Freedom of Speech Has An Ultimate Legal, Constitutional Purpose

[Christophera]

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.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

hey chris,check your pm box.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

yeah I remember talking to someone a couple years ago about how corrupt our government is and he in fact mentioned everything you said i remember vividly cause you cant forget something like that so i know that in fact is indeed true. this guy really studied it in depth.

 

[Christophera]

yeah I remember talking to someone a couple years ago about how corrupt our government is and he in fact mentioned everything you said i remember vividly cause you cant forget something like that so i know that in fact is indeed true. this guy really studied it in depth.

Good! Glad to hear others have followed the same path of intent from the Declaration. It's pretty obvious after the fact. I almost felt like slapping myself for not getting to the point sooner. But there is a serious business of distraction and mal focus in politics that the partisan division machine works, and has worked, so its not surprising that so few have tracked it down to a deficiency relating to the defining the purpose of the right of free speech.

There is an issue where some tend to think the constitution only applies limits on what government can do or how they can regulate us by prohibitions.

But there are other perspectives that deserve occupying.

If indeed the purpose of free speech is to enable unity so Americans can alter or abolish government destructive to rights, and the supreme court gave corporations individual rights, then this has been indirectly violated.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

The court basically conducted a manipulation which consisted of a court reporter assuming something that was not a real decision.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 US394 (1886) was a matter brought before the United States Supreme Court which dealt with taxation of railroad properties. A headnote issued by the Court Reporter claimed to state the sense of the Court regarding the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as it applies to corporations, without the Court having actually made a decision or issued a written opinion on that issue.

Then the justices used it as if it was. At every turn we find authority confounding the American people with unreasonable collusions, then carrying on if it was all fully reasonable.

Clearly, we have the court doing the dirty work for the congress. Same with citizens united.

But what happened with corporate personhood, what was a bad situation with the press became far worse when accountability was even more difficult to attain because one had to sue a media corporation with a entire raft of attorneys working in an environment where friends of the corporations are buying lunch and dinner for the judges!

That led to a massive series of manipulations upon the people having to do with what information they had to use to evaluate their world. Slowly, after a couple of generations, all of that misleading became normal, and then dependency for Americans very thoughts was centered upon what these corporations wanted people to think.

WIth the advent of radio and television, this increased multifold. Then people like Edward Bernayes developed ways of subtly manipulating thinking or emotions with symbols which led to the field of semiotics. Since 1979 degrees in semiotics have been handed out to people who immediately went to work in advertising, public relations or for film and TV production companies as writers.

Things got so warped from the natural purpose of free speech, that it became a game for self aggrandizement, and survival, justice and rights were pretty much left out of the mix.

Sometimes I think that the doomsayers, the ones that are secretly hoping for disaster are really wanting something to force everyone to be real with their communications and cease with the BS that is corporate driven nonsense. Something that forces people to deal with one another honestly on a survival level.

Where you don't mislead or frivolously engage someone in conversation that is superfluous because your life depends on actual real communication that is meaningful.

Well, we have the chance to do that in the real world to arrest tyranny in its tracks and end its advance upon us simply by rejecting partisan politics as anything functional; yes, we might want to pay some attention to it and make better decisions in partisan issues with regard to what we've learned about constitutional intent, etc.; until politics can be focused upon principals by virtue of amendment ending the abridging of the purpose of free speech and we learn some of what is really going on.

I'd like to say the purpose is a double edged sword with both edges cutting for our interests, but it is really better than that, but triple edged swords don't work, so its like a trident.

One, we agree upon a natural law principal that reads like; freedom of speech assures information vital to survival is shared and understood. Two, that agreement is PRIME constitutional intent. Three, that prime constitutional intent happens to be capable of controlling our states activity at an Article V convention to amend the constitution.

But back to the prohibitions against government making a law abridging free speech. With regard to the powerful using their power to abridge the purpose of free speech, the government needs to disallow that, OR, the constitution it is bathed to protect can be destroyed eventually.

Basically, constitutionally, the government has a duty to keep systems of communication in place so the people can use them to unify so that at any time the government becomes destructive to unalienable rights, we are ready to alter or abolish before any real damage is done.

It sounds kind of communistic, but as long as very human principles that are fully in accord with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and capitalism is still allowed to do everything except create wars, usurp the constitution or cause planetary extinctions, we're okay.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The OP clearly has no idea what he's talking about, and succeeds in only exhibiting his ignorance; the premise of this thread is utter nonsense.

 

[heirtothewind]

The OP clearly has no idea what he's talking about, and succeeds in only exhibiting his ignorance; the premise of this thread is utter nonsense.

I, too, was perplexed as to what the thread is about.

 

[there4eyeM]

Count me confused as well.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

 

[heirtothewind]

Always very comical when someone attempts to sound erudite with abstractions.

 

[Christophera]

I guess all the posters listed at bottom lack intelligence and ability to articulate exactly what they do not understand when its all well explained. Of course it looks really bad to state you are against free speech having a purpose, so covert groups infiltrating forums pretend to understand.

Easier to pretend to be a part of an ignorant group to protect the masters working to impose tyranny. Kinda like hoping no one will understand because the group says they don't understand. A group assuming all lurkers are sheep and will move with the flock.

It used to be they tried to argue, but they always lost and exposed themselves in the process. Then I saw they would show up with some drive-by-posting and take unaccountable pot shots so they don't lose credibility trying to argue against the obvious. Depending instead on the social impetus applied with uniformity.

If I catch any of ya pretending you care about rights and freedom after this, I'm on your case.

heirtothewind
PratchettFan
there4eyeM
C_Clayton_Jones

 

[PratchettFan]

I guess all the posters listed at bottom lack intelligence and ability to articulate exactly what they do not understand when its all well explained. Of course it looks really bad to state you are against free speech having a purpose, so covert groups infiltrating forums pretend to understand.

Easier to pretend to be a part of an ignorant group to protect the masters working to impose tyranny. Kinda like hoping no one will understand because the group says they don't understand. A group assuming all lurkers are sheep and will move with the flock.

It used to be they tried to argue, but they always lost and exposed themselves in the process. Then I saw they would show up with some drive-by-posting and take unaccountable pot shots so they don't lose credibility trying to argue against the obvious. Depending instead on the social impetus applied with uniformity.

If I catch any of ya pretending you care about rights and freedom after this, I'm on your case.

heirtothewind
PratchettFan
there4eyeM
C_Clayton_Jones

I notice you responded to none of my points, just complained that others had the nerve to not agree with you. I care far more about rights and freedoms than you ever will, because for me they are real - not some fantasy excuse for you to have your own way. So be on my case. I am not bothered by children.

 

[heirtothewind]

I guess all the posters listed at bottom lack intelligence and ability to articulate exactly what they do not understand when its all well explained. Of course it looks really bad to state you are against free speech having a purpose, so covert groups infiltrating forums pretend to understand.

Easier to pretend to be a part of an ignorant group to protect the masters working to impose tyranny. Kinda like hoping no one will understand because the group says they don't understand. A group assuming all lurkers are sheep and will move with the flock.

It used to be they tried to argue, but they always lost and exposed themselves in the process. Then I saw they would show up with some drive-by-posting and take unaccountable pot shots so they don't lose credibility trying to argue against the obvious. Depending instead on the social impetus applied with uniformity.

If I catch any of ya pretending you care about rights and freedom after this, I'm on your case.

heirtothewind
PratchettFan
there4eyeM
C_Clayton_Jones

What the hell is the OP trying to say????

 

[Christophera]

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.

Your attempt at making a point is absurd. It is patently a wast of time to respond, but if you insist I will. You are arguing with the framers of the Declaration of Independence not me, I'm quoting them.

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.

This is about constitutional intent not law. The creation of the written laws were created in an adverse environment intended by loyalist Tories to sabotage the strength of the agreement. It worked to a degree and you are trying to exploit that. That is insincere IF you actually care about American rights and freedom. This is the reason I posted as I did.

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.

That is exactly what loyalist Tories would say and they are against American rights and freedoms. So are you. Accordingly your presence here is promoting treason amongst Americans by encouraging their dysfunction at defending the intents of the constitution.

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.

Lincoln, 1859, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts, not to overthrow the constitution but to overthrow the men that would pervert the constitution".

You are attempting to pervert the intents of the constitution. Than God you have no official position.

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.

If government goes around the constitution, then the people are empowered to use the constitution to stop them lawfully. What Washington did was stop something unlawful.

 

[Christophera]

This forum software is a POS. There is so much advertising on the site it is very glitchy and I just posted something that cannot be read because it cannot be seen. WTF?

Where are my comments to PratchettFan's statements? Go back to the old software, this software is garbage.

I try to quote a post, and the last post I tried to quoted is what I get instead of the post I tried to quote. This software is junk.

No wonder josf doesn't use quotes.

 

[Christophera]

What the hell is the OP trying to say????

That you are pretending to be clueless. Read the OP, it makes sense. Or read my reply to ratchett, if you can see it.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Your attempt at making a point is absurd. It is patently a wast of time to respond, but if you insist I will. You are arguing with the framers of the Declaration of Independence not me, I'm quoting them.

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.

This is about constitutional intent not law. The creation of the written laws were created in an adverse environment intended by loyalist Tories to sabotage the strength of the agreement. It worked to a degree and you are trying to exploit that. That is insincere IF you actually care about American rights and freedom. This is the reason I posted as I did.

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.

That is exactly what loyalist Tories would say and they are against American rights and freedoms. So are you. Accordingly your presence here is promoting treason amongst Americans by encouraging their dysfunction at defending the intents of the constitution.

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.

Lincoln, 1859, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts, not to overthrow the constitution but to overthrow the men that would pervert the constitution".

You are attempting to pervert the intents of the constitution. Than God you have no official position.

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.

If government goes around the constitution, then the people are empowered to use the constitution to stop them lawfully. What Washington did was stop something unlawful.

I think our basic contention can be broken down to a single quote from your response, "This is about constitutional intent not law." You are free to talk about what the intent was, but the only thing that matters is law. I think your position on the intent of the Founders is wildly inaccurate, but that doesn't matter a whit because the only thing that does matter is law.

As to inalienable rights... The term "inalienable" means something which cannot be separated from you. It can be neither taken away nor given away. An inalienable right is a very pretty phrase, but it is meaningless. Which is why you find it only in the DOI, a document which was intended to rally people to arms and was never intended as a framework for a government. It specifically refers to the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The third item really means nothing as I can flay you alive while roasting you over a slow fire and you are still free to pursue happiness - you just won't catch it. As to the others, in every state you will find facilities whose entire purpose is to deprive people of their liberty and, in many cases, their lives. They are called prisons. If you actually believe that life and liberty are inalienable rights then you would believe the only punishment for first degree murder would be a hefty fine. Is that what you believe?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

Not surprisingly, what the country started as, and what it became are two vastly different things. Yes, the framers of the Constitution wanted the People able to overthrow a corrupted US government. But in the few centuries since that, the government's diversified itself throughout its' borders making that impossible. And it's worth asking whether the US government is actually in charge any more anyway. Business seems inexoribly mingled up with government and to be the man behind the curtain. Think government is little more than a scapegoat now, and business is who's really in charge of things. So attempting to overthrow the government wont actually do anything because the real problem remains to reassociate itself with whatever rises from government ashes.

 

[Christophera]

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.

Your attempt at making a point is absurd. It is patently a wast of time to respond, but if you insist I will. You are arguing with the framers of the Declaration of Independence not me, I'm quoting them.

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.

This is about constitutional intent not law. The creation of the written laws were created in an adverse environment intended by loyalist Tories to sabotage the strength of the agreement. It worked to a degree and you are trying to exploit that. That is insincere IF you actually care about American rights and freedom. This is the reason I posted as I did.

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.

That is exactly what loyalist Tories would say and they are against American rights and freedoms. So are you. Accordingly your presence here is promoting treason amongst Americans by encouraging their dysfunction at defending the intents of the constitution.

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.

Lincoln, 1859, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts, not to overthrow the constitution but to overthrow the men that would pervert the constitution".

You are attempting to pervert the intents of the constitution. Than God you have no official position.

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.

If government goes around the constitution, then the people are empowered to use the constitution to stop them lawfully. What Washington did was stop something unlawful.

I think our basic contention can be broken down to a single quote from your response, "This is about constitutional intent not law." You are free to talk about what the intent was, but the only thing that matters is law.

Uh, you missed the most important part of the law.

ARTICLE V
or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof,

This is OUR JOB, and we are the only ones that can do it rightfully. It is our natural law duty to future generations to do it well.

Where do you stand with that?

 

[Christophera]

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.

Not surprisingly, what the country started as, and what it became are two vastly different things. Yes, the framers of the Constitution wanted the People able to overthrow a corrupted US government. But in the few centuries since that, the government's diversified itself throughout its' borders making that impossible. And it's worth asking whether the US government is actually in charge any more anyway. Business seems inexoribly mingled up with government and to be the man behind the curtain. Think government is little more than a scapegoat now, and business is who's really in charge of things. So attempting to overthrow the government wont actually do anything because the real problem remains to reassociate itself with whatever rises from government ashes.

Very good post! Comprehensive to the many barriers placed before us to restore constitutional government.

True, the government is not really in charge. But, there are tens of thousands of government employees that believe that if the people rise up lawfully, they must recognize that over the puppets that are their bosses.

It is a matter of strategy in approaching their bosses, and letting them know who is master and why.

What I propose is not really an overthrow. It is a re programming. The main code that is supposed to be in charge, the constitution has been ignored after abandonment in 1871. There was a covert infiltration. COVERT is the key word. A nation like this must be taken over in the open.

My point is that many people still support the 1787 constitution despite the fact that the government covertly abandoned it. This make the control over the government OURS, if we UNIFY to amend the program to give ourselves more and more unity.

The purpose of free speech will do that if we can see it manifested.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Your attempt at making a point is absurd. It is patently a wast of time to respond, but if you insist I will. You are arguing with the framers of the Declaration of Independence not me, I'm quoting them.

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.

This is about constitutional intent not law. The creation of the written laws were created in an adverse environment intended by loyalist Tories to sabotage the strength of the agreement. It worked to a degree and you are trying to exploit that. That is insincere IF you actually care about American rights and freedom. This is the reason I posted as I did.

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.

That is exactly what loyalist Tories would say and they are against American rights and freedoms. So are you. Accordingly your presence here is promoting treason amongst Americans by encouraging their dysfunction at defending the intents of the constitution.

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.

Lincoln, 1859, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts, not to overthrow the constitution but to overthrow the men that would pervert the constitution".

You are attempting to pervert the intents of the constitution. Than God you have no official position.

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.

If government goes around the constitution, then the people are empowered to use the constitution to stop them lawfully. What Washington did was stop something unlawful.

I think our basic contention can be broken down to a single quote from your response, "This is about constitutional intent not law." You are free to talk about what the intent was, but the only thing that matters is law. I think your position on the intent of the Founders is wildly inaccurate, but that doesn't matter a whit because the only thing that does matter is law.

As to inalienable rights... The term "inalienable" means something which cannot be separated from you. It can be neither taken away nor given away. An inalienable right is a very pretty phrase, but it is meaningless. Which is why you find it only in the DOI, a document which was intended to rally people to arms and was never intended as a framework for a government. It specifically refers to the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The third item really means nothing as I can flay you alive while roasting you over a slow fire and you are still free to pursue happiness - you just won't catch it. As to the others, in every state you will find facilities whose entire purpose is to deprive people of their liberty and, in many cases, their lives. They are called prisons. If you actually believe that life and liberty are inalienable rights then you would believe the only punishment for first degree murder would be a hefty fine. Is that what you believe?

Your first paragraph is correct, the second, not – or at least not entirely accurate.

Our rights are indeed inalienable but not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

One's liberty or life cannot be taken by government without first affording him his inalienable right to due process of the law.

As you note in your first paragraph the only thing that matters is the law, which is correct; where the law determines the extent of one's inalienable rights on the one hand, and places limits on government with regard to restricting one's inalienable rights on the other.