Reading Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man”. Evidently prior to the Declaration this was an issue for the colonists disputing the {Governors} magistrates beholden to the throne of England. This is a case for reincarnation-- It appears we have the Redcoats re-emerging within our midst ignoring the very rights fought for pre-1776. Within those pages I see solutions to the conundrum of a enslaved or free society.
All federal employees have to swear an oath to uphold the U. S. Constitution when hired. Don’t know, but state employees probably have to do the same. We start with what we have, rather than attempt to create from scratch.
-
All federal and state employees must read and understand what the respective constitutions set forth, anew. This may involve classes; since, few people actually know what the American governing documents say or mean.
-
Then each one must reaffirm an oath to follow, protect and uphold the rights and responsibilities in the U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
-
If a state employee, then the same for their respective state constitutions.
-
Those who have issues with the provisions in these documents as they stand, will be removed from their position since swearing the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution is a condition of employment.
-
Each employee or delineated groups within a given agency must examine their respective agency and identify where the constitutions and Bill of Rights are not being followed or violated, which would then be reported to a citizens commission and inspector general with suggested ways to rectify violations.
-
After that, we would be left with the more complex and difficult areas to address, which would be done among the commission members, agency representatives, and inspector general.
This alone, done responsibly, would clear-up a lot of issues both operationally and practicability.
1 Like
I concur with this proposal and will add more issues related to health autonomy
1 Like
I am re-posting Perlandra3’s comment on health freedom with a few additional comments.
from Perelandra3 “The sovereign right of the individual citizen to determine one’s own manner of health care as well as that for the maintenance of the health and well-being of one’s family and household.”
alternative:
No person shall be required to accept any health care product or service. Any information related to a person’s health status may not be associated with a person’s identity without the express consent of the person.
Issues:
Can a person be held liable for knowingly infecting another person with a disease?
Can businesses choose to hire and fire based on health status?
Can a person be fined for not accepting a health product or service?
Can the government require parents to have children treated for infections and disease?
Can an employer require a physical exam?
note, the rights in the Bill of Rights are not absolute. The rights may be abridged for a compelling reason.
2 Likes
Good questions… In the first one, I might change “knowingly” to “intentionally.” If you leave the house to buy medicine knowing that you have a cold, and the cashier at the drugstore catches a cold, should you be held liable? It could be argued that you “knowingly” infected another person, whereas it probably wasn’t your intention to infect anybody.
The part about the rights in the Bill of Rights is really, really important, in my opinion. I agree that, under the current system, they can be abridged for a compelling reason, and there’s an argument for restricting some rights in extremely dangerous circumstances, such as an actual shooting war with another country. The problem is that anything can be called a “compelling reason.” Therefore, I’d argue the Bill of Rights should define the circumstances under which the rights can be suspended, and provide for severe punishment of anyone attempting to wrongly or abusively suspend those rights.
1 Like
1st issue- Mens Rea-- Clarification** Mad Scientist who has harbored viruses and willfully dispurses them upon innocent persons in order to gain profit while committing genocide? Or a individual who is tagged or suspected of harboring a virus who is merely engaging in societal living with no malicious intent or motive. Those are very different circumstances that could be applied to that same question. Or the knowing transference of a STD? AIDS? What does Liability entail? Criminal or civil?
2nd issue- It used to be an act of Discrimination to hire or fire based on health status. However, If you have a pacemaker it can be grounds for dismissal of certain hazardous jobs… ect…
3rd-- I have a jar of blended juices and muck that is good for your health. I will not disclose what the actual contents are. Trust me! Drink it! Or I will fine you! Or you will loose your job! NOT
4th-- Who is government? Is infection or disease treatable? Is infection or disease of a known or unknown origin? Who cares more about the child’s welfare more often than not- the parent or the government?
5th- Yes, It happens everyday depending on the type of work the employee is tasked to perform.
6th-- Rights of the Bill of Rights were based upon laws of universal common sense and individual bodily sovereignty. These are principles that used to be self-evident.
2 Likes
Hi Peter,
“The sovereign right to do business with whomever i wish in whatever way I desire.”
just remember you could still be sued. lol.
I came across this interesting list:
Laura
Another interesting List was written by Thomas Paine in 1793. The French Declaration of Rights. pg 276 of Thomas Paine- Complete Writings. There are 33 on the list. I will try and post them eventually!
1 Like
check out the 13th amendment, the first one, which might have actually passed, but then was buried, it forbid people with connections or titles from offshore to hold public office, including probably the British Attorney Registry members.
2 Likes
We the people reject all insectoids and reptilians in PUBLIC OFFICE.
ALL INSECTOIDS AND REPTILIANS MUST REMOVE THEMSELVES FROM ADMINISTRATIVE POSITIONS, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
STATE QUORUM – official.
And the removal of all those with material allegiances to other nations and powers, both terrestrial and extra-terrestrial.
(For the sleeping horde, perhaps it is enough to ban those with multiple passports and multiple citizenships.)
1 Like
… on 27 September 2021 Dr. Farrell posted a response to FiatLux Farrell: “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.”
This conversation about the Petition to redress of grievances was begun in another thread (Formation of GizaOrg a Necessity?) then given its own thread. Below is the post (in the other thread) to which Dr. Farrell is referring in his reply to FiatLux.
Quick thought that occurred to me while reposting this … If we are at the point where we are Petitioning the “Federal Louchement” for the redress of grievances isn’t it tantamount to an admission and or realization that we are past the point of this being a possible path to a solution?
After all … King George III response to being presented a list of 27 “grievances” was … Bueller, Bueller … anyone … anyone
Repost ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
… Hmmmm. Question: Aren’t we still functioning under the Patriot Act or several individual “acts” that in effect keep the PA alive and well and functioning? If we are still under the PA, then aren’t we defacto in a period of Constitutional suspension? And if true, then doesn’t this mean that we, at this time, do not have a mechanism for petitioning the (so-called, dysfunctional at best) “Federal Perversement”
If the above is the case, then wouldn’t the first move be to get our “Federal Louchement” (Perversement and Louchement are two proposals for referring to … well you know … for the foreseeable future) to legislatively (for whats that worth at this point in time), declare ALL provisions of the PA null and void and in simple ordinary language (or in the words of Denzel ‘All right, … explain this to me like I’m a four-year old, okay?’) wording to the effect that NEVER AGAIN shall any such act or combination of acts EVER AGAIN be law in the United of States of New Atlantis.
Try this at home … “ask” Google if the US is still under the PA provisions and see if a return of a definite Yes / No answer is given. I tried “asking” wording the request several different ways and never had a return that said definitively pronounced Yay or Nay. Of course I didn’t look at or past return 360, 327. Maybe one of you will have better luck.
Also of interest …
"Kavanaugh White House Counsel: PATRIOT Act, “measured, careful, responsible, and constitutional approach”:** On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee released the first production of records for Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh from his time as associate counsel for George W. Bush. Roughly 5,700 pages of documents were made available to the public. The documents show that Kavanaugh assisted in the effort to pass the Patriot Act and drafted a statement that President Bush incorporated in the bill signing. Kavanaugh wrote that the PATRIOT Act will “update laws authorizing government surveillance,” which he claimed, and President Bush then restated, were from an era of “rotary phones.” In fact, the PATRIOT Act weakened numerous U.S. privacy laws, including the subscriber privacy provisions in the Cable Act and the email safeguards in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Both laws were enacted after the era of rotary phones. Congress amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act after it was revealed that the White House had authorized warrantless wiretapping of Americans beginning in 2002. In an email exchange, Kavanaugh wrote that the PATRIOT Act was a "measured, careful, responsible, and constitutional approach . . . .” EPIC recently submitted two urgent Freedom of Information Act requests for Judge Kavanaugh’s records during his time serving as Staff Secretary for President Bush. (Aug. 11, 2018) - from Electronic Privacy Information Center (epic.org) This “Center” is located in Dysfunctional City (DC) sooooo … bring your salt lick (and if you are ever in the southern part of The Republic of Texas be sure to visit The Salt Lick BBQ in Driftwood) when perusing the site.
and this …
Senate lets Patriot Act keep surveilling internet without a warrant
The Senate voted to let the government keep surveilling your online life…
Many senators wanted to forbid the government from secretly collecting information about your internet habits, but an amendment failed by just one vote.
… response to Perelandra3
and I would like to add those with “multiple personalities” since it appears to be a concomitant property associated with the other two you mention.
Down South as we say one should “Dance with the one that brung ya.”
1 Like
Has anyone heard of the “Plan of Union” meeting in 1754 in Albany N.Y. ? Iroquois chief Oren Lyons mentioned this meeting between Ben Franklin and the Iroquois Nation chief{ B Hendrick?} discussing the concepts of government based upon agreement and consent-- set up and removal of leaders.
I’m copying these to this thread per Dr. Farrell’s suggestion
All levels of government in the United States have repeatedly infringed the natural rights of the people, violated the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution, and imposed their will on the people with wanton disregard for the foundational principles of the American republic.
In particular, governments at the federal, state, and local level have:
-
Prohibited the free exercise of religion, citing public health as a justification.
-
Abridged the right of the people to peaceably assemble, citing public health as a justification.
-
Violated the right to equal protection of the laws by forbidding certain citizens to work, citing public health as a justification.
-
Violated the right to equal protection of the laws by selectively enforcing illegal health-related orders – specifically, by not enforcing these orders on certain protestors of its choosing (some of them violent) while enforcing these orders on individuals peaceably going about their business.
-
Denied the people the right to choose the kind of medical treatment, if any, they wish to use.
-
Coerced the people into undergoing medical procedures against their will, on pain of losing their livelihood.
-
Violated customary physician-patient privilege, as well as explicit laws, by requiring individuals to reveal confidential health information about themselves.
-
Denied physicians and other healthcare practitioners the right to select and use the kind of treatment they deem to be in the best interests of their patients.
In addition, the federal government has:
-
Claimed the power to suspend the Constitution, in whole or in part.
-
Abridged the freedom of speech and of the press by encouraging private companies to censor speech or by coercing them into doing so.
-
Violated express provisions of the Constitution regarding the country’s currency.
-
Undertaken military actions without a declaration of war by Congress.
-
Abused the power of the executive by creating a plethora of needless, illegitimate federal agencies and by extravagant use of executive orders.
-
Abused the power of the judiciary by allowing judges to ignore the plain language of the Constitution.
-
Allowed the judiciary to usurp the power of Congress by effectively creating new laws in the form of judicial decisions.
-
Attempted to circumvent the authority of the executive officers of several states.
-
Attempted to usurp the power of the states to administer federal elections.
-
Allowed warrantless search and seizure.
-
Allowed abusive and warrantless surveillance of the people.
-
Infringed the right of habeas corpus by detaining people without charge.
-
Allowed secret court proceedings and infringed the right of the people to trial by jury.
-
Allowed legislators to exempt themselves from the laws they pass.
-
Allowed legislators to pass bills so voluminous that it is not possible they have read, understood, or debated them.
-
Allowed legislators to draft and pass “omnibus” bills containing provisions unrelated to the ostensible purpose of such bills, in order to hide the provisions of proposed laws from both legislators and the public before the laws are passed.
-
Allowed lobbyists and campaign contributors to unduly influence legislative and executive decisions.
-
Failed to apply antitrust laws, allowing monopolies and oligopolies to flourish.
2 Likes
really good fiat. in response to 9 and 17 > I recently watched the documentary ‘Dark Money’ https://www.darkmoneyfilm.com/ .
The film describes the dark money process. One approach was to fund and administer the candidate’s election campaign fully. In doing so the dark money proponent states this was the best means of influence because you don’t have to lobby for a position but rather you own the official outright. the film discusses Montana election law history, the role of corporations and the case Citizens United.
1 Like
- I would add the words "or circumvent or adjudicate exceptions to the plain language of the Constitution.
I would posit that #13 should have more specific language.
Number 16 is known as adding pork to a bill. Edit: Which perhaps could be solved by limiting the line items in a bill…I like the number 3. lol
Numbers 14 through 17 are what’s known as a “big deal” to me. I am so glad these items were listed.
I am only a subscriber, so did not get to participate in the vidchat. I hope to be able to remedy this soon.
I appreciate the feedback, and for the most part, I agree with you. I was trying to keep each point brief, since I could go on and on, adding points to the list and elaborating on the ones already there…
The thing that bothers me most about omnibus bills – and, for that matter, other voluminous bills – is not the pork (which is bad enough), but the way they’re used to sneak laws onto the books that might not have survived public or legislative scrutiny if anybody knew they were in the bill before the bill was voted on.
2 Likes
I absolutely agree with you.
One question i have: what are the theological and cosmological errors in the Declaration?