by the people, for the people” Sometimes I believe this secrecy was intended to “protect” the general populace from the fact that occasionally bad things have to be done for good to prevail in the end. In these modern times, I do not believe this is necessary, and in fact, I believe much of this behavior, regardless of intent, has bred a certain level of distrust between the people and the government, hence why conspiracy theories run rampant. In my own humble opinion, I think there should be a reporter present with the president at ALL times during which he is conducting state business. There should be no “secret meetings”. This reporter should be under the confines of a specially written NDA that prevents disclosure of any military operations that would endanger the lives of any US citizen until such mission had been completed, but only until then. Names of any service members involved in such operations would be restricted, but only the names (to prevent any potential terrorist retribution against an individual) Violation of said NDA would be considered treason, period. Cameras should be installed in every Congressional office, and similar reporters assigned to various committees, and agencies. This accomplishes several things. It lets people know how their elected officials are carrying out the business they elected them to take care of, and it helps create responsibility and accountability. It’s sad to say, but human nature is such, that without transparency, without threat of being punished for ones actions, a person is most likely to do whatever benefits himself the most rather than whatever benefits those around him (there are, obviously, exceptions to this, but do you want to take the chance that every official you elect is that exception?) I also believe that at their core, most people have it in them to do the right thing, and when confronted and forced into making a choice “publically” most will do so.
6. With the technology we have today, I’d like to see a system that involves all constitutional amendments going up for a vote by the people once passed through the House and Senate and not Vetoed by the President or Supreme Court (see above). Remember, our government was designed in the late 1700’s. In those times, It could take days, and sometimes weeks to travel between one’s home state and the capital. So it was extremely prohibitive to put literally anything to a national vote. Instead, most votes were at the state level, and the representatives did literally that, represent. Now, though, we can have, with a very small margin of error, a vote of millions, nationwide, and get a tally by the next morning. Our old system worked in an old world. We no longer live in that world, and we shouldn’t hold on to customs and methods which can be made better if adapted to a modern world.
7. Restrictions would need to be in place on moneys spent on political campaigns, the middle class makes up the vast majority of this country, yet we have literally no representation in Washington, because the costs of a campaign just to get into office fall well outside the range of the middle class. Also, lobbying efforts, and “special interests” would need to be addressed, as would the fact that we have a senate or house committee for everything under the sun. Bureaucracy needs to be severely curbed, and this would be a good place to start.
8. Government regulations should be minimalized. True capitalism should be allowed. If someone creates a monopoly in a free market system, they’ve obviously managed to do so because they are providing a service or product that a majority of persons either need or want. If they abuse that, then the free market system would dictate that the best answer is for someone else to offer a more attractive option. A perfect example of how this truly does, and can work, especially in today’s high speed information age, is the recent debit card fees proposed at BoA. It was government regulation in the first place that caused the fee to be suggested for implementation. But it was a public reaction and backlash that prevented it. Less regulation and more free market = more consumer power. Similarly, the FCC serves as an excellent resource to prevent two radio stations from transmitting on the same frequency in the same area. In this regard, their purpose is clear, and necessary. But, infringing on the 1st amendment is not. If a radio station wants to have potty mouthed DJ’s on all day long, let them. If people want to listen, that is their choice, the channel can be changed. If you don’t want your kids to hear it, THEN DON’T PUT THE STATION ON. If no one listens to the station, they won’t get advertising revenues, and they’ll go under. Simple as that. But there’s no reason your prudishness should prevent me from listening to smut if I want to, especially if you have the option not to listen. As a last note, government bailouts of any private sector business should be irreversibly forbidden. We might have suffered a depression if the banks had failed recently, instead we’re “only” going through a recession, but it’s one without any current light at the end of the tunnel, and now we might end up in a depression anyhow depending on what happens with the greeks and the European union. Instead, the banks should have been allowed to fail, and that bailout money should have been pumped into the economy to help things get back on an even keel.
9. ALL levels of government require accountability. Nowadays, someone abuses the power given to him by the people, and he resigns and it just goes away, or he just “denies these horrific allegations that have been made against me” pays someone off, and it goes away (usually to not return until several elections later at the worst possible moment). Either way, there are no consequences for abusing the trust of the people. There NEEDS to be punishment. Without threat of retribution, people have little incentive to do the right thing unless it is in their best interest. This kind of goes along with section 5 above.
10. Compensation for government service needs to be severely curbed. For the last several decades, congressional pay has far outstripped our national inflation, while everyone else’s earnings have not. When the country isn’t doing well, they vote themselves a raise (really!?! In what other job, ever, other than owning your own company, do you get to give yourself a raise without the permission of the people that PAY YOU!?!?) My suggestion is that both senators and representatives be paid based on the average salary of the US Citizen, to include those unemployed as earning 0 instead of what they pull in on unemployment. You want a good economy and low unemployment? Pay the House and Senate based on those factors, and you can be damned sure they’ll be working in your best interest when it comes to anything job or economy related. Also, the Senate and House have the best health care in the world, because they gave it to themselves (while conveniently excluding themselves from Obama care…. Wow... just, wow…) Not only that, but they get those benefits, and full pay retirement benefits for LIFE even if they only serve one term. I would suggest that with term limitations, should also come an elimination of any possible retirement pay from Senate or House service, instead, payments can be made into a 401K or IRA just like everyone else, and if you don’t have one already, one can be started for you for that purpose. As for health care, I believe ALL, as in each and every one, of federal government employees should receive the same health care. Yes, that includes our soldiers. This would have one of three possible results. First option, Senators and Representatives would get Tri Care and go through the awesomeness that our military families have to deal with, co pays and all. Second option, the entire military gets the same insanely awesome and totally free health care benefits currently given to our Senators and Representatives. Third option, a middle ground is found, and federal employees, military included, are provided health care not unlike what the average American already receives, this is what I would think to be most likely and the most reasonable option.
That’s just the basis for a beginning, if anyone ever were to wipe the slate clean, and start fresh with a new government. This only addresses the core of our government, and not so much the rest of the mind boggling morass that is the United States of Bureaucracy. And of course, these are just my opinions on how to change some of the things that have caused us to get where we are.
The Government of the United States is the people of the United States; the Citizenry. When, "We the People of the United States in order to form a more perfect Union (to govern ourselves)... It is the elected and appointed Politicians (to included the establishment we call Government: U.S. Supreme Court, Justice System, Legal System) who have attacked US, the Government of the United States. The U.S. doesn't have a Sovereign since the Bloody Brits have been tossed. In order to be treasonous against the US would mean to Revolt against ourselves.
ReplyDeleteThe Congress is treasonous, if you believe that this current war we've been fighting is a Just war; you maybe gravely mistaken. In these modern days the U.S. has had reason to war against Terrorism since the 1970s; a justified war. This war we are in now; though fighting the same or similar enemies is a farce. The attack on U.S. soil staged.
But, first let's look back at the most well known act of Treason in U.S. history known by definition. President John F. Kennedy assassination; those involved in the assassination, those involved in the cover up, those involved in the misdirection of the evidence and obstruction of justice are all Traders by definition, to include the members of the "President's Commission" a.k.a. "Warren Commission". J. Eagar Hoover, known for two distinct dispositions; the first Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and complying secret files against the President of the United States, i.e. JFK, as well as files against other prominent people in Government and Industry. J. Eagar Hoover commented treason in the highest regards. He collected information about people or from people in a manner that violated the U.S. Constitution, and violated the U.S. Government (We the People). And, this by the FBI standard; he is held in high regard. So, the foundation of the FBI is based on criminal acts against the U.S. Constitution, against the U.S. Government (We the People). By definition, by definition of the U.S. Constitution, and by definition of United States Code; the FBI is our number one Enemy... Treasonous, Criminal, and Terrorist. Through the seventies, eighties, nineties, and in the new Millennium we have seen day in and day out the corruption, criminal acts, and acts of treason and terrorism conducted by the FBI.
CONTINUED:
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution of the United States is not a living document, it is not a difficult document to understand, it clearly states; it is not open to interpretation, and it was written specifically to protect the People of the United States... i.e. the Government from people exactly like the establishment we have elected and/or appointed who are in office today.
You referenced the Second Amendment. When someone thought to mislead, misrepresent, misinterpret, with the intent to change the Rights Guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States; they committed an act of treason, they were in the commission of a criminal act; and those who sided with them; conspire to treason, and criminal acts of felonies. Creating laws in conflict with existing laws or the act of changing laws that will directly conflict with the Rights Guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States is a act of treason and criminal.
The U.S. Constitution was written to be absolute. If we look as far back as to the introduction of the "Brady Bill"; Mrs. Brady was committing an act of Treason, and when Jim Brady sat by, and supported his wife in her campaign; he too became a Trader of the State.
You assessment of US being the modern day Roma is absolutely correct. Is there a way to take back our country without violence... the possibility is reasonable. Your plan to fill the Congress with "Real People" is not as hard as you believe; however, because of the changes made in the election process; it will take four years to gain the majority vote. Not all Representative election are held in the same year; not all Senate election are held in the same year. This was changed so that the Congress would not have all newly elected members. Another device created to help secure corruption within the Congress. Washington, DC falls under Federal Jurisdiction, and like Roma (the Roman Senate created a law that it's Legions could not enter the city limits.)Firearms are illegal to possess within the city limits. Direct and complete violation of the Second Amendment Rights; makes NYC look like they are just toying with violating the Constitution.
I only read as far as paragraph 6. I'll read the rest later. The U.S. Constitution is fine as it was intended; it just needs to be enforced as intended; and that's to protect the Citizenry, and not persecute the Citizenry. Congress as well as all violators must be indicted and prosecuted. Taking the country back by force without violence I believe is very possible; it is a manner of planning.
When I get back to your article; remind me that I was going to comment on abolishing the Legal System, and enforce Constitutional Law, Rights, Court Procedure, the establishment of Government be taught in all grades; as it was when I was a child.
It is clear that you are patriotic in your beliefs, and it is just as clear that you hold some level of disdain for our government. I too hold my country, and the idea of our country very highly, and I also hold some level of disdain for what our government has become over the years. But I believe that the only path to resolution, is through the truth. I debated at some length on a proper reply to your comment, and eventually came to the conclusion that it would be a gross disservice if I did not respond.
ReplyDeletePlease take what I have to write here as informational, none of it is intended to inflame or insult. Your post was somewhat scattered, but I will try to address each point in as orderly a fashion as possible, please forgive me if it is not so linear.
First, your misunderstanding that the “government” is “we the people”. A “government” is, by definition, the governing body of a nation or state. In other words, the person(s) who define the rules and regulations by which the citizens of said state or nation live. It is made crystal clear in the Constitution who those persons are, what groups they should be divided into, and which groups will hold what responsibilities and powers. You began your post with a quote of the opening paragraph of the Constitution, which you left incomplete and then added your own insinuation (“to govern ourselves”) and then later on go on to say “The Constitution of the United States is not a living document, it is not a difficult document to understand, it clearly states; it is not open to interpretation, and it was written specifically to protect the People of the United States” which I find odd, since you opened your comment by doing exactly that, interpreting the document into words that are not at all present (to be clear here, I disagree completely with the above statement, but I’ll get to that in a moment). The entirety of the opening paragraph, for the records sake, is:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” There is no mention of governing ourselves, or of “the people” being the government. The paragraph is nothing more than an explanation that says “hey, these are the reasons we’ve layed this constitution out” I can only imagine you might have gotten such an idea from the famous quote “of the people, for the people, by the people” But I would note that this quote is from the Gettysburg Address, which was written many years later, and is completely unrelated to the constitution.
Now, back to that line quoted in the previous paragraph :
ReplyDelete“The Constitution of the United States is not a living document, it is not a difficult document to understand, it clearly states; it is not open to interpretation, and it was written specifically to protect the People of the United States”
This statement could not have more inaccuracies in it. First, the constitution is most definitely a living document. If it were otherwise, the very rights about which you speak wouldn’t even exist. The Constitution initially included only an outline for government. Who could be elected, how they would be elected, and what powers they would hold once elected. Different powers were divided amongst the various branches of government (executive, judicial, legislative) so that too much power would never be in too few hands. There was no mention of the rights of the citizens, protection of those rights, etc. Read from beginning to end, it is nothing more than an outline for government, period. The rights to which you refer are actually part of what is commonly known as the Bill of Rights. This was NOT part of the original constitution. In a rush to establish a new government for the sake of stability, the states ratified the constitution, but brought up concerns during it’s finalization regarding what they considered to be injustices against their basic rights by the british and a desire to protect against such injustices in the future. It was agreed upon (called the Massachusetts compromise) that after the formation of the government, those rights would be protected by amending them to the constitution (indeed, some states only signed upon the agreement of such amendments, and some individuals did not sign at all due to their absence), and the original constitution made allowances for how it could be amended in the future if need be. The original bill contained 12 amendments, only the last 10 of which were passed (the second was not passed until 1992, and became the 27th amendment instead of the 1st), the 10 that passed were referred to as the Bill of Rights, in reference to the document on which they were based, the English Bill of Rights.
How can a document which contains provisions for itself to be amended in the future, and which has had 27 amendments added to it not be a living document by definition? Even further to consider, is that some of those amendments actually changed the way the original document works. For example, presidential election procedures are laid out in the Constitution, but those same procedures are modified in the 12th amendment.
On the subject of the Constitution being open to interpretation, then I only have a few questions to ask in order to make my point.
ReplyDelete1. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Define “unreasonable” in this context. Ask 10 people, you’ll get at least 5 answers.
2. “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial” Without interpretation, define “speedy”. What exactly constitutes a speedy trial? One that lasts 2 days? 10? One that starts tomorrow, but lasts a year?
3. “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This entire amendment is about interpretation. What is excessive bail? Obviously, it’s not the same for a burglar as it is for a murderer, but without some level of interpretation, the same bail would need to be applied to both. What about how it regards to the individuals means? For Donald Trump, 10 million dollars is not unreasonable, as he could cover that bail with a check. For me, 10 million dollars would be an impossibility. This one continues with “cruel and unusual”. This has been argued almost as long as it has been in place. To some it would seem cruel to deprive violent prisoners of anything beyond bread water and a supplemental vitamin. To me, it’s perfectly fitting for some, but seems a bit cruel for a petty thief who stole bread because he was starving in the first place.
So you see, there are plenty of spots which can be easily opened for interpretation in our Constitution and it’s amendments. My suggestion for a new constitution would create a document that more clearly lays out protection of rights in order to eliminate all debate in the future.
You then go on to talk quite a bit about treasons against the US. But again, fail to note that the original Constitution lays out an exact definition of treason: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
ReplyDeleteTo say the current Congress is treasonous is non-sense. In order for this to be true, they would have to commit an act of war against the country itself, or aid the government of another nation in such an attack. Neither of which has happened. By the same definition above, the assassination of Kennedy would only be treason if it’s intent was to destabilize the nation or was part of a greater attack in collusion with another nation. Even if I were to buy into your conspiracy theory, this wouldn’t make it treason, because you contend it was an inside job (FBI, J Edgar Hoover, etc) Try as you might, you’ll never provide proof that the assassination was an inside conspiracy, and a good hard look at all the facts that we do have, and at Lee Harvey himself it’s not at all unreasonable to believe he acted alone, even a mafia involved conspiracy is not unquestionable. But an inside government conspiracy, the shooter on the grassy knoll and all that crap is a tough pill to swallow given what we know now and the technology we have available to re-examine the evidence. There are of course questions to be asked about the incompetency of the autopsy or lack thereof, but lets be honest, this is the same federal government that took almost a week to get clean water to Katrina survivors trapped in the superdome 40 years later, we’re not unaccustomed to their incompetence. In regards to the J Edgars collection of dossiers on various persons, it depends upon the methods used to gather that information. There is nothing in the bill of rights which protects you from surveillance. And if they broke into someones home to obtain information, I guess again we come to interpretation of the term “unreasonable”, but calling it treason and marking the FBI enemy #1 seems drastic. I can only assume you’re someone who thinks Ruby Ridge and Waco were intentional acts, instead of what most consider to be just more incompetence on the part of government employees. When in fact both could have been avoided of the persons involved had not broken the law in the first place, a fact that most extremists tend to gloss over prettily when they discuss either engagement.
You went on to say “When someone thought to mislead, misrepresent, misinterpret, with the intent to change the Rights Guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States; they committed an act of treason”
Well, no. Per the definition of Treason, as laid out clearly by the constitution, they did not. There is no act of war here, and no aid given to our enemies (enemy to be defined by a nation or state with which we are in a state of declared war, per the United States Code) Also, by your own definition laid out above, you have to consider that due to wording in the original constitution, the Bill of Rights only applied to white, land owning, men. Later Amendments changed that, and clearly and fairly applied those same rights to both black men and non-land owners, and later, women. By your definition, when those amendments were suggested, the men who did so were treasonous due to intent to change the rights guaranteed in the constitution, by giving those rights to everyone. Somehow that seems backwards to me.
Before I move on, I’d like to point one last thing, which clearly proves you have never read the constitution in full. You stated:
ReplyDelete“however, because of the changes made in the election process; it will take four years to gain the majority vote. Not all Representative election are held in the same year; not all Senate election are held in the same year. This was changed so that the Congress would not have all newly elected members. Another device created to help secure corruption within the Congress.”
This was NEVER changed. It was clearly laid out this way in the original Constitution. In regards to the Senate, Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution on the United States reads:
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year
So you can see, this was never changed to secure corruption, it has been this way since day one. In regards to Representatives, they only serve a two year term, and states elected their representatives upon ratification as a state and carried out elections every two years thereafter. As a result, some states have their election in odd years, some in even years, dependent on when they became a state and initially carried out elections, not as a result of any imaginary changes to the Constitution.
On the one hand you argue that the Constitution needs no changes, but on the other you state that one of its original tenets, laid out in it’s very first article, is a source of furthering government corruption, and you simply cannot have it both ways.
The final thing I would like to comment on is your statement : “The attack on U.S. soil staged”. If by staged, you mean to indicate it was an inside job, I beg to differ. You can direct me at any one of a dozen conspiracy theory, it was an inside job, we did it, the Israelis did it with us, the bushes magically manipulated it, videos. And I’ll politely tell you I’ve watched no less than 6 hours of video making claims to some effect that it was an inside job, not an outside terrorist attack. I would then inquire as to whether you’ve even bothered to watch any of the videos which debunk literally every single point that these “inside job” videos make? After watching both sets of videos, and seeing almost every piece of conspiracy theory “proof” be debunked by facts, I find it difficult to entertain any of the foolish notions that this was an inside job. Especially when you consider that the weakest point of any conspiracy is the silence of the conspirators themselves, and that these attacks would have been such a huge undertaking, it would literally have had to involve hundreds if not thousands of people, and not one of them has leaked even a word after 10 years of living with the guilt? Not a single document or electronic tidbit has surfaced in a time when not even the government can protects it’s privacy from electronic invaders? Not bloody likely. If it happened, then someone, somewhere, left behind proof, and that proof would have surfaced by now.
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean to confuse you when I paraphrased. I was trying to emphasize that "We the People" are the government and not the "Person(s) who you deem empowered."
ReplyDeleteWhen you define Government as an entity that rules over the populace; then you are describing an Authoritarian, a Dictatorship, an Oligarchy, a Monarchy, a Plutocracy, a Sovereignty, or Totalitarian. In a Democracy or Republic; government is defined by the "People" usually within a Constitution that defines the limits of representation. Those limits are clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution; and The People are empowered to govern themselves; not the representatives.
Make no mistake; I am not misinformed that the U.S. is intended to be a Government of the People.
Samuel Adams wrote "A Government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from the earth." in a letter to Arthur Lee around the time of the Boston Tea Party 1773. In that letter and in as many as 236 letters; Samuel Adams tells Arthur Lee about the events that were taking place, and discusses the separation of the Colonies.
Samuel Adams being one of the co-authors of the Declaration of Independence includes "A Government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
His cousin, John Adams later uses Samuel's statement. Daniel Webster (1782-1852) U.S. Prosecutor; considered a great orator quotes Samuel Adams by paraphrasing “It is, Sir, the people’s government, made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have declared that this Constitution shall be the supreme law.”
William Herndon; life long friend of Abraham Lincoln, business partner, and partner in Law; was considered to be a great speech writer, and wrote Lincoln's speeches. Herndon gave a book to Abraham Lincoln; "Ten Sermons of Religion".
Among Parker's sermons were “The Effect of Slavery on the American People,” in which Parker paraphrases Samuel Adams words by stating: “Democracy is self-government of all the people, by all the people, for all the people.” The "Gettysburg Address" has long been know as the speech of plagiarism. Lincoln and Herndon were frauds. You might say; they conspired to plagiarize Theodore Parker's work.
So, I didn't mean create confusion for you when I paraphrased. As you posted... “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”.
It does not say "We the Government" or "We the Establishment"... etc. The Constitution of the United States empowers the People, and "We the People"... will secure the Blessings of Liberty to "Ourselves"; not for the replacement Government or a Sovereignty of the United States. The U.S. Constitution empowers the People. Samuel Adams' quote "A Government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from the earth." is implied, and embodies the Constitution.
When you say that the Constitution is clear who those Person(s) are; this is where I think you're confusion starts. I think you are referring to the Branches of Government and how there are defined in the Constitution; but where do you think those "BRANCHES" come from? I'll give you a hint; and I don't mean to be a smartass. "The Tree"; We the People are the tree of Government.
I try my best to proof read what I write and I hope that lesson the confusion.
17 September 1787 was the date the Constitution was first ratified; however, all that established was that the United States did exist as an official entity, and as the convention members would say; established a “Central Government”. It wasn’t until the “Declaration of Rights” was established that the independent states would accept the Constitution as a whole. The “Bill of Rights” or rather the “Declaration of Rights” was written by George Mason a decade earlier; it had been ratified by Virginia within the Constitution of Virginia. When George Mason wrote the Declaration of Rights initially intended for Virginia; he had considered the Declaration of Rights from Pennsylvania and Maryland. The original Declaration of Rights consisted of 19 Articles.
ReplyDeleteAmong the members of the Convention who were charged with proposing a Declaration of Rights were James Madison, John Lamb, and Robert Yates; all of whom submitted a proposal of George Mason’s original Declaration.
The Bill of Rights begins with; “That there be a Declaration of Rights (Bill of Rights), asserting and securing from Encroachment, the Essential and Unalienable Rights of the People, in some such manner as the following.”
1. That all Freemen have certain essential inherent Rights, of which they cannot by any Compact, deprive or divest their Posterity; among which are the Enjoyment of Life and Liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing and protecting Property, and pursuing and obtaining Happiness and Safety.
2. That all Power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from the People; that Magistrates therefore are their Trustees and Agents, and at all Times amenable to them.
3. That Government ought to be instituted for the Common Benefit, Protection and Security of the People; and that whenever any Government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a Majority of the Community hath an indubitable unalienable and indefeasible Right to reform, alter or abolish it, and to establish another, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public Weal; and that the Doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary Power and Oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and Happiness of Mankind.
These are the first three Amendments; these three amendments still exist; however, they are combined into other amendments; and that is how we came to Ten Amendments.
Not that any of the original amendments were dissolved, but that they were written as a paragraph into one amendment.
More important is the words; they have to be understood in order to understand that the Constitution/Bill of Rights guarantees our protection FOREVER; and that does not change EVER. “Inherent Rights”; that means our rights are as much apart of us as is our DNA; “Unalienable Rights of the People”; that means your rights, my rights; our rights can not be dismissed, pushed aside, put on pause, overlooked, or taken away.
Because of people like the people who are elected into office this day; may believe otherwise; and I believe they like to think so that; they can dismiss our rights for they personally profit… also known as Barratry; which is a felony act usually associated with Judges and Lawyers. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified; it is redundant; however, it is an example that the elected or appointed government employees always need to be reminded that our rights are in fact “Guaranteed”.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSPEEDY TRIAL:
ReplyDeleteThis is a particularly interesting subject; especially when it comes to States who violate this Amendment as normal practice; and are more highly likely to apply threats, anxiety, coercion tactics the closer the accused gets to the U.S. Courts. On the State levels; Judges are notoriously corrupt, and conspire with DAs and Law Enforcement.
To have a Speedy Trial means that you can not live in fear of your Liberties being infringed on; or that they are being infringed upon for a lengthy period of time. Generally, it has been ruled that anytime longer than 150 days “Exceeds the Limit of Due Process”. Again, the State Courts always infringe on these rights, and try to deny you other rights to coheres you into giving up your rights, or quitting any appeal process.
Never, get up your rights; never live in fear of what a Police officer, DA, or Judge threatens to impose; and always APPEAL. Keep great notes of everything, and record everything; because your lawyer will sell you out.
EXCESSIVE BAIL:
ReplyDeleteWould you really want a person who is accused of murder out on bail?
Ten Million dollars is excessive bail for anyone; Donald Trump, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates… etc. A burglar who steals your tv compared to a broker who steals your life savings; what do you give them for bail?
In 2009; it was reported that Rajaratnam received the highest bail in U.S. History; that the Judge secured the bond with cash and property. Rajaratnam was accused of four counts of conspiracy, and seven counts of Securities Fraud. The reporter went on to say that conviction of one of those crimes “could result in 20 years of imprisonment, and Five Million dollar fine”.
Securities Fraud is a Class Four Felony, maximum sentence is 5 years, and the maximum fine would be $100,000. The fine for a Class One Felony; class One Felony being the worse crime; maximum is $250,000.
Reality is Rajaratnam was bailed out on One Million dollars; the maximum anyone can be held too; however, assets can be frozen (seized) if Probably Cause is established that those assets are fruits of the crime.
Bail is set based on 15% of your gross worth; assuming you have liquid assets, and a bond is secured by 10% of the bail in cash or property.
If Donald Trump were indicted for a crime he allegedly committed within the last five years; the law enforcement agency and the court could not seize his Airplane; because “The Donald” has owned the same Airplane since 2004; and there fore is not fruit of the crime.
CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT:
ReplyDeleteWhen you imprison a man you have taken from him, his Liberty.
When you restrict a man’s movement you have taken his Liberty.
When you confine a man to a cubical of 14 by 8 feet cell; you have taken several Liberties; from him.
These freedoms are taken for granted when you have them everyday.
Obviously a man can live within a small area, but it’s not jus the physical imprison, but the metaphysical and psychological Liberties taken too.
It would be cruel and unusual if that cell were out in the elements. The prisoners mind would be able to explore everything they can see; but would constantly be subjected to the heat, cold, rain, snow… etc. Depriving a person from adequate nutrition has caused onset of physical illness, and that is cruel. If one meal a day is the norm or adequate; ok, two meals; ok, or three meals, but if you feed a man water, hot dog and bread, and that man has Celiac Decease, then you committed to a cruel and unusual punishment.
If the man; is Jewish, then you’ve violate his Freedom of Religion; by feeding him a hot dog, and that would be unusual punishment. Because a person is convicted of one crime does not mean they are guilty of all crimes; nor does it mean that they lose all their Rights. Next time you have a three day weekend; clear out one of your closets. You should only have the bare necessities; a place to stand, a place to sit, a place to lie down, and a toilet. You will have to rely on someone to bring you the bare necessities of nutrition, and they will deliver your meals on their schedule. Will not have a clock, the light must be at all times; prospectively someone should be watching you most of the time.
Leaving the light on all the time will cause sleep deprivation; sleep deprivation causes depression; depression causes suicidal or homicidal tendencies. Losing track of time or the ability to keep time will cause manic depression and anxiety; anxiety in a depressive state will cause stress, a manic or bipolar depression can cause cardiac arrest.
Would you consider that cruel and unusual punishment?
You mentioned that your father was in the military; ask him what boot camp was like; or better if you have friends who severed in the Navy at sea. Sailors often refer to shore leave as parole. Living on a ship for six to nine months; surrounded by gray steel, with open bunks, and no privacy is probably very close to prison. You probably don’t think of Sailors of having PTSD; but living like that enough cause.
I am all in favour of Corporal Punishment; I think prisoners should labour during their imprisonment; i.e. work details and road crews. I’m in favour of Capital Punishment. I’d rather my tax dollars pay the .34 cents to kill a murderer; than to pay $88,000 to house them for life; and I think it is far more human.
Let me start with the Kennedy assassination; because it’s very simple.
ReplyDeleteI didn’t imply that one or another group was specifically to blame for the JFK assassination. My remarks about Hoover and the FBI are spot on; that in of itself had nothing to do with JFK assassination, and I’ll stick to what I wrote.
What is absurd is to think that Oswald had the ability to assassinate JFK by himself.
It’s completely absurd to believe that anyone could make the shot with the weapon claimed to be the assassin’s weapon; and part of the evidence concluded that several sharp shooters could not make the shot from the position of the depository.
With the evidence that we did see; the video footage we have seen a thousand times; clearly shows Kennedy slumping forward caused by what they say was the first shot. When Kennedy slumps forward, and if it was caused by being shot; then it is conducive to being shot in the chest area and hit from the front, the grassy knoll, perhaps.
The video clearly shows JFK being hit in the head from the front, and if you had any experience with weapons, or understand kinetic energy; then you would know that Kennedy was shot from the front; causing his head to rock back and to the left.
It’s absurd to believe otherwise. I suppose you believe in the magic bullet theory?
Now, I have accounted for three shots, at least two hit Kennedy from the front, and the third killed that poor bastard sit in the front.
You say that our country would have to be destabilized to constitute treason. Well, we were not at war with anyone prior to the Kennedy assassination; though there was that little thing with the Cubans and some missiles; and of course the little thing called the Bay of Pigs. Who would think that CIA trained conscripts would hold a grudge? Well, they did hold a grudge; they acted immediately.
I remember shortly after JFK’s assassination the U.S. was hurled into war with a country we were not at war with; a country no one ever heard of, and didn’t know that the CIA had started operations within their borders years prior; the draft was enacted at a time we were not at war with any other country; but of course we were warring against them anyway. We amass over four million troops; Industrial warfare was off the hook. The first time the world had ever heard of the expression a billion is when suddenly we had over a billion dollar budget; civil unrest across the country, protest turned into riots, massive constitutional violations, but I guessing you would say that the hippies violated the rights of the riot squads. National Guardsmen shooting students at Kent State; Domestic terrorism rose to new heights. I mean the KKK, Black Panthers… etc. You don’t think that the U.S. was destabilized? Drugs were flowing into the country from everywhere, stock market crashed a few times, inflation consumed our nation. Were you born in the nineties?
No one thinks the Mafia killed Kennedy; the mention of the Mafia as a possibility was nothing more than disinformation, and quickly disregarded by everyone.
I don’t think many thought the FBI had anything to do with JFK’s assassination; thought Hoover was a mad man. Most of the evidence we have seen clearly points to the CIA’s Army, and they had more reason to kill JFK than anyone.
ReplyDeleteAs far as Hoover, and the surveillance; you should read our laws; and learn to connect the dots between the U.S.C. and the Constitution. You keep gripping about what I said, but you misquote me; then turn back to the Constitution as to what it says or doesn’t say. To be secure in your person, papers, and effects; is to be free from invasion of privacy. Surveillance of U.S. citizens without Probably Cause; or to secured warrant with fabricated evidence, or by perjury under oath and affidavit; these are felony acts. Hoover had the FBI doing this all the time; the FBI does it all the time.
I’m going to put it rest for now, but I’ll get back to you on your 12 conspiracy theories. I didn’t know there were that many stories. I never heard of the Israeli theory; but I can see that as being the first words out of Palestinian’s or Hezbollah’s mouth.
I was at the Pentagon on 9 September 2001; the Pentagon wasn’t hit by a plane.