CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[PratchettFan]

Trying to reply with an old "out of date" browser is hell. I t may have been me who someone thought hated programmers...leave the fuck well enough alone.

or make them backward compatable. had to erase post replying to just to get a damn cursor.

I like most of Jefferson's thinking but his use of the word inalienable is confusing. Try just putiting that in a new Constitution, everyone has their inalienable rights....would give us endless litigation.

BTW Jefferson did NOT freee all his slaves. just his black mistress and those he may have fathered.

"Inalienable rights" is a very specific term ... It means that the rights are not the government's to give ... And that we have the rights with or without the government while the Constitution protects them from the government. Inalienable just means it is not yours to give or take away in the case of the rights and the Constitution.

Jefferson wasn't using the word to be flowery with language ... The word itself limits the government in scope and purpose regarding its assumed stance against where those rights originate.

It only really results in a problem when people lose all kinds of logical guidance and start suggesting rights not previously identified and ratified in the Constitution are assumed to be protected by it. Like when of religion freedom is bastardized into freedom from religion ... And if they meant the latter they would have indicated so.

There are mechanisms identified within the Constitution that can be used to change it at any time ... People need to stop assuming it means something it doesn't say and change it if necessary.



.

No. Inalienable means it cannot be taken away or surrendered. That is the definition. Go to Websters and look it up. If I can take it away from you, then it is not inalienable. It's a meaningless word used by propagandists.

Pratchett, regardless of whether you agree with our interpretation, in the interest of understanding what we're saying, you can simply insert "free will" for "inalienable rights", it's (very nearly) the same thing.

Not even vaguely the same thing. I can rob a bank exercising my free will, does that make it my inalienable right?

 

[BlackSand]

Perhaps a school district means something different there. A district is just a specific geographic area. It's lines on a map. A district not under the control of the school board? What exactly is it? What authority does it have?

As described in my first post on the matters ... The School Board is Parish wide ... And the Districts are individual communities outside the Parish Seat (except for the one in the Parish Seat). The Districts are under control of the School Board but not in the same town, community, city or whatever.

When the Parish Seat gained enough minorities that the local government went solid minority controlled (minorities are not a minority here) the white people moved to the small communities outside the Parish Seat. They call it "white flight" as one of the outlying communities/district saw a tripling (in regards to public school enrollment ... There are private schools as well) of its population in less than 10 years as white people getting out of the Parish Seat and additional white people fleeing the Democrat controlled hellhole Parish to the North built high to upper middle class suburbs.

The community had about 1500 residents prior ... And now has more than 8000. The schools in that District obviously saw an increase in enrollment ... And it was white people. When those white students left the Parish Seat District ... That District's schools went from passing to failing in overall test scores ... And they were no longer compliant with the education requirements set by the State.

The Justice Department has just taken the stance that throwing white people at the problem will fix it. They are trying to fix the school scores by making white students stay in the failing schools ... And spreading out the minorities to the majority white communities with passing schools. Then they are moving white teachers into the failing schools and minority teachers into the passing schools.

They are not fixing the problem ... They are spreading it out ... We call it the redistribution of test scores.

If you are having problems understanding it ... That is because you are trying to find a way to defend the indefensible. If you are wondering why you don't hear more about it ... That is because we have been living with this kind of government garbage since the 60's down here ... And no self-respecting left leaning news agency would ever do a story on it.

.

 

[PratchettFan]

Perhaps a school district means something different there. A district is just a specific geographic area. It's lines on a map. A district not under the control of the school board? What exactly is it? What authority does it have?

As described in my first post on the matters ... The School Board is Parish wide ... And the Districts are individual communities outside the Parish Seat (except for the one in the Parish Seat). The Districts are under control of the School Board but not in the same town, community, city or whatever.

When the Parish Seat gained enough minorities that the local government went solid minority controlled (minorities are not a minority here) the white people moved to the small communities outside the Parish Seat. They call it "white flight" as one of the outlying communities/district saw a tripling (in regards to public school enrollment ... There are private schools as well) of its population in less than 10 years as white people getting out of the Parish Seat and additional white people fleeing the Democrat controlled hellhole Parish to the North built high to upper middle class suburbs.

The community had about 1500 residents prior ... And now has more than 8000. The schools in that District obviously saw an increase in enrollment ... And it was white people.when those white students left the Parish Seat District ... That District's schools went from passing to failing in overall test scores ... And they were no longer compliant with the education requirements set by the State.

The Justice Department has just taken the stance that throwing white people at the problem will fix it. They are trying to fix the school scores by making white students stay in the failing schools ... And spreading out the minorities to the majority white communities with passing schools. Then they are moving white teachers into the failing schools and minority teachers into the passing schools.

They are not fixing the problem ... They are spreading it out ... We call it the redistribution of test scores.

.

Wow. These districts are under the control of the school board but decided to operate outside of the school board, obtaining private funds and putting them into public property. In short, exceeding their authority and abusing their power. As I said, this is not something unique to the feds.

The Justice Department is handling this by requiring students from one district to go to school in another district. Under what court is this coming from?

 

[Foxfyre]

Trying to reply with an old "out of date" browser is hell. I t may have been me who someone thought hated programmers...leave the fuck well enough alone.

or make them backward compatable. had to erase post replying to just to get a damn cursor.

I like most of Jefferson's thinking but his use of the word inalienable is confusing. Try just putiting that in a new Constitution, everyone has their inalienable rights....would give us endless litigation.

BTW Jefferson did NOT freee all his slaves. just his black mistress and those he may have fathered.

"Inalienable rights" is a very specific term ... It means that the rights are not the government's to give ... And that we have the rights with or without the government while the Constitution protects them from the government. Inalienable just means it is not yours to give or take away in the case of the rights and the Constitution.

Jefferson wasn't using the word to be flowery with language ... The word itself limits the government in scope and purpose regarding its assumed stance against where those rights originate.

It only really results in a problem when people lose all kinds of logical guidance and start suggesting rights not previously identified and ratified in the Constitution are assumed to be protected by it. Like when of religion freedom is bastardized into freedom from religion ... And if they meant the latter they would have indicated so.

There are mechanisms identified within the Constitution that can be used to change it at any time ... People need to stop assuming it means something it doesn't say and change it if necessary.
.

I think this is a very good analysis. Again, the concept of unalienable or inalienable rights aka natural rights for the non religious or God given rights for the religious, can be simply defined as what any person does that requires no participation or contribution from another.

Does what I say, think, do, believe, or what I do or how I choose to live my life require anything of you? Your service? Anything you own? Does it harm (the generic) you in any way? If not, then it is my unalienable right and should be untouchable by the federal government or any other citizen.

I can choose to relinquish certain unalienable rights to conform to the social contract adopted by the local community, but nobody requires me to live in that community. But the federal government should have no power of any kind to interfere with unalienable rights because the people who object have nowhere to go without giving up their country.

 

[Foxfyre]

Trying to reply with an old "out of date" browser is hell. I t may have been me who someone thought hated programmers...leave the fuck well enough alone.

or make them backward compatable. had to erase post replying to just to get a damn cursor.

I like most of Jefferson's thinking but his use of the word inalienable is confusing. Try just putiting that in a new Constitution, everyone has their inalienable rights....would give us endless litigation.

BTW Jefferson did NOT freee all his slaves. just his black mistress and those he may have fathered.

"Inalienable rights" is a very specific term ... It means that the rights are not the government's to give ... And that we have the rights with or without the government while the Constitution protects them from the government. Inalienable just means it is not yours to give or take away in the case of the rights and the Constitution.

Jefferson wasn't using the word to be flowery with language ... The word itself limits the government in scope and purpose regarding its assumed stance against where those rights originate.

It only really results in a problem when people lose all kinds of logical guidance and start suggesting rights not previously identified and ratified in the Constitution are assumed to be protected by it. Like when of religion freedom is bastardized into freedom from religion ... And if they meant the latter they would have indicated so.

There are mechanisms identified within the Constitution that can be used to change it at any time ... People need to stop assuming it means something it doesn't say and change it if necessary.



.

No. Inalienable means it cannot be taken away or surrendered. That is the definition. Go to Websters and look it up. If I can take it away from you, then it is not inalienable. It's a meaningless word used by propagandists.

Pratchett, regardless of whether you agree with our interpretation, in the interest of understanding what we're saying, you can simply insert "free will" for "inalienable rights", it's (very nearly) the same thing.

Not even vaguely the same thing. I can rob a bank exercising my free will, does that make it my inalienable right?

No because you are requiring participation and contribution by others when you rob a bank. Unalienable rights require no participation or contribution from others.

 

[Foxfyre]

Trying to reply with an old "out of date" browser is hell. I t may have been me who someone thought hated programmers...leave the fuck well enough alone.

or make them backward compatable. had to erase post replying to just to get a damn cursor.

I like most of Jefferson's thinking but his use of the word inalienable is confusing. Try just putiting that in a new Constitution, everyone has their inalienable rights....would give us endless litigation.

BTW Jefferson did NOT freee all his slaves. just his black mistress and those he may have fathered.

"Inalienable rights" is a very specific term ... It means that the rights are not the government's to give ... And that we have the rights with or without the government while the Constitution protects them from the government. Inalienable just means it is not yours to give or take away in the case of the rights and the Constitution.

Jefferson wasn't using the word to be flowery with language ... The word itself limits the government in scope and purpose regarding its assumed stance against where those rights originate.

It only really results in a problem when people lose all kinds of logical guidance and start suggesting rights not previously identified and ratified in the Constitution are assumed to be protected by it. Like when of religion freedom is bastardized into freedom from religion ... And if they meant the latter they would have indicated so.

There are mechanisms identified within the Constitution that can be used to change it at any time ... People need to stop assuming it means something it doesn't say and change it if necessary.



.

No. Inalienable means it cannot be taken away or surrendered. That is the definition. Go to Websters and look it up. If I can take it away from you, then it is not inalienable. It's a meaningless word used by propagandists.

Pratchett, regardless of whether you agree with our interpretation, in the interest of understanding what we're saying, you can simply insert "free will" for "inalienable rights", it's (very nearly) the same thing.

We're usually on the same page, but I don't think 'free will' is quite the same thing as inalienable rights. One can exercise free will that requires involuntary contribution or participation by others that violates their inalienable rights. So inalienable rights is a somewhat different concept than free will.

An inalienable right is that which makes us who and what we are, what we do, that requires nothing--no service, no contribution, no participation of any kind from anybody else. All that is required of another person is their non interference. As soon as what we do materially affects another, it ceases to be an unalienable right and enters the realm of privilege or social contract.

But I am not tied to the term 'inalienable rights' if somebody can think of a better word or phrase that means the same thing and expresses it as simply and succinctly.

 

[PratchettFan]

Trying to reply with an old "out of date" browser is hell. I t may have been me who someone thought hated programmers...leave the fuck well enough alone.

or make them backward compatable. had to erase post replying to just to get a damn cursor.

I like most of Jefferson's thinking but his use of the word inalienable is confusing. Try just putiting that in a new Constitution, everyone has their inalienable rights....would give us endless litigation.

BTW Jefferson did NOT freee all his slaves. just his black mistress and those he may have fathered.

"Inalienable rights" is a very specific term ... It means that the rights are not the government's to give ... And that we have the rights with or without the government while the Constitution protects them from the government. Inalienable just means it is not yours to give or take away in the case of the rights and the Constitution.

Jefferson wasn't using the word to be flowery with language ... The word itself limits the government in scope and purpose regarding its assumed stance against where those rights originate.

It only really results in a problem when people lose all kinds of logical guidance and start suggesting rights not previously identified and ratified in the Constitution are assumed to be protected by it. Like when of religion freedom is bastardized into freedom from religion ... And if they meant the latter they would have indicated so.

There are mechanisms identified within the Constitution that can be used to change it at any time ... People need to stop assuming it means something it doesn't say and change it if necessary.



.

No. Inalienable means it cannot be taken away or surrendered. That is the definition. Go to Websters and look it up. If I can take it away from you, then it is not inalienable. It's a meaningless word used by propagandists.

Pratchett, regardless of whether you agree with our interpretation, in the interest of understanding what we're saying, you can simply insert "free will" for "inalienable rights", it's (very nearly) the same thing.

Not even vaguely the same thing. I can rob a bank exercising my free will, does that make it my inalienable right?

No because you are requiring participation and contribution by others when you rob a bank. Unalienable rights require no participation or contribution from others.

No. It doesn't mean that at all. Inalienable means that it cannot be taken away from you and you cannot surrender it. That is what the word means. If you don't mean that, then you need to use another word.

You are placing an arbitrary condition upon this, and it too is unworkable. Even if you sit all by yourself in your room, an argument can be made that you are impacting others. You operate within a society and everything you do affects someone else in some way. If you turn on a light switch you are interacting with a power grid which is financed, in whatever small part, by me. It is a meaningless concept in the real world, and we live in the real world.

 

[Foxfyre]

Jefferson wasn't using the word to be flowery with language ... The word itself limits the government in scope and purpose regarding its assumed stance against where those rights originate.

Maybe. But it's been the source of much confusion. Perhaps if he envisioned his words being debated two and a half centuries later he might have been more explicit. In my view, the most damaging misapprehension of the word comes from defenders of the intent, who see it as synonymous with "sacrosanct". Too often conservatives take it as a decree that government 'shall not' take away the rights in question, rather than a recognition the we're born with them; that government literally can't take them away (even if they wanted to).

Okay I think you lost me with this. What is the difference you see between defending the intent and holding it as 'sacrosanct' which I define as inviolable or inviolate?

Recognizing that we are born with certain unalienable rights suggests that these ARE sacrosanct, and a government that would presume to deny them to the people or interfere with them against their will is a bad government.

 

[Foxfyre]

"Inalienable rights" is a very specific term ... It means that the rights are not the government's to give ... And that we have the rights with or without the government while the Constitution protects them from the government. Inalienable just means it is not yours to give or take away in the case of the rights and the Constitution.

Jefferson wasn't using the word to be flowery with language ... The word itself limits the government in scope and purpose regarding its assumed stance against where those rights originate.

It only really results in a problem when people lose all kinds of logical guidance and start suggesting rights not previously identified and ratified in the Constitution are assumed to be protected by it. Like when of religion freedom is bastardized into freedom from religion ... And if they meant the latter they would have indicated so.

There are mechanisms identified within the Constitution that can be used to change it at any time ... People need to stop assuming it means something it doesn't say and change it if necessary.



.

No. Inalienable means it cannot be taken away or surrendered. That is the definition. Go to Websters and look it up. If I can take it away from you, then it is not inalienable. It's a meaningless word used by propagandists.

Pratchett, regardless of whether you agree with our interpretation, in the interest of understanding what we're saying, you can simply insert "free will" for "inalienable rights", it's (very nearly) the same thing.

Not even vaguely the same thing. I can rob a bank exercising my free will, does that make it my inalienable right?

No because you are requiring participation and contribution by others when you rob a bank. Unalienable rights require no participation or contribution from others.

No. It doesn't mean that at all. Inalienable means that it cannot be taken away from you and you cannot surrender it. That is what the word means. If you don't mean that, then you need to use another word.

You are placing an arbitrary condition upon this, and it too is unworkable. Even if you sit all by yourself in your room, an argument can be made that you are impacting others. You operate within a society and everything you do affects someone else in some way. If you turn on a light switch you are interacting with a power grid which is financed, in whatever small part, by me. It is a meaningless concept in the real world, and we live in the real world.

Yes, if I am hateful and belligerent and selfish, I do have an impact on the society I live in. And if I am cheerful and helpful and unselfish, I do have an impact on the society I live in. But I have no material affect on other people by being who and what I am and that requires no contribution or participation by anybody else. It is their choice to relate to me however they choose to do that just as it is my choice to be who and what I am. I am not requiring them to participate in who or what I am in any way.

Use of electricity usually does require contribution and participation by others; therefore to have or use electricity that I do not produce myself is social contract and not an unalienable right. However, what I do on my own property that does not require involuntary contribution or participation by others is my unalienable right and should be inviolate.

 

[Foxfyre]

"Inalienable rights" is a very specific term ... It means that the rights are not the government's to give ... And that we have the rights with or without the government while the Constitution protects them from the government. Inalienable just means it is not yours to give or take away in the case of the rights and the Constitution.

Jefferson wasn't using the word to be flowery with language ... The word itself limits the government in scope and purpose regarding its assumed stance against where those rights originate.

It only really results in a problem when people lose all kinds of logical guidance and start suggesting rights not previously identified and ratified in the Constitution are assumed to be protected by it. Like when of religion freedom is bastardized into freedom from religion ... And if they meant the latter they would have indicated so.

There are mechanisms identified within the Constitution that can be used to change it at any time ... People need to stop assuming it means something it doesn't say and change it if necessary.



.

No. Inalienable means it cannot be taken away or surrendered. That is the definition. Go to Websters and look it up. If I can take it away from you, then it is not inalienable. It's a meaningless word used by propagandists.

Pratchett, regardless of whether you agree with our interpretation, in the interest of understanding what we're saying, you can simply insert "free will" for "inalienable rights", it's (very nearly) the same thing.

Not even vaguely the same thing. I can rob a bank exercising my free will, does that make it my inalienable right?

No because you are requiring participation and contribution by others when you rob a bank. Unalienable rights require no participation or contribution from others.

No. It doesn't mean that at all. Inalienable means that it cannot be taken away from you and you cannot surrender it. That is what the word means. If you don't mean that, then you need to use another word.

You are placing an arbitrary condition upon this, and it too is unworkable. Even if you sit all by yourself in your room, an argument can be made that you are impacting others. You operate within a society and everything you do affects someone else in some way. If you turn on a light switch you are interacting with a power grid which is financed, in whatever small part, by me. It is a meaningless concept in the real world, and we live in the real world.

Inalienable. Not subject to sale or transfer; inseparable. That which is inalienable cannot be bought, sold, or transferred from one individual to another. I cannot transfer to you/sell you my ability to think, believe, create, inspire, speak, or be who and what I am. Unalienable rights are those that the government recognizes and does not interfere with or place any requirement or restrictions on.

The Inquisition was such a terrible assault on human rights because it presumed to deny people the ability to write or speak their thoughts and beliefs and/or be who and what they were with impunity. We have people in this country now who exercise their own form of Inquisition and presume to physically and/or materially punish others for no other offense than using a wrong word or expressing a politically incorrect belief or concept.

A constitution that recognizes and defends our unalienable rights would truly restore liberty if that is our goal. That is my goal because I think humankind is its very best self when liberty is the highest goal.

 

[Foxfyre]

Please show us lots of examples of where "desegregation happened a lot of places long before the federal government got involved". And then show us all the places where it had not happened prior to Emmett Till, and then give us a list of all the deaths from the Civil Rights fight after that.

No one has given any verifiable evidence in this thread that the federal involvement was not necessary any more than anyone has ever given any solid evidence in other threads that slavery was on its peaceful way out.

One, slavery was recognized and protected in the Constitution.

Two, no one has demonstrated that federal enforcement was not needed in ending segregation.

The states have clearly demonstrated they were not competent in ending this cankers on the American society and soul.

I have already discussed that earlier in this thread I believe. I know I have on other threads. My own home town ended segregation years before the government got involved in that as did most of the other communities around us. And it was accomplished without any ugly protests or violence or hard feelings by anybody. There are sometimes much better ways to effect positive social change than via government edict.

But whether or not the desegregation mandates were necessary, the fact is, there is no more segregation and there hasn't been any for a half century now. That war has been fought and won. There is zero chance that it would be reinstituted anywhere even if it should be made legal to do so. So it is high time we stop fighting that war and enjoy the peace dividend.

If we could rewrite the Constitution to recognize and secure unalienable rights for EVERYBODY, we would go a long way to restoring liberty in the most positive and productive way, and remove the ability of politicians and other opportunists from profiting by perpetuating racism and a lot of other 'isms.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's your opinion, I understand it, and I do doubt your statement "There is zero chance that it would be reinstituted anywhere even if it should be made legal to do so." Our states failed before; and I have no doubt some would want their states to force folks who don't believe their way to do so if given the chance. I am quite sure the radical wings of Islam would do that if given the change in America.

 

[Foxfyre]

Now then, this got lost a few pages back. But in the interest of restoring liberty and the rights of the people to be who they are and live their lives as they choose, if that is to be the goal, then we have to remove power from those in government who would dictate every aspect of all of that and thereby profit themselves.

So who could agree to some or all of the following being included in a new and improved Constitution?

1. No person elected to Congress may serve for more than 12 consecutive years.

2. Those who have served 12 consecutive years will not be eligible for election or appointment to federal office for a period of two years.

3. Terms for senators will be limited to 6 years with 1/3 of the senate rotating off in each 2-year election.

4. Terms for members of the House will be two years.

5. Offices for senators and congressmen will be furnished with basic inexpensive but functional furniture and equipment purchased via lowest bidder. Any additional furnishings and decorations will be paid for by the official using the office space.

6. A reasonable allowance is allowed each member of Congress to provide living expenses, travel expenses, maintenance of his/her office, compensation for a staff, and a reasonable personal salary. Any additional expense above and beyond the allowance is at the expense of the member of Congress. A detailed annual report of expenditures of the people's money will be submitted at the end of each fiscal year and any unused portion of the allowance will be returned to the national treasury at the end of each fiscal year.

7. The government can arrange for a group healthcare plan for elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel, but each person will pay the full cost of participation in that plan.

8. All federal elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel will fund their own 401K or other retirement plan that will go with them when they return to the private sector. No taxpayer funds will be used for retirement plans for anybody.
(Some provision may be made for a stipend for the President who will generally be expected to perform ceremonial duties following a tenure as president. We can hash that out later.)

And further:
9. Congress may exempt itself from no law that is passed for anybody else.

10. Congress may allocate no funds or benefit, or make any regulation, establish any policy, or enact any law that benefits or disadvantage any individual, group, entity, or demographic that does not benefit or disadvantage all without respect for politics or socioeconomic status.

11. The Congress and President will begin each year with a zero based budget--the baseline budget process will be discontinued at all levels--and will be required to stay within budget boundaries except in very specific emergencies that will be defined elsewhere.

12. Only the bare basics of government administrative functions will be included in the annual operating budget. All other allocations of any kind will be presented as single issues--i.e.not included or bundled with any other legislation--in a stand alone bill requiring an up or down vote by 2/3rds of both House and Senate and signed by the President for passage.
(No. 12 above removes the need for a line item veto power given to the President which would have its own problems.)

There's probably more, but I think this would be a good start.

 

[BlackSand]

No. Inalienable means it cannot be taken away or surrendered. That is the definition. Go to Websters and look it up. If I can take it away from you, then it is not inalienable. It's a meaningless word used by propagandists.

Inalienable also means it cannot be given ... I didn't have to look it up but I did anyway.


in·al·ien·a·ble
inˈālēənəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
   "freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights"
   synonyms: inviolable, absolute, sacrosanct; More

 

[dcraelin]

No. Inalienable means it cannot be taken away or surrendered. That is the definition. Go to Websters and look it up. If I can take it away from you, then it is not inalienable. It's a meaningless word used by propagandists.

Inalienable also means it cannot be given ... I didn't have to look it up but I did anyway.


in·al·ien·a·ble
inˈālēənəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
   "freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights"
   synonyms: inviolable, absolute, sacrosanct; More

Jefferson also said the will of the majority is the surist guardian of the rights of man. Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[BlackSand]

Jefferson wasn't using the word to be flowery with language ... The word itself limits the government in scope and purpose regarding its assumed stance against where those rights originate.

Maybe. But it's been the source of much confusion. Perhaps if he envisioned his words being debated two and a half centuries later he might have been more explicit. In my view, the most damaging misapprehension of the word comes from defenders of the intent, who see it as synonymous with "sacrosanct". Too often conservatives take it as a decree that government 'shall not' take away the rights in question, rather than a recognition the we're born with them; that government literally can't take them away (even if they wanted to).

If other people want to misinterpret what the word (or words for the matter) means ... Then that in way changes what it means. The desire to misinterpret the word was exactly what I was talking about in the rest of the post.

At plain understanding of the word it doesn't define where they came from ... And only expresses they cannot be taken away or given by the possessor.

I am not really interested in what political leanings the people want to use in misinterpretation.

.

 

[BlackSand]

No. Inalienable means it cannot be taken away or surrendered. That is the definition. Go to Websters and look it up. If I can take it away from you, then it is not inalienable. It's a meaningless word used by propagandists.

Inalienable also means it cannot be given ... I didn't have to look it up but I did anyway.


in·al·ien·a·ble
inˈālēənəb(ə)l/
adjective

1. unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
   "freedom of religion, the most inalienable of all human rights"
   synonyms: inviolable, absolute, sacrosanct; More

Jefferson also said the will of the majority is the surist guardian of the rights of man. Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

That in no way changes the meaning of the word inalienable.

The only reason people need to change the meaning of the word ... Is when they want to make is say what they desire. Which is why I like the word inalienable ... Because it clearly indicates the decision is not yours to make.

In regards to the quote by Jefferson ... There were more rights that were discussed and not included in the Constitution ... Nor were they ratified by the majority.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes 1. No person elected to Congress may serve for more than 12 consecutive years.

Yes 2. Those who have served 12 consecutive years will not be eligible for election or appointment to federal office for a period of two years.

Yes 3. Terms for senators will be limited to 6 years with 1/3 of the senate rotating off in each 2-year election.

Yes 4. Terms for members of the House will be two years.

Yes 5. Offices for senators and congressmen will be furnished with basic inexpensive but functional furniture and equipment purchased via lowest bidder. Any additional furnishings and decorations will be paid for by the official using the office space.

Yes 6. A reasonable allowance is allowed each member of Congress to provide living expenses, travel expenses, maintenance of his/her office, compensation for a staff, and a reasonable personal salary. Any additional expense above and beyond the allowance is at the expense of the member of Congress. A detailed annual report of expenditures of the people's money will be submitted at the end of each fiscal year and any unused portion of the allowance will be returned to the national treasury at the end of each fiscal year.

Yes 7. The government can arrange for a group healthcare plan for elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel, but each person will pay the full cost of participation in that plan.

Yes 8. All federal elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel will fund their own 401K or other retirement plan that will go with them when they return to the private sector. No taxpayer funds will be used for retirement plans for anybody.
(Some provision may be made for a stipend for the President who will generally be expected to perform ceremonial duties following a tenure as president. We can hash that out later.)

And further:
Yes 9. Congress may exempt itself from no law that is passed for anybody else.

10. Congress may allocate no funds or benefit, or make any regulation, establish any policy, or enact any law that benefits or disadvantage any individual, group, entity, or demographic that does not benefit or disadvantage all without respect for politics or socioeconomic status.

11. The Congress and President will begin each year with a zero based budget--the baseline budget process will be discontinued at all levels--and will be required to stay within budget boundaries except in very specific emergencies that will be defined elsewhere.

Yes very bold! 12. Only the bare basics of government administrative functions will be included in the annual operating budget. All other allocations of any kind will be presented as single issues--i.e.not included or bundled with any other legislation--in a stand alone bill requiring an up or down vote by 2/3rds of both House and Senate and signed by the President for passage.
(No. 12 above removes the need for a line item veto power given to the President which would have its own problems.)

 

[BlackSand]

Now then, this got lost a few pages back. But in the interest of restoring liberty and the rights of the people to be who they are and live their lives as they choose, if that is to be the goal, then we have to remove power from those in government who would dictate every aspect of all of that and thereby profit themselves.

So who could agree to some or all of the following being included in a new and improved Constitution?

1. No person elected to Congress may serve for more than 12 consecutive years.

2. Those who have served 12 consecutive years will not be eligible for election or appointment to federal office for a period of two years.

3. Terms for senators will be limited to 6 years with 1/3 of the senate rotating off in each 2-year election.

4. Terms for members of the House will be two years.

5. Offices for senators and congressmen will be furnished with basic inexpensive but functional furniture and equipment purchased via lowest bidder. Any additional furnishings and decorations will be paid for by the official using the office space.

6. A reasonable allowance is allowed each member of Congress to provide living expenses, travel expenses, maintenance of his/her office, compensation for a staff, and a reasonable personal salary. Any additional expense above and beyond the allowance is at the expense of the member of Congress. A detailed annual report of expenditures of the people's money will be submitted at the end of each fiscal year and any unused portion of the allowance will be returned to the national treasury at the end of each fiscal year.

7. The government can arrange for a group healthcare plan for elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel, but each person will pay the full cost of participation in that plan.

8. All federal elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel will fund their own 401K or other retirement plan that will go with them when they return to the private sector. No taxpayer funds will be used for retirement plans for anybody.
(Some provision may be made for a stipend for the President who will generally be expected to perform ceremonial duties following a tenure as president. We can hash that out later.)

And further:
9. Congress may exempt itself from no law that is passed for anybody else.

10. Congress may allocate no funds or benefit, or make any regulation, establish any policy, or enact any law that benefits or disadvantage any individual, group, entity, or demographic that does not benefit or disadvantage all without respect for politics or socioeconomic status.

11. The Congress and President will begin each year with a zero based budget--the baseline budget process will be discontinued at all levels--and will be required to stay within budget boundaries except in very specific emergencies that will be defined elsewhere.

12. Only the bare basics of government administrative functions will be included in the annual operating budget. All other allocations of any kind will be presented as single issues--i.e.not included or bundled with any other legislation--in a stand alone bill requiring an up or down vote by 2/3rds of both House and Senate and signed by the President for passage.
(No. 12 above removes the need for a line item veto power given to the President which would have its own problems.)

There's probably more, but I think this would be a good start.

I really don't mean to ignore your points about term limits for Congress ... I just think it would all work a lot better if there was a certain qualification process that ensured we don't end up with Congressmen who think the island of Guam may capsize if we put too many soldiers on it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Now then, this got lost a few pages back. But in the interest of restoring liberty and the rights of the people to be who they are and live their lives as they choose, if that is to be the goal, then we have to remove power from those in government who would dictate every aspect of all of that and thereby profit themselves.

So who could agree to some or all of the following being included in a new and improved Constitution?

1. No person elected to Congress may serve for more than 12 consecutive years.

2. Those who have served 12 consecutive years will not be eligible for election or appointment to federal office for a period of two years.

3. Terms for senators will be limited to 6 years with 1/3 of the senate rotating off in each 2-year election.

4. Terms for members of the House will be two years.

5. Offices for senators and congressmen will be furnished with basic inexpensive but functional furniture and equipment purchased via lowest bidder. Any additional furnishings and decorations will be paid for by the official using the office space.

6. A reasonable allowance is allowed each member of Congress to provide living expenses, travel expenses, maintenance of his/her office, compensation for a staff, and a reasonable personal salary. Any additional expense above and beyond the allowance is at the expense of the member of Congress. A detailed annual report of expenditures of the people's money will be submitted at the end of each fiscal year and any unused portion of the allowance will be returned to the national treasury at the end of each fiscal year.

7. The government can arrange for a group healthcare plan for elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel, but each person will pay the full cost of participation in that plan.

8. All federal elected, appointed, and hired federal personnel will fund their own 401K or other retirement plan that will go with them when they return to the private sector. No taxpayer funds will be used for retirement plans for anybody.
(Some provision may be made for a stipend for the President who will generally be expected to perform ceremonial duties following a tenure as president. We can hash that out later.)

And further:
9. Congress may exempt itself from no law that is passed for anybody else.

10. Congress may allocate no funds or benefit, or make any regulation, establish any policy, or enact any law that benefits or disadvantage any individual, group, entity, or demographic that does not benefit or disadvantage all without respect for politics or socioeconomic status.

11. The Congress and President will begin each year with a zero based budget--the baseline budget process will be discontinued at all levels--and will be required to stay within budget boundaries except in very specific emergencies that will be defined elsewhere.

12. Only the bare basics of government administrative functions will be included in the annual operating budget. All other allocations of any kind will be presented as single issues--i.e.not included or bundled with any other legislation--in a stand alone bill requiring an up or down vote by 2/3rds of both House and Senate and signed by the President for passage.
(No. 12 above removes the need for a line item veto power given to the President which would have its own problems.)

There's probably more, but I think this would be a good start.

I really don't mean to ignore your points about term limits for Congress ... I just think it would all work a lot better if there was a certain qualification process that ensured we don't end up with Congressmen who think the island of Guam may capsize if we put too many soldiers on it.

LOL, or a Congresswoman from Colorado who believed Rush Limbaugh when he joked that he had just bought his mother a new can of dog food.

But in the interest of the people calling the shots, it should be left to the people who they send to Congress even if those people are morons. With the limits on Congress on that list, I trust that we will get a much higher caliber of people running for public office and the people will send enough good people to out vote the occasional idiot. At any rate, even if we have all idiots there, they would not have as much power to do idiotic things.