I've spent some time drafting what I believe to be a necessary amendment to the constitution which is meant to reaffirm the rights of the people, the sovereignty of the individual, and the inalienability of those rights and that sovereignty. However, I realize that regardless of how well I think I write, something of it could be spun to send the wrong message. I would appreciate feedback and any changes which you think would more clarify the intended meaning, and prevent unreasonable construals. My own analysis of my writings: Section 1: -Prevents fines or other penalties from being imposed for exercising your rights (i.e. refusing a search, pleading the fifth). -Prevents probable cause from being decided simply upon exercising your rights (i.e. refusing a search, pleading the fifth). -States that rights are passively exercised when not actively exercised, meaning it shall be assumed that the people shall be exercising their rights at all times unless they say other wise. -The exercises of rights by the people cannot be secluded from where they are intended by common reasoning to be effective (i.e. no zoning of rights in cases of free speech zones or weapons free zones on public property). Section 2: -Prevention of the touching of commonly understood private areas of the body during frisks. -Prevention of public or private degradation (i.e. strip searches, cavity searches, fondling, excreting biological substances, humiliation, etc.) -Prevention of the probing of the commonly understood private areas of the body during searches. -Prevention of the drawing of blood, urine, or fecal matter during a search/seizure. -Double prevention of the probing of the commonly understood private areas of the body during searches. Section 3: -The police must automatically comply with the passive exercises of rights by the people (i.e. cannot interrogate you without providing you with a lawyer, even if you have not asked). -The police must automatically comply when the people are actively exercising rights (i.e. cannot make you stop talking). -Enforces the idea that legislators must abide by the rights of the people when passing legislation and that judges must do the same when passing judgement (i.e. cannot take away your rights, even those of RELEASED felons). -Can't be construed to allow actions not protected by rights (i.e. segregation, libel, threatening people with a weapon, interrupting congress or a court, actions that provide probable cause for a search or seizure, shouting fire in a movie theater, blocking post roads, etc.) -Can't be construed to stop authorities from performing their CONSTITUTED duties (i.e. enforcing a law, keeping a man in prison, passing legislation, welcoming diplomats, etc.)
I understand your proposed amendment. It actually plainly states a number of things that are simply implied in current law. So that's good. The problem is enforcement of constitutional right. Lincoln said in 1859, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts". That power is found with the people's UNITY of right to define constitutional intent, which controls Article V. Article V, with 3/4 of the states ratifying, has power to amend over any authority of the land. The problem and the power lies with freedom of speech. The problem is the facts above cannot be shared and understood by a majority. The power of free speech is within the potential agreement upon natural law, prime principle of intent of the constitution. The prime constitititional intent and purpose of free speech is that information vital to survival be shared and understood. All sincere Americans can agree with and accept that. Thereupon they will realize free speech is abridged and that amendment of the constitution and the bill of rights is needed. Here is a post at another forum where the state by state strategy is laid out. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...V-convention&p=5433668&viewfull=1#post5433668
The thing Lincoln neglected to mention is that the people were his rightful masters, too. Which is really the basis of the problem. Presidents are the one's who enforce the laws; they are the authorities that the People come into contact with. President's seem to forget that they have a duty to protect the Constitution, just as the Congress and Courts do. They forget that it is their duty to veto unconstitutional laws. Presidents tend to believe that once the People elect them, that the President is now the leader of the People, when in fact the People are the leader of the President. We elect the President by grant of power to carry out the laws which have as well been granted by us. Too commonly executive authorities become too corrupted by ambition and providence. And it is for that reason that I strongly dislike Presidential Systems of control. I much more prefer the Switzerland model of a Federal Council, though democratically elected. The concentration of power into one person is never a good idea, and I truly don't understand why the Framers would have chosen the Presidential System after the Articles of Confederation. But for the time being, the only thing we can do is enforce our rights and hope for another JFK who won't get assassinated.
I agree, but still, enforcement of duty, the oath of office is needed. When congress, the courts and the senate are all conducting treason or concealing it, we have a very serious problem with no one to enforce it. I really do not think the framers could conceive of a takeover of individuals as complete as we have. And, they made Article V which can, justifiably, in a constitutional emergency, be complete democratic control over the republic. Therein is the reason it is time for the people to assume their rightful role, or face the loss of their constitution and republic. Things are so bad with the economy, people are going to start losing their lives on a mass scale, depending on the rate and type of economic failure we see. For these reasons, I advocate ignoring all but the most serious problems created by the corrupted government, and mass focus on solution. Specifically unity around that which can control Article V, because that has authority over all of the federal structure, AND therefore military. IF an Article V convention is held and amendment redirects the federal structure, and the the federal structure does not act, THEN the cat will be out of the bag. The soldiers will know they must act in defense of the constitution by purification of the chain of command. I doubt it will get that far. Once people abandon partisan politics and focus on purification of government by purging unfit officials from states and heading towards Article V, it will be clear that "the masters" have risen to reclaim the American republic. The rats will abandon the sinking HMS American colony covertly established after the civil war.
I like it. If the courts rule as you propose the amendment be read, that would be a good thing. That being said, the only thing I would add to it is who is responsible for passing the laws that would promote this amendment. Would it be congress or the individual states?
Very good point, and thank you for you input. I seem to have forgotten the enforcement clause, though I'm not sure of what exactly a legislature (whether Congress or one of the States') would need to pass to promote it. It would ultimately be up to the construals of the Supreme Court. But I suppose the Congress would have to pass sentencing standards for violations, though the Courts could simply use precedent for that without legislation. I suppose I could add a line causing all rights of the People against the federal government to be incorporated into the States against State governments, thereby incorporating all rights in the process. I actually haven't thought much about that, but since something as drastic as a federal constitutional convention won't happen in the foreseeable future, the best thing we can do at the moment is reinforce our natural and honest rights through simple amendments and influence upon the government.
In 1911, 2/3 of the states applied for an Article V convention because they knew the fed was going to start issuing fiat money. In April of 1912 the Titanic went down with 40 of America's weathiest people against the fed reserve. In 1913 the fed reserve was created. Congress is not even counting how many states are making applications for a convention. That is how bad it is. http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmar...-amendments-considered-by-houses-of-congress/ The constitution says when 2/3 apply, the response from the clerk if congress says the clerk hasn't been assigned that duty. The response says the judiciary has that duty, the constitution does not say that. Our nation and futures is being hijacked. The constitutions Article V does say that when conventions in 3/4 of the states are ratifying, the constitution is amended. Americans need to define prime constitutional intent then work to purify the legislations of their states consistent to that intent. Then have conventions on those states after democratic elections of delegates. As you can see by that link, congress is unlawful and the courts no better. It also tells you about elite corporate efforts to conduct a convention without democratic process. ALEC is doing that. I'm not sure about Convention of States, because they are not communicating with the people enough. No amendment benefitting and protecting the people will be considered by congress and the courts, you can be sure of that. Time for the people to unify or lose their constitution. - - - Updated - - - In 1911, 2/3 of the states applied for an Article V convention because they knew the fed was going to start issuing fiat money. In April of 1912 the Titanic went down with 40 of America's weathiest people against the fed reserve. In 1913 the fed reserve was created. Congress is not even counting how many states are making applications for a convention. That is how bad it is. http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmarks/2013/11/16/convention-to-propose-constitutional-amendments-considered-by-houses-of-congress/ The constitution says when 2/3 apply, the response from the clerk if congress says the clerk hasn't been assigned that duty. The response says the judiciary has that duty, the constitution does not say that. Our nation and futures is being hijacked. The constitutions Article V does say that when conventions in 3/4 of the states are ratifying, the constitution is amended. Americans need to define prime constitutional intent then work to purify the legislations of their states consistent to that intent. Then have conventions on those states after democratic elections of delegates. As you can see by that link, congress is unlawful and the courts no better. It also tells you about elite corporate efforts to conduct a convention without democratic process. ALEC is doing that. I'm not sure about Convention of States, because they are not communicating with the people enough. No amendment benefitting and protecting the people will be considered by congress and the courts, you can be sure of that. Time for the people to unify or lose their constitution.
In 1911, 2/3 of the states applied for an Article V convention because they knew the fed was going to start issuing fiat money. In April of 1912 the Titanic went down with 40 of America's weathiest people against the fed reserve. In 1913 the fed reserve was created. Congress is not even counting how many states are making applications for a convention. That is how bad it is. http://my.firedoglake.com/danielmar...-amendments-considered-by-houses-of-congress/ The constitution says when 2/3 apply, the response from the clerk if congress says the clerk hasn't been assigned that duty. The response says the judiciary has that duty, the constitution does not say that. Our nation and futures is being hijacked. The constitutions Article V does say that when conventions in 3/4 of the states are ratifying, the constitution is amended. Americans need to define prime constitutional intent then work to purify the legislations of their states consistent to that intent. Then have conventions on those states after democratic elections of delegates. As you can see by that link, congress is unlawful and the courts no better. It also tells you about elite corporate efforts to conduct a convention without democratic process. ALEC is doing that. I'm not sure about Convention of States, because they are not communicating with the people enough. No amendment benefitting and protecting the people will be considered by congress and the courts, you can be sure of that. Time for the people to unify or lose their constitution.
I revised the amendment as follows: "and deprivation": protects against pseudo-torture (water-boarding, dehydration, starvation, pitch black rooms, anechoic chambers, etc.) and also against being put to death (the ultimate deprivation of biology). Section 3 changes: splits into the fourth section and includes mandatory incorporation of rights and such related protections upon the people in the states. Section 4: splits from third section and clarifies meaning. Section 5: clarifies the convention process and ensures that the states are counted as prescribed by the fifth article of the constitution (subject to change as I am still working on it, not sure about the role of the supreme court, feedback appreciated).
New section 5, in less words, as not all were necessary when combining with what already exists in the constitution:
I liked part of your first version. Sort of a check-balance on the 2/3 application aspect, I integrated them
It isn't a good idea to have the president involved in any constitutional process. It isn't a bad idea to have the Supreme Court involved since matters of constitutional law are not political questions and reside thoroughly within the Supreme Courts capacity of understanding. And as Congress represents the people and the states, it is necessary to have the leaders of the Congress, and any other Congress members whom wish, hold witness, thus the Vice President (President of the Senate), President pro tempore of the Senate, and Speaker of the House of Representatives should be involved in the confirmation of receipts of applications. As the constitution does not state how the Congress should go about "calling for a convention," it needs to be clarified that the Congress does not get to vote in any manner upon whether or not to call a convention, as such was already voted on by the States, as it is meant to be. Thus, the Congress, and therefore the Vice President, President pro tempore, and Speaker should not have actual mechanism over the applications, and as that leaves only the Supreme Court, then the Congress and Supreme Court must hold a record and verify with one another, but the Supreme Court's record must be witnessed by the Congressional Leaders, and the Supreme Court shall then hold them accountable for informing the Congress when 2/3 of the States have submitted applications. Thus, all of them must validate the record, but only one of them needs to actually inform the congress, preventing any congressional leader from preventing the convention. And lastly, convention applications do not expire, thus congress does not have the capacity of keeping an entirely accurate record, and thus, the Supreme Court, since it is a permanent body, must hold that responsibility and help check the congress's record of the same, disputes settled in manners as the persons at the time see fit to settle them. Thus, I am reluctant to add any more restrictions on the process in this particular amendment. But of course the Congress will be receiving the applications and must send copy to the Supreme Court, as a check on power. So I will consider adding the "copy" part of your revision. Oh, and just to clarify that i am not renouncing your emphasis on the 2/3 majority necessary: I did not have to include that in the amendment as it is already stated in the Constitution. I am trying to leave out as much redundancy as possible to allow for proper analysis and understanding. Sorry if I offended. I do appreciate the input though, I will still ponder it to make sure there appropriate checks on power. Your responses are more than I have gotten anywhere else, so thank you very much. What do you think of the new Section 5? Is it too restricting or discriminatory?
I would say add that line. Because even if you can't seem to figure out how to pass a law to promote it, someone else will. Better to have a plan then for them to have to argue if their law is constitutional in front of a court.
i think the main reason i am so hesitant to add it is that there is an actual declaration of a right in the second section, and thus it might not be a good idea to say the congress is the enforcer of a right, as that contradicts its purpose, if you see my meaning. I suppose I could specify the sections to be enforced by the congress, that might be a viable option. which sections would those be though, in your opinion?
Just to make sure I follow what you're saying; you're saying a right for the people shouldn't have to be regulated by congress because it contradicts the idea that the rights of the people need to be affirmed by said congress? As for the sections, 1,2,and 6. Just what the little voice in my head is telling me right now though, so I can't really explain why.
I see what you mean, I took your advice into account. Here is a new revision based on input from various individuals of differing beliefs, including yourself:
Good points. I've read about the convention call at FOAVC and IF 3/4 of the states have conventions, propose and ratify, it is an Article V convention and congress is bypassed altogether. I'll look at 5.
This line is problematic. "The Congress shall propose the mode of ratification of thusly proposed amendments," It weakens Article V in a way in the same way the wikipedia misrepresentation does. I've actually disclosed that wiki is concealing treason with this and issues with the structure of the Twin towers. March 2011, wayback machine _____________ https://web.archive.org/web/2011032...rticle_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment and subsequent ratification. Amendments may be proposed by either two-thirds of both houses of the United States Congress or by a national convention. This convention can be assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states. To become part of the Constitution, amendments must then be ratified either by approval of the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the states. Congress has discretion as to which method of ratification should be used. There is one exception to the three-fourths requirement, specified in the last clause of Article V: "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." This clause seems to empower specific states to veto their prospective reduction of representation in the Senate, even over the ratification of 49 other states. ____ Compare the above to the current page, which has been changed, but NOT corrected. Note WHY was it wrong to begin with? Why was the change effected, that really changed nothing? __________ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification.[1] Amendments may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either: • Two-thirds (supermajority) of both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress; OR • By a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either (as determined by Congress): • The legislatures of three-fourths (at present 3 of the states; OR • State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (at present 3 of the states. __________ Here is the actual language of Article V. "as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;" "May be proposed" is a loooooong way from what wiki suggests the power of congress actually is. I This is unacceptable. There are other problems with congress and Article V that need clarification by amendment. If you go to FOVAC you will see that congress is trying to say that applications all need to be in one year. Not logical or constitutional. Basically any state application for amendment should be considered an application for Article V. Congress in that context has tried to say that all state applications for amendment need to be on the same issue. Not reasonable. This page has two amendments I would propose. One a revision of Article V itself, the other the 1st Amendment as a part of "Preparatory Amendment". The idea is to change it as little as possible in the beginning to limit accusation of "rewriting" it. http://algoxy.com/poly/principal_party.html The issues above should be dealt with by revision of Article V itself. Perhaps after the first Article V, another will be possible and make clarification of these issues much easier to deal with. I prefer revising existing clauses to adding additional amendments. The altering implications of additions create complexity that is problematic whereas revision of existing accounts for implication upon revision.
