Freedom of Speech Has An Ultimate Legal, Constitutional Purpose

[dblack]

I've been considering your last comment and it hit me that while I don't think it is worse now than it has been in the past, being difficult to govern, polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies is how you know you are in a free society. You get none of that in a dictatorship, because it is not allowed. A free people are always going to be difficult and polarized. It's the nature of freedom.

That's a good point. And when it comes to dealing with people voluntarily as a society, it's very true. Freedom requires tolerating conflict and disagreement. But what we're talking about is disagreement over the scope of government, which is specifically the power to end conflict and disagreement with force.

But such force must be constitutionally justified.

It is shown we cannot depend upon congress or the executive to use constitutional official discretion.

It is unwise to allow this continue. Doing so encourages it.

We need to take action to enforce the constitution.

We need unity to effectively do that.

Unity of the American people can only occur with the purpose of free speech being served.

That purpose is abridged, only sincere, loyal Americans attentive to this vital need can compensate.

Are you, dblack, such an American?

Probably not.

 

[Christophera]

I've been considering your last comment and it hit me that while I don't think it is worse now than it has been in the past, being difficult to govern, polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies is how you know you are in a free society. You get none of that in a dictatorship, because it is not allowed. A free people are always going to be difficult and polarized. It's the nature of freedom.

That's a good point. And when it comes to dealing with people voluntarily as a society, it's very true. Freedom requires tolerating conflict and disagreement. But what we're talking about is disagreement over the scope of government, which is specifically the power to end conflict and disagreement with force.

But such force must be constitutionally justified.

It is shown we cannot depend upon congress or the executive to use constitutional official discretion.

It is unwise to allow this continue. Doing so encourages it.

We need to take action to enforce the constitution.

We need unity to effectively do that.

Unity of the American people can only occur with the purpose of free speech being served.

That purpose is abridged, only sincere, loyal Americans attentive to this vital need can compensate.

Are you, dblack, such an American?

Probably not.

Sad, because it creates hope, real hope based in your instincts which is what natural law is based in. That changes ones outlook. Epigenetics ya' know.

You could share that.

 

[PratchettFan]

I've been considering your last comment and it hit me that while I don't think it is worse now than it has been in the past, being difficult to govern, polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies is how you know you are in a free society. You get none of that in a dictatorship, because it is not allowed. A free people are always going to be difficult and polarized. It's the nature of freedom.

That's a good point. And when it comes to dealing with people voluntarily as a society, it's very true. Freedom requires tolerating conflict and disagreement. But what we're talking about is disagreement over the scope of government, which is specifically the power to end conflict and disagreement with force.

And yet we don't see that happening. Certainly we see police trying to keep the lid on outright violence, but the government actually protects conflict and disagreement.

When government is doing things like forcing us to buy insurance from their corporate sponsors that's exactly what is happening. More and more, government is being used as a tool for some people to force their will on others as a matter of convenience, rather than for protection of universal, individual rights.

This is that perspective problem. You start out by talking about freedom of expression, basic rights, and then we come down to this. Just because you have to take part in society, take responsibility for society, does not mean you aren't free. You are so used to an incredible level of freedom, you think this is oppression. I suppose I should take that as a good sign.

 

[dblack]

I've been considering your last comment and it hit me that while I don't think it is worse now than it has been in the past, being difficult to govern, polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies is how you know you are in a free society. You get none of that in a dictatorship, because it is not allowed. A free people are always going to be difficult and polarized. It's the nature of freedom.

That's a good point. And when it comes to dealing with people voluntarily as a society, it's very true. Freedom requires tolerating conflict and disagreement. But what we're talking about is disagreement over the scope of government, which is specifically the power to end conflict and disagreement with force.

And yet we don't see that happening. Certainly we see police trying to keep the lid on outright violence, but the government actually protects conflict and disagreement.

When government is doing things like forcing us to buy insurance from their corporate sponsors that's exactly what is happening. More and more, government is being used as a tool for some people to force their will on others as a matter of convenience, rather than for protection of universal, individual rights.

This is that perspective problem. You start out by talking about freedom of expression, basic rights, and then we come down to this. Just because you have to take part in society, take responsibility for society, does not mean you aren't free. You are so used to an incredible level of freedom, you think this is oppression. I suppose I should take that as a good sign.

And I think that you, and all of the apologists for our descent into corporatism, are running blind. Equal protection is perhaps the most important feature of our beleaguered constitution. When government becomes a tool for special interests to ensure profits, freedom of expression is a superfluous concern.

 

[dblack]

I've been considering your last comment and it hit me that while I don't think it is worse now than it has been in the past, being difficult to govern, polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies is how you know you are in a free society. You get none of that in a dictatorship, because it is not allowed. A free people are always going to be difficult and polarized. It's the nature of freedom.

That's a good point. And when it comes to dealing with people voluntarily as a society, it's very true. Freedom requires tolerating conflict and disagreement. But what we're talking about is disagreement over the scope of government, which is specifically the power to end conflict and disagreement with force.

But such force must be constitutionally justified.

It is shown we cannot depend upon congress or the executive to use constitutional official discretion.

It is unwise to allow this continue. Doing so encourages it.

We need to take action to enforce the constitution.

We need unity to effectively do that.

Unity of the American people can only occur with the purpose of free speech being served.

That purpose is abridged, only sincere, loyal Americans attentive to this vital need can compensate.

Are you, dblack, such an American?

Probably not.

Sad, because it creates hope, real hope based in your instincts which is what natural law is based in. That changes ones outlook. Epigenetics ya' know.

You could share that.

I could, but I'm not interested in a "fight". If we can't persuade a majority of countrymen that freedom is a worthwhile concern, fighting for it won't matter much.

 

[PratchettFan]

I've been considering your last comment and it hit me that while I don't think it is worse now than it has been in the past, being difficult to govern, polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies is how you know you are in a free society. You get none of that in a dictatorship, because it is not allowed. A free people are always going to be difficult and polarized. It's the nature of freedom.

That's a good point. And when it comes to dealing with people voluntarily as a society, it's very true. Freedom requires tolerating conflict and disagreement. But what we're talking about is disagreement over the scope of government, which is specifically the power to end conflict and disagreement with force.

And yet we don't see that happening. Certainly we see police trying to keep the lid on outright violence, but the government actually protects conflict and disagreement.

When government is doing things like forcing us to buy insurance from their corporate sponsors that's exactly what is happening. More and more, government is being used as a tool for some people to force their will on others as a matter of convenience, rather than for protection of universal, individual rights.

This is that perspective problem. You start out by talking about freedom of expression, basic rights, and then we come down to this. Just because you have to take part in society, take responsibility for society, does not mean you aren't free. You are so used to an incredible level of freedom, you think this is oppression. I suppose I should take that as a good sign.

And I think that you, and all of the apologists for our descent into corporatism, are running blind. Equal protection is perhaps the most important feature of our beleaguered constitution. When government becomes a tool for special interests to ensure profits, freedom of expression is a superfluous concern.

And I think that you see freedom as an entitlement. It isn't. It is a responsibility.

 

[dblack]

That's a good point. And when it comes to dealing with people voluntarily as a society, it's very true. Freedom requires tolerating conflict and disagreement. But what we're talking about is disagreement over the scope of government, which is specifically the power to end conflict and disagreement with force.

And yet we don't see that happening. Certainly we see police trying to keep the lid on outright violence, but the government actually protects conflict and disagreement.

When government is doing things like forcing us to buy insurance from their corporate sponsors that's exactly what is happening. More and more, government is being used as a tool for some people to force their will on others as a matter of convenience, rather than for protection of universal, individual rights.

This is that perspective problem. You start out by talking about freedom of expression, basic rights, and then we come down to this. Just because you have to take part in society, take responsibility for society, does not mean you aren't free. You are so used to an incredible level of freedom, you think this is oppression. I suppose I should take that as a good sign.

And I think that you, and all of the apologists for our descent into corporatism, are running blind. Equal protection is perhaps the most important feature of our beleaguered constitution. When government becomes a tool for special interests to ensure profits, freedom of expression is a superfluous concern.

And I think that you see freedom as an entitlement. It isn't. It is a responsibility.

I see it as both. And more. I see it as the entire point of government.

 

[Christophera]

I've been considering your last comment and it hit me that while I don't think it is worse now than it has been in the past, being difficult to govern, polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies is how you know you are in a free society. You get none of that in a dictatorship, because it is not allowed. A free people are always going to be difficult and polarized. It's the nature of freedom.

That's a good point. And when it comes to dealing with people voluntarily as a society, it's very true. Freedom requires tolerating conflict and disagreement. But what we're talking about is disagreement over the scope of government, which is specifically the power to end conflict and disagreement with force.

But such force must be constitutionally justified.

It is shown we cannot depend upon congress or the executive to use constitutional official discretion.

It is unwise to allow this continue. Doing so encourages it.

We need to take action to enforce the constitution.

We need unity to effectively do that.

Unity of the American people can only occur with the purpose of free speech being served.

That purpose is abridged, only sincere, loyal Americans attentive to this vital need can compensate.

Are you, dblack, such an American?

Probably not.

Sad, because it creates hope, real hope based in your instincts which is what natural law is based in. That changes ones outlook. Epigenetics ya' know.

You could share that.

I could, but I'm not interested in a "fight". If we can't persuade a majority of countrymen that freedom is a worthwhile concern, fighting for it won't matter much.

No fight, it's facts that empower, that make the people the power by virtue of their agreement.
The nature of the agreement being universally and very deeply significant over generations, while also being prime constitutional intent, is what gives it its power.

Sharing those facts is uplifting. Knowing so many can do easily make this agreement defining the purpose of free free speech is uplifting.

This is function above and beyond having a vote. This is the function of focusing voters on the real problem of organizing voters, of enabling their informed opinions.

 

[PratchettFan]

And yet we don't see that happening. Certainly we see police trying to keep the lid on outright violence, but the government actually protects conflict and disagreement.

When government is doing things like forcing us to buy insurance from their corporate sponsors that's exactly what is happening. More and more, government is being used as a tool for some people to force their will on others as a matter of convenience, rather than for protection of universal, individual rights.

This is that perspective problem. You start out by talking about freedom of expression, basic rights, and then we come down to this. Just because you have to take part in society, take responsibility for society, does not mean you aren't free. You are so used to an incredible level of freedom, you think this is oppression. I suppose I should take that as a good sign.

And I think that you, and all of the apologists for our descent into corporatism, are running blind. Equal protection is perhaps the most important feature of our beleaguered constitution. When government becomes a tool for special interests to ensure profits, freedom of expression is a superfluous concern.

And I think that you see freedom as an entitlement. It isn't. It is a responsibility.

I see it as both. And more. I see it as the entire point of government.

It isn't both and that is not the entire point of government. The point of government is to provide a secure environment for the people living within it. Without such an environment, freedom does not exist. Our particular form of government was designed to maximize freedom, but you are in no way entitled to it. You just happened to be lucky in where you were born. The responsibility is to work to ensure the environment continues to exist that supports freedom.

 

[dblack]

When government is doing things like forcing us to buy insurance from their corporate sponsors that's exactly what is happening. More and more, government is being used as a tool for some people to force their will on others as a matter of convenience, rather than for protection of universal, individual rights.

This is that perspective problem. You start out by talking about freedom of expression, basic rights, and then we come down to this. Just because you have to take part in society, take responsibility for society, does not mean you aren't free. You are so used to an incredible level of freedom, you think this is oppression. I suppose I should take that as a good sign.

And I think that you, and all of the apologists for our descent into corporatism, are running blind. Equal protection is perhaps the most important feature of our beleaguered constitution. When government becomes a tool for special interests to ensure profits, freedom of expression is a superfluous concern.

And I think that you see freedom as an entitlement. It isn't. It is a responsibility.

I see it as both. And more. I see it as the entire point of government.

It isn't both and that is not the entire point of government. The point of government is to provide a secure environment for the people living within it. Without such an environment, freedom does not exist.

Providing a secure environment is the means by which government protects our freedom, but it's not the goal in and of itself. Or shouldn't be, in my view.

The responsibility is to work to ensure the environment continues to exist that supports freedom.

That much I agree with, 100%.

 

[dblack]

That's a good point. And when it comes to dealing with people voluntarily as a society, it's very true. Freedom requires tolerating conflict and disagreement. But what we're talking about is disagreement over the scope of government, which is specifically the power to end conflict and disagreement with force.

But such force must be constitutionally justified.

It is shown we cannot depend upon congress or the executive to use constitutional official discretion.

It is unwise to allow this continue. Doing so encourages it.

We need to take action to enforce the constitution.

We need unity to effectively do that.

Unity of the American people can only occur with the purpose of free speech being served.

That purpose is abridged, only sincere, loyal Americans attentive to this vital need can compensate.

Are you, dblack, such an American?

Probably not.

Sad, because it creates hope, real hope based in your instincts which is what natural law is based in. That changes ones outlook. Epigenetics ya' know.

You could share that.

I could, but I'm not interested in a "fight". If we can't persuade a majority of countrymen that freedom is a worthwhile concern, fighting for it won't matter much.

No fight, it's facts that empower, that make the people the power by virtue of their agreement.
The nature of the agreement being universally and very deeply significant over generations, while also being prime constitutional intent, is what gives it its power.

Sharing those facts is uplifting. Knowing so many can do easily make this agreement defining the purpose of free free speech is uplifting.

This is function above and beyond having a vote. This is the function of focusing voters on the real problem of organizing voters, of enabling their informed opinions.

Fair enough. My ambivalence is toward calls to "fight" for our rights outside the political sphere (revolution, etc....). The only time revolution makes any sense is when a government is entirely disconnected from the will of the people, and I don't think that's the case. As long as our democracy is functioning at all, fighting against it in the name of "freedom" is a foolish quest. If we can't find a strong consensus for liberty, the best we can do is to look for greener pastures. And until we find them, do our best to fly under the radar.

 

[PratchettFan]

This is that perspective problem. You start out by talking about freedom of expression, basic rights, and then we come down to this. Just because you have to take part in society, take responsibility for society, does not mean you aren't free. You are so used to an incredible level of freedom, you think this is oppression. I suppose I should take that as a good sign.

And I think that you, and all of the apologists for our descent into corporatism, are running blind. Equal protection is perhaps the most important feature of our beleaguered constitution. When government becomes a tool for special interests to ensure profits, freedom of expression is a superfluous concern.

And I think that you see freedom as an entitlement. It isn't. It is a responsibility.

I see it as both. And more. I see it as the entire point of government.

It isn't both and that is not the entire point of government. The point of government is to provide a secure environment for the people living within it. Without such an environment, freedom does not exist.

Providing a secure environment is the means by which government protects our freedom, but it's not the goal in and of itself. Or shouldn't be, in my view.

The responsibility is to work to ensure the environment continues to exist that supports freedom.

That much I agree with, 100%.

I know you agree. You and I don't disagree on outcome, just on process. That is the nature of a free society. The only place you ever get consensus is in a tyranny.

Providing for a secure environment means people eat, they don't have to defend their homes against marauders, they have some degree of certainty that they will live to see tomorrow. That is the purpose of government. The more successful the government is in doing that, the more likely that the citizens will be able to concentrate on less important things, like freedom. When your child's belly is swollen from starvation the rights of man are not even on your priority list, let alone at the top.

Right now there is a major drought going on in the western US. At this point, it is a political football. But consider what happens when the water supply no longer supports 30 million people. Think what happens when you have 10 million refugees from the LA basin pushing out into the neighboring states. Do you think freedom will be a high priority?

 

[Christophera]

And I think that you, and all of the apologists for our descent into corporatism, are running blind. Equal protection is perhaps the most important feature of our beleaguered constitution. When government becomes a tool for special interests to ensure profits, freedom of expression is a superfluous concern.

And I think that you see freedom as an entitlement. It isn't. It is a responsibility.

I see it as both. And more. I see it as the entire point of government.

It isn't both and that is not the entire point of government. The point of government is to provide a secure environment for the people living within it. Without such an environment, freedom does not exist.

Providing a secure environment is the means by which government protects our freedom, but it's not the goal in and of itself. Or shouldn't be, in my view.

The responsibility is to work to ensure the environment continues to exist that supports freedom.

That much I agree with, 100%.

I know you agree. You and I don't disagree on outcome, just on process. That is the nature of a free society. The only place you ever get consensus is in a tyranny.

That would be a cognitive distortion of "all or nothing thinking".

In a society where the purpose of free speech is abridged the people will be seriously impaired from knowing whether they have consensus or not. The question cannot even be widely enough asked?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Get into a lot of shootouts with the police, do you? Spend a lot of time defending your home against roving bands of armed men? Go to Somalia and spend a couple of years there standing up for your rights to the warlords and then I'll take you seriously. Anybody can be a badass sitting at a keyboard in an air-conditioned room while munching potato chips. Just a hint for you, in the real world when you die, hitting restart doesn't make you come back.

The concern is that increasingly, with every expansion of state regulatory power, "the roving bands of armed men" are agents of the government. Government is supposed to protectsus from the bullies, not become the bullies.

That may be the concern, but that doesn't mean the concern is justified. Governments are not a different species. They are made up of human beings and human beings are going to make mistakes, have errors of judgment, have a different interpretation. That is why we also have the courts. It seems to be working just fine.

Clearly you are unexperienced. I am going to post proof that the US district court in Los Angeles violated US code in order to conceal treason and mass murder.

The original filing of 38 pages complete with all evidence proving the concealment of treason by FEMA, PBS, Guiliani and Silverstein are on this first page.
9-11-misprision of treason Title 18 part I chapter 115 2382

The concealment of treason is proven here.
Title 18 part I chapter 115 2382

and here
9-11-misprision of treason Title 18 part I chapter 115 2382

Further, in 1998 the courts allowed the sheriffs dept. here to fail to appear on subpoena in a case regarding the most important records a society can keep. The records I subpoenaed would have proven such records were absent from the local court records.

Between those 2 instances another federal suit was filed to try and compel effective mental health care for drug addiction and alcoholism. In that situation the same court that later concealed treason secretly revised a 125 year old court rule which deprived all citizens in the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit of virtual pre se civil rights. That has now extended to the entire nation and there is no note anywhere of the revision.

Also, the local newspaper was bought in 2002, undoubtedly to stop a story about that lawsuit. When a reporter was given a copy of the lawsuit, two weeks later the firings, resigning and gagging of reporters began.

Here they are in protest in De La Gurerra Plaza in from of the news press building.

The complete story with links to the lawsuit and further deprivations of right, due process and justice are linked from there.

Santa Barbara Secrets of media-Newspress independent county public defender.

You have no clue, and certainly do not want anyone to have a clue.

Our courts do not function when it comes to correcting lawless government and the purpose of free speech is abridged.

Get into a lot of shootouts with the police, do you? Spend a lot of time defending your home against roving bands of armed men? Go to Somalia and spend a couple of years there standing up for your rights to the warlords and then I'll take you seriously. Anybody can be a badass sitting at a keyboard in an air-conditioned room while munching potato chips. Just a hint for you, in the real world when you die, hitting restart doesn't make you come back.

The concern is that increasingly, with every expansion of state regulatory power, "the roving bands of armed men" are agents of the government. Government is supposed to protectsus from the bullies, not become the bullies.

That may be the concern, but that doesn't mean the concern is justified. Governments are not a different species. They are made up of human beings and human beings are going to make mistakes, have errors of judgment, have a different interpretation. That is why we also have the courts.

It's also why we have a Constitution that limits the power of government, so those mistakes and errors of judgment do as little damage as possible.

... It seems to be working just fine.

That's a dubious claim at best. Most people seem to recognize that the US is becoming less governable, more polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies.

I've been considering your last comment and it hit me that while I don't think it is worse now than it has been in the past, being difficult to govern, polarized and stymied by conflicting ideologies is how you know you are in a free society. You get none of that in a dictatorship, because it is not allowed. A free people are always going to be difficult and polarized. It's the nature of freedom.

Or the agent attempts to assert that because it is not a total dictatorship yet, relax, don't worry. Ignore the information indicating all rights to improve the situation are rapidly evaporating.

The agent assures you that remaining complacent or developing the apathy that the agent and cohorts work to create is the easy and right thing to do.

Yea, its easy, but being a slave is not easy in an economy controlled by despotic corporations that have overthrown the constitution as this information about congress recent actions, 226 years overdue with Mark Levin leading the charge for ALEC.

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

Notice that the agents are not positing in that thread. No way do they want to draw attention to the scam starting up.

yeah the people posting on here saying we do not live in a dictatership yeah are obviously agents.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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.

ignorance? your one to talk.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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

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

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

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

heirtothewind
PratchettFan
there4eyeM
C_Clayton_Jones

yeah these posters you mentioned clearly have reading comprehension problems.lol

 

[LA RAM FAN]

In looking very closely at the framing documents to derive constitutional intent, something required for all amendments from an Article V convention, I came to a conclusion that is very reasonable. The Declaration of Independence defines unalienable rights of the people, and their right to alter or abolish government destructive to those rights. Article V is the codified intent of "alter or abolish".

If the framers intended for the people to alter or abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights, they intended for the people to be powerful enough to effectively do that. HOW, did the framers intend for the people to actually have that power? Only one answer came to mind. The framers intended for the people to be adequately unified to have the power of their numbers to alter or abolish.

What then, did the framers intend to serve the purpose of enabling such unity?

Only one answer came to mind. Freedom of speech.

This, logically is an extension of natural law which indicates that free speech must exist so people can share AND understand information vital to survival.

Today, obvious to anyone who has tried to share vital information, no sharing or understanding significant to inform the mass populations we have can be effected. Accordingly, the ultimate purpose of free speech is abridged, and basically has been since the First Amendment was written. The First Amendment does not define that free speech has any purpose. Good and bad speech are equal despite the fact that the Declaration of Independence defines that Life is a prime unalienable rich

Seems this could lead to a constitutional disaster, if it is not already upon us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yeah that indeed was a good refreshing post.nice to see someone on here that doesnt have reading comprehension problems.

 

[Christophera]

In looking very closely at the framing documents to derive constitutional intent, something required for all amendments from an Article V convention, I came to a conclusion that is very reasonable. The Declaration of Independence defines unalienable rights of the people, and their right to alter or abolish government destructive to those rights. Article V is the codified intent of "alter or abolish".

If the framers intended for the people to alter or abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights, they intended for the people to be powerful enough to effectively do that. HOW, did the framers intend for the people to actually have that power? Only one answer came to mind. The framers intended for the people to be adequately unified to have the power of their numbers to alter or abolish.

What then, did the framers intend to serve the purpose of enabling such unity?

Only one answer came to mind. Freedom of speech.

This, logically is an extension of natural law which indicates that free speech must exist so people can share AND understand information vital to survival.

Today, obvious to anyone who has tried to share vital information, no sharing or understanding significant to inform the mass populations we have can be effected. Accordingly, the ultimate purpose of free speech is abridged, and basically has been since the First Amendment was written. The First Amendment does not define that free speech has any purpose. Good and bad speech are equal despite the fact that the Declaration of Independence defines that Life is a prime unalienable rich

Seems this could lead to a constitutional disaster, if it is not already upon us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yeah that indeed was a good refreshing post.nice to see someone on here that doesnt have reading comprehension problems.

Yea, Delta had a clear perspective there.

So attempting to overthrow the government wont actually do anything because the real problem remains to reassociate itself with whatever rises from government ashes.

Which is why altering the government operation fundamentally through empowering democratic action by ending the abridging of free speech, causes a slow change from the bottom up, and the top down. Ending up near the center where corporate influence has invisible control.

As the people, the base or foundation of constitutional power become more aware of how to assume that power through their unity, and does so enough to empower more change through the truth to the pubic by the public, restoring the purpose of free speech with preparatory amendment, the top becomes more aware of how its failing to lead constitutionally, and actually acting on behalf of corporate welfare rather than principles of the constitution.

Working like this; after the preparation for Article V has taken place, the American peoples unity on prime issues will be quite high meaning that a few, very carefully thought out amendments will institute broad change that can only be made from the highest level, or that level will be voted out pretty much immediately.

 

[Christophera]

In looking very closely at the framing documents to derive constitutional intent, something required for all amendments from an Article V convention, I came to a conclusion that is very reasonable. The Declaration of Independence defines unalienable rights of the people, and their right to alter or abolish government destructive to those rights. Article V is the codified intent of "alter or abolish".

If the framers intended for the people to alter or abolish government powerful enough to be destructive to unalienable rights, they intended for the people to be powerful enough to effectively do that. HOW, did the framers intend for the people to actually have that power? Only one answer came to mind. The framers intended for the people to be adequately unified to have the power of their numbers to alter or abolish.

What then, did the framers intend to serve the purpose of enabling such unity?

Only one answer came to mind. Freedom of speech.

This, logically is an extension of natural law which indicates that free speech must exist so people can share AND understand information vital to survival.

Today, obvious to anyone who has tried to share vital information, no sharing or understanding significant to inform the mass populations we have can be effected. Accordingly, the ultimate purpose of free speech is abridged, and basically has been since the First Amendment was written. The First Amendment does not define that free speech has any purpose. Good and bad speech are equal despite the fact that the Declaration of Independence defines that Life is a prime unalienable rich

Seems this could lead to a constitutional disaster, if it is not already upon us.

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

Not surprisingly, what the country started as, and what it became are two vastly different things. Yes, the framers of the Constitution wanted the People able to overthrow a corrupted US government. But in the few centuries since that, the government's diversified itself throughout its' borders making that impossible.

What they wanted was not quite overthrow, more specifically they said or wished for us to alter it, or if that is not possible, abolish it.

But that is semantics, and your statement in that part is basically correct.

In 1871 there was a major infiltration, and since that time the infiltration has done its best to diversify itself as you say.

But covert infiltrations just do not work well in our society. The nature of America just doesn't take to it well. Sure, wholly controlled institutions like the FBI, the NSA, etc. can be taken over and with time, become an extension of the infiltration and such is easily disguised as "discipline" or "security".

However, a large percentage know what they are doing is wrong. Therefore if Americans start doing what is right and ignoring the imposed agenda of the infiltration as much as possible, there will be a tendency to allow it; mostly because overtly opposing it looks so bad.

This is the way it is with the purpose of free speech. Sincere Americans won't oppose it, because it is too reasonable, but the infiltrators expose themselves by trying, so don't.

Therein is the elements of success we have in our favor in this bad situation of infiltration.

 

[Christophera]

But such force must be constitutionally justified.

It is shown we cannot depend upon congress or the executive to use constitutional official discretion.

It is unwise to allow this continue. Doing so encourages it.

We need to take action to enforce the constitution.

We need unity to effectively do that.

Unity of the American people can only occur with the purpose of free speech being served.

That purpose is abridged, only sincere, loyal Americans attentive to this vital need can compensate.

Are you, dblack, such an American?

Probably not.

Sad, because it creates hope, real hope based in your instincts which is what natural law is based in. That changes ones outlook. Epigenetics ya' know.

You could share that.

I could, but I'm not interested in a "fight". If we can't persuade a majority of countrymen that freedom is a worthwhile concern, fighting for it won't matter much.

No fight, it's facts that empower, that make the people the power by virtue of their agreement.
The nature of the agreement being universally and very deeply significant over generations, while also being prime constitutional intent, is what gives it its power.

Sharing those facts is uplifting. Knowing so many can do easily make this agreement defining the purpose of free free speech is uplifting.

This is function above and beyond having a vote. This is the function of focusing voters on the real problem of organizing voters, of enabling their informed opinions.

Fair enough. My ambivalence is toward calls to "fight" for our rights outside the political sphere (revolution, etc....). The only time revolution makes any sense is when a government is entirely disconnected from the will of the people, and I don't think that's the case. As long as our democracy is functioning at all, fighting against it in the name of "freedom" is a foolish quest. If we can't find a strong consensus for liberty, the best we can do is to look for greener pastures. And until we find them, do our best to fly under the radar.

Fair enough. My ambivalence is toward calls to "fight" for our rights outside the political sphere (revolution, etc....). The only time revolution makes any sense is when a government is entirely disconnected from the will of the people, and I don't think that's the case.

I would agree relating to the face of politics we see. It wants to be seen as connected to the people. However, I'm aware of an undercurrent which has grown too strong to ignore that seeks to create chaos wherein it justifies disconnection with a feigned duty posing falsely presented as reason for imposition of order.

As long as that element is in control of media it basically tends to control democracy which is the connection to the people IF the principles of the people, constitutional intent are not controlling the republic.

When the word "republic" gets involved there is good case for political revolution that engages lawful means to see democracy enabled to secure the principles of the republic. This is exactly the place where ending the abridging of the PURPOSE of free speech becomes a logical issue.

It increases the connectedness between the people so democratic action can become effective towards restoring the principles of the republic over government. That connectedness rightfully uses the force of law to cause amendment of the operating parameters of government as a form of lawful revolution.

The term revolution seems appropriate because it opposes an infiltration widely embedded, actually largely unknowingly, by adherence to policy that is outside of the principles if the republic.

Rather than "fight" I view it as a deeply empowered social contest between instinctual aspects of elite, and common peoples. Empowered by the peoples capacity to understand fundamental constitutional intent. Albeit, they are not used to doing so between themselves, which is the major social corruption imposed by the infiltration through media.

That is what must be overcome at this level.