United States Fourth Continental Congress

$ecular#eckler

Platinum Member
Jan 13, 2020
4,190
2,550
938
Transient
The United States Fourth Continental Congress (US4CC) will probably be the designation for the inevitable venue that orders the succeeding charter to the subsisting United States Constitution that was composed in 1787 by the legendary Philadelphia Convention, which for convenience for chronological placement is referred to as the Third Continental Congress (US3CC). The Second Continental Congress (US2CC, 1775-81) was responsible for the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation, which was designed for the Revolutionary War, and inevitably inadequate for the peacetime start-up of a commerce union that the United States was destined to become. The (First) Continental Congress (US1CC, 1774) was responsible for the initial negotiations with the British King concerning the infamous Intolerable Acts - the King ignored the grievances, and that prompted the organization of the Second Continental Congress.

Like the previous Continental Congresses the US4CC process will not happen overnight, and will most likely transpire over several years, because deliberating a more detailed and efficient charter that meets the expectations of modern sophistication will require tremendous comprehensive deliberation of details. It would not be improper to compare the process to that of the American engineering feats of the Panama Canal, the Manhattan Project, and the Apollo Program - we are going to be deliberate, and ultimately, get it right through the process of “trial and error.” Although, it will be impossible to follow every delegate and record their casual and private conversations that may influence their participation, the actual building of the charters will not be held in secret, and hopefully, explanations for terminology and directives will be presented for all to review. C-SPAN will probably be responsible for the general recording and broadcast of the committee and litigation sessions. Commercial reporting outlets will probably be allowed to record and broadcast equally (in compliance with any local regulations), but are not commissioned like C-SPAN will. Be aware that commercial reporters are free to preemption sessions, censor, and generate falsehoods about the convention to appease their commercial interests. And be aware that the convention sessions are going to be exercising legal terms that will be unfamiliar, tedious, or otherwise boring for the average citizen to observe and comprehend. Although, Joe the plumber is welcome to contribute ideas, more than likely, most of the contributions will come from skilled legal practitioners, scholars, and corporate directors.

Although, it is possible to start with the federal convention to generate and issue a charter format for the states to exercise; most likely, the federal convention will be preceded by municipal and then state conventions in an effort to graduate charter formatting, and various other aspects, including speeches by citizens concerning the various aspects. Every citizen will be provided an opportunity to contribute constructive ideas to their constituent municipal conventions, and the best ideas will be graduated to the constituent state conventions, and possibly introduced at the federal convention. The idea is to ensure that ideas are tested at the local district before being campaigned to the broader district.

Just like the process for the subsisting Constitution, the Fourth Continental Congress will ultimately be followed by a state ratification process that will determine state membership into the reorganized federal government. And just like the commencement in 1789, the state ratification process will be followed by a national inauguration assembly that will most likely take place again in New York City; which would be very convenient, because it allows for the commencement of a charter parade on a very famous route that will be the longest parade the world has ever seen - a wonderful experience for all. Expect plenty of fanfare, feasts, and fireworks to compliment the parading of the state charters accompanied by the global parading of the succeeding United States Constitution - the biggest party the world has ever had.

The peaceful and orderly revolution will be televised. The process will be broadcast around the world to reveal how it is that the United States is the innovative lead in the approach to world peace. The charter system that will be constructed in the convention series will fulfill the expectations for the Nobel Peace Prize that was awarded to President Barack Obama.

Copyright Ronald Martin
 
Last edited:
From the legends in American culture it is carelessly forgiven that the United States Constitution is not perfect, which is what is foretold by the anecdote attributed to George Washington upon commencement of the Third Continental Congress to deliberate the Constitution.

Let us raise a standard to which the wise and the honest can repair; the event is in the hand of God.
- George Washington, Philadelphia, 1787

The United States Constitution, and subsequent state and municipal charters, are all flawed, because even the best and noblest of statesmen did not have all of the information concerning government organization, nor the textual notation formatting technology, necessary for ordering more reliable charters. Although, the subsisting charter system has adequately served the start-up of the Republic it is inadequate for the tremendously more diverse and relatively more integrated and sophisticated population that the society has evolved to.

The founders, and subsequent generations, have only had one simple formula to work with, and it is mistakenly used to formulate separate "branches," where as, what it actually describes are the three phases for processing law, which would then be the subdivisions of the proper branches. The proper branches of government are supposed to be demarcated by the main partitions of civil law: sovereignty, martial, diplomacy, commerce, trust, and property law. The founders were probably unable to determine the main partitions, and they were definitely unable to organize the proper separation, because of the stricter qualification standards that such specifications would prescribe - they just did not have the information revealed to determine the peer groups, nor the sophisticated manpower available to recruit, during the founding eras of the nation and adjoining states.

315M35kukbJ2It4zgpttygDFR6NzGleJeVliC5Fpo5CT7zq8NWmZNZwHc8YV1eIPUhkVSgLqKMwuUgwvEzSG4uOHx2Aq9AsG1fwvU3JQylX0SCqrCs287x4DpGNWV9Enn-8byvzRmWXIvG3P96RIU9Ud6sSUyphY5x82jENWRcCx_f1W-ITBjP4LGNUr7S13Tk5G80sUgJrfOKgPVuUQPHE463tjOLu6tK0lJD3rcEbSfw-ThgkjA9wUsz7W47c0-gwM9cWLN_V5T8E3v0LZ6U4xYxTAc-nC26Bj5SD0W9OhiJtByZ77N4ZozihDS49PHhy4HZ6JqpLL8AmczokD5cYaILKDjDqRoDbAMtIb0SXp9JWX4F5xxEWvDe3hsEqwajHz8hbI52FC8hJkPRT_nlVkUPKIotNKdznrASYiHYukK0WCpboBi_3XuSQ4ZhNur9IMJNBvnZ-0v9ier52xS0FGLE-awZLkVVYLaBIcby-BKrNzzGNAmzwaOQ2h8zd_uKZk6aFKYJ7E8zF92sUlsX5Ol_Rippeoek7LzbGFcsuXMtNhWkTPeHjSQcur5o3xxTmC03IT1oAHRsih_Li0Z3KVclrn9QTk2titHuI1yEiqD9ERINGHSNmhR2UtJnS3NAp3e_xWBurgUAF9Aq3aUjh53Xb2EQxWgDZ4oIvbjK18o1B3mn_JuEmSg1tg9aBbGz8iY2yJDuT5kfiFIsfQsOWV1wop8o8hLyvNNgdbTBnfjy0h=w698-h388-no


Copyright Ronald Martin
 
Last edited:
If the "grievance industry," especially the Black American activists continued claim that there are systemic biases in the system, then you can be certain that a constitutional convention will be commissioned to eliminate the grievance.

If the Democrats continue their witch hunt and advance the Senate trial for President Trump's impeachment, then there is a good chance that the Democrats' corruption schemes will be revealed, and what we were spared by President Nixon's resignation will not be avoided again - the government is irreversible corrupt and needs to be reordered, and trump is well aware of that.
 
I am not arguing that the American government is inferior to any government in existence or retired, but that there is a better form of government to be constructed to serve more accurate justice, and guide towards world peace. And I am not arguing that the Preamble of the 1787 Constitution is faulty and needs to be repealed. To the contrary I am arguing that the 1787 Preamble is a noble and just mission and should be recommissioned. The problem is that the directive systems for the government operations are flawed, and skew the approach to domestic tranquility, which is a “benchmark” provided in the preamble for evaluating the government operations.
Just because the preamble describes a noble mission, that does not mean that the government operations are conductive to that noble cause.
Most likely, it will be the honest law practitioners who will recognize the inadequacies and corrective adjustments described in this publication. And it will be them, the sober and practical minded municipal police officers, judges, lawyers, doctors, scientists, and engineers, who will lead campaigns for municipal, state, and the federal charter conventions to safeguard the honor of their careers in light of the emerging better government theory.
 
Government is only as good as the folks that make up the bureaucracy and those who are influenced by the stake holders.

The foundation for the one we have is perfectly fine.

It is the corruption that has crept in that is the problem.

If the folks in it, the judges, the lawyers, and the system itself had not been corrupted, it would do it's job just fine.

You can't legislate morality.
 
Last edited:
Government is only as good as the folks that make up the bureaucracy and those who are influenced by the stake holders.

The foundation for the one we have is perfectly fine.

It is the corruption that has crept in that is the problem.

If the folks in it, the judges, the lawyers, and the system itself had not been corrupted, it would do it's job just fine.

You can't legislate morality.
That's what a checks and balances is supposed to do, but the system is not divided up correctly to do such. In essence, more divisions means a more sophisticated system of checks and balances that prevent the inadequacies that are exploited in corruption.
 
Government is only as good as the folks that make up the bureaucracy and those who are influenced by the stake holders.

The foundation for the one we have is perfectly fine.

It is the corruption that has crept in that is the problem.

If the folks in it, the judges, the lawyers, and the system itself had not been corrupted, it would do it's job just fine.

You can't legislate morality.
That's what a checks and balances is supposed to do, but the system is not divided up correctly to do such. In essence, more divisions means a more sophisticated system of checks and balances that prevent the inadequacies that are exploited in corruption.
More divisions mean even more gridlock.
 
No. You do not understand proper divisioning of the government. Nor the sophisticated checks and balances that would be subsequent. You are not even inquiring to understand the divisioning. You're are just throwing shit at the wall.
 
An interesting article was presented to me by very smart and intelligent member of the United States Message Boards: States Likely Could Not Control Constitutional Convention on Balanced Budget Amendment or Other Issues

A convention could write its own rules. The Constitution provides no guidance whatsoever on the ground rules for a convention. This leaves wide open to political considerations and pressures such fundamental questions as how the delegates would be chosen, how many delegates each state would have, and whether a supermajority vote would be required to approve amendments. To illustrate the importance of these issues, consider that if every state had one vote in the convention and the convention could approve amendments with a simple majority vote, the 26 least populous states — which contain less than 18 percent of the nation’s people — could approve an amendment for ratification.
You are damn straight. No SHIT, Sherlock - you figured that out all by yourself?!?!?! :eusa_dance:
:clap:
A convention will have to write it's own rules - there is no way around it. Like the article says, the 1787 Constitution does not have any rues for a convention, nor does it have any rues for the subsisting legislatures. A convention will not start until the convention (leader) writes the rules for public review and people agree to proceed in accordance with the rules - what's so scary about that??? What is that you are afraid is going to happen??? Are you afraid that there is going to be some magical force of evil doing the rules that somehow causes unwitting, but otherwise good, people who are somehow influenced by the magical forces to write the subsequent rules for the government in accordance with the spell that was set by the magical force of evil. Why doesn't the magical force just write the rules for the government organization (constitution), and then just present it for the national referendum???

You have this messed-up circular logic going on in your heads.

The average person's problem is they do not know how to write a directive system of rules. The rules for Candy Land are magical to them. How did a person figure-out the rules??? They cannot figure it out. Different people have different talents and skills. Lawyers who write contracts for athletes and celebritards know how to write directive systems, as do some corporate directors - very few people know how to write rules for anything - it is a difficult task.

The next constitutional convention will have rules, and the rules will be a trial run of the legislative rules of the anticipated government - it will not be like the legends of the 1787 Philadelphia Convention that is set in every peon citizen, politician, and judicial supervisors' minds.

Ultimately, what you are all not comprehending, is that the person who does write the rules that gathers people to write the directive systems for organizing the succeeding government, has basically written the succeeding constitution. And the composers of the 1787 Constitution realized that when they composed Article V.
 
Last edited:
A convention could set its own agenda, possibly influenced by powerful interest groups. The only constitutional convention in U.S. history, in 1787, went far beyond its mandate. Charged with amending the Articles of Confederation to promote trade among the states, the convention instead wrote an entirely new governing document. A convention held today could set its own agenda, too. There is no guarantee that a convention could be limited to a particular set of issues, such as those related to balancing the federal budget.
This is a straw man argument based on the assumption that somehow a convention will commence without rules. :auiqs.jpg:
Not if the rules are written in a manner that limit the agenda and favor legal scholars to participate in the composing process. As it is now, we know that the legislators are influenced by special interests by their contributions to the legislators favored charitable organizations - it is a scam due to the inadequacies of the centuries old organization of government.
 
Last edited:
A convention could choose a new ratification process. The 1787 convention ignored the ratification process under which it was established and created a new process, lowering the number of states needed to approve the new Constitution and removing Congress from the approval process. The states then ignored the pre-existing ratification procedures and adopted the Constitution under the new ratification procedures that the convention proposed. Given these facts, it would be unwise to assume that ratification of the convention’s proposals would necessarily require the approval of 38 states, as the Constitution currently specifies. For example, a convention might remove the states from the approval process entirely and propose a national referendum instead. Or it could follow the example of the 1787 convention and lower the required fraction of the states needed to approve its proposals from three-quarters to two-thirds.
Another straw man argument based on the assumption that there are no rules, because the rules will include a complete process of electing convention delegates, directive system litigation trials, validation of the charter candidate, referendum ratification of the validated charter, and then inauguration adoption procedures. Think you are ready to read all of that?

See how the brilliant legal scholars are fear mongering you, because they do not know how to write the rules, because they do not have the inherent talent.

That is true. And basically, my idea of a national convention is one that follows the state conventions for reorganizing their governments first, then the federal government. But it can be done the other way around. The key is there is a new formula for dividing the government that I am proposing, and the convention series is a test run of the legislative process.

It is scientifically beautiful.
 
Last edited:
No other body, including the courts, has clear authority over a convention. The Constitution provides for no authority above that of a constitutional convention, so it is not clear that the courts — or any other institution — could intervene if a convention did not limit itself to the language of the state resolutions calling for a convention.
Not according to my rules. My rules suggest that the state and federal courts are the authority for reordering the constituent charters. I am way ahead of the brilliant legal scholars. It is a real shame that none of them could consider the possibility of using the courts to regulate the process in accordance with the rules published for the public before the procedure can get started.

It is Constitutional dogma that keeps them in a box of silliness.
 
I don't believe we could do a better (Constitution) today.
It appears that most people are just like you. Although, the evolution of technology has advanced horse drawn carriages to automobiles, dreams about flying through the air have been met and surpassed by rockets with payloads that landed men on the Moon. Sea going ships are now made of steel and launch and recover flying machines and fire cannon balls the size of powder kegs. Ice houses have been replaced with refrigeration machines, and simple to use ice cubes are readily available on demand. Food is readily available 24 hours a day, hot or cold, in a bag and ready to go. Beer and whiskey is just as available, and comes in easy to open containers. Tobacco can be purchased in packs of 20 mini-cigars ready to smoke, and can be lit by fire pens that can be stored in a person's pocket. Pictures of people and things can be produced in an instant, and people can talk to and see other people around the world at any time they want. Buildings can be constructed thousands of feet high made of steel and glass, a hundred floors with elevators and running water and flushing toilets; and Benjamin Franklin's electricity lights the rooms, and heats and cools the busy worker-bees. Pen and paper, that the founders had to use to write the almighty United States Constitution has been replaced by desk machines that can automatically correct spelling errors and allow for the effortless rearrangement of articles and sections without having to rewrite the entire draft, but there is no way we can make government any more efficient and more responsive than what the brilliant racist slave-owners composed in 1787.

Black people get paid millions of dollars, more than most white men, to play athletic games never imagined in the first hundred years of the founding of the American civilization. Black people and white women can vote for politicians who exploit the inadequacies of the checks and balances, just like the unwitting racist white men. Homosexuals walk gaily through the streets, night and day. There are Asians, Africans, Hispanics, and freaky people living in America producing some of the greatest art the world has ever known. But there is no need to have a Constitutional convention that gathers the diversity of people that the founders and subsequent generations could not gather, because the system is perfect - everybody is happy, or they just don’t understand how it supposed to work . . .
Our Founding Fathers did a most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. It is not ambiguous or vague in any way.
The Amendments prove you wrong. The founders would disagree with you on everything else. If they had the telephone, they would have made a network of the state legislatures for the senate, and a network of the municipal councils for the House - any fucking idiot should be able to see that.

Just can't be done, because . . . the erroneous three-part separation model keeps everyone's ideas about government organization and decision making in the proverbial box. :auiqs.jpg:
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top