Freedom of Speech Has An Ultimate Legal, Constitutional Purpose

[C_Clayton_Jones]

CHRISTOPHERA SAID:

"My point is that many people still support the 1787 constitution despite the fact that the government covertly abandoned it."

Your point is ridiculous, as 'the government' hasn't 'abandoned' the Constitution.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

As are you.

 

[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. 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.

It is entirely accurate that "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts", which means they are the only entities that can create the basis of law. In the case of Article V they must be unified to assure constitutional intent.

Restriction of unalienable rights cannot really begin because that may continue into destruction without accountability IF the people are not unified adequately to alter or abolish effectively if destruction of rights occurs.

What appears to have happened is that restriction has been applied without the people being unified.

However, if the people are adequately unified then they can authorize restrictions if they are really needed, and they are the ones that can properly authorize restrictions.

In the case of a government that has intentionally made a population ignorant so they might appear to need restrictions is unjust, immoral and unethical.

The dilemma returns to the original deficiencies created by the sabotage of the framing documents coming back to haunt the infiltration attempting to impose tyranny on a people that inherently believe they are free. In this case not aware of the tyrannical preparations for dominance manipulations over generations attempting to degrade a people to a point where they need restrictions imposed.

 

[Christophera]

CHRISTOPHERA SAID:

"My point is that many people still support the 1787 constitution despite the fact that the government covertly abandoned it."

Your point is ridiculous, as 'the government' hasn't 'abandoned' the Constitution.

That is what it says, because anything else would awaken the masses, and that they always work to avoid; but its actions over and over again violate the intent of the 1787 constitution. The statutes of 1871 bypass it.

The fact that the Admiralty flag flies in all official places is an overt sign of the dominance of the infiltrating force bypassing the 1787 constitution. The civil courts are a joke and common law is no longer recognized.

A ludicrous example is the reliance upon precedent recorded supposedly to create consistency in court decisions referring to the past. In reality it is a slow twisting and bending of statute laws into decisions that are lawless and only reflect the designs of corrupt judges working with lawyers who are more corrupt.

GATT and NAFTA are outright treason that has crippled the nations economy and robbed a generation of the parents work building vital industries. Such industries were shipped off to foreign nations where no environmental controls and labor law could increase corporate profits to a maximum at the cost of vital elements shared by the people of the world and some victim population sold out by their own business people colluding with American multinational corporations.

In California the governor was sued by a Canadian company, methane, for banning MTBE which destroys waters ability to hold oxygen. His effort to defined his actions using US law and California law were rejected by the military tribunal court given authority over US law and state law under NAFTA. Obscene, criminality and treason.

To get into the wars, and why America invested in them, is far more than is needed.

 

[natstew]

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.

Our resident moron has spoken again

 

[Christophera]

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.

Our resident moron has spoken again

The fact that there is no quoted specific "nonsense" OR "ignorance", as "labeled", a cognitive distortion, "all or nothing thinking" and "over generalization"; which disables critical thinking; indicates you are correct.

 

[RandallFlagg]

CHRISTOPHERA SAID:

"My point is that many people still support the 1787 constitution despite the fact that the government covertly abandoned it."

Your point is ridiculous, as 'the government' hasn't 'abandoned' the Constitution.

That is what it says, because anything else would awaken the masses, and that they always work to avoid; but its actions over and over again violate the intent of the 1787 constitution. The statutes of 1871 bypass it.

The fact that the Admiralty flag flies in all official places is an overt sign of the dominance of the infiltrating force bypassing the 1787 constitution. The civil courts are a joke and common law is no longer recognized.

A ludicrous example is the reliance upon precedent recorded supposedly to create consistency in court decisions referring to the past. In reality it is a slow twisting and bending of statute laws into decisions that are lawless and only reflect the designs of corrupt judges working with lawyers who are more corrupt.

GATT and NAFTA are outright treason that has crippled the nations economy and robbed a generation of the parents work building vital industries. Such industries were shipped off to foreign nations where no environmental controls and labor law could increase corporate profits to a maximum at the cost of vital elements shared by the people of the world and some victim population sold out by their own business people colluding with American multinational corporations.

In California the governor was sued by a Canadian company, methane, for banning MTBE which destroys waters ability to hold oxygen. His effort to defined his actions using US law and California law were rejected by the military tribunal court given authority over US law and state law under NAFTA. Obscene, criminality and treason.

To get into the wars, and why America invested in them, is far more than is needed.

Indeed. Now, with Obama given fast-track authority, the Pacific Rim Treaty will finish our manufacturing base off - thus forcing millions more Americans onto the public dole.

The blame for this, besides Obama? Our own Congress.

 

[Christophera]

CHRISTOPHERA SAID:

"My point is that many people still support the 1787 constitution despite the fact that the government covertly abandoned it."

Your point is ridiculous, as 'the government' hasn't 'abandoned' the Constitution.

That is what it says, because anything else would awaken the masses, and that they always work to avoid; but its actions over and over again violate the intent of the 1787 constitution. The statutes of 1871 bypass it.

The fact that the Admiralty flag flies in all official places is an overt sign of the dominance of the infiltrating force bypassing the 1787 constitution. The civil courts are a joke and common law is no longer recognized.

A ludicrous example is the reliance upon precedent recorded supposedly to create consistency in court decisions referring to the past. In reality it is a slow twisting and bending of statute laws into decisions that are lawless and only reflect the designs of corrupt judges working with lawyers who are more corrupt.

GATT and NAFTA are outright treason that has crippled the nations economy and robbed a generation of the parents work building vital industries. Such industries were shipped off to foreign nations where no environmental controls and labor law could increase corporate profits to a maximum at the cost of vital elements shared by the people of the world and some victim population sold out by their own business people colluding with American multinational corporations.

In California the governor was sued by a Canadian company, methane, for banning MTBE which destroys waters ability to hold oxygen. His effort to defined his actions using US law and California law were rejected by the military tribunal court given authority over US law and state law under NAFTA. Obscene, criminality and treason.

To get into the wars, and why America invested in them, is far more than is needed.

Indeed. Now, with Obama given fast-track authority, the Pacific Rim Treaty will finish our manufacturing base off - thus forcing millions more Americans onto the public dole.

The blame for this, besides Obama? Our own Congress.

Absolutely correct, treason by BO and the congress, and more reason to energetically drop partisan politics except for crisis management and increase the engagement of a lawful and peaceful revolution.

CDZ - A Lawful And Peaceful Revolution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Conceptually, agreeing and accepting that free speech has a purpose, enables our capacity to have a constitutional revolution.

 

[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.

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?

The same place I was before, telling you that you are wrong. All you are doing is quoting the amendment process to the Constitution which is done by the various state governments - not by the people. You can certainly petition your state government to call for a convention, but it will be those governments which actually do 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?

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.

Any right which can be taken away or given away is not inalienable.

Full Definition of INALIENABLE
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

Which is why there is no such thing. It does not exist. It is a meaningless term which carries no weight. The second you say "well.... it doesn't apply in this case" then it is not inalienable.

 

[peach174]

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.

Any right which can be taken away or given away is not inalienable.

Full Definition of INALIENABLE
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

Which is why there is no such thing. It does not exist. It is a meaningless term which carries no weight. The second you say "well.... it doesn't apply in this case" then it is not inalienable.

That's because you have the word wrong.
It's unalienable rights.
UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
Unalienable Rights Defined

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

Any right which can be taken away or given away is not inalienable.

Full Definition of INALIENABLE
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

Which is why there is no such thing. It does not exist. It is a meaningless term which carries no weight. The second you say "well.... it doesn't apply in this case" then it is not inalienable.

That's because you have the word wrong.
It's unalienable rights.
UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
Unalienable Rights Defined

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

And you think that makes them exist? So they can't be given away but they can be taken away? An utterly meaningless word.

Educate me. What is the difference between a right and an unalienable right?

 

[peach174]

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.

Any right which can be taken away or given away is not inalienable.

Full Definition of INALIENABLE
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

Which is why there is no such thing. It does not exist. It is a meaningless term which carries no weight. The second you say "well.... it doesn't apply in this case" then it is not inalienable.

That's because you have the word wrong.
It's unalienable rights.
UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
Unalienable Rights Defined

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

And you think that makes them exist? So they can't be given away but they can be taken away? An utterly meaningless word.

Educate me. What is the difference between a right and an unalienable right?

A right is done by man's law and can also be taken away by other laws.
Unalienable right is given by the creator and can't be taken from man's law.
Man can write laws that can take a lawbreakers life from them but never from a law abiding man.

 

[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?

The same place I was before, telling you that you are wrong. All you are doing is quoting the amendment process to the Constitution which is done by the various state governments - not by the people. You can certainly petition your state government to call for a convention, but it will be those governments which actually do it.

No, that is not all I'm doing.

I am explaining how to control the states by the peoples agreement upon constitutional intent, THEN 3/4 of the states control Article V.

The state government needs to be slapped into shape by the people before they will perform constitutionally at a convention.

Clearly there is a MASSIVE need to prepare for an Article V convention.

This thread here is all about Americans compelling their states to conduct "Preparatory Amendment".

CDZ - A Lawful And Peaceful Revolution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[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. 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.

Any right which can be taken away or given away is not inalienable.

Full Definition of INALIENABLE
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

Which is why there is no such thing. It does not exist. It is a meaningless term which carries no weight. The second you say "well.... it doesn't apply in this case" then it is not inalienable.

You don't get it.

IT'S AN IDEAL!

One we cannot give up. One worth fighting for.

Are you going to spend the rest of your life making excuses, sniveling and taking orders from despots? Or understand how agreement upon constitutional intent in order to become the rightful masters of the congress and the courts.

This link has a state by state strategy for a lawful peaceful revolution.

CDZ - A Lawful And Peaceful Revolution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

Any right which can be taken away or given away is not inalienable.

Full Definition of INALIENABLE
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

Which is why there is no such thing. It does not exist. It is a meaningless term which carries no weight. The second you say "well.... it doesn't apply in this case" then it is not inalienable.

That's because you have the word wrong.
It's unalienable rights.
UNALIENABLE. The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
Unalienable Rights Defined

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

And you think that makes them exist? So they can't be given away but they can be taken away? An utterly meaningless word.

Educate me. What is the difference between a right and an unalienable right?

A right is done by man's law and can also be taken away by other laws.
Unalienable right is given by the creator and can't be taken from man's law.
Man can write laws that can take a lawbreakers life from them but never from a law abiding man.

So, for practical purposes, there is no difference at all. As I said, a meaningless term.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

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.

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.


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.

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?

The same place I was before, telling you that you are wrong. All you are doing is quoting the amendment process to the Constitution which is done by the various state governments - not by the people. You can certainly petition your state government to call for a convention, but it will be those governments which actually do it.

No, that is not all I'm doing.

I am explaining how to control the states by the peoples agreement upon constitutional intent, THEN 3/4 of the states control Article V.

The state government needs to be slapped into shape by the people before they will perform constitutionally at a convention.

Clearly there is a MASSIVE need to prepare for an Article V convention.

This thread here is all about Americans compelling their states to conduct "Preparatory Amendment".

CDZ - A Lawful And Peaceful Revolution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Actually, there is no indication at all we need an Article V convention and the vast majority of the "people" are not calling for it. So just who are you talking about when you say the "people"?

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

Any right which can be taken away or given away is not inalienable.

Full Definition of INALIENABLE
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

Which is why there is no such thing. It does not exist. It is a meaningless term which carries no weight. The second you say "well.... it doesn't apply in this case" then it is not inalienable.

You don't get it.

IT'S AN IDEAL!

One we cannot give up. One worth fighting for.

Are you going to spend the rest of your life making excuses, sniveling and taking orders from despots? Or understand how agreement upon constitutional intent in order to become the rightful masters of the congress and the courts.

This link has a state by state strategy for a lawful peaceful revolution.

CDZ - A Lawful And Peaceful Revolution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

No. I'm going to spend my life in defense of a nation. As I have my entire life. I strongly suspect your concept of what this nation should be is not even vaguely what I think it should be and I have no delusions over what my "unalienable rights" would be should you get your way. If there is one thing history teaches us, never trust anyone who is doing it for "the people".

 

[Christophera]

Actually I use the term "American people", because they are the only ones that can define constitutional intent.

Maybe you are not aware of what ALEC is doing. They are definitely not the people. In sure we don't want them controlling Article V, but that is what your act supports by default.

 

[PratchettFan]

Actually I use the term "American people", because they are the only ones that can define constitutional intent.

Maybe you are not aware of what ALEC is doing. They are definitely not the people. In sure we don't want them controlling Article V, but that is what your act supports by default.

Since the "American people" are not calling for an Article V convention, then that issue is pretty much settled.

I am very much aware of what ALEC is doing, and has been doing for some time. You understand the members of ALEC are American citizens and are therefore also the "American people"? The "American people" are not uniform. They consist of more than 300 million individuals who do not see things the same way. ALEC, ACLU, PETA and the BSA are all part of the "American people". This really highlights why I don't trust people who talk about "the people". They typically divide "the people" into two categories. Those who agree with their way and those who will have to be forced to do it their way. I think I'll go with the rule of law instead.