The power in our constitution is it defines purpose, not policy. It inherently constrains government; it does not give rights but prevents them from being usurped by legislation, federalization, and judicial overreach.
What you seek is already IN the constitution, but criminals don’t abide by laws, do they?
The Federal Reserve Act was not properly ratified and should be repealed; income tax are likewise not lawful but the whole Potemkin nature of the system has brainwashed people to believe they are and a necessary evil.
We should be thinking of stripping down decades of legislation not adding more.
The power in our constitution is it defines purpose, not policy. It inherently constrains government; it does not give rights but prevents them from being usurped by legislation, federalization, and judicial overreach.
That may have been true in the original, but the bill of rights changed that. From the fifth amendment (end)
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This statement right here gives the whole thing away to the banks. It sets a precedent that makes what we see now inevitable. The DoI makes a statement of individual sovereignty. It states that we are sovereign, and any government is on equal footing with the sovereign citizens. This last sentence in 5A changes all that. It places the "needs of the many" ahead of the rights of the individual (hello vaccine mandates).
Of equal importance it also makes clear a hierarchy of "sovereignty." Hint: there is no such thing as a hierarchy of sovereignty. When it comes to kings and queens of their domain, all are equal. Whenever they meet, it is on equal footing. There is no such thing as a "King of Kings" in a human society. If there is a King of Kings then the lower "kinghood" is an illusion, only having "sovereignty" at the pleasure of the real king, just like "citizens" held property at the pleasure of the emperor, etc.
The DoI and the original Constitution, and the works by John Locke that inspired them, made clear that government was sovereign, but not our sovereign. Disputes between the government and the individual were intended to be met on equal footing. That is not what happened. I think it is because of this line in 5A that caused it all (from the legal precedence perspective, obviously it took external fuckery as well).
The Bill of Rights needs to be changed. It gave this power to the government. It is exactly this power and this precedence that has allowed the Fed to do all its fuckery (the Fed fyi is by law a higher sovereign than the U.S. government).
Vaccine mandates go back to 1905 smallpox Jacobson, who argued it violated the 14th amendment.
I wasn't talking about vaccine mandates specifically. I was talking about the injection of the idea of the "needs of the many" (whoever those many might be, usually loosely defined) vs. the rights of the individual. The application to vaccination is irrelevant except to give the idea context. I was showing where in the constitution the idea gained precedence.
The banks take everything because of the Federal Reserve system and unlimited money supply. No 5th amendment “takings clause” required.
The Fed is the machine they use to do it. Before the Fed existed they used other machinations. All of the rules and laws that came about to allow them to do what they did started by the application of the precedence set to us not having a sovereign equality to the government. That lack of equal footing under the law was initialized by this sentence in the fifth amendment.
The Bill of Rights has not ceded a smidge compared the Black Friday ‘America for Sale’ giveaways by politicians.
Since the topic of conversation was problems with the constitution, I was talking on that topic. What I explained was the beginning of the problems. i did not make a laundry list of all of them. Do not discount the power of precedence. Our entire system of laws is founded upon that concept.
If Liars and Thieves abuse constitutional intents and purposes, why punish the constitution?
Precedence was set in the fifth amendment for all future fuckeries due to placing the citizen below the government. I am not punishing the constitution, but pointing out a flaw. I believe that flaw was put there by the banks (through their influence).
The last sentence of the fifth amendment needs to go. It goes directly against the sovereignty of each individual as being on equal footing with the government. If the government is sovereign over the people, this will happen again.
I think that that addition to the bill of rights was a banker addition. Same with the change in the DoI from "Life, Liberty and Property" (the original John Locke statement of government of the people, etc.) to "LIfe, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness."
I would bet anything that was a Hamilton addition, or some other banking influence. It left the door open for the fifth amendment, which left the door open for all the fuckery since.
We need to tighten up the commerce clause as that's the loophole they're using for a lot of regulation.
An amendment making all government funding voluntary, or if taxation continues let us choose what departments we fund? I suspect border patrol and NASA would get a big boost while ATF, FBI, SEC and more vanished overnight.
Citizens can possess any item, any chemical, and any non-sentient thing, free from any and all regulation or seizure, so long as it was not purchased in its final configuration and the owner has proven no intent to sell or trade it as such.
This would apply except in cases where the mere occupation of the item is an immediate hazard to those in its owner's vicinity only by way of its chemical toxicity and not function in use.
If I wanted to make my own medication, for instance, as long as I don't sell it and use it only for myself, and I dispose of the potential waste appropriately, then why should the government give a damn?
Bring back flintlock pistol duels exclusively to challenge any government official who on record is caught in subsequent lies.
One day they say one thing, the next they say another. If they are caught on camera lying blatantly on matters that are easily proven, they get one strike.
10 strikes and anyone can take those events, present them in any public forum for validation, and then the government official is required to duel the accuser or they must resign their office immediately. Video must be authenticated, of course, and judged by two separate juries -- one set chosen by the accuser and one set chosen by the accused. The jurors are never allowed to know which side chose them and must review the footage individually. Burden of proof is on the accused to show that they did not lie in the majority of cases.
If they survive the duel, they get another 10 strikes and those previously used lies are off-limits for future duels.
Lying politicians and government authorities need to know lying has consequences. It can't be controlled by the government, or the press, and it can't be a criminal matter because the FBI could abuse it to take out legitimate and honest officials.
Instead, keep all agencies and the judicial branch out of it and keep the power vested to the people to challenge their leadership when they are caught fragrantly lying.
Make pork in bills illegal. Each bill needs to be only about one topic. Also no false names such as "The Patriot Act".
Term limits.
No using our biology and psychology to hack our brains to spread propaganda, to keep us addicted to internet, tv, social media. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere.
Related to above, private companies can't sensor information. They must be held to the same standards as phone companies.
This Constitution shall be interpreted with original intent as the primary method of defining what the contents herein are purposed for and what the specific meaning applied shall be.
The language used herein specifically must always be considered for the definition in use at the time of the writing of said language.
(Optional addendum)
All future amendments and laws should contain within themselves a meta standard that defines the language that applies to said law. All future laws that modify parts of an existing law must adhere to the defined language meta standard originally identified by the original law. The meta standard for an original law cannot be altered or amended.
Should a law require alteration to the language meta standard, then the original laws must be repealed in total and the new law completely written to the new language meta standard.
I would fix the 1st amendment and make the 2nd amendment the old one that would have made it to where you can't be drafted. The part that says "; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person" which basically means people who are pacifists don't have to serve. If i were to try and make 1A better it would be something like "Any person or persons including but not limited to Congress and/or corporations shall make no law or policy, be it private or not, to impose compulsory religion, or lack thereof, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging or restricting the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
All govt officials have no right to privacy while they serve.
Or security
The power in our constitution is it defines purpose, not policy. It inherently constrains government; it does not give rights but prevents them from being usurped by legislation, federalization, and judicial overreach.
What you seek is already IN the constitution, but criminals don’t abide by laws, do they?
The Federal Reserve Act was not properly ratified and should be repealed; income tax are likewise not lawful but the whole Potemkin nature of the system has brainwashed people to believe they are and a necessary evil.
We should be thinking of stripping down decades of legislation not adding more.
That may have been true in the original, but the bill of rights changed that. From the fifth amendment (end)
This statement right here gives the whole thing away to the banks. It sets a precedent that makes what we see now inevitable. The DoI makes a statement of individual sovereignty. It states that we are sovereign, and any government is on equal footing with the sovereign citizens. This last sentence in 5A changes all that. It places the "needs of the many" ahead of the rights of the individual (hello vaccine mandates).
Of equal importance it also makes clear a hierarchy of "sovereignty." Hint: there is no such thing as a hierarchy of sovereignty. When it comes to kings and queens of their domain, all are equal. Whenever they meet, it is on equal footing. There is no such thing as a "King of Kings" in a human society. If there is a King of Kings then the lower "kinghood" is an illusion, only having "sovereignty" at the pleasure of the real king, just like "citizens" held property at the pleasure of the emperor, etc.
The DoI and the original Constitution, and the works by John Locke that inspired them, made clear that government was sovereign, but not our sovereign. Disputes between the government and the individual were intended to be met on equal footing. That is not what happened. I think it is because of this line in 5A that caused it all (from the legal precedence perspective, obviously it took external fuckery as well).
The Bill of Rights needs to be changed. It gave this power to the government. It is exactly this power and this precedence that has allowed the Fed to do all its fuckery (the Fed fyi is by law a higher sovereign than the U.S. government).
Vaccine mandates go back to 1905 smallpox Jacobson, who argued it violated the 14th amendment.
The banks take everything because of the Federal Reserve system and unlimited money supply. No 5th amendment “takings clause” required.
The Bill of Rights has not ceded a smidge compared the Black Friday ‘America for Sale’ giveaways by politicians.
If Liars and Thieves abuse constitutional intents and purposes, why punish the constitution?
I wasn't talking about vaccine mandates specifically. I was talking about the injection of the idea of the "needs of the many" (whoever those many might be, usually loosely defined) vs. the rights of the individual. The application to vaccination is irrelevant except to give the idea context. I was showing where in the constitution the idea gained precedence.
The Fed is the machine they use to do it. Before the Fed existed they used other machinations. All of the rules and laws that came about to allow them to do what they did started by the application of the precedence set to us not having a sovereign equality to the government. That lack of equal footing under the law was initialized by this sentence in the fifth amendment.
Since the topic of conversation was problems with the constitution, I was talking on that topic. What I explained was the beginning of the problems. i did not make a laundry list of all of them. Do not discount the power of precedence. Our entire system of laws is founded upon that concept.
Precedence was set in the fifth amendment for all future fuckeries due to placing the citizen below the government. I am not punishing the constitution, but pointing out a flaw. I believe that flaw was put there by the banks (through their influence).
Make lobbying and lobbyists illegal! These bastards are supposed to work for us not get rich annoying us.
This should be priority number one. There should also be a ban on joining a private company you worked closely with as a politician.
Also no children or any family able to get a job in the same context. Think Ukrainian gas.
Make political payments illegal for corporations.
Make property taxes illegal
The last sentence of the fifth amendment needs to go. It goes directly against the sovereignty of each individual as being on equal footing with the government. If the government is sovereign over the people, this will happen again.
I think that that addition to the bill of rights was a banker addition. Same with the change in the DoI from "Life, Liberty and Property" (the original John Locke statement of government of the people, etc.) to "LIfe, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness."
I would bet anything that was a Hamilton addition, or some other banking influence. It left the door open for the fifth amendment, which left the door open for all the fuckery since.
We need to tighten up the commerce clause as that's the loophole they're using for a lot of regulation.
An amendment making all government funding voluntary, or if taxation continues let us choose what departments we fund? I suspect border patrol and NASA would get a big boost while ATF, FBI, SEC and more vanished overnight.
Citizens can possess any item, any chemical, and any non-sentient thing, free from any and all regulation or seizure, so long as it was not purchased in its final configuration and the owner has proven no intent to sell or trade it as such.
This would apply except in cases where the mere occupation of the item is an immediate hazard to those in its owner's vicinity only by way of its chemical toxicity and not function in use.
If I wanted to make my own medication, for instance, as long as I don't sell it and use it only for myself, and I dispose of the potential waste appropriately, then why should the government give a damn?
31: separation of government and marriage.
I like this one a lot.
Something, something, repeal the 16th ammendment and replace it with the opposite.
Bring back flintlock pistol duels exclusively to challenge any government official who on record is caught in subsequent lies.
One day they say one thing, the next they say another. If they are caught on camera lying blatantly on matters that are easily proven, they get one strike.
10 strikes and anyone can take those events, present them in any public forum for validation, and then the government official is required to duel the accuser or they must resign their office immediately. Video must be authenticated, of course, and judged by two separate juries -- one set chosen by the accuser and one set chosen by the accused. The jurors are never allowed to know which side chose them and must review the footage individually. Burden of proof is on the accused to show that they did not lie in the majority of cases.
If they survive the duel, they get another 10 strikes and those previously used lies are off-limits for future duels.
Lying politicians and government authorities need to know lying has consequences. It can't be controlled by the government, or the press, and it can't be a criminal matter because the FBI could abuse it to take out legitimate and honest officials.
Instead, keep all agencies and the judicial branch out of it and keep the power vested to the people to challenge their leadership when they are caught fragrantly lying.
i think it would be more savy to have it as old west 6 shooters..call em out in the street....draw suka
Nah, smoothbore flintlock. Leave it up to chance and God that way. Most of the time probably no one would get shot.
The point is to lace the fear of possible death with telling deliberate lies, not to just mob-justice kill them.
Just go back to the original, not the globohomo 1871 version.
Make pork in bills illegal. Each bill needs to be only about one topic. Also no false names such as "The Patriot Act".
Term limits.
No using our biology and psychology to hack our brains to spread propaganda, to keep us addicted to internet, tv, social media. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere.
Related to above, private companies can't sensor information. They must be held to the same standards as phone companies.
Amendment proposal.
This Constitution shall be interpreted with original intent as the primary method of defining what the contents herein are purposed for and what the specific meaning applied shall be.
The language used herein specifically must always be considered for the definition in use at the time of the writing of said language.
(Optional addendum) All future amendments and laws should contain within themselves a meta standard that defines the language that applies to said law. All future laws that modify parts of an existing law must adhere to the defined language meta standard originally identified by the original law. The meta standard for an original law cannot be altered or amended.
Should a law require alteration to the language meta standard, then the original laws must be repealed in total and the new law completely written to the new language meta standard.
Term limits, no more 50+ career positions sucking off the taxpayers teat! This breeds corruption as were now paying the price for!
I would fix the 1st amendment and make the 2nd amendment the old one that would have made it to where you can't be drafted. The part that says "; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person" which basically means people who are pacifists don't have to serve. If i were to try and make 1A better it would be something like "Any person or persons including but not limited to Congress and/or corporations shall make no law or policy, be it private or not, to impose compulsory religion, or lack thereof, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging or restricting the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
No foreign aid, nor treaties with countries that hide, or obscure evidence of any criminal activities involving US politicians.