Freedom of Speech Has An Ultimate Legal, Constitutional Purpose

[Christophera]

There must be if it can be cited in a State Constitution and that supreme law of the land of a State.

Then please name one right, just one, that cannot be taken away from you.

Unalienable rights are a philosophical ideal that we are allowed to conceive of and work towards under all conditions. They are an ideal because the concept enables our survival and evolution.

What can you point out that enables those things to a greater degree?

I point to reality and understanding of human nature. I am unimpressed with mythical ideals which ultimately translate to "I want". You have the right to speak your mind not because it is an unalienable right, but because our laws say you do and our society lives by those laws. It is the very structure of our government that protects you, the structure you seem to want to change. Take away that structure and you have no rights at all, unalienable or otherwise. Like it or not, the government is one of the glues which hold this rather precarious situation together.

The ideals address needs, not wants.

You are against ideals, you are against the constitution. You have no plan. You have no morals and ethics. You have no hope.

What you think is a need is just a want. I am unimpressed with ideals, I am for the Constitution. But when I talk about the Constitution, I am talking about the actual document, not some ideal you wish to replace it with.

As to the rest, you are free to think as you please. It does not matter to me at all.

Hah! Now you've exposed your level of intelligence or lack of integrity or both.

Are you going to try and say you do not need your life, and instead you only want it?

 

[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.

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.

Are you aware that in 1911, 2/3 of the states applied for a convention and congress violated the law, their oath and the constitution by failing to convene delegates?

http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmar...ands-for-article-v-constitutional-convention/
Can you accept that such a fact justifies that all delegates be elected in the states by the people of those states?

Because of that letter, the house finally adopts rule to count states applications for Article V.
U.S. House finally adopts rule to count Article V Convention applications - National Progressive Examiner.com

Would all of these things be true if the American people were not calling for a convention?

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.

Are you aware that in 1911, 2/3 of the states applied for a convention and congress violated the law, their oath and the constitution by failing to convene delegates?

http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmar...ands-for-article-v-constitutional-convention/
Can you accept that such a fact justifies that all delegates be elected in the states by the people of those states?

Because of that letter, the house finally adopts rule to count states applications for Article V.
U.S. House finally adopts rule to count Article V Convention applications - National Progressive Examiner.com

Would all of these things be true if the American people were not calling for a convention?

No. I am not aware of that. There were 9 calls for a convention that year and none of them had the required number. Nor are there the required number currently. This is because that while the various states are constantly calling for a convention, there is no movement for one amongst the citizenry. If there were, you wouldn't be posting a youtube video, you'd be posting an excerpt from the national news. The reason the states are doing it is because the legislatures are run by politicians who see this as an easy way to look like they are doing something without the bother of actually doing anything.

There is no required number. If there is, post the text from the section of the constitution which states it.

There are numerous websites with thousands of members and numerous groups working for Article V.

Maybe you haven't seen the thread where congress just stopped its 226 years of violation of the constitution.

226 Years Of Congressional Nonfeasance Ended-A hidden threat US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You talk about the Constitution as if you know it but you want me to post what is in Article V? I really wish people who talk about the Constitution would take just a few minutes to actually read it.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, 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, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Ah, are you aware there have been over 700 applications for Article V?

Last time I checked, there were only 50 states. Two thirds of that = 34.

Do you realize congress was not even counting applications until January?

226 Years Of Congressional Nonfeasance Ended-A hidden threat 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. 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.

There must be if it can be cited in a State Constitution and that supreme law of the land of a State.

A good point because the states, or most if them, authorized the constitution.

Hence the basis of the strategy posted, or using prime constitutional intent upon state legislators because Article V gives the power to alter or abolish to them.

Therefore we make them answerable to us regarding the prime intents of the republic they authorized.

 

[danielpalos]

There must be if it can be cited in a State Constitution and that supreme law of the land of a State.

Then please name one right, just one, that cannot be taken away from you.

Those declared inalienable. It is important to distinguish between the jeopardy of Infringement of rights declared inalienable by due process; bills of attainder are proscribed for both the States and the general government.

I asked you to name one. Do you really want to use that one?

Lynching in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It is what constitutes the mens rea of a criminal not a civil Person and citizen in the several States seeking social justice.

do you Only bring in illegals for special pleading?

I see. So again, it is meaningless. Either you have the right to a trial or you do not. Calling it inalienable adds absolutely nothing to the right. If the community decides you don't have that right (as depicted in those heart warming photographs) then you don't. What prevents that from happening is not some word but the law.

It is a right recognized in State Constitutions and those supreme laws of the land of those States; whom do you believe a Judge has to follow more rather than follow less.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

There must be if it can be cited in a State Constitution and that supreme law of the land of a State.

Then please name one right, just one, that cannot be taken away from you.

Unalienable rights are a philosophical ideal that we are allowed to conceive of and work towards under all conditions. They are an ideal because the concept enables our survival and evolution.

What can you point out that enables those things to a greater degree?

I point to reality and understanding of human nature. I am unimpressed with mythical ideals which ultimately translate to "I want". You have the right to speak your mind not because it is an unalienable right, but because our laws say you do and our society lives by those laws. It is the very structure of our government that protects you, the structure you seem to want to change. Take away that structure and you have no rights at all, unalienable or otherwise. Like it or not, the government is one of the glues which hold this rather precarious situation together.

Your view is not inclusive of natural law and what makes for an evolving society.

Good people do not need the laws to respect natural law. They recognize it and abide by it. Perhaps you never heard the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Seems you have not.

Good people know natural law and to see that it is not violated they made a formal agreement upon it and that is called the constitution.

The intents of the constitution were layer out in the Declaration of Independence. It define the ideals that good people stood to defend for themselves and others. Bolded below.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The good people that wrote that and agreed upon it intended for the American people to be able to alter or abolish government destructive to those ideals.

How do you think they intended for the American people to be able to alter of abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to those ideals?

You are certainly free to believe whatever you like regarding "natural law". That is yet another meaningless term that is used to justify whatever position one wants to have. People used "natural law" to justify slavery. The only thing which should matter at all is law.

The intent of the Constitution is in the preamble to the Constitution. The intent of the DOI was to rally the people to arms in support of a revolution. That is why it contained such phrases as "unalienable rights" and "natural laws". It wasn't a legal document, it was a propaganda document. the Founders understood the difference.

The Founders did not intend for the American people to alter or abolish the government. That is, in fact, the one crime they actually put in the Constitution. It is called treason. What the Founders did was create a system in which the Constitution could be amended, and placed that firmly in the hands of the various governments, both federal and state. It doesn't allow for the people to do anything except through the government.

 

[PratchettFan]

Then please name one right, just one, that cannot be taken away from you.

Those declared inalienable. It is important to distinguish between the jeopardy of Infringement of rights declared inalienable by due process; bills of attainder are proscribed for both the States and the general government.

I asked you to name one. Do you really want to use that one?

Lynching in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It is what constitutes the mens rea of a criminal not a civil Person and citizen in the several States seeking social justice.

do you Only bring in illegals for special pleading?

I see. So again, it is meaningless. Either you have the right to a trial or you do not. Calling it inalienable adds absolutely nothing to the right. If the community decides you don't have that right (as depicted in those heart warming photographs) then you don't. What prevents that from happening is not some word but the law.

It is a right recognized in State Constitutions and those supreme laws of the land of those States; whom do you believe a Judge has to follow more rather than follow less.

You need to read what you just wrote. You are saying it is a right recognized by the various governments. If it has to be recognized by the government to exist, it is not unalienable. The right does not exist because it is somehow inherent to you and can't be taken away. It exists because the law says it exists and only because the law says it exists. Remove the law, or remove the community's adherence to the law, and that right disappears. Calling it unalienable changes nothing.

 

[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.

The concept is subtle and can't be expressed in a modern 'soundbite'. But it's fundamental to Constitutional government. The misunderstanding of the concept is the downfall of our republic.

No. What is fundamental to our Constitutional government is an understanding of the law. And what is a downfall to our republic is a failure to understand that it is a republic.

A republic has principles. It is the downfall of a republic to be unable to define the principles of it.

Here we agree. I just don't think you understand those principles. You keep looking for them in the wrong place.

 

[dblack]

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.

The concept is subtle and can't be expressed in a modern 'soundbite'. But it's fundamental to Constitutional government. The misunderstanding of the concept is the downfall of our republic.

No. What is fundamental to our Constitutional government is an understanding of the law. And what is a downfall to our republic is a failure to understand that it is a republic.

That's important too, but without a common understanding of why we want law in the first place, government becomes little more than an arbitrary tool for pushing people around. Which is what we're seeing today.

 

[PratchettFan]

Then please name one right, just one, that cannot be taken away from you.

Unalienable rights are a philosophical ideal that we are allowed to conceive of and work towards under all conditions. They are an ideal because the concept enables our survival and evolution.

What can you point out that enables those things to a greater degree?

I point to reality and understanding of human nature. I am unimpressed with mythical ideals which ultimately translate to "I want". You have the right to speak your mind not because it is an unalienable right, but because our laws say you do and our society lives by those laws. It is the very structure of our government that protects you, the structure you seem to want to change. Take away that structure and you have no rights at all, unalienable or otherwise. Like it or not, the government is one of the glues which hold this rather precarious situation together.

The ideals address needs, not wants.

You are against ideals, you are against the constitution. You have no plan. You have no morals and ethics. You have no hope.

What you think is a need is just a want. I am unimpressed with ideals, I am for the Constitution. But when I talk about the Constitution, I am talking about the actual document, not some ideal you wish to replace it with.

As to the rest, you are free to think as you please. It does not matter to me at all.

Hah! Now you've exposed your level of intelligence or lack of integrity or both.

Are you going to try and say you do not need your life, and instead you only want it?

Perhaps you have never served this nation in uniform. I did and I took an oath to defend the Constitution. That meant up to laying down my life if necessary. Perhaps the difference between us, and the reason we can't seem to communicate, is that I see myself as part of this nation and you see yourself as apart from it.

Do I need my life? Of course. But I am not the most important thing in the universe, or even in this nation. For that matter, I'm not the most important thing in my family. Personal is not the same as important (a quote from Terry Pratchett). That I need my life does not mean I have an unalienable right to it. I have a legal right to due process and that right exists because of this nation, not in spite of 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.

The concept is subtle and can't be expressed in a modern 'soundbite'. But it's fundamental to Constitutional government. The misunderstanding of the concept is the downfall of our republic.

No. What is fundamental to our Constitutional government is an understanding of the law. And what is a downfall to our republic is a failure to understand that it is a republic.

That's important too, but without a common understanding of why we want law in the first place, government becomes little more than an arbitrary tool for pushing people around. Which is what we're seeing today.

Who is "we"? There are over 300 million of us and there are drastic differences as to what each of us want. Where is the common understanding between a socialist and a libertarian, because we have both. The purpose of a republican government is to create an environment in which all of those different understandings can exist in a relatively peaceful condition, not to create a uniform position. That is the purpose of a tyranny.

What we are seeing today is an era of unprecedented freedom. Freedom to such an extent that people think they are being oppressed whenever they are told they can't do whatever they want. The dissatisfaction is not because we lack freedom, it is because we are spoiled and lack perspective.

 

[Christophera]

There must be if it can be cited in a State Constitution and that supreme law of the land of a State.

Then please name one right, just one, that cannot be taken away from you.

Unalienable rights are a philosophical ideal that we are allowed to conceive of and work towards under all conditions. They are an ideal because the concept enables our survival and evolution.

What can you point out that enables those things to a greater degree?

I point to reality and understanding of human nature. I am unimpressed with mythical ideals which ultimately translate to "I want". You have the right to speak your mind not because it is an unalienable right, but because our laws say you do and our society lives by those laws. It is the very structure of our government that protects you, the structure you seem to want to change. Take away that structure and you have no rights at all, unalienable or otherwise. Like it or not, the government is one of the glues which hold this rather precarious situation together.

Your view is not inclusive of natural law and what makes for an evolving society.

Good people do not need the laws to respect natural law. They recognize it and abide by it. Perhaps you never heard the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Seems you have not.

Good people know natural law and to see that it is not violated they made a formal agreement upon it and that is called the constitution.

The intents of the constitution were layer out in the Declaration of Independence. It define the ideals that good people stood to defend for themselves and others. Bolded below.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The good people that wrote that and agreed upon it intended for the American people to be able to alter or abolish government destructive to those ideals.

How do you think they intended for the American people to be able to alter of abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to those ideals?

You are certainly free to believe whatever you like regarding "natural law". That is yet another meaningless term that is used to justify whatever position one wants to have. People used "natural law" to justify slavery. The only thing which should matter at all is law.

The intent of the Constitution is in the preamble to the Constitution. The intent of the DOI was to rally the people to arms in support of a revolution. That is why it contained such phrases as "unalienable rights" and "natural laws". It wasn't a legal document, it was a propaganda document. the Founders understood the difference.

The Founders did not intend for the American people to alter or abolish the government. That is, in fact, the one crime they actually put in the Constitution. It is called treason. What the Founders did was create a system in which the Constitution could be amended, and placed that firmly in the hands of the various governments, both federal and state. It doesn't allow for the people to do anything except through the government.

Then please name one right, just one, that cannot be taken away from you.

Unalienable rights are a philosophical ideal that we are allowed to conceive of and work towards under all conditions. They are an ideal because the concept enables our survival and evolution.

What can you point out that enables those things to a greater degree?

I point to reality and understanding of human nature. I am unimpressed with mythical ideals which ultimately translate to "I want". You have the right to speak your mind not because it is an unalienable right, but because our laws say you do and our society lives by those laws. It is the very structure of our government that protects you, the structure you seem to want to change. Take away that structure and you have no rights at all, unalienable or otherwise. Like it or not, the government is one of the glues which hold this rather precarious situation together.

The ideals address needs, not wants.

You are against ideals, you are against the constitution. You have no plan. You have no morals and ethics. You have no hope.

What you think is a need is just a want. I am unimpressed with ideals, I am for the Constitution. But when I talk about the Constitution, I am talking about the actual document, not some ideal you wish to replace it with.

As to the rest, you are free to think as you please. It does not matter to me at all.

Hah! Now you've exposed your level of intelligence or lack of integrity or both.

Are you going to try and say you do not need your life, and instead you only want it?

You are evading addressing the natural law of your instinctual, phylogenetic DNA.

If the framers had not intended the American people have the right to alter or abolish through their states, Article V would not have been included in the 1787 constitution.

You are also evading the issue of the numbers of states required to apply for a convention which requires congress to call a convention.

It appears you do have the reasonable accountability to conduct a discussion upon any kind of law whatsoever.

Logically that makes you an agent of tyrants, despots and infiltrators of government, because no American would ever state that Americans working to lawfully manifest the intents of the Declaration of Independence is treason.

Your unaccountability serves not answering HOW the framers intended Americans to alter or abolish, as well as your incompetent, erroneous statement that working to do so constitutes treason.

American unity upon definition of constitutional intent makes "the people the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" and use of that unity to amend through Article V is designed to constitutionally alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, something you in effectively and hypocritically attempt to deny exists.

Your evasion of that point of "HOW" indicates that you have lost the debate of the topic of the thread relating to the purpose of free speech and indeed are working against that purpose with ineffective effort to confuse the facts of the framing documents.

 

[PratchettFan]

Then please name one right, just one, that cannot be taken away from you.

Unalienable rights are a philosophical ideal that we are allowed to conceive of and work towards under all conditions. They are an ideal because the concept enables our survival and evolution.

What can you point out that enables those things to a greater degree?

I point to reality and understanding of human nature. I am unimpressed with mythical ideals which ultimately translate to "I want". You have the right to speak your mind not because it is an unalienable right, but because our laws say you do and our society lives by those laws. It is the very structure of our government that protects you, the structure you seem to want to change. Take away that structure and you have no rights at all, unalienable or otherwise. Like it or not, the government is one of the glues which hold this rather precarious situation together.

Your view is not inclusive of natural law and what makes for an evolving society.

Good people do not need the laws to respect natural law. They recognize it and abide by it. Perhaps you never heard the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Seems you have not.

Good people know natural law and to see that it is not violated they made a formal agreement upon it and that is called the constitution.

The intents of the constitution were layer out in the Declaration of Independence. It define the ideals that good people stood to defend for themselves and others. Bolded below.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The good people that wrote that and agreed upon it intended for the American people to be able to alter or abolish government destructive to those ideals.

How do you think they intended for the American people to be able to alter of abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to those ideals?

You are certainly free to believe whatever you like regarding "natural law". That is yet another meaningless term that is used to justify whatever position one wants to have. People used "natural law" to justify slavery. The only thing which should matter at all is law.

The intent of the Constitution is in the preamble to the Constitution. The intent of the DOI was to rally the people to arms in support of a revolution. That is why it contained such phrases as "unalienable rights" and "natural laws". It wasn't a legal document, it was a propaganda document. the Founders understood the difference.

The Founders did not intend for the American people to alter or abolish the government. That is, in fact, the one crime they actually put in the Constitution. It is called treason. What the Founders did was create a system in which the Constitution could be amended, and placed that firmly in the hands of the various governments, both federal and state. It doesn't allow for the people to do anything except through the government.

Unalienable rights are a philosophical ideal that we are allowed to conceive of and work towards under all conditions. They are an ideal because the concept enables our survival and evolution.

What can you point out that enables those things to a greater degree?

I point to reality and understanding of human nature. I am unimpressed with mythical ideals which ultimately translate to "I want". You have the right to speak your mind not because it is an unalienable right, but because our laws say you do and our society lives by those laws. It is the very structure of our government that protects you, the structure you seem to want to change. Take away that structure and you have no rights at all, unalienable or otherwise. Like it or not, the government is one of the glues which hold this rather precarious situation together.

The ideals address needs, not wants.

You are against ideals, you are against the constitution. You have no plan. You have no morals and ethics. You have no hope.

What you think is a need is just a want. I am unimpressed with ideals, I am for the Constitution. But when I talk about the Constitution, I am talking about the actual document, not some ideal you wish to replace it with.

As to the rest, you are free to think as you please. It does not matter to me at all.

Hah! Now you've exposed your level of intelligence or lack of integrity or both.

Are you going to try and say you do not need your life, and instead you only want it?

You are evading addressing the natural law of your instinctual, phylogenetic DNA.

If the framers had not intended the American people have the right to alter or abolish through their states, Article V would not have been included in the 1787 constitution.

You are also evading the issue of the numbers of states required to apply for a convention which requires congress to call a convention.

It appears you do have the reasonable accountability to conduct a discussion upon any kind of law whatsoever.

Logically that makes you an agent of tyrants, despots and infiltrators of government, because no American would ever state that Americans working to lawfully manifest the intents of the Declaration of Independence is treason.

Your unaccountability serves not answering HOW the framers intended Americans to alter or abolish, as well as your incompetent, erroneous statement that working to do so constitutes treason.

American unity upon definition of constitutional intent makes "the people the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" and use of that unity to amend through Article V is designed to constitutionally alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, something you in effectively and hypocritically attempt to deny exists.

Your evasion of that point of "HOW" indicates that you have lost the debate of the topic of the thread relating to the purpose of free speech and indeed are working against that purpose with ineffective effort to confuse the facts of the framing documents.

I don't think I have evaded it. I've dealt with it head on. It is a myth, a lie, a totally untrue concept. There is no such thing as natural law. There is no such thing as an inherent right. They do not exist. All you have are those rights the society allows you to have, whether you are willing to accept that reality or not.

You are living in a fantasy world. Your choice, but I don't plan to join you.

 

[dblack]

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.

The concept is subtle and can't be expressed in a modern 'soundbite'. But it's fundamental to Constitutional government. The misunderstanding of the concept is the downfall of our republic.

No. What is fundamental to our Constitutional government is an understanding of the law. And what is a downfall to our republic is a failure to understand that it is a republic.

That's important too, but without a common understanding of why we want law in the first place, government becomes little more than an arbitrary tool for pushing people around. Which is what we're seeing today.

Who is "we"? There are over 300 million of us and there are drastic differences as to what each of us want. Where is the common understanding between a socialist and a libertarian, because we have both. The purpose of a republican government is to create an environment in which all of those different understandings can exist in a relatively peaceful condition, not to create a uniform position. That is the purpose of a tyranny.

What we are seeing today is an era of unprecedented freedom. Freedom to such an extent that people think they are being oppressed whenever they are told they can't do whatever they want. The dissatisfaction is not because we lack freedom, it is because we are spoiled and lack perspective.

If you can't understand the significance of inalienable rights, they you're talking about something fundamentally different when you talk about 'freedom'. That's the point I'm getting at.

 

[danielpalos]

There must be if it can be cited in a State Constitution and that supreme law of the land of a State.

Then please name one right, just one, that cannot be taken away from you.

Those declared inalienable. It is important to distinguish between the jeopardy of Infringement of rights declared inalienable by due process; bills of attainder are proscribed for both the States and the general government.

I asked you to name one. Do you really want to use that one?

Lynching in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It is what constitutes the mens rea of a criminal not a civil Person and citizen in the several States seeking social justice.

do you Only bring in illegals for special pleading?

I see. So again, it is meaningless. Either you have the right to a trial or you do not. Calling it inalienable adds absolutely nothing to the right. If the community decides you don't have that right (as depicted in those heart warming photographs) then you don't. What prevents that from happening is not some word but the law.

It is Only meaningless for Privateers not holders of offices of Public Trust.

 

[PratchettFan]

There is no such thing as an inalienable right. The concept is meaningless, and thus is interpreted to mean anything the user desires.

The concept is subtle and can't be expressed in a modern 'soundbite'. But it's fundamental to Constitutional government. The misunderstanding of the concept is the downfall of our republic.

No. What is fundamental to our Constitutional government is an understanding of the law. And what is a downfall to our republic is a failure to understand that it is a republic.

That's important too, but without a common understanding of why we want law in the first place, government becomes little more than an arbitrary tool for pushing people around. Which is what we're seeing today.

Who is "we"? There are over 300 million of us and there are drastic differences as to what each of us want. Where is the common understanding between a socialist and a libertarian, because we have both. The purpose of a republican government is to create an environment in which all of those different understandings can exist in a relatively peaceful condition, not to create a uniform position. That is the purpose of a tyranny.

What we are seeing today is an era of unprecedented freedom. Freedom to such an extent that people think they are being oppressed whenever they are told they can't do whatever they want. The dissatisfaction is not because we lack freedom, it is because we are spoiled and lack perspective.

If you can't understand the significance of inalienable rights, they you're talking about something fundamentally different when you talk about 'freedom'. That's the point I'm getting at.

Yes, we are talking about something fundamentally different.

 

[PratchettFan]

Then please name one right, just one, that cannot be taken away from you.

Those declared inalienable. It is important to distinguish between the jeopardy of Infringement of rights declared inalienable by due process; bills of attainder are proscribed for both the States and the general government.

I asked you to name one. Do you really want to use that one?

Lynching in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It is what constitutes the mens rea of a criminal not a civil Person and citizen in the several States seeking social justice.

do you Only bring in illegals for special pleading?

I see. So again, it is meaningless. Either you have the right to a trial or you do not. Calling it inalienable adds absolutely nothing to the right. If the community decides you don't have that right (as depicted in those heart warming photographs) then you don't. What prevents that from happening is not some word but the law.

It is Only meaningless for Privateers not holders of offices of Public Trust.

It is only meaningful for those who refuse to see the world as it is. This is fine so long as you live in a world that protects you. I suspect the problem is that having lived only in that world you have come to think of rights as your due. Which means those rights can be taken from you with no difficulty at all.

 

[danielpalos]

Those declared inalienable. It is important to distinguish between the jeopardy of Infringement of rights declared inalienable by due process; bills of attainder are proscribed for both the States and the general government.

I asked you to name one. Do you really want to use that one?

Lynching in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It is what constitutes the mens rea of a criminal not a civil Person and citizen in the several States seeking social justice.

do you Only bring in illegals for special pleading?

I see. So again, it is meaningless. Either you have the right to a trial or you do not. Calling it inalienable adds absolutely nothing to the right. If the community decides you don't have that right (as depicted in those heart warming photographs) then you don't. What prevents that from happening is not some word but the law.

It is Only meaningless for Privateers not holders of offices of Public Trust.

It is only meaningful for those who refuse to see the world as it is. This is fine so long as you live in a world that protects you. I suspect the problem is that having lived only in that world you have come to think of rights as your due. Which means those rights can be taken from you with no difficulty at all.

I always try to provide some difficulty.

 

[PratchettFan]

I asked you to name one. Do you really want to use that one?

Lynching in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It is what constitutes the mens rea of a criminal not a civil Person and citizen in the several States seeking social justice.

do you Only bring in illegals for special pleading?

I see. So again, it is meaningless. Either you have the right to a trial or you do not. Calling it inalienable adds absolutely nothing to the right. If the community decides you don't have that right (as depicted in those heart warming photographs) then you don't. What prevents that from happening is not some word but the law.

It is Only meaningless for Privateers not holders of offices of Public Trust.

It is only meaningful for those who refuse to see the world as it is. This is fine so long as you live in a world that protects you. I suspect the problem is that having lived only in that world you have come to think of rights as your due. Which means those rights can be taken from you with no difficulty at all.

I always try to provide some difficulty.

I'm sure you think you do.

 

[danielpalos]

It is what constitutes the mens rea of a criminal not a civil Person and citizen in the several States seeking social justice.

do you Only bring in illegals for special pleading?

I see. So again, it is meaningless. Either you have the right to a trial or you do not. Calling it inalienable adds absolutely nothing to the right. If the community decides you don't have that right (as depicted in those heart warming photographs) then you don't. What prevents that from happening is not some word but the law.

It is Only meaningless for Privateers not holders of offices of Public Trust.

It is only meaningful for those who refuse to see the world as it is. This is fine so long as you live in a world that protects you. I suspect the problem is that having lived only in that world you have come to think of rights as your due. Which means those rights can be taken from you with no difficulty at all.

I always try to provide some difficulty.

I'm sure you think you do.

Practice makes perfect if i think i can.

 

[Christophera]

Unalienable rights are a philosophical ideal that we are allowed to conceive of and work towards under all conditions. They are an ideal because the concept enables our survival and evolution.

What can you point out that enables those things to a greater degree?

I point to reality and understanding of human nature. I am unimpressed with mythical ideals which ultimately translate to "I want". You have the right to speak your mind not because it is an unalienable right, but because our laws say you do and our society lives by those laws. It is the very structure of our government that protects you, the structure you seem to want to change. Take away that structure and you have no rights at all, unalienable or otherwise. Like it or not, the government is one of the glues which hold this rather precarious situation together.

Your view is not inclusive of natural law and what makes for an evolving society.

Good people do not need the laws to respect natural law. They recognize it and abide by it. Perhaps you never heard the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Seems you have not.

Good people know natural law and to see that it is not violated they made a formal agreement upon it and that is called the constitution.

The intents of the constitution were layer out in the Declaration of Independence. It define the ideals that good people stood to defend for themselves and others. Bolded below.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The good people that wrote that and agreed upon it intended for the American people to be able to alter or abolish government destructive to those ideals.

How do you think they intended for the American people to be able to alter of abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to those ideals?

You are certainly free to believe whatever you like regarding "natural law". That is yet another meaningless term that is used to justify whatever position one wants to have. People used "natural law" to justify slavery. The only thing which should matter at all is law.

The intent of the Constitution is in the preamble to the Constitution. The intent of the DOI was to rally the people to arms in support of a revolution. That is why it contained such phrases as "unalienable rights" and "natural laws". It wasn't a legal document, it was a propaganda document. the Founders understood the difference.

The Founders did not intend for the American people to alter or abolish the government. That is, in fact, the one crime they actually put in the Constitution. It is called treason. What the Founders did was create a system in which the Constitution could be amended, and placed that firmly in the hands of the various governments, both federal and state. It doesn't allow for the people to do anything except through the government.

I point to reality and understanding of human nature. I am unimpressed with mythical ideals which ultimately translate to "I want". You have the right to speak your mind not because it is an unalienable right, but because our laws say you do and our society lives by those laws. It is the very structure of our government that protects you, the structure you seem to want to change. Take away that structure and you have no rights at all, unalienable or otherwise. Like it or not, the government is one of the glues which hold this rather precarious situation together.

The ideals address needs, not wants.

You are against ideals, you are against the constitution. You have no plan. You have no morals and ethics. You have no hope.

What you think is a need is just a want. I am unimpressed with ideals, I am for the Constitution. But when I talk about the Constitution, I am talking about the actual document, not some ideal you wish to replace it with.

As to the rest, you are free to think as you please. It does not matter to me at all.

Hah! Now you've exposed your level of intelligence or lack of integrity or both.

Are you going to try and say you do not need your life, and instead you only want it?

You are evading addressing the natural law of your instinctual, phylogenetic DNA.

If the framers had not intended the American people have the right to alter or abolish through their states, Article V would not have been included in the 1787 constitution.

You are also evading the issue of the numbers of states required to apply for a convention which requires congress to call a convention.

It appears you do have the reasonable accountability to conduct a discussion upon any kind of law whatsoever.

Logically that makes you an agent of tyrants, despots and infiltrators of government, because no American would ever state that Americans working to lawfully manifest the intents of the Declaration of Independence is treason.

Your unaccountability serves not answering HOW the framers intended Americans to alter or abolish, as well as your incompetent, erroneous statement that working to do so constitutes treason.

American unity upon definition of constitutional intent makes "the people the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" and use of that unity to amend through Article V is designed to constitutionally alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, something you in effectively and hypocritically attempt to deny exists.

Your evasion of that point of "HOW" indicates that you have lost the debate of the topic of the thread relating to the purpose of free speech and indeed are working against that purpose with ineffective effort to confuse the facts of the framing documents.

I don't think I have evaded it. I've dealt with it head on. It is a myth, a lie, a totally untrue concept. There is no such thing as natural law. There is no such thing as an inherent right. They do not exist. All you have are those rights the society allows you to have, whether you are willing to accept that reality or not.

You are living in a fantasy world. Your choice, but I don't plan to join you.

You are not reading. I repeat.

"Your unaccountability serves not answering HOW the framers intended Americans to alter or abolish."