Constitutional Amendment to Protect our Inalienable Rights

While not expressly the embodiment of the Declaration of Independence the ideals established by the Declaration were, to the best extent pragmatically possible, incorporated into the Declaration of Independence. I would point out a fact though and that is that the Declaration of Independence based upon what became known as classic liberalism but not all Americans were classic liberals. We also had "conservatives" that were predominately represented by the slave states that believed in the Rights of (White) Anglo-Saxon Protestants where such concepts as the ownerships of persons (slavery) was considered not only acceptable but also supported by Biblical teachings in the New Testament. They were the early "White Nationalists" and the US Constitution was a pragmatic compromise with the teachings of Classic Liberalism, as proposed by early writers such as John Locke (that based his beliefs upon religious teachings) to later scholars like Thomas Jefferson that was a deist without religious convictions.

The Declaration of Independence does not refer to "god" but instead to "creator" which is an open-ended statement that can be interpreted as being either god or mother nature. It was a pragmatic compromise in the document itself.

When people refer to Freedom they rarely seem to know what it really means. If we were to use the full statement it would be "Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right of the Person" because the Right exists regardless of whether the person is allowed to exercise it or whether it's infringed upon. The key is really in understanding what an "Inalienable Right of the Person" is and many don't even understand that. For example many confuse "inalienable" with "inviolable" but they're not the same. An inalienable right can be violated. We also see those that simply look to the dictionary and it doesn't provide a very good definition. I've actually summarized the correct definition based upon the writings of the foremost scholars on the subject.

An Inalienable Right is that which is inherent in the person and which does not impose any obligations upon another person and that does not conflict with any other person's inalienable rights.

It is really rather straight forward but amazingly this definition doesn't seem to be taught in our schools and few Americans actually understand it. Often it goes against what they want to believe and I can provide an example. An infant has a "right to eat" but that infant does not have a "right to be fed" based upon the definition of an inalienable right. We have laws based upon "compassion" (as opposed to inalienable rights) that require the voluntary guardian to feed the infant and provide for it but it is a voluntary obligation assumed by an adult. Even the biological mother of an infant voluntarily assumes this legal obligation by removing the child from the hospital after birth so it is always "voluntary" and never mandatory. Every state allows a "mother" of the baby to abandon the baby at the hospital in which case the "State" becomes the legal guardian. My point would simply be that not all laws are based solely upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person as many are based upon the fact that we're a compassionate society.

Back to the Freedom to Exercise and Inalienable Right. There are pragmatic reasons for limiting the Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Right. For example, yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater creates panic that endangers the public safety and our government has responsibilities related to public safety. Our traffic laws, for example, relate to public safety as well.

We could address the 2nd Amendment and the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" which is actually a "Freedom to Exercise Self-Defense" which is an "Inalienable Right of the Person" but that Freedom can be pragmatically limited based upon providing for the public safety but only based upon "public safety" and not "private safety" which the government is not responsible for and has no authority over. I addressed this issue specifically in another thread where I proposed anyone taking a firearm into public should require a license and logically the firearm should be registered by no one should require a license and there should be no registration related to firearms on private property.

But this goes into a lot of details unrelated specifically to this thread. In this thread I've tried to address a pragmatic solution where the maximum possible protections of our Constitutional Rights and the maximum limitation of government powers under the US Constitution could be ensured. It's not perfect but as I've noted I've read so many minority opinions from the Supreme Court where those opinions had validity. Whenever there is a split decision that allows the law or actions of government that decision always reflects dubious Constitutionality because of the minority opinion and I'm opposed to laws and actions of government that are of dubious Constitutionality.

One final note, any government based upon race, religion, ethnic heritage, social status, or other invidious criteria is inherently tyrannical as it creates a division between "US" (those empowered by the invidious criteria) and "Them" (those oppressed by the invidious criteria).

 

There should be ONE Amendment that protects our "inalienable rights"


it should read

" All Americans have the freedom to do as they please provided that it doesn't adversely affect another person without that person's consent

Likewise NO American has the freedom to do something that adversely affects another person without that other person's consent"

That would completely eliminate all the crying and bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

It would be as least as likely to create a lawyer's wet dream, by explicitly giving private parties standing to sue each other in federal court for unspecified "adverse effects", such as the inability to post on message boards.

 

The problem is that it's unenforceable.

We make decisions all of the time that could be cited as adversely affecting someone else without their consent. That doesn't mean that it's right but it is not something that the Constitution can protect against as it would require the most authoritarian government imaginable to enforce it.

 

no, that's what the courts and juries are for. Of course doing so would require a restructuring of the jurisprudence laws in this country and hold people financially responsible for wrongful lawsuits but that should be done anyway.

 

Once again my proposed amendment does "fix the universe" but merely addresses the pragmatic elimination of laws or actions of government that are of dubious Constitutionality.

I would also state that it would dramatically change the political process. Today we have partisan politics where they're willing pass laws of dubious Constitutionality in the hopes that a simple majority of the US Supreme Court will support it. Requiring a unanimous Supreme Court decisions changes the dynamics of political process as the legislature would have to address every issue to ensure that the law (or action of government) was Constitutional. It forces the politician to address Constitutional objections to what they propose before they even attempt the proposal. That simply doesn't happen today where we have "Constitutional" attorney's where their sole purpose in life is to rationalize laws of dubious Constitutionality. We don't require an attorney to explain when a law is clearly Constitutional but we do require attorneys to rationalize why a law of dubious Constitutionality might be Constitutional.

 

Hypothetical situation.

I apply for a job but without my consent the hiring manager selects someone else and that decision adversely affects me financially. Apparently I'd have grounds for a civil suit because the hiring manager did not obtain my consent before hiring someone else.

 

No suit, you suffered NO actual harm. Hypothetical harms don't count.

 

Presumably it would be done at the statutory level, whereas your proposed amendment would provide prima facie justification for the nullification of such statues by the Judiciary.

 

Loss of income is an actual loss.

Once again though the foundation for the Constitutional Amendment I proposed is to eliminate the laws and actions of government that are of dubious Constitutionality. It was proposed because in very split decision I've read the dissenting opinion on why the law or action was unconstitutional was valid. If the dissenting opinion is valid then the law or action of government is of questionably Constitutionally.

 

Lots of cases would be overturned by this amendment to include Roe V Wade. I like the idea behind a unanimous court on all cases, or the case gets thrown out, or the action deemed unconstitutional, but it sets us up for a dangerous unintended ripple effect. i stated this in another thread as well, but thought it might actually be more appropriate here, where you started the thread

 

The case is not thrown out because that would merely allow more laws and actions of dubious Constitutionality to exist. You think we've got it bad now you can't even imagine how bad it would be if the numerous laws and actions of government that were declare unconstitutional by a split decision were allowed to stand. It does require unanimous consent to uphold the law or action to reduce the number of laws/actions of dubious Constitutionality. We want to make things better, not worse.

Yes, many laws and actions would be declared unconstitutional but Roe v Wade wouldn't change as far as Roe v Wade declaring the abortion laws of the time unconsitutional. Roe v Wade had seven Supreme Court justices that ruled it was unconstitutional but would have only required just one under this Amendment. No laws or actions that were previously ruled unconstitutional would change. The only "decisions" that would change would be split decisions that upheld the law or action as being Constitutional. Laws like the Social Security Act and Interstate Commerce Act that expanded federal power were supported based upon split decisions and they would be struck down as unconstitutional. More recently Obamacare would have been ruled unconstitutional.

The other issue of great concern is "Standing" because many cases are tossed out of court due to a lack of standing by the Plaintiffs. In most cases this is accurate but in some cases trying to figure out who might have "standing" is very hard to put your finger on. Who, for example, has "Standing" to challenge the War Powers Act? To my knowledge no one has standing to challenge that law. I would suggest that when a Court rules the Plaintiffs have a lack of Standing that the Court also has an obligation to declare who would have Standing. If the court is incapable of doing that then the case should proceed.

 

you are getting into a very complex rats nest surrounded by vipers.

Unless you include the al capone factor it will not achieve what you want.

the only solution that I can see achieving this is first create a judicial dictionary with every word specifically defined, then with the addition of fully empowered jurys for every and any case despite if its jwalking, murder, or financial. these judges will always default to the old english law and try to apply it first and make concessions based on the same.

Yes kelo comes to mind, I have a huge list of stacked cases that our honest joe plumber court system bent the people over the wood pile.

 

I'm not quite sure that I understand what you're trying to say. What is the Al Capone factor for example?

 

pure unadulterated corruption

the 160+ ivy league iq club preying on the innocent people who believe in their trustees.

Here is an example how easy it is to do an impasse around any law or right you think you have.

just an example, in fact an in everyones face example how its done.

the word as it was understood and used pre-1950






the same word as it is understood today

cant imagine why?

[video=youtube;mqDAFEYQTMY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqDAFEYQTMY[/video]


simply destroy the language and change the understanding of the word run it through the courts one time to set precedence and presto, your rights are history.

or do an impasse around it. arms are now guns. not the same thing. freedom to travel is not the commercial act of driving not the same thing.

arms you have rights attached, guns you do not. travel you have rights attached, driving you do not despite the fact that court cases state that the means of locomotion be it feet or a motor is irrelevant to "travel", your rights are history and its so simple to do.

solution fully empowered jury for any hearing or dispute where the government is involved despite how trivial, and also for any case period.



its the only way there will ever be "We the people" rather than "We the government"

 

It doesn't work that way nor have I ever seen that issue being a concern in any US Supreme Court decision.

Can you provide a single historical Supreme Court decision where the decision was based upon the change in the common usage of a word? In every case I've ever read the "original" understanding of the definition was addressed by the Supreme Court.

For example in the Roe v Wade decisions the Supreme Court addressed the word "person" and addressed it from the historical legal definition perspective. In doing so it found that there were no examples in case law of it ever referring to any "human being" prior to birth at anytime in history. "Personhood" has always been established "at birth" and never before birth historically under the law. The "common" usage is irrelevant to the "legal" usage of the word. Today "anti-abortionists" have applied the word "child" to a pre-born but it has no "legal" meaning as rights don't exist for the "child" but instead for the "person" so the use of the word "child" has no actual legal meaning. Even the use of the word "murder" when applied to the preborn has no significance because the Constitution doesn't protect against "murder" but instead it protects against the violation of the "Right to Life of a Person" and the preborn is not a person and has no Constitutionally protected rights.

While some might like to make a theoretical argument based upon the changing common definition of words in our lexicon to my knowledge there is no precedent for it being a concern related to the US Constitution.

 

person...my all time fav word right up there with exterminate as kill everything, holocaust as genocide, and all these other words used by syntax terrorists for mass media population mind control.

well you story aint exactly correct. I am sure they would love for the common person (pun intended lol) to believe just that, how ever its not true.

There are boat loads of people who have deeply researched this "person" gig and found how the 160+ iq club used it to abuse the common man.

That really old and I didnt bother correcting a few not 100% correct things but you should get the gist, that is correct, The OFFICE OF THE "PERSON".

Black stone wasnt happy with it either!

Where did it all start?

and of course our constitution is a near duplicate of the english "stuff"...et al.

incidentally that has never been formally amended in law, however policy left it behind.

 

For those who understand how law is structured we dont even need a constitution. The problem is those entrusted with the constitution imposing the states will upon the people ASSUMED TO HAVE AGREED TO BE GOVERNED BY IT. Despite the reality.

Murder originated as a moral matter, punished within the scope of religion., not state! Remember the state is the religion of the age and taken over after ousting the church (religion) in this country.

You have no right to exercize your religion and if you think you do, pick a state and see where your state constitution, the one we supposedly agreed upon, grants to ourselves the RIGHT TO EXERCISE OUR RELIGION.....just one man.... What happened there?

Try it sometime see what happens! lol

Otherwise you seem to have missed the whole point apparently.

I posted Dr. who showing you how the "common usage" in this case "EXTERMINATE which meant nothing more than move out of your boudaries in hilters say, to what it got changed to today, (KILL EM ALL LET GOD SORT EM OUT), this bull(*)(*)(*)(*) spin is put out in the government and media and blindly accepted as correct terminology, just like holocaust is accepted and commonly thrown around as a synonym for genocide when in fact it is a jewish sacrificial ritual, and it has not and never did mean genocide until as usual the media and government spun it that way.

Common usage today is grammatically useless spin.
heller: District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime

To address it constitutionally you would need to use the "exact terminology" in court and that is

heller: District of Columbia law bans arms possession by making it a crime

Do you see the word "arms" as used in the constitution? No you see the word "gun", and a specific arm no less that they want to call a "hand" - "gun". It is an "arm" aka armament. Go ahead go to court and use the word arm and see what they do. Been down that road with other (syntax terrorist) issues leveled against the ;laws of the american people..

Its all regurgitated to extend their jurisdiction beyond what was intended, hence the need for extremely well informed fully empowered juries for anything what so ever to do with government and any court case what so ever. Make that amendment and watch this corruption take it on the chin.

R v W? Sure, they cant tax something that they cannot put a "title" upon. They cant put a title upon anything they cant lay their hands on. Has nothing to do with it being a life, that whole case is about states interests vs individual interests and the precise point in time the "state" can claim to have a legal interest in the new born, a commodity, no different than a new born calf from the states standpoint. Dont forget the federal reserve starts printing more new money with every new birth certificate! Its all about the money hunny!!! LMAO

Many of these cases have several prongs of law that most are completely unaware of that are affected by accessory

We think of it as right to choose, yeh thats part of it.

 

While some might like to make a theoretical argument based upon the changing common definition of words in our lexicon to my knowledge there is no precedent for it being a concern related to the US Constitution.

Its a huge concern. Its even in the bible, the tower of babel right? the destruction of language. There is no solid meaning, just call it what ever you want and tada out with the old in with the new.

Do you see the word "man" or "men" used anywhere? Like they did in the declaration of independence? Dont you think that is odd that the 'constitutors' revered as founders which is a lie on its face since all they did was copy and regurgitate the laws of england....when they had no authority to do so in the first place.....and and and and before I really digress I will stop there.

 

Well your argument "ain't exactly correct" as you refer to precedent established by split-decisions of the Supreme Court which my amendment would eliminate. It is just this sort of legal precendent that my proposal eliminates so you're providing arguments that, it truth, support my proposal.

 

Heres the thing though. I agree that more amendments would cure certain ills.

However:

There is an old saying regarding law. Any kind of law.,

A good attorney can indict a ham sandwich. (and most judges were attorneys)

Which is to say its only a *******ned piece of a paper.

Then again what good is a law when jurys refuse to convict? What happens when word gets around that the legislature and their black robed high priests throw out one jury acquittal/decision after another?

The only way those words "We the People" means you and I, is through the use of fully empowered jurys controlling the law we live under not the commercial corporation as it has been established.

Keep in mind that technically a jury removes the duties of court from the priest and jury is now the court. Though you wont find anyone in 'power' who would agree with that.

He uses the wrong word, its fully "empowered" (and informed)

Nowhere in any constitution did "we the people" give up our authority over our law or place our elected trustees to rule over us.

 

crap went past the edit time LOL

[SIZE=+1]"If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant's natural god-given unalienable or constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law." -- Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]"For more than six hundred years-- that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215--there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such law." --Lysander Spooner, The Right of Juries

[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]Every jury in the land is tampered with and falsely instructed by the judge when it is told that it must accept as the law that which has been given to them, or that they can decide only the facts of the case. -- Lord Denham, O'Connell v Rex (1884)
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]The jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both the law and the facts. -- Justice Holmes, Homing v District of Columbia, 138 (1920)
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]When a jury acquits a defendant even though he or she clearly appears to be guilty, the acquittal conveys significant information about community attitudes and provides a guideline for future prosecutorial discretion...Because of the high acquittal rate in prohibition cases in the 1920s and early 1930s, prohibition laws could not be enforced. The repeal of these laws is traceable to the refusal of juries to convict those accused of alcohol traffic. -- Sheflin and Van Dyke, Law and Contemporary Problems, 43, No. 4, 1980
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1]It is not only the juror's right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the directions of the court.-- John Adams[/SIZE]

that is the peoples ONLY avenue, more words and paper is only more words and paper
[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]

 

I agree with much of what is expressed here. For example "A good attorney can indict a ham sandwich" while humorous isn't too far from the truth but that doesn't imply that a good attorney can convict a "ham sandwich" by obtaining a unanimous verdict of guilt by a jury.

What I proposes is basically that the Supreme Court address Constitutionality in the same manner that a jury addresses a criminal complaint with the difference being that the assumption is that the government is violating the US Constitution as opposed to believing the US government is acting in accordance with it. It should be the responsibility of government to prove it is "innocent beyond an reasonable doubt" when the laws or actions are challenged by a lawsuit.

The "people" are assumed to be innocent so opposite of that is that the "government" must be assumed to be guilty.

We can certainly argue that more Amendments are warranted but there is a reason why. The biggest problem I see related to the US Constitution is that Americans have an extremely poor understanding of what the Inalienable Rights of the People are. The founders left us with a few that are protected but they were never so arrogant as to believe they knew and understood them all. They left that for future generations to determine and gave us the 9th Amendment to protect them. We have done some to protect the unenumerated Rights of the Person that were historically being violated with Amendments. For example women's sufferage that was addressed by Constitutional Amendment merely provided the protections of the Right of Equality for women that was being violated by government. Women should have always had the Right to Vote. The 13th Amendment ended slavery were blacks were being treated as property as opposed to people and slavery should never have existed based upon the 9th Amendment.

The founders of America delegated future generations with the responsibilty to expand our knowledge and understanding of the Inalienable Rights of the Person and we have not taken that responsibility seriously. To my knowledge the foundation for the Inalienable Rights of the Person still isn't being taught in the public schools and if we don't understand them then how are we supposed to determine them?

 

[SIZE=+2]UNALIENABLE.[/SIZE]
The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.

Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty areUNALIENABLE.Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition "Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred." Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

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


Inalienable rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

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 to 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.DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE



Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)


Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hinderance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that 'THE PROPERTY WHICH EVERY MAN HAS IN HIS OWN LABOR, AS IT IS THE ORIGINAL FOUNDATION OF ALL OTHER PROPERTY, SO IT IS THE MOST SACRED AND INVIOLABLE. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. . . The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right, it was formulated as such under the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' in the declaration of independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that 'all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen. To deny it to all but a few favored individuals, by investing the latter with a monopoly, is to invade one of the fundamental privileges of the citizen, contrary not only to common right, but, as I think, to the express words of the constitution. It is what no legislature has a right to do; and no contract to that end can be binding on subsequent legislatures. . . BUTCHERS' UNION CO. v. CRESCENT CITY CO., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)


"Burlamaqui (Politic c. #, . 15) defines natural liberty as "the right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they may judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men;" and therefore it has been justly said, that "absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security--the right of personal liberty--and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and unalienable." Potter's Dwarris, ch. 13, p. 429.

From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labour and industry. . . The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . . Where is the security, where the inviolability of property, if the legislature, by a private act, affecting particular persons ONLY, can take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another? VANHORNE'S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)


("[T]he Due Process Clause protects [the unalienable liberty recognized in the Declaration of Independence] rather than the particular rights or privileges conferred by specific laws or regulations." SANDIN v. CONNER, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)

http://www.gemworld.com/usa-unalienable.htm



The law will never be the peoples law when left in the hands of the judges.

The standard is that presumption is always in favor of government. (themselves!)

As a supreme court judge give me one reason why "I" would want to give you my power?

 

If you have ever dealt with the court system than you know that they trick you by syntax terrorism into consenting to give up your rights. especially municipal courts and state courts are right up there with them.

While I agree that you have good intent, the paper does not imply enforcement, and it should be pretty clear to most people the robes do not enforce it in the manner that protects the original intent.

The only way it can be peaceably enforced is through the jurys. we have the system already in place we just need to use it and they know that as well.