Producing a petition without a plan to gain political support where the effeprt can actually make a difference. I believe this effort will end up being a vetting session or worse yet individual novellas. I see people diving in on the solution aspects completely overlooking planning or structural aspects and unaware of existing Constitutional processes involved in amending Bill of Rights and/or Constitution.
Tulips - You raise valid points. I believe you’re thinking a few steps ahead. If I understand Dr. Farrell’s proposition, it’s to come up with a list of problems that need to be addressed, the purpose being merely to start focusing people’s minds and clarifying their thinking about what needs to change. Questions like gaining political support, actually getting any government to redress grievances, or whether to propose sticking to, amending, or entirely scrapping the existing Constitution (e.g., by secession) would come later in the reasoning process.
That is, if I understand what Dr. Farrell has in mind…
2 Likes
Is this the kind of thing we’d be aiming for?
[Brief introduction here]
[Name of office or institution] has prohibited the free exercise of religion, citing public health as a justification.
… has abridged the right of the people to peaceably assemble, citing public health as a justification.
… has attempted to abridge the freedom of speech and of the press by encouraging private companies to… as a means of circumventing the Constitution.
… has infringed the right to bodily integrity by [doing such-and-such], and in so doing has used executive powers to circumvent the Constitution.
… has infringed the right to equal protection of the laws by forbidding certain citizens to work on the pretext that…
… has attempted to circumvent the authority of the executive officers of several states.
Etc.
[Brief conclusion here]
4 Likes
You are exactly correct. Scarmoge has pointed out that the “Patriot” act is in effect, effectively a nullification of constitutional provisions, and he is correct. What I’m getting at is precisely an attempt to specify problems if one WERE to petition. So you are correct.
3 Likes
Yes precisely… a list or bill of particulars…
One could always add:
… has wrongly presumed the authority to suspend certain provisions of the Constitution…
To clarify: I take this is as a theoretical exercise, just meant to sharpen people’s thinking. I don’t personally believe this kind of petition would ever be used or that it would have any positive effect if it were used. I think it’s a useful exercise nonetheless.
@TulipsMoran, I think perhaps you misunderstand my point. My point of departure referring to the Bill of Rights was to provide context. I am not proposing amending the USA’s Constitution: that would be most dangerous for a nation that is not agreement-capable.
The corporatized federal government, malignantly metastasizing the 10 Mile square federal zone has taken false ownership of often more than half of the land in many states, which it then deigns to lease back to collect fees, lording over the lands users, while collecting fees to finance the enforcement of its illegal seizure and returning a pittance to the states so deprived. We call for a return of all Federal lands to state control.
3 Likes
That’s an interesting specific, and one which of course to some degree sparked the Civil War.
We the People of the Divided States of America do hereby petition the active members of this government body our GOD given right to be heard, acknowledged and represented as the past, present and future of this Great Nation. 1. We shall re-establish the Bill of Rights in all arena’s and facets of societal living. The citizen shall be held in the highest respect for free societal living. Corporations shall not be granted the same rights and privileges as a living breathing citizen. Corporations in order to operate and function in the newly revised United States if perchance this occurs will be subjected to incorporate the bill of rights and the Constitution of these United States within their corporate charters. Failure to do so will result in full closure of operations. No foreign government, foreign citizen or foreign owned corporation shall own property in the United States. No corporation, foreign citizen,government or institution shall infringe upon the rights and liberties of any U.S. citizen irrespective of the proximity of that individual. We are a “Free People” and shall remain so unfettered by the constant threat of tyrannical overlords whom are constantly devising new ways to subvert and enslave these inalienable rights.
2 Likes
Interesting: the idea of legal corporate personhood is one of those issues I think needs to be addressed and have said so on many occasions. One way I’ve thought about doing that is that in order to have that status, corporations must enshrine the Bill of Rights in their corporate charters and act accordingly. It’s a small start, to be sure, but it’s a start.
2 Likes
Yes, I believe that the founders held those truths to be self-evident but have over time been lost.
My only disagreement with your last observation is that they’ve been lost. I’d rather say that they’ve been murdered.
2 Likes
We oppose the abuse of states of emergency that illegally concentrate power in the executive. A few states of emergency have lasted for more than ninety years. There are more than a dozen which have been in effect for more than ten years. These declarations violate the separation of powers by falsely enabling executive powers that are quasi legislative and quasi judicial in the executive.
The order of The Constitution is incoherent. When We the People are mentioned in the Constitution it is brushed past until the amendments.
The proper order would enshrine individual rights, property rights, parental and family rights as preeminent under natural law. It would declare personal sovereignty especially with respect to the human Person. It would include the requirement that all holders of any office have a duty to protect the rights of the people. It would include a right of the people to impeach officials through a grand jury process, with a removal procedures performed by the legislature.
1 Like
The Legislature has allowed private individuals to draft laws that are mercantilist in nature and pass them into Congress, The Legislature then launders the bill through Congress and who then claim it as their own work. Those plagiarizing members that receive emoluments which many include “book deals”, trips, offshore bank accounts, insider information, or other assets to be passed indirectly or directly to members of Congress that can include monies that are foreign in source. This form of bribery is an affront to the Rights of The People and is a violation of their members oaths. The oaths need to be extended to include not profiting from office and not accepting 3rd party legislation whose origins and secret authors are not part of the legislation itself. The full history, authorship and financial support of any bills must be fully disclosed, included in the legislation, and visible for all to see.
I agree with most of what you’ve said. Personally, I’m leery about leaving legislatures too much (or any) of the power to remove officials or to finalize removal procedures. Legislators are too easily corrupted and, at times, will be the ones who need to be removed.
An additional step might be to stipulate that if any corporation violates the Bill of Rights (or engages in certain types of crimes, such as bribery or corruption), the members of the board of directors will be held PERSONALLY liable, civilly and criminally.
3 Likes
an article with mostly decent suggestions for changes to the constitution.
Our problem started when the government became a corporation. For our country to return sovereignty, that must be abolished- no level of government may be organized under a corporation. The oath must be to the Constitution, to the People, not to the corporation which is how it currently exists. I am a living woman, not a person, and I will not be part of that corporation.
2 Likes