Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights? They went further than that. The states agreed to what they they did and by the constitution after the Declaration of Independence they made "alter or abolish" OUR right. However, states citizens have to define constitutional intent then impose it on their states democratically, then the states use Article V to amend and alter the government destructive to unalienable rights or abolish it by obsoletion. Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish? If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech? If free speech is only a right to be used by individuals for their purposes, "the people" do not have the right to alter or abolish because they are not enabled in their unity for that purpose. Alter or abolish is an empty right. Is that what the framers intended? Secret control enables what you say, and when people are no longer afraid of understanding how secrecy is created and maintained then the cycle will end. Meanwhile we have the framing documents and their prime intent. I only see deficiencies. One, Article V does not define preparation to assure all amendments have constitutional intent and two, the ultimate purpose of free speech is not defined as enabling the unity required to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights which starts with defining constitutional intent, our exclusive right. Agreed. It is necessary to acknowledge the infiltration of the federal government exploiting these deficiencies at the civil war. The English financiers of the union army indirectly took over at the war. That is exactly what is propose with our lawful and peaceful revolution. Chicken or egg scenario. Logically everyone SHOULD know about prime constitutional intent and be able to immediately agree upon its definition. Not so with 9/11. Because of government complicity in 9/11, it is fully guilty of destruction of unalienable rights, (you and I know that) and there are a host of other unconstitutional acts which other states citizens well know of that justify our use of our right to alter or abolish. However, in order to invoke the 9th amendment we need agreement upon prime constitutional intent because Article V is needed. Thusly, a clear confident answer in agreement is needed to these two inquiry which define constitutional intent. Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights? Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?