Constitutional Amendment to Protect our Inalienable Rights

The fact is that I'm not an attorney and there may not be any attorneys that are good enough human beings to take the case I brought. The good human deigns I know that are also attorneys, refuse to practice in our court system here at all.

I was properly depending on official discretion because the case I brought effects all of us. It was about mental Health care, specifically creating options for psychopathic extreme violence then drug and alcohol addiction. It utilizes narco hypnosis that mimicked the same trance used by ancient Indigenous people, Masonic Order, secret societies etc. Basically somnambulism or the Esdaille state. Since that time we've had 22 people killed by 4 mass murderers.

Of course many judges are Masons so the very thought of that mental state being used by the public for any reason was abhorrent to all the judges so there was no real chance to begin with.

I had to try though. The last mass murder was just 10 days ago. I'm pretty shook up by it still. A 45 year man stabbed his elderly parents to death and his 13 and 10 year old sons in their beds.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/13/man-admits-killing-family/13989425/

This just over 3 months earlier the shooting and stabbing of 6 a few miles away.

Official discretion would have relied on facts, one the county sheriff failed to appear on subpoena with arrest and booking records.



Two the director of the mental health department provided defacto approval of the treatment but the supervisors probably stopped it.



So was it really my problem? Or do we all share the problem?

 

You refer to a general problem and it is up to society, through government, to detemine if it wants to address it. That is an issue of political opinion. There are numerous problems in society that government never becomes involved in. That doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist but instead that our government does not by choice, or cannot by action, do anything about the problem.

Your court case was specific to you and the failure of the appeal was based upon legal precedent and it was personal, not social, in nature.

 

So you only believe in the Divine Right of Kings eh?

 

In truth most Americans believe in a mixed bag of the "Inalienable (natural) Rights of the Person" and the "Divine Right of Kings" in their political ideology and often confuse the two. I just mentioned on another thread that property ownership in the United States is based upon "statutory title to property" based upon the Divine Right of Kings and is not based upon the "Inalienable (natural) Right of Property" established by the arguments put forth by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter V. Few Americans realize that when they refer to their "Right of Property" they're really referring to "Statutory Ownership" that isn't based upon the "Inalienable (natural) Rights" of the person.

 

A person did not have any right to property ownership under Kings.

 

Seeing as we've had 22 people killed by 3 mass murderers in 13 years, 10 in the last 4 months, and I spoke to the board of supervisors over 100 times beginning in 2000, warning them that if proper mental health care was not in place, and well known public ally, that the public was in danger of extreme violence; it is abundantly clear that the problem rests with the courts and society and that society is not bring led to do what it NEEDS to do.

Consider our local paper was bought for 40 mill, the highest estimate of value was 26 m, and then a copy of the 2006 given to a reporter their caused firings, resignations and gagging, in order to prevent society from knowing about the lawsuit and the injustice, it is quite clear that government interests are used to control society and allow the courts to continue injustice.

The case was specific to the issue of treating the unconscious mind directly. Anyone bringing that case without massive funding for attorneys and publicity is faced with the same denial, neglect, deprivation of right, non feasance and mal feasance.

 

Seeing as we've had 22 people killed by 3 mass murderers in 13 years, 10 in the last 4 months, and I spoke to the board of supervisors over 100 times beginning in 2000, warning them that if proper mental health care was not in place, and well known publicly, that the public was in danger of extreme violence. It is abundantly clear that the problem rests with the courts and society and that society is not led to do what it NEEDS to do by government in violation of law.

Consider our local paper was bought for 40 mill, the highest estimate of value was 26 m, and then a copy of the 2006 lawsuit given to a reporter their caused firings, resignations and gagging, in order to prevent society from knowing about the lawsuit and the injustice the problem is illicit, secret government control over society.

http://algoxy.com/law/no_free_press/sbsecretsofmedia.html

it is quite clear that government interests are used to control society and allow the courts to continue injustice by keeping the public ignorant of the effort by a citizen to protect it.

You are correct about it being a general problem. But it is a NEED of society, not a want. See my sig. Our society has a big problem. This issue of denying the unconscious mind enables secrecy that IS destroying every aspect of our society.

The government can follow the laws. California health and safety code has specifics government violates since 1999. Society has assimilated an unnatural fear which government reinforces and exploits in order to enable it's continued treason.



That is the face page of a 2010 disclosure of treason under law to the district court, the same one that secretly revised local court rules in direct violation of the Administrative Offices regulation in order to deprive my case of a just hearing. This page and the 3 following have proof that judges at the court are concealing treason.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11title_18.disclosure.html

Are we going to stand for equal protection of law and justice for all while defending the principles of the 1787 constitution or not?

 

You are correct with that. Also the people had no rights as they were the property of the king.

 

They didn't have a recognized Right of Property but some were granted statutory ownership to property (i.e. the nobles that were given title and with that they were also given title to lands - and that's were our term of "title to property" comes from) but the king could revoke that "title of ownership" just like our government can take away our title of ownership to property today.

There is no fundamental difference because ownership of property in the United States is based upon "Statutory Ownership" as provided for under the Divine Right of Kings as opposed to being based upon the Natural Right of Property as established by the arguments presented by John Locke.

 

You present a problem but don't have any authority to implement a solution. You can perhaps convince enough people to act based upon compelling argument but unless you accomplish that you're merely expressing a minority opinion regardless of how valid it might be.

The government is limited in it's ability to provide equal protection under the law. For example in the 1960's the government passed civil rights legislation to end the denial of equal protection under the law for blacks (and other minorities) and it worked, for the most part, related to discrimination in the laws but it did not provide equality for blacks under the law in the United States. Their rights to equality are violated by others in society because of anti-black racial prejudice and the government is ill equiped to deal with individual racial prejudice.

You cite a problem with mental illness but the government cannot magically make mental illness go away with the law. It can provide some treatment for it but often the mental illness isn't diagnosed and is not treated.

Government is not a fix-all and those that believe it should be aren't being realistic.

 

The government has the duty to enable the Hippocratic oath in protection of life. This law reflects that.

http://law.onecle.com/california/health/1370.4.html

They are evading implementation of it intentionally. It's so bad they can't get a proper director any longer.

With the proposed treatment,many previously un diagnosed or mis diagnosed cases will receive proper diagnosis.
Americans are afraid of the unconscious mind, which is unreasonable and gov like it that way because it abuses the unconscious by using it to keep secrets.
Freedom of speech is abridged so that unreasonable fear cannot be removed by a citizen helping enough others to understand.

 

The California law you cite merely calls for a review process but doesn't actually require any action by mental health professionals related to the person. In short it doesn't require treatment at all but merely reviews whether the denial of "experimental or investigational therapies" was justifiable based upon the opinion of those providing the services. In short can a provider document why the "experimental or investigational therapies" were not authorized.

This is not a US Constitutional issue and is really irrelevant to the amendment I proposed for the US Constitution that doesn't deal with state statutory requirements per se. I fail to see a federal issue at all.

 

The county has been refusing to conduct the review for years.
They have not been allowing me access to criminal court files where OSC's have been filed by public defenders asking why court order to move inmates to mental health are not followed. What about equal protection of law?

 

You seemed concerned that, with a 5:4 vote, the power of constitutionality rests with one judge. That doesn't change with an 8:1 vote. Still in the hands of one judge.

We have found with the US Senate, that the need for a supermajority renders the process ineffective. I believe your solution would do the same

 

I don't have a problem with one judge striking down a law or action as being unconstitutional. I have a problem with just five judges allowing an unconstitutional law or action of government to exist and continue. As I've noted I've read minority opinions that provide very compelling arguments as to why a law or action is unconstitutional but because they were the minority the law or action was determined to be constitutional.

One Supreme Court justice can protect us from unconstitutional laws or actions under my amendment while five justices can allow the violations of our rights under the US Constitution today.

 

This is an issue of the county and state and not the US Constitution. The California State Constitution also has the "equal protection clause" that would address this issue and the California courts have jurisdiction.

I understand your concerns but it's off topic related to the thread. I didn't claim in the OP that my amendment proposal would fix everything under the sun.

 

In my opinion a far better option is to allow the states and the Congress to overturn a supreme court decision. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the justices the authority to legislate. Nor should they be the final arbiter of law. Their decisions should be narrow, not broad. In general, I like your thinking on this topic.

 

The US Constitution, as intepreted by the Supreme Court, is the final arbitrator of the law and not the US Congress, the State Legislatures, or even the People that have so often violated the protected Rights of the People far too often in the past.

The issue I address is that by imposing unanimous consent related to the interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to if a law or action is Constitutional it imposed the greatest pragmatic protection of our rights that the Constitution provides for. We can live without laws or actions that are of dubious Constitutionality.

An amendment such as I propose would certainly change how our government acts. Currently our government likes to push the envelope when it comes to laws and actions because it knows that: A) First the law or action must be adjudicated and not all laws or actions can be adjudictate due to "standing" (that also needs to be addressed) and; B) It has to be adjudicated all of the way to the Supreme Court and they only need to convince 5 out of 9 Justices to go along with the law or action in declaring it Constitutional regardless of very valid arguments that it is unconstitutional made by the minority.

 

Higher law is a very ineffective restraint on government. The subjectivity of interpretation has let them amend the document such that it effectively means nothing.

Its only effective against a government which has no interest in violating it, which makes higher law pretty pointless as a safeguard of liberty.

Liberty is not a circumstance in society, it's an attitude, a way of living. You can never achieve liberty, only practice it.

 

My proposed amendment is the greatest possible limitation upon the subjective interpretation of the US Constitution as the default is always in favor of the protections of the Rights of the People and the maximum limitation upon the Powers of Government.

While the issue of "liberty" is somewhat off topic I would point out that there is "statutory liberty" and the "Inalienable Right of Liberty" and they are not always the same.

"Statutory Liberty" establishes that if the law doesn't prohibit something then the person has the "liberty" to do it even if it violates the Inalienable Rights of another Person.

The "Inalienable Right of Liberty" is expressly limited to exercising of the "Inalienable Rights of the Person" which can never violate anyone else's Inalienable Rights.

Most Americans confuse the two and often advocate "statutory liberty" and laws that violates the Inalienable Rights of other persons. For example our current immigrations laws that impose a quota system violate the "Inalienable Right of Liberty" of those denied legal immigration to the United States. In short our immigration laws allow "Statutory Liberty" to some by allowing them lawfully entry into the United States but deny the "Inalienable Right of Liberty" to those denied lawful entry into the United States for peaceful purposes such as employment or to live with family.

 

The US system of higher law had pretty much the most favorable conditions possible, yet it has devolved into nothing more than a passing fad. Nobody cares about the constitution, Congress has limitless power, the executive has seized the remainder.

A country is only as liberal as its inhabitants. No constitution can change that.

 

I would remind you that the average person has average intelligence and they are fundamentally incapable of understanding the US Constitution to the point that they can interpret it. Few Americans even take the time to read Supreme Court decisions beyond the short summaries provided for in the news media and few even read that. The Supreme Court Justices are scholars when it comes to the US Constitution and we need to depend upon the Supreme Court to protect our Constitutional Rights. The default when it comes to a contested law or action should always be that's it's unconstitution unless it is proven to be otherwise.

My proposal is not perfect, nor do I claim that it is, but it is pragmatically the best possible protections of the Rights of the People in the United States.

 

Oi! that's my point

I'm not saying a constitution is undesirable, just that it's very ineffective in the long term. The US constitution compared to its interpretation is the ideal example of this.

 

As I've noted by allowing just one Supreme Court Justice to declare a law or action unconstitutional increases the protections of our rights as well as limiting government which is exactly what the US Constitution is supposed to accomplish. It's not a perfect solution but it's four times better than what we have today where four Supreme Court Justices can be over-ruled by five.

If you take the time to go back and review every split decision by the Supreme Court that allowed an act of law to be continued as Constitutional you would find that these are the laws and acts that have harmed America by either allowing the violations of the Rights of the People or by expansion of the powers of government. Check it out and you'll find I'm telling the truth.

 

I'm not disputing any of that. On the contrary, I agree entirely.

That's true, it's also true that SCOTUS has neither been too much more or less totalitarian than the country at the time. They're not elected by popular vote, but they sure respond to public opinion.

Almost all of the expansion in the size and powers of government has come from changing attitudes in the people, rather than from the government itself. I'm not saying that this is a good thing at all - just that a constitution will only ever restrain government if the people have a strong conviction in the original intent or some other constraining interpretation.

Without the people on the side of liberty, the constitution is merely reinterpreted.