danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #41
There must be if it can be cited in a State Constitution and that supreme law of the land of a State.In looking very closely at the framing documents to derive constitutional intent, something required for all amendments from an Article V convention, I came to a conclusion that is very reasonable. The Declaration of Independence defines unalienable rights of the people, and their right to alter or abolish government destructive to those rights. Article V is the codified intent of "alter or abolish".
If the framers intended for the people to alter or abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights, they intended for the people to be powerful enough to effectively do that. HOW, did the framers intend for the people to actually have that power? Only one answer came to mind. The framers intended for the people to be adequately unified to have the power of their numbers to alter or abolish.
What then, did the framers intend to serve the purpose of enabling such unity?
Only one answer came to mind. Freedom of speech.
This, logically is an extension of natural law which indicates that free speech must exist so people can share AND understand information vital to survival.
Today, obvious to anyone who has tried to share vital information, no sharing or understanding significant to inform the mass populations we have can be effected. Accordingly, the ultimate purpose of free speech is abridged, and basically has been since the First Amendment was written. The First Amendment does not define that free speech has any purpose. Good and bad speech are equal despite the fact that the Declaration of Independence defines that Life is a prime unalienable rich
Seems this could lead to a constitutional disaster, if it is not already upon us.
There is no such thing as an inalienable right. The concept is meaningless, and thus is interpreted to mean anything the user desires. It carries absolutely no legal impact and the Founders thought so much of the idea they mentioned it not a single time in the only document that mattered. If there was an inalienable right to life, then the death penalty would have been illegal since the founding of the nation.
The purpose of Article V is to set up a system by which the Constitution can be amended. It is not so the people can alter or abolish the government. The Constitution has absolutely no provisions to allow the people to do anything except through their elected officials. In short, Article V only allows the government to alter the government. As to the Founders opinion on the people doing that around the government, the only crime they actually defined in the Constitution was treason. I think that pretty much outlines their view. And if that doesn't do it for you, the first president to send armed troops against American citizens who decided they could go around the government was George Washington - who I think qualifies as one of the Founders.
It's been over 200 years since the ratification of the Constitution and people have been talking about disaster ever since. We're still here.