# Reaffirming the Almighty United States Constitution



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 11, 2021)

Flash said:


> We need a revolution here in the US.  One to overthrow the Socialists and reaffirm the Constitution.


There are plenty of people who are inclined to agree with Flash - probably in the tens of millions of American citizens.

. . . And nobody has plan as to how to do it. Nobody has the gumption to sit down and contemplate how to do it, and then write it out into its steps so the rest of the millions of Americans can help in the endeavor.

How are you going to do it?


----------



## progressive hunter (May 11, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > We need a revolution here in the US.  One to overthrow the Socialists and reaffirm the Constitution.
> ...


thats a restoration not a revolution,, I'm in,,


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 11, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> thats a restoration not a revolution,, I'm in,,


You are dependent on someone else figuring out how to do it.


----------



## Oddball (May 11, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > thats a restoration not a revolution,, I'm in,,
> ...


Repeal every Amendment after the 13th, for starters.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 11, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > thats a restoration not a revolution,, I'm in,,
> ...


how would you know what I'm doing??

hate to break it to you but I started yrs ago,,


----------



## Decus (May 11, 2021)

Reaffirming the Constitution would mean to roll back the power of the Federal government and return power to the States. Not sure if that would be possible given that the electorate has become enamored with beautiful promises and that our education system has left us with millions of young people who are largely unprepared to assume responsibility or engage in working towards a better future. 

.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 11, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


If you had anything, then you would not be dissing me every chance you get - you would be doing everything you can to enlist my help, much less, claiming that you know how to do it without providing what should be the best answer to the topic - how do you do it?

What are you going to call it - United States Fourth Continental Congress???
I hate to break it to you, but I started twenty years ago. I deliberated a scientific theory for separating government powers, and I established a website.








						SLCS - US4CC
					

US4CC




					www.us4cc.info


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 11, 2021)

Oddball said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


How are you going to do it?


----------



## pknopp (May 11, 2021)

Some of us complain about violations of the Constitutional protections by those representing the government and are told to just suck it up and accept it and hope maybe at some point the courts will straighten it out.

 Nobody who actually supports the Constitution would support this. If you actually support the Constitution you would demand that representatives of the government had the Constitution drilled into their heads daily and were told in no uncertain terms they are not to violate them.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 11, 2021)

Decus said:


> Reaffirming the Constitution would mean to roll back the power of the Federal government and return power to the States. Not sure if that would be possible given that the electorate has become enamored with beautiful promises and that our education system has left us with millions of young people who are largely unprepared to assume responsibility or engage in working towards a better future.


Thank you for providing a description of a possible difficulty. I can assure you that there are a lot more problems. The purpose of this discussion is to help people understand how flippant people are with their ideas about "fixing" society.

"How are you going to do it?" is the pertinent question.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 11, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Some of us complain about violations of the Constitutional protections by those representing the government and are told to just suck it up and accept it and hope maybe at some point the courts will straighten it out.
> 
> Nobody who actually supports the Constitution would support this. If you actually support the Constitution you would demand that representatives of the government had the Constitution drilled into their heads daily and were told in no uncertain terms they are not to violate them.


The checks and balances are supposed to provide for the inadequacy that you are alluding to.


----------



## pknopp (May 11, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > Some of us complain about violations of the Constitutional protections by those representing the government and are told to just suck it up and accept it and hope maybe at some point the courts will straighten it out.
> ...



 No, the Constitution was not written so that some can violate it and make the taxpayers pick up the pieces.


----------



## occupied (May 11, 2021)

When you look at what conservatives bitch about the most it's the ideal that we are all equal under the law. Any conservative effort to change the constitution would gut that first and then go after voting rights and free speech as it pertains to protest. The very idea that we would end up with more freedoms is laughable.


----------



## Decus (May 11, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Decus said:
> 
> 
> > Reaffirming the Constitution would mean to roll back the power of the Federal government and return power to the States. Not sure if that would be possible given that the electorate has become enamored with beautiful promises and that our education system has left us with millions of young people who are largely unprepared to assume responsibility or engage in working towards a better future.
> ...



No actually those are the only two problems that limit what can be done in a "democracy": 1. people that are unable. 2. people that are unwilling.

Now if this were a dictatorship a few other possibilities exist.

.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2021)

Oddball said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



No, let's not do that.

For starters, the amendments 14 thru 27 were passed legally and according to the US Constitution.

For another reason, it would remove good and valid amendments.

Such as:
14th - Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude
19th - Prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex
22nd - Limits the number of times a person can be elected President
24th - Prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of a poll tax or any other tax
26th - Prohibits the denial of the right of US citizens eighteen years of age or older to vote on account of age

Unless you want to go through the proper steps for each amendment, namely to create another amendment to remove it.   Like we did for the 18th amendment (Prohibition).


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 11, 2021)

occupied said:


> When you look at what conservatives bitch about the most it's the ideal that we are all equal under the law. Any conservative effort to change the constitution would gut that first and then go after voting rights and free speech as it pertains to protest. The very idea that we would end up with more freedoms is laughable.


Thank you for providing a description of a possible difficulty. I can assure you that there are a lot more problems. The purpose of this discussion is to help people understand how flippant people are with their ideas about "fixing" society.

"How are you going to do it?" is the pertinent question.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 11, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> ...


That is not the purpose of this discussion.
The purpose of this discussion is how do we get to reaffirming the Constitution?
"How do you do it?" is the pertinent question.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



I replied to a single post.   It is a valid answer to the wish to repeal every amendment after the 13th.


----------



## danielpalos (May 11, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > We need a revolution here in the US.  One to overthrow the Socialists and reaffirm the Constitution.
> ...


Only in right-wing fantasy.  Our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  We could not do a better job today.


----------



## pknopp (May 11, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



 We can start by quit making excuses for those who violate it.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 11, 2021)

Okay, what's next?


----------



## pknopp (May 11, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Okay, what's next?



 When people refuse to hold accountable those who violate our rights we end up with protests. At time violent protests.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 11, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Only in right-wing fantasy.  Our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  We could not do a better job today.


The topic is not about reordering the Constitution. The topic is how do the people who believe that the Constitution is being abused, how are they going to reaffirm it and enforce it to work?

Your words read like you are one of those people. How do we reaffirm the constitution and enforce it?


----------



## Oddball (May 11, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> ...


Couldn't care less.

We throw out the baby with the bathwater because it contains Rosemary's baby.

The provision in the 14th, viz. voting not being contingent on previous state of servitude, is antiquated and irrelevant...The rest of it has been the source of an avalanche of litigious mischief and chicanery ever since.

The rest of it can be handled by the states or re-enacted on a case-by-case basis.


----------



## Oddball (May 11, 2021)

occupied said:


> When you look at what conservatives bitch about the most it's the ideal that we are all equal under the law. Any conservative effort to change the constitution would gut that first and then go after voting rights and free speech as it pertains to protest. The very idea that we would end up with more freedoms is laughable.


Were you able to hoard all that straw before the price went up?


----------



## danielpalos (May 11, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Only in right-wing fantasy.  Our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  We could not do a better job today.
> ...


We have a First Amendment and it is first not second.


----------



## Flash (May 11, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > We need a revolution here in the US.  One to overthrow the Socialists and reaffirm the Constitution.
> ...




That is an excellent question and one that I have wrestled with.

However, to be brutally honest I have to pathetically chickenshit out.  I am in my mid 70s.  My ability and revolutionary zeal days are fast coming to an end.

We need a strong courageous leader.  Unfortunately I am not that person at this time.  I am well regulated and  still can kick a little ass if I have to but as I get older my energy level is just not there to do something like start a real revolution to take this country back from the Socialist pigs and reestablish the Liberty that was promised to us.

However, if there is one I have the ability to arm and supply with ammo a rebel platoon.  That may be my only worthwhile contribution.

In the meantime all I am doing is bitching about it to friends, family and on the internet.  Pathetic, isn't it?


----------



## progressive hunter (May 11, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> ...


I didnt diss you,, just pointed out that would be a restoration not a revolution,,

am I wrong about that??


----------



## Flash (May 11, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Only in right-wing fantasy.  Our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  We could not do a better job today.
> ...




Too many people have got away with ignoring the Constitution.  Not only politicians and Legislatures but also the Courts.  Look how the Supreme Court let the Democrats get away with stealing an election because they didn't want riots, as an example.  Look how the Federals, State and Locals get away with infringing upon our right to keep and bear arms and nobody does a damn thing about it.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 11, 2021)

Flash said:


> However, to be brutally honest I have to pathetically chickenshit out.  I am in my mid 70s.  My ability and revolutionary zeal days are fast coming to an end.
> 
> We need a strong courageous leader.  Unfortunately I am not that person at this time.  I am well regulated and  still can kick a little ass if I have to but as I get older my energy level is just not there to do something like start a real revolution to take this country back from the Socialist pigs and reestablish the Liberty that was promised to us.
> 
> ...


There will not be a violent revolutionary war - it will be a peaceful multi-level constitutional convention.



> § 000.6: Transition Security
> § 000.61: Honorary Invitations
> 
> United States Medal of Honor recipients, Nobel Laureates, and foreign leaders of state, will be welcome to attend the conventions upon compliance with convention security.
> ...


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2021)

Oddball said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



The 14th was not just about previous state of servitude.   It was also about race and color.

Repealing the 19th amendment would remove women's ability to vote.   Since women make up 51% of the population, good luck getting that amendment to fly.

The rest were constitutional amendment passed by the methods detailed in the US Constitution.    Wouldn't throwing them out also be ignoring the US Constitution that you want followed?


----------



## Pellinore (May 11, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


One of my favorite aspects of the Constitution is that the Bill of Rights are placed in order to tell a story of what happens when a citizen gets an idea.  The First Amendment allows us to practice our own ideology (freedom of religion), discuss it (free speech), communicate it (the press), and gather with others about it (assembly).  The redress clause of the First along with the Second and Third protect us from the government shutting it down.  When you're arrested, you have the Fourth; when arraigned, the Fifth; and tried, the Sixth.  The Seventh is for civil cases, and the Eighth is for when you get sentenced.  The Ninth and Tenth cover the rules themselves.  It makes quite a bit of sense, logically.

That's kind of beside the point, but your post reminded me of it and I felt like sharing.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 11, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


not if you follow constitutional process to remove them,,,


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 11, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > SLCS - US4CC
> ...


You senselessly dissed me in the past with thumbs down reactions to my campaign for a constitutional convention, and here you are claiming to be working on a path to restoring the Constitution, but unwilling to explain it and help those who want to do the same.
And then, you may have noticed, that there are plenty of people who are getting it all mixed up, and think that restoring the constitution is the same as reordering it - so . . .

I'm going to argue that either way requires the same rules for organizing people to do it!


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



If you can get constitutional amendments to pass, more power to you.     I think the repeal of the 14th and 19th would be impossible to get the votes to repeal.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 11, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> ...


your feelings arent my problem,, and I am against a CC without any clarification of what the goal is,,

what I am for is a restoration to constitutional limited government that doesnt require a CC,,,

and before you complain about others disliking your opinion you shouldnt troll their comments and tag every comment with dislikes like you did to me and others a few weeks ago,,,


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 11, 2021)

Pellinore said:


> One of my favorite aspects of the Constitution is that the Bill of Rights are placed in order to tell a story of what happens when a citizen gets an idea.  The First Amendment allows us to practice our own ideology (freedom of religion), discuss it (free speech), communicate it (the press), and gather with others about it (assembly).  The redress clause of the First along with the Second and Third protect us from the government shutting it down.  When you're arrested, you have the Fourth; when arraigned, the Fifth; and tried, the Sixth.  The Seventh is for civil cases, and the Eighth is for when you get sentenced.  The Ninth and Tenth cover the rules themselves.  It makes quite a bit of sense, logically.
> 
> That's kind of beside the point, but your post reminded me of it and I felt like sharing.


The Constitution was laid out with that intent of a process of an idea to a law, to challenges, and then possible repeal.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 11, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


I agree,, but just making the point if it follows protocol its the will of the people,,


----------



## Flash (May 11, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> ...


I think the country is too broke to be fixed at the ballot booth.  We can't vote our way out of the welfare state when there are so many welfare queens in this country.  Hell that asshole Joe Dufus is allowing millions more to flood in.

It is going to take blood to reestablish the Constitution.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 11, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


You were doing it to me.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



I agree.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 11, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> ...


so I disagreed to your idea and your response was to tag all my comments with a dislike,,,

very mature of you,,


----------



## Pellinore (May 11, 2021)

One thing I have long thought of as a good step would be to pass an Amendment that would prohibit winner-takes-all Electoral College votes.  Originally, the idea was closer to the way Maine and Nebraska allocate their EC votes -- namely, the votes go the way each district voted, with the remaining 2 being awarded to the overall state winner.  It was Thomas Jefferson who came up with the winner-take-all scheme in order to give Virginia more proportional power, and everyone else then parroted it to keep up.

Establishing proportional allocation would give a voice to a shocking amount of voters (California Republicans, for example, or Texas Democrats) whose votes are perpetually swept away, eliminate the dominance of swing states, and more closely represent the people as originally designed. 

Otherwise, I'd listen to Supreme Court reform, and enshrining Marbury vs. Madison as an Amendment rather than a replaceable ruling.  I can't imagine having a full-fledged Constitutional Convention these days, allowing our dysfunctional Congress the possibility of rewriting literally every word; it would be apocalypse-level chaos.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Maturity is not a common trait on these forums.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2021)

Pellinore said:


> One thing I have long thought of as a good step would be to pass an Amendment that would prohibit winner-takes-all Electoral College votes.  Originally, the idea was closer to the way Maine and Nebraska allocate their EC votes -- namely, the votes go the way each district voted, with the remaining 2 being awarded to the overall state winner.  It was Thomas Jefferson who came up with the winner-take-all scheme in order to give Virginia more proportional power, and everyone else then parroted it to keep up.
> 
> Establishing proportional allocation would give a voice to a shocking amount of voters (California Republicans, for example, or Texas Democrats) whose votes are perpetually swept away, eliminate the dominance of swing states, and more closely represent the people as originally designed.
> 
> Otherwise, I'd listen to Supreme Court reform, and enshrining Marbury vs. Madison as an Amendment rather than a replaceable ruling.  I can't imagine having a full-fledged Constitutional Convention these days, allowing our dysfunctional Congress the possibility of rewriting literally every word; it would be apocalypse-level chaos.



A full blown constitutional convention would be a disaster.     It is quite obvious that Congress is bought and paid for.    Between big money donors and special interest groups, Congress has little interest in what is good for the population and/or the nation.


----------



## Flash (May 11, 2021)

Pellinore said:


> One thing I have long thought of as a good step would be to pass an Amendment that would prohibit winner-takes-all Electoral College votes.  Originally, the idea was closer to the way Maine and Nebraska allocate their EC votes -- namely, the votes go the way each district voted, with the remaining 2 being awarded to the overall state winner.  It was Thomas Jefferson who came up with the winner-take-all scheme in order to give Virginia more proportional power, and everyone else then parroted it to keep up.
> 
> Establishing proportional allocation would give a voice to a shocking amount of voters (California Republicans, for example, or Texas Democrats) whose votes are perpetually swept away, eliminate the dominance of swing states, and more closely represent the people as originally designed.
> 
> Otherwise, I'd listen to Supreme Court reform, and enshrining Marbury vs. Madison as an Amendment rather than a replaceable ruling.  I can't imagine having a full-fledged Constitutional Convention these days, allowing our dysfunctional Congress the possibility of rewriting literally every word; it would be apocalypse-level chaos.




The Socialists would jump on a Constitutional Convention like white on rice.  They would do away with anything approaching individual rights and replace them with Socialist collective rights.


----------



## Oddball (May 11, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


*The 14th was not just about previous state of servitude.   It was also about race and color.*

In what way?

*The rest were constitutional amendment passed by the methods detailed in the US Constitution.    Wouldn't throwing them out also be ignoring the US Constitution that you want followed?*

Couldn't care less.....If they're as self-evidently as good as you would claim, then there will be no challenge getting them re-established.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2021)

Oddball said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



That you "couldn't care less" shows your disdain for the US Constitution.    The amendments were passed according to the methods described in the US Constitution.

If you want to repeal them by the methods outlined in the US Constitution, that is fine.    Good luck getting them to pass.


----------



## Oddball (May 11, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


The Constitution is impotent whether I "disdain" it or not.....What has been piiled onto it post-13th Amendment is a very large source of what's been screwing the nation over in the here and now.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2021)

Oddball said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Just to clarify, are you proposing amendments to remove the current 14th thru 27th amendments?    Or are you proposing those amendments be removed another way?


----------



## Flash (May 11, 2021)

Oddball said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...




The 13th amendment has become a joke because all of us have become slaves of the State.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 11, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Pellinore said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I have long thought of as a good step would be to pass an Amendment that would prohibit winner-takes-all Electoral College votes.  Originally, the idea was closer to the way Maine and Nebraska allocate their EC votes -- namely, the votes go the way each district voted, with the remaining 2 being awarded to the overall state winner.  It was Thomas Jefferson who came up with the winner-take-all scheme in order to give Virginia more proportional power, and everyone else then parroted it to keep up.
> ...


You do not know what a full blown constitutional convention would be.

The topic of this discussion is not about constitutional convention it is about how do we get the almighty United States Constitution enforced.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 11, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


You tagged all of my comments with a dislike, including the opening post. Which makes no sense, unless you are jealous.

Now, in this discussion you have claimed that you have been developing a way to enforce the Constitution. What do you have?


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 11, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


What do you have?


----------



## progressive hunter (May 11, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> ...


it starts locally and using states rights to push back against fed over reach,,


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 11, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Decent idea, how do you get it going - just keep saying it and then wait for the politicians to do it???


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 11, 2021)

You don't have years into it


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 11, 2021)

OP= 
Agent provocateur​

Description​Description​An agent provocateur is a person who commits or who acts to entice another person to commit an illegal or rash act or falsely implicate them in partaking in an illegal act, so as to ruin the reputation or entice legal action against the target or a group they belong to or are perceived to belong to. Wikipedia


----------



## progressive hunter (May 11, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> ...


it can only come from the people forcing the politicians to do it,, or run for office themselves,,


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 11, 2021)

The goal is not to change the Constitution. The goal is to have a government that abides by it as it is supposed to.


----------



## Pellinore (May 11, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> The goal is not to change the Constitution. The goal is to have a government that abides by it as it is supposed to.


I agree with that, with the caveat that the Constitution was designed to be changed when needed, which we have done seventeen times since the Bill of Rights.  

But yeah, it would be nice if we demanded that everyone treat it as the supreme law of the land that it, y'know, is.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 11, 2021)

We have accepted that politicians take "donations" for their political campaigns.    Who here is naive enough to think those donations are purely altruistic and that nothing is expected in return.

We have accepted that politicins lie.   It has become so common place as to not even raise an eyebrow from their constituents.   

We have accepted that our politicians are, first and foremost, a self-serving lot.   They focus on getting reelected before the even think about what is best for the nation.   And they serve those who paid to put them in office.

And now we would expect them to stand against all that and fight to support the US Constitution?     Good luck with that.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 11, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> We have accepted that politicians take "donations" for their political campaigns.    Who here is naive enough to think those donations are purely altruistic and that nothing is expected in return.
> 
> We have accepted that politicins lie.   It has become so common place as to not even raise an eyebrow from their constituents.
> 
> ...


to be clear I have never accepted it and never voted for a dem or repube at the fed level,, EVER,,

not to mention speak out against them always,,


----------



## danielpalos (May 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> Pellinore said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I have long thought of as a good step would be to pass an Amendment that would prohibit winner-takes-all Electoral College votes.  Originally, the idea was closer to the way Maine and Nebraska allocate their EC votes -- namely, the votes go the way each district voted, with the remaining 2 being awarded to the overall state winner.  It was Thomas Jefferson who came up with the winner-take-all scheme in order to give Virginia more proportional power, and everyone else then parroted it to keep up.
> ...


Right wingers are worse.   Y'all don't care about the law and have no problem being illegal to the law, but still want to be taken seriously regarding less fortunate "illegals".


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 12, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Don't touch the constitution. It will never be as good as it is now.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 12, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> The goal is not to change the Constitution. The goal is to have a government that abides by it as it is supposed to.


How do we do that?


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 12, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


. . . And you made it sound like you had a plan.  You have years of developing the idea, and here you are back to square one, "the people forcing the politicians to do it."

That is essentially what I wrote, ". . . just keep saying it and then wait for the politicians to do it."


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 12, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


You are a joke


----------



## progressive hunter (May 12, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> ...


I said more than that,, and your idea is creating a new constitution they wont follow


----------



## progressive hunter (May 12, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> ...


youre projecting


----------



## Flash (May 12, 2021)

P F Tinmore said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> ...




No matter how good the Constitution is if it is ignored by the Left Wing assholes that want to turn the US into a Socialist shithole then we have a serious problem


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Don't touch the constitution. It will never be as good as it is now.
> ...


The checks and balances are supposed to prevent that problem, or the problems that lead to that. The problem that nobody, but I, is willing to describe, is that the checks and balances do not work as perceived.

The Constitution was very simple and pliable to facilitate the build-up of an expandable government that could not be properly envisioned and composed under the constraints of the era of 1780’s technology. And so, the authors of the Federalist Papers had to disguise their critiques of the Constitution, because they could not describe the obvious problems as, “open-ends,” “faults,” “weaknesses,” or  “inadequacies,” because then they would have been obligated to correct the inadequacies before the people would be properly assured of the charter’s quality.

If the “checks and balances” worked, then we would not endure corruption and flawed policy, because that is what the “checks and balances” are supposed to prevent. If it is because, “they are not following the Constitution,” that means the checks and balances do not work, because the checks and balances are supposed to prevent that, as well. The checks and balances do not work, and it is probably because the three-part separation theory is improperly deployed. The three-part separation theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in its deployment, then the distribution of government powers is probably not balanced, and the checks on power are probably not in accordance with expectations. It is very unlikely that the checks and balances are going to work correctly if the separation of government is not properly constructed.

The "construction," is the subdivisioning of the branches, and they are supposed to be involved in the checks on power; but it was never done correctly, because of the lack of information about a robust government, and the lack of tools for organizing the charter to accomodate the updating to the charter as the government was expanded.


Legislature​
Executive​
Judicial​Senate & House of Representatives​*Senate Committees*
Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
Appropriations
Armed Services
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Budget
Commerce, Science and Transportation
Energy and Natural Resources
Ethics (Select)
Environment and Public Works
Finance
Foreign Relations
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Indian Affairs
Intelligence (Select)
International Narcotics Control (Special)
Judiciary
Rules and Administration
Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Veterans' Affairs

*House Committees*

Agriculture
Appropriations
Armed Services
Budget
Education and Labor
Energy and Commerce
Ethics
Financial Services
Foreign Affairs
Homeland Security
House Administration
Judiciary
Natural Resources
Oversight and Reform
Rules
Science, Space, and Technology
Small Business
Transportation and Infrastructure
Veterans’ Affairs
Ways and Means
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
Select Committee on the Modernization of CongressExecutive Office of the President (EOP):
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR)
The White House
Executive Agencies:
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Agricultural Research Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Economic Research Service
Farm Service Agency
Forest Service
National Agricultural Library
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Rural Development
Department of Commerce (DOC)
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration (ITA)
NOAA Fisheries
National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST)
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Ocean Service
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
National Weather Service
Patent and Trademark Office
Department of Defense (DOD)
Air Force
Army
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
Marines
National Security Agency (NSA)
Navy
Department of Education
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
Institute of Education Sciences (IES)
National Library of Education (NLE)
Department of Energy (DOE)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Los Alamos National Laboratory
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
Office of Science
Pantex Plant
Sandia National Laboratories
Savannah River Site
Southwestern Power Administration
Y-12 National Security Complex
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Library of Medicine (NLM)
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Citizenship and Immigration Services
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers
Intelligence Careers
Secret Service
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae)
Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes (OLHCHH)
Public and Indian Housing (PIH)
Department of the Interior (DOI)
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs
National Park Service (NPS)
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE)
US Geological Survey (USGS)
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Office of Justice Programs (OJP)
US Marshals Service (USMS)
Department of Labor (DOL)
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)
Department of State (DOS)
Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation (ISN)
Department of State Library
Department of Transportation (DOT)
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Department of the Treasury
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB)
Bureau of Engraving and Printing
Bureau of the Fiscal Service
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
United States Mint
Department of Veterans Affairs
INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Broadcasting Board of Governors
Radio Free Asia
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Voice of America (VOA)
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Corporation for National & Community Service
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Farm Credit Administration (FCA)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)
Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA)
General Services Administration (GSA)
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)
National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)
National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)
National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)
National Science Foundation (NSF)
Office of Government Ethics (OGE)
Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)
Peace Corps
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
Selective Service System (SSS)
Small Business Administration (SBA)
Social Security Administration (SSA)
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
United States Postal Service (USPS)
US Postal Inspection Service
United States Trade and Development Agency
BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP)
American Battle Monuments Commission
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Federal Election Commission (FEC)
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer (FLC)
Federal Maritime Commission
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC)
Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB)
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
International Boundary & Water Commission
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)
National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC)
National Council on Disability
National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC)
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
National Mediation Board (NMB)
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB)
Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (OSHRC)
Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC)
Railroad Retirement Board (RRB)
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
United States International Trade Commission (USITC)
Interactive Tariff and Trade DataWeb (Import/export data)
QUASI-OFFICIAL AGENCIES
SmithsonianSupreme Court
Court Of Appeals
District Courts
Territorial Courts
Court Of International Trade
Court Of Federal Claims
Court Of Appeals For The Armed Forces
Tax Court
Court Of Appeals For Veterans Claims
Administrative Office
Judicial Center
Sentencing Commission


----------



## Flash (May 12, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Correct. None of those "checks and balances" mean anything if the people doing the checking don't really care or have another agenda.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


You're just being dogmatic and not comprehending my perspective - the checks and balances do not work, because* the separation of government is not correctly deployed*. It is just absurd to believe that all of the hundreds of representatives, senators, and judiciary, are all conspired to ignore the checks on power.

Someone would smarten up and realize that they could become extremely popular and famous for revealing the truth. But no, you, and the rest of the peons, believe there is a vast bipartisan conspiracy to circumvent the constitution, yet proclaim that the other partisans are not following the constitution.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 12, 2021)

I love the Constitution.
- Justice Barret, Swearing in address


----------



## Flash (May 12, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> ...




It is not that they conspire it is that they all have their own agenda and collectively it works against the Constitution.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 12, 2021)

Flash said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


It's not a conspiracy, they acquiesce to each other's self-interest fraudulent agendas, because . . .???
Someone would spill the beans and offer a solution, because it would make them very famous.

The checks and balances are supposed to prevent anything like that. If the checks and balances cannot prevent that, then that means the checks and balances do not work. The checks and balances is a good theory, but if the deployment of the separation of powers is inadequate, then the balance of power is proably skewed, and the checks on power is inadequate.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 12, 2021)

The checks on power in a six-part separation scheme is going to be a bit more sophisticated.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 12, 2021)

> Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.





> A republic, if you can keep it.
> - Benjamin Franklin, 1787





> Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
> - John Adams, Letter to the Massachusetts Militia; October 11, 1798





> The dead should not rule the living.
> ― Thomas Jefferson, 1790





> Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched.
> ― Thomas Jefferson, 1803





> I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
> ― Thomas Jefferson, 1816


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 12, 2021)

It takes no genius to know the government violates the Constitution. Whatever reason it does so is not really important. What *is *important is to stop it, repair the damage done by it's doing so, and prevent from it happening in the future. We (all American citizens) have failed in our duties as citizens by allowing that to happen and it is our duty to fix the problem. Checks and balances do not work if they are ignored rather than implemented. "We the People" have always been intended to be a vital part of the system of checks and balances. If the system is damaged it is our job to repair it. If has been damaged beyond repair it is our duty to replace it. Discussion of how to do that on social media is a very bad idea. Governments tend to resist change by the people. If the government or some part of the government has become an enemy of the very people it was intended to serve it would be pretty stupid to publicly announce what you intend to do and how you intend to do it.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 12, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Discussion of how to do that on social media is a very bad idea.


There is no good reason to believe that discussions concerning the reform of government cannot be conducted in open public. The problem is getting people who are inclined, talented, or skilled to participate in the endeavor.

Your words read like you are inclined, but they also read as if your inclination is not matured.

How are those of us who are inclined going to gather the other people who are inclined???
The people who are inclined are far and few.

If you think you have the best idea, then get it copyrighted - that's what I did. It was only $35 and you do not have to write a whole book, just a simple outline and any formulas.

Do you have a formula? I have a new formula for the separation of government. I have an outline for organizing the convention series - a three-level convention series.

I am not afraid to discuss it in an open public forum, in fact, I am trying to gather people to a forum dedicated to the endeavor.




__





						Home | US4CC
					

Visit our forum at: us4cc.boards.net




					us4cc.boards.net
				



Sign up, and if you really really want to discuss it in private we will set that up.

And then there are dick heads like Progressive Sucker seem like they might be inclined, but he is a dick head.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 12, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> There are plenty of people who are inclined to agree with Flash


And they are just as ridiculous and wrong. 

There are no ‘socialists’ to ‘overthrow.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 12, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Some of us complain about violations of the Constitutional protections by those representing the government and are told to just suck it up and accept it and hope maybe at some point the courts will straighten it out.
> 
> Nobody who actually supports the Constitution would support this. If you actually support the Constitution you would demand that representatives of the government had the Constitution drilled into their heads daily and were told in no uncertain terms they are not to violate them.


Ideally, that’s done by voting out of office those who legislate in a manner the voters consider to be repugnant to the Constitution – no need to wait for the courts. 

The problem is that far too many of the voters are just as wrong as the lawmakers and have as much contempt for the Constitution; indeed, many citizens vote into office lawmakers expecting them to enact laws repugnant to the Constitution – state laws enacted that violate a woman’s right to privacy being a prime example. 

Absent a lack of consensus among the voters as to what is or is not Constitutional, the political process is mired in gridlock, and the judicial process is the only recourse.


----------



## justinacolmena (May 12, 2021)

Oddball said:


> Repeal every Amendment after the 13th, for starters.


*Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 12, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


The problem isn’t so much Constitutional amendments but ignoring Constitutional case law – wrongheaded dogma such as ‘originalism’ and ‘literalism.’


----------



## progressive hunter (May 12, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


your premise is a lie,, 

you know case law doesnt apply when the constitution is the issue,,


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 12, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Discussion of how to do that on social media is a very bad idea.
> ...


Seems to me that the government reacted rather badly to our forefather's views of government reform at Lexington and Concord. I believe I'll save my opinions for those I know and trust.


----------



## Oddball (May 12, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


----------



## danielpalos (May 13, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> There is no good reason to believe that discussions concerning the reform of government cannot be conducted in open public.


We have a First Amendment and it is first not second.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 13, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > There is no good reason to believe that discussions concerning the reform of government cannot be conducted in open public.
> ...



Daniel, do you believe the order of the amendments in the Bill of Rights signifies their importance?


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 13, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


You do not have anything, otherwise, you would be just like me - looking for help, and mocking these lame brains who think that Constitution is of divine revelation, and that if they keep saying, "they're not following the Constitution," that eventually god will do something.
A Better Subdivisioning of the Three-part Model will Provide Better Checks & Balances


----------



## emilynghiem (May 13, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > We need a revolution here in the US.  One to overthrow the Socialists and reaffirm the Constitution.
> ...


I support you in offering a neutral place to consult and work through ideas.

That is the best and most we can do right now until more people are ready to face and take on responsibility, so thank you for putting that out there. I finally found some people willing to push, and now thanks to your support we have a central place we can use to organize and sort the priorities and focus points to agree on in small groups instead of random people bouncing ideas around like loose electron or atoms. Now we can build molecules, and from there organize matter and direct the energy in waves.

What I find that was stopping progress:
As many people don't want to touch the original Constitution but keep it as given like the Bible, as want to toss it and start new.

As many people believe the laws are indelible anyway as believe no laws by man and no govt is good enough to make man behave except God directly through Christ.

What we can use your guidance and support for is identifying starting points to launch petitions or proposed reforms that promote the discussions on problems pointing toward unity on solutions. Independent if people believe in laws or changing laws, or only believe in the concepts.

If the process is unconditional, and will work regardless what each person believes about laws and the role of govt, then we can use the process to solve problems regardless.

I find it isn't just about the laws and govt per se, but the relations and connections between people that make laws work or fail.

Without that commitment to each other by conscience we will fail regardless of laws.

When we commit to truth and justice for humanity sake, we succeed even where laws and govt fall short.

Justice really depends on just us.

We the people, we are responsible for the laws that reflect our consent, and the govt that reflects our authority we grant.

Thank you for your guidance to get this off the ground.


----------



## SavannahMann (May 13, 2021)

My first step would be to see if anyone demanding this had any knowledge of history. Since so far they have not. I’d reject their demands with prejudice.


----------



## LuckyDuck (May 17, 2021)

pknopp said:


> Some of us complain about violations of the Constitutional protections by those representing the government and are told to just suck it up and accept it and hope maybe at some point the courts will straighten it out.
> 
> Nobody who actually supports the Constitution would support this. If you actually support the Constitution you would demand that representatives of the government had the Constitution drilled into their heads daily and were told in no uncertain terms they are not to violate them.


In September of 2020, the House took a vote to see if the political body would "accept a peaceful transition of power."  The result was overwhelming that with only five voting no, all others agreed they wanted a "peaceful transition of power."  So, no matter how much the public complains, if the courts don't get involved, we are stuck with the gradually increasing likelihood of becoming a Marxist nation.  If this was 1776 or 1861, the scenario would be quite different, but we live in an age where any more than simply complaining, marching and/or insulting, is unthinkable.  So, we descend into the Madness of that which is Marxism.


----------



## pknopp (May 18, 2021)

LuckyDuck said:


> pknopp said:
> 
> 
> > Some of us complain about violations of the Constitutional protections by those representing the government and are told to just suck it up and accept it and hope maybe at some point the courts will straighten it out.
> ...



 Extremism like what you show here is what is going to destroy the country. You don't even know what you are actually rambling about.


----------



## danielpalos (May 18, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> ...


There is nothing wrong with our federal Constitution it is clearly expressed and unambiguous in every way.  We could not do a better job today.  

Why do you believe you can improve on this:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 18, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > A Better Subdivisioning of the Three-part Model will Provide Better Checks & Balances
> ...


Then why do we accept that there are different interpretations by the Supreme Court Justices???

How does that happen, if it is clearly expressed???


danielpalos said:


> Why do you believe you can improve on this:


Because modern technology provides for improvements.

The great Thomas Jefferson wrote about it way back then, and nobody said the Constitution was perfect.



> Written in Stone Southeast Portico Jefferson Memorial:
> 
> "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and *institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind*. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, *institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times*. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
> 
> -Excerpted from a letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816.





danielpalos said:


> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


The problem is not the Preamble.

The problems are with the operations. The preamble is a diagnostic tool to evaluate the operations.


----------



## danielpalos (May 18, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> ...


The operations should also be as fine and wonderful as our original Constitution and Bill of Rights.  

We should have never had a civil war over slavery.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 18, 2021)

It was written and enacted by people. People are human and less than perfect. That doesn't mean it requires any tampering with. But if it did need changing the methods for doing so are clearly described.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 18, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...



The US Constitution is fine.   It is the politicians, on both sides of the aisle, that have ignored it too often that are the problem.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 18, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> The US Constitution is fine.   It is the politicians, on both sides of the aisle, that have ignored it too often that are the problem.


If “they are not following the Constitution,” that means the checks and balances do not work, because the checks and balances are supposed to prevent that, as well. The checks and balances do not work, and it is probably because the three-part separation theory is improperly deployed. The three-part separation theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in its deployment, then the distribution of government powers is probably not balanced, and the checks on power are probably not in accordance with expectations. It is very unlikely that the checks and balances are going to work correctly if the separation of government is not properly constructed.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 18, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> It was written and enacted by people. People are human and less than perfect. That doesn't mean it requires any tampering with. But if it did need changing the methods for doing so are clearly described.


The only way to correctly separate the government and coordinate the balance of power is by a complete reordering of the three-level charter system. *Amendments will not suffice, because the separation of the government entities is hard wired to the outline of the charter; and the checks on power and the coordination of the three levels has to be constructed without compromise with any remnants of the flawed system*. Furthermore, government charters are best to be considered similar to computer programs, and that means that they have to be correctly formatted and arranged in an efficient order for them to work correctly. As mentioned in the previous article, if there is any error in the demarcation of the balance of power, then the checks on power are adversely affected. If there is not a science to it, then there is a notable hierarchy art to it. The sophistication of hierarchy formatting is a recent development in document technology. Hyper-Text Markup Language is what has been needed to construct the cascading hierarchical directive systems that government charters are, and HTML was just released a decade or two ago, and its implementation for solving document and knowledge management problems is just beginning to be realized. And this publication is the premier introduction to such utility for organizing reliable government charters.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 18, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > It was written and enacted by people. People are human and less than perfect. That doesn't mean it requires any tampering with. But if it did need changing the methods for doing so are clearly described.
> ...


Not that complicated. If the government is not functioning properly-and many believe it isn't-that is certainly not a clear indication that there is anything wrong with the Constitution or the framework for government our forefathers envisioned. The Constitution is the law by which government is charged with functioning. But the Constitution cannot enforce itself. When parts of the governments collude rather than check and balance they must be corrected by the People if necessary. Governments go rogue. Always have; always will if allowed to. Some people break the law. Some governments ignore the law they are intended to follow. In neither case is it always because of some fault in the law. When the violation is intentional trying to change the law helps nothing.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 18, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


It is just absurd to believe that there is a vast bipartisan conspiracy of acquiescence - somebody would be inclined to spill the beans.

So, how are people supposed to fix things? That is the subject of this discussion, but everybody derails, because they do not know what to do.




9thIDdoc said:


> Governments go rogue. Always have; always will if allowed to. Some people break the law. Some governments ignore the law they are intended to follow. In neither case is it always because of some fault in the law. When the violation is intentional trying to change the law helps nothing.


The problem is the separation of the government is incomplete. You cannot comprehend that, because you are jealous.


----------



## danielpalos (May 18, 2021)

Our welfare clause is General.  What is not covered by it?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 18, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> ...


What is absurd is thinking government is going to fix itself because you tell it to. Or that the government is going stand around and wait while you "fix" it to your own preferences. What exactly do you think needs to be done to fix anything that cannot be done by the amendment process dictated by the Constitution? The Constitution is the one and only framework for American government and neither you nor the government can be allowed to "work around" it. You can not fix the Constitution by violating it.

*The problem is the separation of the government is incomplete. You cannot comprehend that, because you are jealous.*

You cannot seem to comprehend that nobody else agrees that that is the problem or that you have the first clue how to fix it even if it was.
You seem to embody the old saying that "If you can't impress with intellect dazzle them with bullshit."


----------



## Stryder50 (May 25, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > We need a revolution here in the US.  One to overthrow the Socialists and reaffirm the Constitution.
> ...


Starts at the bottom/grassroots in you own and local community being ACTIVE in the political party of your choice, supporting it's candidates, and agendas, getting out an knocking on doors, maybe even filing for local offices and running for such.

If one reads anything from our Founders, they will see that over and over again they claimed this Constitution and form of government would only work if enough of the citizens are informed, involved and active.

Takes more than talk.  YOU have also got to DO SOMETHING!


----------



## Stryder50 (May 25, 2021)

BTW, read and re-read the Constitution.


For example, many fail to notice that per Article I Section 9.; the import of persons/slaves would be prohibited after 1808.

Meanwhile the "know nothing' leftist-loonies rail about how the USA was built upon and for slavery.

Just one of many examples.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 25, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > How are you going to do it?
> ...


I'm a revolutionary, and I am going to lead by publishing a pamphlet that explains the primary problem with the deployment of the three-part separation theory, and a solution with a constitutional convention series organizational plan.


Stryder50 said:


> If one reads anything from our Founders, they will see that over and over again they claimed this Constitution and form of government would only work if enough of the citizens are informed, involved and active.


I have read plenty of information from the founding, and never encountered anything like that. What I have encountered is some blasphemy from the founders.


> Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
> - John Adams, Letter to the Massachusetts Militia; October 11, 1798





> I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
> ― Thomas Jefferson, 1816





Stryder50 said:


> Takes more than talk.  YOU have also got to DO SOMETHING!


I can guarantee you that I am doing more than anyone else.








						SLCS - US4CC
					

US4CC




					www.us4cc.info


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 25, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> BTW, read and re-read the Constitution.
> 
> 
> For example, many fail to notice that per Article I Section 9.; the import of persons/slaves would be prohibited after 1808.


I am very much aware of that


Stryder50 said:


> Meanwhile the "know nothing' leftist-loonies rail about how the USA was built upon and for slavery.
> 
> Just one of many examples.


How about you reading Article I Section 5. and explain how that works?
Bet you never noticed how absurd that one is.
There is just no way modern sophisticated people would allow the legislature to make their own rules, and judge their elections.




__





						Article I. Section 5.
					

This section is what leads to the political chaos. The concepts described should be secured with definite details that are enforced by the judiciary, and any lawyer should be able to recognize the tremendous inadequacies here. Let's go through it.  Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Flash (May 25, 2021)

What we know is that the people that took an oath to uphold the Constitution were lying.

Either lying or just plain not understanding the Constitution.

Of course I think we all know that Liberals don't know any more about the Constitution than they know about Economics, History, Biology, Climate Science or Ethics.


----------



## Stryder50 (May 25, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, read and re-read the Constitution.
> ...


I wasn't active or a member of USMB back then, only joined a few months ago.
I don't see anything brilliant in this thread of yours and am inclined to think you failed to understand Article I Section 5. For example, this is about procedural methods, not legal constraints of privileges/exclusions.
Also, recall this was written about 230+ years ago and hindsight, with benefit of newer technologies and standards, isn't the same as correct historical perspective of the times when something was done or written.
If I get the time, I might go to your thread and be more specific, but for now, too many real world tasks and you don't appear to be worthy of the effort and energy.


----------



## Stryder50 (May 25, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> ...


I was paraphrasing admittedly, but as examples;
...
*Alexander Hamilton:* “Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.”
*Thomas Jefferson:* “The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many. . . . What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body.”
*George Mason:* “The right of the people to participate in the legislature is the best security of liberty, and the foundation of all free government; for this purpose elections ought to be free and frequent.” Thomas Jefferson: “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”
*James Iredell:* “The only real security of liberty in any country is the jealousy and circumspection of the people themselves. Let them be watchful over their rulers.”
*Thomas Jefferson:* “What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that [the] people preserve the spirit of resistance?”
*Thomas Jefferson:* “To preserve [our] independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”
...
*James Madison:* “Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as by the abuses of power.”
*Samuel Adams:* “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.”
*Benjamin Franklin:* “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
*Thomas Jefferson:* “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are . . . the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?”
*John Adams:* “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
*Alexander Hamilton:* “An inviolable respect for the Constitution and laws . . . is the vital principle, the sustaining energy, of a free government.”
*Thomas Jefferson:* “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people. Enable them to see that it is their interest to preserve peace and order, and they will preserve them. . . . [The people] are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”
*Thomas Jefferson:* “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, . . . it expects what never was and never will be.”
*James Madison:* “It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.”
*George Washington:* “The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty . . . [is] staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”
...








						America's Founding Documents
					

Introduction to America’s Founding Documents No documents have had a greater influence on the citizens of our country than the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. The Declaration of Independence marked the birth of our republic and set forth our “unalienable rights” to life...




					nccs.net
				



National Center for Constitutional Studies








						National Center for Constitutional Studies - #1 Pocket Constitution
					

Famous for the #1 best selling Pocket Constitution. Books, Videos, and courses for studying the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other amendments.




					nccs.net


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 25, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> If I get the time, I might go to your thread and be more specific, but for now, too many real world tasks and you don't appear to be worthy of the effort and energy.


Listen, pal. If all you can do is paraphrase ideas that you cannot prove specifically, and then all you can do is cut and paste a list by someone else that you obviously do not understand, then it is you who is not worthy of my attention.


> *Benjamin Franklin:* “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 25, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > If I get the time, I might go to your thread and be more specific, but for now, too many real world tasks and you don't appear to be worthy of the effort and energy.
> ...


This OP was not worthy of anybody's attention.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 25, 2021)

This is the most important discussion on the forum.


----------



## Stryder50 (May 25, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> > Stryder50 said:
> ...


At over a thousand views versus @115 posts, a ratio of at least 10 to one, some others than those posting here do show a possible interest.

This thread and OP reflects something all too common in our nation, where many want to re-write the Constitution to increase their entitlements and hand-outs, i.e. the wealth takers looking for more legitimate looting from the wealth makers.

Considering what little action and expansion there has been at the OP's website, likely he/she/it isn't getting much traction.  That's been a typical response from many quarters in our nation on the subject of another "constitutional convention" ~ a lack of interest and more importantly need.

The topic/subject isn't without interest and some attention from some parts of our nation, but not sure this thread has substantially addressed it nor has much other merit.


----------



## Stryder50 (May 25, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > If I get the time, I might go to your thread and be more specific, but for now, too many real world tasks and you don't appear to be worthy of the effort and energy.
> ...


"Edit" function expired before I could go back and color highlight the parts of those quotes that would "prove specifically" and more importantly conceptually what I'd said.

As for involvement in something to make it happen, I'm active in my local Republican Party, am a Precinct Committee Officer, active on the Outreach and Events committees and have known, worked for, and supported many candidates, past and current.
I'm also active in a couple other community organizations that are active in promoting economic growth and recovery from the excessive shut-downs imposed by tyrannical local/state governments.

So I'm doing more than just a bogus and obscure website and some huffery and puffery ...


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (May 25, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> At over a thousand views versus @115 posts, a ratio of at least 10 to one, some others than those posting here do show a possible interest.
> 
> This thread and OP reflects something all too common in our nation, where many want to re-write the Constitution to increase their entitlements and hand-outs, i.e. the wealth takers looking for more legitimate looting from the wealth makers.


I am the only person who wants to reorder the Constitution - you won't find anything else close.

My ambition is to guarantee a better separation of government, more reliable checks and balance of power, and better deliberation of social issues.

I have no ambition for guaranteeing entitlements.


Stryder50 said:


> Considering what little action and expansion there has been at the OP's website, likely he/she/it isn't getting much traction.  That's been a typical response from many quarters in our nation on the subject of another "constitutional convention" ~ a lack of interest and more importantly need.
> 
> The topic/subject isn't without interest and some attention from some parts of our nation, but not sure this thread has substantially addressed it nor has much other merit.


I'm trying to figure out what is going to get it going.


----------



## Flash (May 25, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> *John Adams:* “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”


That is the problem.  Too many people turn away from God and our country is going to hell in a hand basket.

No wonder the Libtards ignore the Constitution.  John Adams saw it coming.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 14, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > We need a revolution here in the US.  One to overthrow the Socialists and reaffirm the Constitution.
> ...



Another 'we need Americans to attack and kill other Americans' thread? 

What are the odds that you're not from here?


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Jun 14, 2021)

Skylar said:


> What are the odds that you're not from here?


I suggest you do a full investigation.


----------



## Skylar (Jun 14, 2021)

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > What are the odds that you're not from here?
> ...



Or.....I could just laugh at your attempt to convince Americans to attack and kill other Americans, comrade. 

You don't have to fight the US if you can convince Americans to kill each other, eh?


----------

