Christophera
Evidence & Reason Rule
Bridging the gap in understanding HOW Article V, functionally is, or can be equal to "alter or abolish" of the Declaration of Independence that came before.
Firstly, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" in the codified version of "alter or abolish" found in Article V because the people have defined constitutional intent and use that to control the states.
The people are the only entity that can define constitutional intent.
If the states to not recognize the constitutional intent the people have defined and agree upon, then the people are deprived of their right to alter or abolish.
This is why a significant sized group of citizens can descend upon a state Capitol and rightfully demand state legislators agree and accept the constitutional intent they have defined. If said legislators refuse to recognize and accept the defined constitutional intent, then they have denied the people their right to alter or abolish because the state cannot assure its capability to know constitutional intent of proposed amendments at an Article V convention.
This is the logic that must be presented to state legislators and if they cannot agree and accept it, the people presenting can rightfully demand the impeachment of legislators OR a vote in the state upon the specific intents for the federal constitution they have defined.
Those prime intents of the constitution are to empower the right to alter or abolish and enable the unity required to do that with the ultimate purpose of free speech as a duty of government.
When the people of the state are presented the specific options for constitutional intent the activists for Article V define to effect the action of altering or abolishing through the state, and the people confirm by a general vote, then all legislators that do not agree and accept the defined constitutional intent, must step down or their peers have the duty to impeach them. This, in intent, extends back to the Magna Carta.
If this does not occur, the entire peoples of the state are deprived of their right to alter or abolish.
Accordingly, when proper, prime constitutional intent IS defined and presented to state legislators, the truly constitutional amongst them WILL know it and relent. They will agree and accept it and show this by demanding their peers do the same or face impeachment.
If this process is denied, the people are denied the lawful and peaceful revolution which is defined and guaranteed by the terms "alter or abolish" of the Declaration of Independence and violent revolution is thereby justified to defend and enforce the constitution.
However, if the people faithfully execute the lawful process, the tyrants and despots that have infiltrated the governmental systems will then know that the people are right, for they too are people, human beings; wherein they will relent with their imposition of tyranny and allow the law of the land to prevail.
A safeguard from the possibility of a violent revolution, securing the elite obedience to natural law, is the fact that law enforcement and the military will be witnessing the peoples effort to create a lawful and peaceful revolution under law. Law enforcement and the military are very much "of the people" and their families or heirs depend on constitutional rights as much as anyone for long, fruitful and happy lives. They will stand with the people against tyranny IF the people properly agree and work faithfully to impose that agreement upon officials of government.
They will do this for the good of their souls and that of their heirs. This will be done as it was before, 800 years ago.
Excerpt of the Magna Carta:
Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our own soul, and of the souls of all our ancestors, and of our heirs, to the honour of God,
Firstly, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" in the codified version of "alter or abolish" found in Article V because the people have defined constitutional intent and use that to control the states.
The people are the only entity that can define constitutional intent.
If the states to not recognize the constitutional intent the people have defined and agree upon, then the people are deprived of their right to alter or abolish.
This is why a significant sized group of citizens can descend upon a state Capitol and rightfully demand state legislators agree and accept the constitutional intent they have defined. If said legislators refuse to recognize and accept the defined constitutional intent, then they have denied the people their right to alter or abolish because the state cannot assure its capability to know constitutional intent of proposed amendments at an Article V convention.
This is the logic that must be presented to state legislators and if they cannot agree and accept it, the people presenting can rightfully demand the impeachment of legislators OR a vote in the state upon the specific intents for the federal constitution they have defined.
Those prime intents of the constitution are to empower the right to alter or abolish and enable the unity required to do that with the ultimate purpose of free speech as a duty of government.
When the people of the state are presented the specific options for constitutional intent the activists for Article V define to effect the action of altering or abolishing through the state, and the people confirm by a general vote, then all legislators that do not agree and accept the defined constitutional intent, must step down or their peers have the duty to impeach them. This, in intent, extends back to the Magna Carta.
If this does not occur, the entire peoples of the state are deprived of their right to alter or abolish.
Accordingly, when proper, prime constitutional intent IS defined and presented to state legislators, the truly constitutional amongst them WILL know it and relent. They will agree and accept it and show this by demanding their peers do the same or face impeachment.
If this process is denied, the people are denied the lawful and peaceful revolution which is defined and guaranteed by the terms "alter or abolish" of the Declaration of Independence and violent revolution is thereby justified to defend and enforce the constitution.
However, if the people faithfully execute the lawful process, the tyrants and despots that have infiltrated the governmental systems will then know that the people are right, for they too are people, human beings; wherein they will relent with their imposition of tyranny and allow the law of the land to prevail.
A safeguard from the possibility of a violent revolution, securing the elite obedience to natural law, is the fact that law enforcement and the military will be witnessing the peoples effort to create a lawful and peaceful revolution under law. Law enforcement and the military are very much "of the people" and their families or heirs depend on constitutional rights as much as anyone for long, fruitful and happy lives. They will stand with the people against tyranny IF the people properly agree and work faithfully to impose that agreement upon officials of government.
They will do this for the good of their souls and that of their heirs. This will be done as it was before, 800 years ago.
Excerpt of the Magna Carta:
Know ye, that we, in the presence of God, and for the salvation of our own soul, and of the souls of all our ancestors, and of our heirs, to the honour of God,
Last edited: