Constitutional Amendment to Protect our Inalienable Rights

we need to understand the changes over time. People rarely got divorced, and we had the dowry system, the family was a unit, the churches played a HUGE role in government.

that is no longer the case so things needed to be adjusted.

Township parrish equity etc all ecclesia brought in by the churches that no longer overtly have force as it used to be, under churches. The government is our new church and religion.

Now divorces are the norm so everything needed to be individualized likewise the vote, and it did bring in lots of extra tax revenue too

slaves? yeh they chained the up until they could be trained through attrition to fit into the american system. Granting them title with a registered birth certificate opened up the door to a dew extra franchise rights for them. You do know that slaves always had the right to sue in american courts and on rare occasion did. Slavery was a contract arrangement for the most part, there were many white slaves as well, not only blacks. You owed someone you signed into slavery contract with them. Today it appears more so in the form of unjust enrichment....but slavery still exists and is used by our own government.

Any time you create a debt that is transferable from parent to child you have created a slave condition! How about that! Its all around us and we are none the wiser excepting to our knowledge of history and how it was done in the past would have no idea that we are all bond slaves instituted by our government in the land of the free.....LOL

 

In short we have the fox guarding the chicken coop and that is the problem I address in the most pragmatic means possible. The Supreme Court members are some of the most outstanding jurists in the United States and very knowledgeable when it comes to the law and the US Constitution. My assumption is that in virtually all cases at least one of the Supreme Court Justices will address an issue of dispute as an advocate of the People as opposed to being an advocate of the State. That is the assumption I make after reading the dessent opinion on many Supreme Court decisions. When there is a split decision at least one of the Supreme Court Justices is prioritizing the People over the Government. They make a compelling argument why the law or action violates the US Constitution.

The examples you provided on "unalienable" and "inalienable" reflect how poorly we seem to understand our Inalienable Rights.

We have an Inalienable Right and also the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right and they are not the same. The Inalienable Right cannot be violated but our Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right can be based upon compelling arguments. In such cases the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right should be restricted to the least extent possible in order to fulfill the necessity established by the compelling argument.

For example we have a protected Freedom of Speech (and expression) in the United States that addresses the Inalienable Right of Thought of the Person but we limit that Freedom of Speech based upon compelling argument. For example we don't allow a person to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire because it can cause panic, injury and death. We're not infringing upon the Freedom of Thought of the Person and our limitation upon their Freedom to Exercise their Right of Thought by expression is only limited to a very small degree. They can stand in the middle of a park and yell fire all they want. They just can't do it in a theater where it can cause panic.

The Inalienable Right is not being violated by the limitation on their Freedom to Exercise that Inalienable Right.

We can voluntarily limit our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights and under the Constitution the means for providing that voluntary consent is established. We cannot voluntarily agree to a violation of our Unalienable/Inalienable Rights though. That's what wrong with the Death Penalty. It violates an Inalienable Right of the Person. Incarceration does not violate an Inalienable Right though but it does impose a severe restriction upon the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Liberty but that limitation is based upon a compelling argument (in most cases) where the person convicted of a crime has demostrated they would violate the Rights of Others . On the flip side "victimless crimes" don't establish a logical basis for the limitation on the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Liberty as the convicted person did not demonstrate they would violate the Rights of Others.

I do appreciate the points you bring forward because they really do represent our failure even today to understand our Inalienable Rights as a Person. What is even more amazing to me is that we don't even understand the Unalienable/Inalienable Rights expressed by the founders of America over 200 years ago. Case in point is that founders like James Madison, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson all believed that the "Inalienable Right of Liberty of the Person" included the Right of Expatriation/Immigration. A pragmatic argument can be made that the Freedom to Exercise the Right of Liberty by immigrating from one nation to another can be prohibited for those that would do so for nefarious criminal purposes but no argument can be made to prohibit a person from immigrating for peaceful purposes such as employment. Based upon the 9th Amendment I would argue that our immigration "quota" laws are unconstitutional as they restrict the Freedom to Exercise the Inalienable Right of Liberty for those that would immigrate to the United States for peaceful purposes.

But the discussion of unalienable/inalienable rights is a whole can of worms but to summarize it we really haven't done much in addressing these rights and that is problematic because we have so many legal precedents based upon ignorance.

 

That despite the consequences is a violation of your right to do so. I agree it should never happen, at the same time I disagree that the state should have the authority to be the institutionalized sanctioned interloper.

This is precisely why we have this ever growing corruption and extortion.

If you have never done so you owe it to yourself to read these:

http://www.constitution.ru/en/10003000-01.htm

http://english.people.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html

some people are shocked when they read those.... its a small world!

 

The proposed amendment would not take away the power that one individual to determine the Supreme Court decision. The proportion would simply change from 5:4 to 8:1. This would also make it nearly impossible for the Supreme Court to rule on anything. If you really want the Supreme Court to be an honest decision making body that goes by the constitution, term limit them.

 

I'm not surprised at the links at all but we should note a significant difference that is best reflected in Article 2 of the Russian Constitution where it states:

In short the "Rights of the Person" are established by government fiat in Russia and must be enumerated. The same is true in China and even in Great Britian were the "Rigths" are established by law and are not inherent in the person.

One of the many things that I believe people misunderstand is that they believe the United States Consitution is the "Social Contract" of America but it is not. It is the manifistation in law of the Social Contract that was established before it. The actual Social Contract of America was established before the US Constitution and even before the Articles of Confederation were established. This is the Social Contract upon which America was founded:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html

These few words from the Declaration of Independence establish the Social Contract under which government in the United States exists. When we look at the "Constitutions" of other nations they lack the Social Sontract that we adopted in 1776. Russia, China, and even the UK (that doesn't have a Constitution) are ruled by government whereas in the United States, under our Social Contract, government is subservient to the People. We should also note that based upon these words that establish our Social Contract that our government is subservient to ALL of the People in the United States and not just to US Citizens that are a subgroup of the People.

My greatest concern is that our government violates the Social Contract that gives it authority that can only be granted by the People. That is why I seek the greatest possible protections against the actions of government that violate the US Constitution and also oppose Constitutional provisions and Amendments that violate the Social Contract.

 

the rights of the "person" are established by the state regardless of what government you are under.

this is touched upon in the spies case


That the first ten articles of amendment were not intended to limit the powers of the state governments in respect to their own people, but to operate on the National Government alone, was decided more than a half century ago, and that decision has been steadily adhered to since.

Hanson v. Baltimore, 32 U. S. 7 Pet. 243,247 [8:672,674]; Livingston v. Moore, Id. 469, 552 [8:751, 781]; Fox v. Ohio. 46 U. S. 6 How. 410, 434 [12: 213, 223]; Smith v. Maryland, 59 U. S. 18 How. 71, 76 [15: 26S, 2711; Withers v. Buckley, 61 U. S. 20 How. 84, 91 [15:816, 819];
Pernear v.Commonwealth, 72 U. 8. 5 Wall. 475, 479 [18:608, 6091; Twitchell v. Commonwealth, 74 U. 8. 7 Wall. 321, 325 [19:223, 224]; The Justices v. Murray, 76 U. S. 9 Wall. 274, 278 [19:658, 660]; Edicard» v. Elliott, 88 U. S. 21 Wall. 532, 557 [22:487, 4921; Waller v. Sawinet, 92 U. S. 90 [23:678]; U. 8. v. Cruikshank, Id. 542, 552 [23: 588, 5911; Pearson v. Tewdall, 95 U. S.294,296 [24:436,437]; Daridton v. New Orkan», 96 U. 8. 97, 101 124:616, 618]; Kelly v. Pittsburgh. 104 U. S. 79 [26: 658]; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 Í29: 615, 619].

It was contended, however, in argument, that, "though originally the first ten amendments were adopted as limitations on federal power, yet in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights—common-law rights —of the man, they make them privileges and immunities of the man as a citizen of the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a State under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, while the ten amendments as limitations on power only apply to the Federal Government, and not to the States, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the Fourteenth Amendment as to such rights limits state power, as the ten amendments had limited federal power."

It is also contended that the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment which declares that no State shall deprive "any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" implies that every person charged with crime in a State shall be entitled to a trial by an impar- [167] tial jury, and shall not be compelled to testify against himself.


The difference of course is that a person is a fiction and contrivance of the state that RE_PRESENTS as an actor in law, while man is not. I know its convoluted (*)(*)(*)(*), welcome to law.

The US has brought your rights under their umbrella, common law rights are today in america assumed to be non-religious in so far as you as man are concerned, the secular state religion is the only allowable religion (legislators) in the US courts.

Dont forget ANY "agreement" or contract establishes "law" between the parties. The use of the term social contract may be what it is seen as from a philosophers point of view but has nothing to do the establishment of organic law.

then you run into the problem, how can my forefathers agree to hold me to anything today without my explicit agreement and consent? "Legitimately"?

Another problem.....the people that signed that constitution are all dead, who in government signs the constitution today? It is after all their promise to us is it not?

More amendments are simply more ink on paper and out of and beyond your control. The only way you will get back the rights you lost is by fully empowered jury willing to nullify the law in the face of great resistance.



Then lets not forget about the validity question in the first place!


We the People? or We the States?

Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788

Henry's statesmanship did not end with the Revolution and the achievement of independence. While recognizing the need to augment the financial resources of the confederation congress, he was critical of the extensive of powers given to the central government by the Constitution of 1787.

I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking.

I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor [George Washington], I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information.

The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear.

It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration. You must, therefore, forgive the solicitation of one unworthy member to know what danger could have arisen under the present Confederation,,,,,,,,,,

 

That is not what was established by the Social Contract under which the US Constitution that was established by the following two sentences from the Declaration of Independence:

Governments established among me to "secure" the rights of the person but do not establish them.

We can also note that the US Constitution itself establishes the supremacy of the US Constitution and federal law over the States and that the 10th Amendment denies any "powers" to the States or People that are prohibited by the US Constitution other opinions notwithstanding.

In citing Supreme Court decisions if possile please provide links to them but even more important, in the case of this thread, to cite if they were a unanimous or split decision as my proposal requires unanimous consent of the Supreme Court to uphold any law or act of government. Finally I have not stated that all ills of government would be resolved by my proposal but instead it is a pragmatic means of ensuring the most protection under the US Constitution.

 

Are any of the signers of the declaration of independence alive to enforce the agreement?

What law form gives anyone today the right to enforce someone elses contract?

Hmmm I think that dicta came from was spies v us exparte

https://casetext.com/case/the-anarchists-case-ex-parte-spies-and-others#.U10csVcilHE

Once again I want to know incontrvertibly who (the pronoun) "People" are since it would appear to be the signers and THEIR posterity..


Next, the state has no obligation to protect, despite all the protection sales (patriot act etc) we hear from the legislature et al.


[h=1]Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone[/h]



By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005


WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.



The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0




[h=1]Warren v. District of Columbia[/h] Warren v. District of Columbia[SUP][1][/SUP] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[SUP][2][/SUP] District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia





Overlawyered

Chronicling the high cost of our legal system


[h=1]“The Police Have No Obligation To Protect You. Yes, Really.”[/h] by Walter Olson on December 28, 2011




In cases such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), the Supreme Court has declined to put police and other public authorities under any general duty to protect individuals from crime. The decisions have been broadly unpopular, but Mike McDaniel at PJ Media takes the Court’s side on policy grounds: “This [lack of a particularized duty] might seem absolutely outrageous, but it is logical, rational, and unquestionably necessary.”

http://overlawyered.com/2011/12/the-police-have-no-obligation-to-protect-you-yes-really/



We know they protect themselves as part of the "state".

So who the hell are the "People"?

...and what the hell are they securing?

Nothing more than a piece of paper with words on it?


The supreme court doesnt make law exactly, the set precedence, as stare decis, that is to be used by lower courts as such.

I dont know what law you are talking about because there is no social contract defined in the law of the united states that I am aware of.

 

Damn edit time outs


So why do we have a government when it fails to protect, imposes ITS will upon the "people" in the name of the "People" and admits it is merely the holder of the sacred chalice for show and tell?

who the hell are the "People"?

Where is a social contract defined in the law?

What law form gives anyone today the right to enforce someone elses contract?

How do you expect this amendment, (though I agree its a nice idea) to actually function? Does that mean that all supreme court decisions are to be ignored unless unanimous?

There are no jurys setting precedence on their own their own merits, the courts rule this country lock stock and barrel.

They got around the whole constitution and its amendments why would you believe they would not get around yet another amendment?

 

We are alive though and I know of no one that disagrees with the Social Contract established in the two sentences cited from the Declaration of Independence that is a citizen of the United States.

Issues of contract disputes have always been settled by courts. Of note the US Constitution, like any contract, is as current as it's last revision date which was in 1992. The US Constitution is a current contract still in full effect and there are no time limits related to the conditions of a contract so long as it is still in effect. Of course the States, by 3/4ths of them agreeing, can nullify the US Constitution tomorrow if they decide to do so.

The The Anarchists Case Ex parte Spies and others, 123 U.S. 131, 181 (U.S. 1887) was a simple rejection of the Appeal petition to the US Supreme Court that sent the case back to the lower courts. The plaintiffs attempted to introduce arguments that were never raised in the lower courts. The "writ" was denied because it did not relate to the case heard in the Federal Court and the Court of Appeals.

Irrelevant to the discussion and legal precedent established that the words "person" (and the plural "people") refers to all living individuals from the moment of birth.

 

Since I do not believe there is such a thing as an "inalienable right", I would be voting no.

 

people is a singular not a plural. the phrase "a people" "To people" etc...

What was said in the case was spot on however.

We are alive though and I know of no one that disagrees with the Social Contract established in the two sentences cited from the Declaration of Independence that is a citizen of the United States.
Citizens? How does that reflect upon non-citizens or dont they count?

The US Constitution is a current contract still in full effect and there are no time limits related to the conditions of a contract so long as it is still in effect.
and what legal method binds anyone to be subject to a contract made by dead men incapable of enforcing it?

Of course the States, by 3/4ths of them agreeing, can nullify the US Constitution tomorrow if they decide to do so.
Same thing, our great great grandfather agreed to it, what law form binds me or you to it today?

Someone drew a circle on a map and said this is my kingdom and I rule by legislators and MY courts and anyone living in this circle is subject to my government?

I want to see law, how can you expect an amendment to stick when the whole system is built upon the notion of the king states supremacy in the first place?

 

they are essentially contract rights. however the system abuses the crap out of it. For instance because you are here you are presumed to agree with therefore expected to abide by the laws. (despite the fact you had nothing to do with the creation of them, just the fact that you are on X marks the spot you are PRESUMED to agree, hence the jurisdiction of the court is established, despite the fact there are no other courts in the first place) LOL

what you will find if you are sharp litigator is that it comes down to this:

 

Not sure what a seizure inducing gif has to do with it, but since the laws are subject to unilateral change, they do not even rise to the level of contract rights. Those who have power exercise that power as thoughtfully or as capriciously as they so desire, but in the end, there are no "rights" and nothing is "inalienable".

 

Good point!

I think we would agree on that note since all they need do to get around any law is add a word (or change the sense of the word used) then substitute it and overlay it on top. Gun, being substituted for Arm comes to mind. The whole legal system is in and of itself a whimsical farce based on who is the best word smith and state agenda. The legislators job is to circumvent due process by replacing it with state rules then relabeling their rules (statutes) due process making it far more difficult for the people to get justice outside "their" statutes. In my state it takes an act of congress to even get a jury trial, especially when attorneys asses are on the line for criminal handling of a case, or if the state stands to lose money, the judges protect them and force an appeal. I digress.,... lol

The seizure inducing gif represents the circular reasoning you will encounter when getting into the nitty gritty of contrary law and their (king state) claim of authority.

 

Then you are an advocate for despotism as power is vested in the "government" as opposed to "power" being vested in the Person based upon their Inalienable Rights.

We can note the difference. Great Britian still operates based upon the "Divine Right of Kings" even though it has a legislative process. That legislative process was granted by the "power" of the monarchy and that which is granted by "power" can also be taken away based upon that same "power" being exercised again. Great Britian does not recognize the Inalienable Rights of the Person nor does it establish that the "power" of government originates with the People of Great Britain. All "Rights" in Britian are statutory in nature established by government fiat (law) and can therefore be taken away by the government at anytime.

That is not the case in the United States today because we have a Constitution (the UK doesn't have a constitution) and the 9th Amendment protects the Inalienable Rights of the Person even when they are not enumerated.

 

But so does the US!


The king [the state] is, and ever has been, a corporation sole'; that corporation sole; a corporation is an artificial person that never dies 4; that is invisible, and exists only in intendment and consideration of law; that has no soul, and cannot therefore be summoned before an ecclesiastical court or subjected to spiritual censure; that can neither beat or be beaten in its body politic, nor commit treason or felony in its corporate capacity; that can suffer no corporal punishment or corruption of blood, and can neither be imprisoned or outlawed, its existence being merely ideal5. So far he will be satisfied that the King of England, as described in law books, is in some sense an ideal personage. It may be said, indeed, that the King is not more an ideal personage than a parson or other corporation sole; that it is merely the office, which is converted by a fiction of law into a person ; and that the object of this transmutation is to have the same identical rights kept on foot, and continued for ever by a succession of individuals, possessing the same privileges, and charged with the same duties. But, on reflection, it will appear that there but differ, is a wide difference between the King and other porpora- other corporations sole. Derations

' Blackstone, i. 271. iv. 2. 2 Ibid. i. 252. 257.
3 Ibid. i. 469. 472. 4 Ibid. i. 467, 468. 5 Ibid. i. 477. , . o i i o

There is therefore something higher, more mysterious,and more remote from reality, in the conception which the law of England forms of the King, than enters into Ideal theory the notion of a corporation sole.

The ideal King of the english common- law represents the power and majesty of the whole community. [The People] His fiat makes laws2. His sentence condemns. His [the states] judgments give property, and take it away. He is the state'. It is true, that in the exercise of these powers, the real King, to whom they are necessarily entrusted, is advised, directed, and controlled by others.

But in the contemplation of law the sovereignty and undivided power of the state are in the King. [for the US change the King to President]

'Attorney-General's Speech in Hardy's Trial. Howell's State Trials, xxiv. 246.

2 In an argument before the Court of King's [States] Bench, in 23 Edw. III. it was said, " Que le roy fist les leis par assent dez peres et de la commune, et non pas lez peres et la commune." Y. B. 23 Edw. III. i. 3. b.

8 " The person of the king, in name, is the state.

He is to all intents and purposes the sole representative of the state." Solicitor-General's Speech in Hardy's Trial. Howell's State Trials, xxiv. 1183.

It is not my intention to dispute the truth or reality of this view of the constitution of England.

INQUIRY INTO THE RISE AND GROWTH ROYAL PREROGATIVE ENGLAND.
BY JOHN ALLEN.

LONDON: PUBLISHED BY LONGMAN, BROWN, AND GREEN, PATERNOSTER-ROW.

1830
​

King = president/guvernator = state/nation representative, they just "reconstructed" it gave it a face lift and off to the races!

its all the same crap. if the states were not sovereign they would not be above the assumed creators. Blue is emphasis added.

They have the house of commons we the house of representatives, they have the house of lords, we have the senate, they have nobles we have gubernators, they have sherrifs and attorney generals and so do we, they have countys so do we, gouroughs, so do we, wards so do we, estates under original title, ours are called states, you pay taxes for services of the king we pay taxes for the services of the king, it all means the same thing, its nearly identical setup.

They have the magna charta (that OUR SUPREME COURT QUOTES), along with their "unwritten laws" (constitution) and with their 1496 bill of rights and we have ours.




AND

Constitutions organise, distribute and regulate state power. They set out the structure of the state, the major state institutions, and the principles governing their relations with each other and with the state’s citizens. Britain is unusual in that it has an ‘unwritten’ constitution: unlike the great majority of countries there is no single legal document which sets out in one place the fundamental laws outlining how the state works. Britain’s lack of a ‘written’ constitution can be explained by its history. In other countries, many of whom have experienced revolution or regime change, it has been necessary to start from scratch or begin from first principles, constructing new state institutions and defining in detail their relations with each other and their citizens. By contrast, the British Constitution has evolved over a long period of time, reflecting the relative stability of the British polity. It has never been thought necessary to consolidate the basic building blocks of this order in Britain. What Britain has instead is an accumulation of various statutes, conventions, judicial decisions and treaties which collectively can be referred to as the British Constitution. It is thus more accurate to refer to Britain’s constitution as an ‘uncodified’ constitution, rather than an ‘unwritten’ one. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/whatis/uk-constitution

Hence the brits can claim more rights that we can because if you ever took a look at the class one cities charters in this country you would discover that they claimed rights you never even thought of! Once that happens how do you get it back? as if you ever had it in the first place!


The problem is that to be on par with the state in the US the individual has to be sovereign and of course that cant happen in the US, because the sovereign gubbermint (the ones with all the guns and money) only recognizes the "whole group" [STATE] as sovereign, NOT the individual, so on yer knees suckers!

 

This is false and the argument render moot by the fact that the United States has the 9th Amendment that protects the "unenumerated rights" of the person whereas British law only protects "rights by enoumeration" of the parlament and the parlament can, in theory, be abolished by the monarchy that created it.

There have been numerous Supreme Court decision that have cited the 9th Amendment as the foundation for other provisions in the US Constitution. In Roe v Wade for example that 9th Amendment was cited as the foundation for the "right of privacy" that was inherent in but nor enumerated the 14th Amendment.

The power of the US Constitution, which admittedly is a contract established by fiat as the supreme law of the land that is based upon the Social Contract under which the United States government exists, still overrides even a unanimious vote of our legislature. Had DOMA Section 3 been passed in Congress by a unanimous vote of both the House and the Senate it was still unconstitutional and would have been struck down by the Supreme Court. The "will of the People" as expressed by their vote is still subject to the US Constitution and a law or state constitutional amendment passed by 100% of the voters that violates the "unenumerate rights of the people" protected by the 9th Amendment would still be struck down by the US Supreme Court because it is unconstitutional to violate the Inalienable Rights of the Person.

The UK provides no protections for the Rights of the People except by government enumeration in fiat law as the UK doesn't have a Constitution based upon a Social Contract of the People where the "powers" of government are delegated by the people based upon the Inalienable Rights of the Person. The "People" cannot delegate a "power to government" that they don't have based upon their Inalienable Rights in the United States as such a "granting of power" would violate the 9th Amendment.

Not to say it doesn't happen but only that it is unconstitutional to do so.

 

you keep talking about the "People" and the "people" and voting and all that crap so at this point I need to know who the People are and who the people are since I always considered myself one of the people however I nor anyone I know who is not employeed by the government has never gotten to vote on any constitutional amendment. who is who? and what is what?

 

As established by the US Constitution the People are all persons living in the United States and that includes US citizens that are a subgroup of "People" and also includes immigrants. It has always been my argument that the People have Right to Vote in a representative form of government and that includes all People (i.e. citizens and non-citizen permanent residents) living under the authority of government.

While we do not directly vote on the US Constitution we do vote on our State Constitutions that establish how those that do represent us are selected when it comes to changes in the US Constitutioon. The United States is a Republic and not a Democracy.

 

nope you are not connecting with what I am talking about.

all persons living

Men and women are living, persons are abstract entities.

People

Is a pronoun, it is interchangeable with the word community, because it is a pronoun it is referencing a specific (undefined) community.

in the United States

The united states was created as a trading company under grant by the united states of america, under grant by the united colonies of america, under grant of the king of england.

Which one?

The land mass? The federal contract? The 10 square miles in DC?

People have Right to Vote

yes as a franchise member of the company to vote in ceo's et al

includes all People

Yes communities operate as artificial enties as well. However How do you know which "People" are being referred to? Maybe just government officers.

that do represent us are selected

and there is the disconnect, yes "in theory" only, in practice not.

The United States is a Republic and not a Democracy.

Its neither, with the exception to california you cannot vote on how much taxes you will pay.

 

This is rhetoric that ignores the fundamental fact.

The United States and each individual State is a legal construct based upon the social contract of the People. The US Supreme Court is delegated with the role and responsibility of addressing all issues of conflict under the Constitution and necessary to that is the requirement to interprete the US Constitution based upon the "social contract" that isn't actually the US Constitution itself. The actual "social contract" of the United States is contained in these words that establish the foundation for government in the United States:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/declaration-of-independence/text.html

My argument for "unanimous consent" by the Supreme Court to support the Constitutionality of the Actions of Government is based upon the simple fact that there is a requirement that the "powers of government" are constrained by the Rights of the People that provide their "consent" to those powers based upon their inalienable rights. It is not a "perfect" protection of the Rights of the People but it is the most pragmatic protection that can be afforded to the People.

As I've noted the foundation for the proposition is the numerous split decisions by the Supreme Court that upheld the "constitutionality" but where the dissenting opinion(s) raised serious questions of "constitutionality" of the law. In short we've ended up with government actions/laws that are of dubious constitutionality because at least one of the nine foremost delegated authorities on the Constitution (i.e. the Justices of the Supreme Court) has provided compelling legal arguments that the action/law violated the US Constitution.

I oppose actions/laws of dubious Constitutionality as such actions/laws violate the "social contract" upon which America was founded as a legal entity.

 

And the constitution will be rewritten with every shift of power, Is this what you want? I suspect you want it rewritten to agree with you values. So do I. Dream on.

 

I appreciate this thread. It has the right spirit.

Enforcement of the constitution has been an issue which has become obviously needed. How to do it is the question. I see your thread trying to address that, and I immediately feel a need to inject perspective.

Firstly, my investigation indicates we are afflicted with a very human corruption infiltrating government that knows no bounds. Therefore the power of the SCOTUS is to be reduced, not increased IF constitutionality is to be increased.

I've seen enough to know, for the most part, they are not on our side. I can prove this numerous ways.

Now to the issue of "providing for the protections of our inalienable Rights".

The Declaration of Independence "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,"


The Declaration of Independence "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,"

The Constitution was written with the same intent, carrying the intent, of the Declaration of Independence.

It was a contentious environment filled with competition for inclusion and exclusion of concept for the compact being created. Therefore we must look beyond the words used, and know the intentions of those truly working for our " inalienable Rights".

Article V of the 1787 Constitution is the intent of "alter or abolish" codified in a manner that dictates a fairly reasonable order. That 3/4 of the states be able to ratify amendments and change the constitution. Herein is where we see the potential for democracy. The peoples of the states could see that their state legislations are comprised ONLY of legislators that know and accept Constitutional intent.

The big issue is the people are corrupted by media and also infiltrated by agents of the government corrupt.ion.

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

A serious problem with this is that socially pleasant exchanges rather than functional exchanges are mandated by web forums UNLESS a majority of the users demand functionality above all else.

The infiltration maintains the confusion and blocks the unity needed by the people to unify and effectively alter or abolish.

The unity to alter or abolish can be found by American agreement upon prime constitutional intent. One such intention revolves around freedom of speech. Freedom of speech has the purpose of assuring information vital to survival is shared and understood.

Now, people are controlled by social fears to a degree they do not know. It is unconscious and learned at childhood. The infiltration exploits this in numerous ways. False, covert groups pretend that America already has freedom of speech and ridicule anyone that tries to state and show that the purpose of free speech cannot manifest. The infiltrators will go to great ends to try and assert that freedom of speech has no purpose and their covert groups will ridicule any who try to affirm it does.

What I'm saying is yes, we do have a problem with abusive government. However, the larger problem is the corruption of the people that prevents them from readily identifying constitutional intent within simple things like the purpose of free speech, OR being afraid to do so because of covert, false groups.

Accordingly, it is really a spiritual matter of sacrificing a short term want, acceptance, for a long term need, survival, and having the where-with-all to speak up in defense of the latter.

 

OLD PROFESSOR, do you accept that freedom of speech has a purpose?

And that such purpose is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood?

Please let your answer reflect your values.