Constitutional Amendment to Protect our Inalienable Rights

You're aiming at the wrong target. The Supreme Court makes "decisions" but commits no actions. A "decision" does not violate our Constitutional Rights but it may allow the Congress and the Office of the President to violate our Constitutional Rights based upon the "actions" of the executive branch.

The purpose of the US Supreme Court is not to confirm Constitutionality but instead it's purpose is to stop violations of the Constitution. If it's purpose was to "confirm Constitutionality" it would review all actions by the government and it doesn't do that. Instead it reviews some, not all, cases of dispute under the Constitution where claims by the Plaintiff claim that a violation has occurred that resulted in direct harm to them.

As I've noted I've read numerous "minority" decisions where the arguments that the action violated the US Constitution were compelling. In fact I've never read a minority decision that wasn't compelling in arguing that the action or law was unconstitutional. Unfortunately because they are the "minority" our Rights are not protected as they should be. We can always live without a law or action of government that is of dubious Constitutionality.

 

In fact this is the exact problem I address with my proposal.

Few people are knowledgeable about the US Constitution and fewer still understand the political ideology upon which the United States was founded that the Constitution attempts to codify into the Supreme Law of the Land.

Ideally the nine Supreme Court justices would be the nine top experts on both but we must accept the pragmatic reality that they are just nine among many of the foremost experts on the Constitution and the political ideology upon which America was founded. In any case they are assigned the role and responsibility for making decisions based upon the US Constitution and our political ideology and their expertise exceeds that of the vast majority of the people of the United States. Individually they are experts and combined their knowledge and understanding cannot be surpassed by any other identifiable group.

My proposal addresses the fact that even among experts they can make mistakes and a mistake when it comes to the protection of our Inalienable Rights is a mistake that we should pragmatically avoid whenever possible. My solution is simple. If the nine Supreme Court justices agree that something is Constitution then it almost certainly is. On the other hand if even one of them presents a compelling argument that it isn't Constitutional then it is, at best, of dubious Constitutionality. In all of my research I've found that many of the major problems we have in America today are typically based upon Supreme Court decisions of dubious Constitutionality.

There isn't a single law or action of government where a Supreme Court justice argued that it was unconstitutional that we couldn't live without. Not a single one. Only actions can violate our Inalienable Rights and preventing such actions should be of paramount importance. With this in mind I would rather accept the decision of one Supreme Court justice to prevent an action that violates our Inalienable and Constitutional Rights as opposed to even eight Supreme Court justices allowing that violation of our Rights.

 

Agreed, and the court actually does the reverse of that.

The president has become a scapegoat for congressional neglect, intentionally used, to allow the scapegoat to act outside the constitutional limits of office.

Only by the people agreeing and accepting their definition of constitutional intent as power over their states at an Article V convention will the nation be constitutional.

 

Of note the Congress authorizes virtually all presidential actions and ultimately the Congress is responsible for the violations of the US Constitution by our government.

The "people" are the ignorant masses when it comes to government and I wouldn't trust them anymore than the founders of America that expressed the belief that the "people" represented the greatest threat to the new republic they created. As I've noted the nine Supreme Court justices are among the foremost experts on the Constitution and the laws when in comes to fulfilling the intent of the Social Contract upon which America was founded.

I would accept the determination of even one justice that a law or action violated the Constitution and Constitutional Intent.

On the flip side I'd also be willing to accept that when all nine of them agree that something is Constitutional meeting the intent of the Constitution that it is, in fact, Constitutional even if I had opinions to the contrary.

 

Not lately on either.

 

Yes.

My proposal is that it is absurd to have or allow an Article V convention without America preparing fully to assure all amendments have constitutional intent. ALEC and Convention of States are working to have a convention. ALEC is the Koch brothers, Convention of States is much more trust worthy but they are not communicating.

Accordingly, the safe thing is to prepare to define constitutional intent, because the people are the only ones that can do it.

I'm starting with the intended purpose of free speech, because everyone thinks we have it. Once they know the purpose, they will know we don't.

The purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood.

Are we in agreement?

 

This was again recently quoted so I will return to it briefly.

While we certainly have reason to be concerned with the violation of our Inalienable Rights by government we often forget that the purpose of our government is to protect us from the violation of our Inalienable Rights by other people. In many respects our government fails at this role and responsibility. For example the Civil Rights era removed overt racism from the laws (although it still allows invididious racism to creep into our laws) but it did virtually nothing to eliminate individual prejudice that results in denial of economic and social equality for minorities that violates the Right of Equality of those affected.

When we look at "equal protection under the law" for example that doesn't mean that it only addresses cases where the law does not afford equality but it also relates to cases where a law needs to exist to ensure equality or to mitigate inequality in our society. The "law" needs to address inequalities that exist regardless of whether the government or the people create the inequality.

 

Constitutional intent has already been defined. It was defined when the nation was founded. The purpose of the US Constitution and the laws of the land are to fulfill the Social Contract upon government was defined for America and that is contained in the following words that I've mentioned previously:

Everything we need to know about "intent" is based upon these two sentences.

The greatest problem I see is that people, including those in our government, have little knowledge or understanding of what an "Inalienable (Unalienable) Right" is and if they don't understand that then they don't understand what the government is supposed to be protecting.

My best example of the lack of knowledge about Inalienable Rights is by addressing the Right of Property. Almost everyone that refers to the "Right of Property" is referring the the "Legal Right of Property" that is based upon "Title" (either by document or possession) based upon the "Divine Right of Kings" as opposed the the "Inalienable Right of Property" established by natural law as argued for by John Locke. The "Right of Kings" and the "Natural (Inalienable) Rights of the Person" stand in stark juxtaposition to each other. Our "Legal Property Rights" are overwhelmingly a violation of our "Inalienable (Natural) Right of Property" but few seem to understand that fact.

 

That is only the beginning of what we need to know. The rest is derived from that.

Currently we are be alienated from many rights and we know it, but we don't know exactly why.

Herein is where the manipulation, competition and derision of the sociopolitical environment that the framing documents were created begins to impact us. There was a philosophical doctrine underlying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which included free speech that was divided of to be included later. It was profound and it is the basis of my assertion of the purpose of free speech.

It came from the Six Nation Iroquois Confederacy and was called "The Greater Meaning Of Free Speech".

The greater meaning of free speech comes from an understanding between people. From that understanding can be created; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The competition for inclusion/exclusion broke that statement up. Meaning all three documents must be combined conceptually with the missing text.

We need to amend the First Amendment to include that along with a purpose of constitutional defense.

 

Yes, I agree that we need to know much more than just the two lines in the Declaration of Independence because we need to understand what the words mean.

For example we often talk about "crime and punishment" but the two lines from the Declaration don't refer to "punishment" but instead refers to the necessity of government to protect our rights. The truth is that the Person does not have a Right of Revenge and "Punishment" is a form of revenge. Protecting us from the heinous acts of another person by limiting their Freedom to Exercise their Inalienable Right of Liberty with incarceration is a pragmatic necessity based upon "Self-Defense" but sending a person to prison as a form of punishment is not something that our Inalienable Rights allow us to do. So why do we do it?

People don't seem to realize that "under-compensation" for employment violates the "natural Right of Property of the Person" and that there isn't a Right of Property related to goods produced by machines because the right of property is established by "sweat equity of the person" and a machine doesn't sweat and it isn't a person.

Oh yes, there is much people don't know when it come to what those two lines say and mean.

No, we don't need to revise the First Amendment at all. We simply need to interprete it correctly based upon the two lines cited from the Declaration of Independence that establish the Social Contract of the United States.

 

But what about enforcement? Those usurping it will not interpret according to our direction.

Clearly, free speech does not serve it purpose and such is the only reason we are in this predicament of unlawful government at this time.

What protects life best? Love does that. Ask any parent. For that matter;

Which mother or father in this nation will ignore or pass up the real opportunity to assure their child will grow into a nation that holds high and honors understanding that can create; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love, protecting their life, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness?

We need to correct the deficiencies created by the competitive environment the founding documents were created in. This is a good beginning. It places the human need, use and purpose of free speech right where it needs to be. In front of the entire nation and world. My draft.


Draft of revised First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall not be abridged and be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.

Notice, this revision overtly allows the constitution to protect itself by enabling us!

The revision returns the usenet as the global village America paid for then congress
gave to commerce where there now is no free speech. Humanity needs this. We had it, then corrupt government took it away.

 

the constitution was made for the corporate govenment not you.

did you sign it?

Patrick henry knew the gig



....but, sir, give me leave to demand,

What right had they to say, We, the people? [re:constitution]

Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states?

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

 

English law is based in property rights...... that said....

its simple. Our laws transferred from england. Not really a problem except it brought along the feudal system with it. I am too tired to run through the proofs, however I will spell it out for you.

The king of england is sovereign, the king represents the voice of the state, the king owns the 'soil', everyone else owns the lands and tenements in fee (feud) simple by grant from the king aka land patent. The king essentially owns the people once they register with the king and of course then are obligated to pay property taxes for the kings protection racket.



Now in the US, the states are sovereign, the voice of the state is issued by any number of agencies in the name of the state person, the state of xyz owns the soil, the people within the state own the lands tenements and hereditaments in fee (feud) simple, by grant from the state king aka land patent.

the states claim title to the land is allodial for themselves, dont want any sovereign men and women running around to compete with the monarchy. Dont believe me take it court and claim allodial title on your property and see what happens. They will try to put you in a mental institute because only the state can own the soil in allodial despite in the days if the convention people as in you and me did own our lands in al-od. COMPLETE TAX AND DUTY FREE!



all the states have abolished allodial ownership so they can enforce tax laws with impunity regardless if you voted for something or not you will pay!

allodial is 'ultimate ownership' in property no taxes may be collected by another other sovereign.
in fee is the same as in feud the vassal lord and you pay taxes and your in fee title is 'tenancy' wand you only own title to the usufructory rights, provided you are well behaved and the land lord state does not kick you out.

How does that saying go? Neo, welcome to the desert of the real.

 

I am familiar with both of these perspectives. They are both factual, they are materially true.

What you are leaving out of the first Kokomojojo is that it was the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy that inspired most of the constitution. The concept of free speech came from them and their were parallel philosophies in European history, but the Greater Meaning of Free Speech really impressed them. Competition kept it out of the DOI and corruption removed it from history.

The aspect of English law and corporations certainly played a huge role, but logically cannot ever override the unalienable rights. It certainly played a role in Patrick Henry's day, But the suspension of right to aloud alloidial title didn't come around until after England covertly took over following the civil war.

As true and real as all that may be, it is useless information in our current situation.

In this situation our very lives are at stake because the Empire with its corporate structure imposed on our society has made us dependent on corporations and the economy they depend on has been sabotaged at the very least.

What matters is the unity of our masses. With free speech abridged, unity will require an extraordinary effort. But with it, we can prevail. Therein is the reason each American should turn to Americans surrounding them and say, "We need to unify in defense of our constitution. Unity is found through agreement. Can we agree that the purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood?"

No sincere American will deny this fact. Upon accepting it, they will inherently know free speech is abridged so far their lives are endangered by it. At that point, they are open to accepting the notion that party politics are over, and politics MUST be about principals in order to prevail. Article V, the right to alter or abolish is our first right. In order to use it the abridging of free speech must end. Therein is the critical preparation for Article V.

Unity is possible but not while distracting with useless information.

 

We already have the means of enforcement (lawsuits) and my proposal simply makes it harder for our rights to be violated. The only problem we have related to lawsuits today is "standing" as there are cases in law where apparenlty no one has standing. The prime example of this is the War Powers Act as no one in the US apparently has Constitutional Standing to contest the law.

A simple solution to "standing" exists. Simply require the Court to define who has "standing" to challenge (upon demand) when it denies standing to a plaintiff. If the Court cannot define who has standing then it should hear the Plaintiff's case and render a decision.

The term "nothing" removes the ability of the law to pragmatically address issues of "public safety" such as inciting of riots or causing panic that results in injury and/or death in a theater if a person yells "Fire" in a crowded theater. There are pragmatic reasons for limitations being imposed upon the Freedom of Speech and you would, by your wording. remove the ability of government to impose limitations based upon compelling arguments related to the Public Safety.

This is really off topic though because the thread isn't about changing the US Constitution but instead is about enforcing it.

 

This is commonly referred to as poetic license.

 

A single amendment will not solve all constitutional problems...the amendment process can.

 

You didn't sign your birth certificate does that nullify your birth?

 

While taking us off topic you to scratch the surface of a serious problem in the United States today.

Our laws of property are indeed based upon "Title of Ownership" (either written or estblished by possession) based upon the "Divine Right of Kings" and are NOT based upon the "Natural Right of Property of the Person" as argued for by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government, Chapter V.

http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm

When most Americans refer to the "Right of Property" they refer to the "Statutory Ownership" based upon (royal) "Title" which is not an "Inalienable Right of the Person" but few seem to understand that fact. Most of the ownership of property in the US violates the "Natural (Inalienable) Right of Property of the Person" based upon Locke's arguments.

This has far reaching implications. For example a robot doesn't have a "Right of Property" (it doesn't create "sweat equity" and is not a "person") so a person cannot claim a Right of Property based upon what a robot produces. That is a very interesting problem that we haven't addressed yet in America.

In your post you refer to that in words if not in intent but few seem to be aware of this fact.

 

There is non functional circularity in the proposal of enforcement.

I've filed 9 lawsuits. The first in 1998. Four were federal, the rest in state courts.

The 9th circuit court rules were covertly abrogated with the last. The action deprived every pro se plaintiff in the jurisdiction of justice from that time forward. Do you think the scotus that wrote the rule to be unconstitutionally abrogated would do anything about it upon my filing for a writ of certiorari. No way.

The courts are a part of the government and we have unlawful government.

 

Well said. Mostly because all of the problems could stem from just a few issues which can be addressed through amendment. But the amendment process can properly investigate the source of the problem causing the issues THEN apply exactly the amendment needed.

This is why I feel delegates should be democratically elected in each state with campaigning from a fund. Once elected encumbants are a source of information of processes that might be effected by amendment. Delegates need to be from outside the box where the problems reign.

 

Not to question your integrity but you're making unsupported anecdotal claims and allegations. Just because "your" lawsuits may fail for numerous reasons doesn't imply the process is inherently flawed. You don't even mention why your lawsuits failed or what they were concerned with.

As I previously noted the most common reason for a lawsuit to be dismissed by the court is a lack of standing by the plaintiff. Given standing cases are virtually all adjudicated by the courts and I know of no exceptions to that occurring.

 

G

There was a rule that have a new magistrate and judge to pro se plaintiffs when new coplaintiffs joined and refilled. We got the same magistrate and judge I had in the 3 previous suits

 

The first suit in1998 met with failure to appear on subpoena duces tecum by the local sheriffs department.



Other such things like the county counsel citing rules that don't exist, or the court signing a notice of continuance 2 days AFTER the hearing that was to be continued was supposed to be heard. There is documentation for these things.

Or perhaps a superior court commissioner re writing transcripts after she is tricked into admitting she violated my rights in a small claims action for $2500. I had witnesses in civil court admit she had never seen the prima facie evidence of fraud she refused to look at in small claims, where the is no court reporter.

Or maybe the judge that would only hear defenses of fraud for $30k and refused to consider artifice reasonably presented in a complaint. These kinds of things were taken into federal court. These are called "gaucheries". The federal case was for injunctive relief and specific performance, which have no statute of limitations. Of course the letter posted above is an admission of a deprivation of right by the sherrifs department. Most of the evidence presented was prima facie. There were no defenses to the 2006 federal suit.

Which is why the federal court had to collude with the county and the superior court in order for them to get away from the allegations. Of course the had to remove that 1880s court rule that automatically have a new magistrate and judge to pro se plaintiffs when new plaintiffs joined in the civil rights suit upon refilling. The 9th circuit court of appeals and the Supreme Court went along with it.

So the notion of the courts functionality for constitutional defense is erroneous.

Other examples are abundant relating to the natural born citizen issue of Obama. A direct constitutional issue.

Ever hear of LTC Terence Lakin? He was court martialed for refusing to deploy to Iraq on Obamas order. The UCMJ provides that a soldier has full right to evidence and witness for court martial. COL. Denise Linde denied him that.

Americans MUST use Article V, the right to alter or abolish to enforce the constitution.

 

yeh and that kind of response is a handwave, since since the constitution establishes a legal document not not a literary work of art. They have no poetic license nor can it be read that way.