Reaffirming the Almighty United States Constitution

[$ecular#eckler]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

Repeal every Amendment after the 13th, for starters.

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).

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.

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?

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

 

[progressive hunter]

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

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

Repeal every Amendment after the 13th, for starters.

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).

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.

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?

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

your premise is a lie,,

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

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

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]

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.

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

 

[$ecular#eckler]

I believe I'll save my opinions for those I know and trust.

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

I believe I'll save my opinions for those I know and trust.

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

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.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

A Better Subdivisioning of the Three-part Model will Provide Better Checks & Balances

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.

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

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

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.

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]

A Better Subdivisioning of the Three-part Model will Provide Better Checks & Balances

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

I believe I'll save my opinions for those I know and trust.

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

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.

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.