It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

If the Conservative Movement succeeds then What? My response!

page: 7
25
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by whaaa
 


Elitism, excuse me?

You get to take the test as many times as you like.

Instead of making voting mandatory. Trying to get people involved.

How would you try to get everyone involved?


Yes Elitism! How is disenfranchising uneducated people not elitism?
The public school system is graduating people that can't read, but if they work and pay taxes they should be given the same privileges afforded Phds.

I would involve people in the voting process by having voter drives in all neighborhoods explaining the issues and making people aware that there are people out there that want to take away their voting rights thus their right to participate in the issues that affect them so that that they are nothing more than chattel to the elite. Why is this so frightening to conservatives? Wouldn't you think that real "patriots" would want to
have everyone enjoy the fruits of this great land without a test to determine if you are eligible to participate? Thanks for this thread it has revealed much.

God help us!!













[edit on 3-1-2010 by whaaa]




posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


It was a suggestion whaaa, obviously you know what that is or has this country siphoned the thought of such from you?







Anyway, as for the test thing, I'd have to say no to that. As stated by someone else, a civics class with extensive teaching of the Constitution and Declaration, because I don't believe anything should be mandatory besides respecting of rights.

As Iamonlyhuman posted, I do believe the elimination of Presidential Executive Orders should be added.



I'm sort of at a loss right now, simply because I am fed up with the irrationality of some posters.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack












I'm sort of at a loss right now, simply because I am fed up with the irrationality of some posters.



I know exactly how you feel!

God help us!!



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by gwydionblack
reply to post by whaaa
 


It was a suggestion whaaa, obviously you know what that is or has this country siphoned the thought of such from you?

Anyway, as for the test thing, I'd have to say no to that. As stated by someone else, a civics class with extensive teaching of the Constitution and Declaration, because I don't believe anything should be mandatory besides respecting of rights.

As Iamonlyhuman posted, I do believe the elimination of Presidential Executive Orders should be added.

I'm sort of at a loss right now, simply because I am fed up with the irrationality of some posters.


Question,
In the new America what will be the role of the President?

Question,
How is a mandatory Civics class less dictatorial than a mandatory test.
Specially since you say you don't believe anything should be mandatory.

Follow up question.

Isn't "that" a little irrational? Just asking.

Suggestion,

Don't let irrational posts get under your skin, I have a slew of them on my thread and I found that just tweaking them with some sharp logic totally freaks them out, and makes me feel like at least, I did something productive.

Cheers
Ziggy



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystrange
 


Presidential powers are clearly stated in Article II, Sections 2,3. I believe since the OP stated that ultimately the best thing would be a strict adherence to the Constitution, then those would be the only powers vested to the President.

As it stands now, that is really all the president has now, except for Executive Order powers. The president's ultimate power resides in the bully pulpit, which is, the People.

As regards to a mandatory civics class. Most states already cover this. At the state level, I am not opposed as I believe the States should be able to retain that right to do so. Do I think it is correct? Probably not and I would work hard on changing the law at the State level to bring about change.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Thank you,

Your response was very thorough, and helpful. I may return and ask some more questions, and perhaps even make some suggestions for your project once I have more thorough read through your thread.

Best,
Ziggy



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ziggystrange
 


A project, a place to lay ideas, from all walks of life or whatever else anyone wants to call it. Maybe one day one that will be included into a party platform. I do not know as it is not mine, I just participate and provide feedback where I have knowledge, criticism where I feel it is dutiful and understanding on opposing ideas and how the two can be brought together.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Warning! Long post! This is because I slogged through 7 pages of posts while coming up with my replies.

In reference to Point #2:
All money for "legal tender" can be gold/silver ONLY; Also, verified certificates that are backed by gold/silver can be used in circulation as well. The strict gold/silver standard applies only to the State & Federal Governments...Citizens can still use barter or other trade systems in private transactions that are not connected to the State or Federal Governments.

In reference to Point #12 & the latter half of Point #5:
IMO (& the opinion of many legal experts), corporations should have never been granted any kind of "personhood" status. This is a blatant disregard to the fact that corporations are not people & they cannot become any kind of citizen, simply because they are not living entities, let alone being human. It's because of this "personhood status" is why the corps have effectively used citizens' Rights & "purchased" lands from the government...Land Titles that can never be legally contested due to the "immortality" of a corporation. Once removing this "personhood," all bets are off for the corporations.

In reference to Point #4:
The Fed Res can only pay the debt with gold/silver...Or verified certificates solidly backed by gold/silver. This is the only legal tender allowed by the Constitution. Also take note that, in accordance with the 10th Amendment, there is no specific authority that grants Congress the ability to designate what is or is not "legal tender." In short, all federal "legal tender" laws are invalid.

For Point #6 & Point #7:
The illegals that want to return to their country of origin may be provided transportation if they can show that they need it. Otherwise, they must provide for their own. Such funding for necessary transportation should come from the fines levied on the employers that were guilty of hiring them in the first place. Currently, the Executive Branch (ie: President's Office) has been either greatly slacking or abjectly refusing to enforce Immigration Laws as they are..."Faithfully executing the laws" should be made a high priority on the President's Oath of Office (without allowing any slack in any other parts).

For Point #10:
There has to be some limitations...Like the Laws concerning the Rights to Private Property ownership, for example. Once corps have been stripped of "personhood status," the lands they previously held should allow for Private Citizens "first crack" at ownership, then the government may attempt to purchase from Private Owners...In accordance with Constitutional terms; No more illegal use of Eminent Domain to take private land!

For Point #11:
Any deviance from the Constitutional Oath of Office automatically strips said Officer(s) of any authority granted by the Office anyway...The Constitution also demands permanent disqualification from any Office Under Public Trust AND standing in trial for any crimes relating to that act in Breech of Oath. This is already what the Constitution demands...It simply needs better enforcement.

For Point #12:
Ban lobbying altogether. This will also cut out the "special interest groups" that call on the government to violate the Laws & restrict liberties. If someone has a problem with the government, they can exercise the Right to Petition for Redress of Grievences, but these are already restricted to correcting the government itself on how it operates; in short, proper Petitions cannot be used to seek advantages or privileges from the government. Instead, the Government should take up the wider practice of posting proposed legislation in highly public venues (internet, posted in Civic Buildings & libraries, etc) & put to public vote; any "yes" votes that call for anti-liberty or law-violating proposals shall be rendered void & aren't counted. All proposals published for the public shall also cite specific Constitutional and/or Common Law terms that justify such proposals. The Bill of Rights is firmly founded from Common Law & it establishes Common Law as the Supreme Law of the Land, so the Common Law should not be excluded in the specific citations.

For Point #13:
Don't stop with Monsanto...A thorough crackdown on the whole scope of the FDA is in order. Un-floridate the water, remove the toxic chemicals in all foods & food processing, more thorough studies in any substance up for consideration, etc.

For Point #14:
The organization known as Downsize DC has already been introducing many measures that would cut down on career criminals in the government...Read the Bills Act, One Subject at a Time Act, Enumerated Powers Act, Balance the Budget Act & more are already a small part of what's going on. Many of their ideas are worth looking at for deliberation, as to whether or not they should be made effective. No, I'm not trying to recruit for them...I'm merely saying "take a look at the ideas."

For Point #17:
As for the "no pork" provision, please refer to my reply for Point #14 & the One Subject at a Time Act.


For Point #18:
Crack down on the illegal enforcement & specific jurisdiction of the IRS...They routinely enforce codes that have no Statutory justification & are worded as to be vague & incomprehensible (even for long-time IRS agents!). Several court cases can be cited that upholds Laws to be easily understandable; No Law, Code, Statute, etc. can be enforced if it's wording & meaning are not clearly understandable. Keep this in mind when auditing any existing laws, so that they're made clear during the editing.


Originally posted by KrazyJethro
"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"
I was not aware that it was the purview of the Federal Government to create a national bank. In fact, I believe that there have been a few attempts at creating a national bank, which was dismantled each time.

Since the only legal tender allowed in the States must be backed by gold/silver, Congress will be restricted to general "market value" when it comes to regulating the value of our money; gold/silver is rare enough that it can't be hyper-inflated or devalued into nothing. No more fractional reserve banking with fiat money! Federal Reserve Notes, as they are now, are nothing less (or more) than Corporate Script anyway! Revive JFK's Executive Order 11110...It's never been overruled or voided!


Originally posted by fmcanarney
25. Make possession of and proficency with a firearm mandatory.

I'd say "no." There are people who choose not to own Arms & that is their Right of Choice. There are also people who use Arms to violate the Rights of others...Should they be allowed to repeat their crimes with Arms? I suggest you look at the Municipal Codes concerning Firearms in Kenesaw, GA; there is a good example of Constitutional Obedience about the 2nd Amendment there...I'd suggest using this as an example.
However, there's no specific restrictions in the 2nd Amendment concerning quantity or type of Arms allowable; In essence, any class & any number of weapons is allowed, as long as such ownership/storage/use does not violate anyone else's Equal Rights. The Founding Forefathers did not put any such restrictions on the 2nd Amendment because they knew that if the government wanted a fight, then the Citizenry should be allowed equal access to the weapons allowed by the military! In short, they didn't want the Citizens to be "out-teched" by the standing military.

In fact, your Points #26 & #27 also call for mandatory requirements that should never be enforced on Citizens...These are just a different form of restriction on Rights & liberties.

As for your Point #28, there is current research into the "smoking gun proof" that the original 13th Amendment (also, look here) was ratified, but silenced. If We the People can verify the truth of ratification, then the criminal ex-Officers fired from govenrment would be stripped of US citizenship status & deported anyway...That would solve the problem of them gumming up our job market, wouldn't it? Even if it wasn't ratified, we could re-enforce the original Titles & Nobilities Clause in the Constitution & get rid of those who currently hold any dual-citizenships & other such privileges; they could still get civilian jobs but be forever banned from Public Office again...Sounds like a win-win situation, doesn't it?



Originally posted by John_Brown
Instead of reinterpreting and restating the original Constitution, why not have a convention and just rewrite it? We've honored our heritage long enough; it's hopelessly outdated.

No, the Constitution is not outdated; the criminal pundits in Office just want you to believe that. The Constitution is a contract of employment between the employer (We the People) & the Government Officers (the employees) & every time anyone takes the Oath of Office, they are "signing their name" to obey the terms & conditions of that contract. Every time the Supreme Court rules additions to Civil Rights within the Common Law & every time Amendments are properly ratified with the Constitution, it's being kept updated! It's rightly referred to as a "living document" because it even specifies its own ability to grow & change with the times...All of this must be accomplished through the Due Process of Law & specific procedures within the document itself. All it needs is a thorough review so it can be properly enforced as a standing contract.

----Continued Below----



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 


Endisnighe:

I have mulled around and contemplated the idea of a test. I have heard liberals, conservatives, Left/Right, and libertarians all come out with something along the lines of a test to vote.

The two sides I see are as following and these are my own.

On the side PRO civic test for ability to cast a vote:

Using such a test would ensure an educated public in terms of the current events that they will be voting on. One can walk down the street, during any particular presidential race and see that people have the slightest clue to what actual real issues are. It doesn't matter if it is a Democrat or Republican, people just for the most part, have no clue as to what they are actually voting for.

A test, in part would require the average person to maintain a level of history, civics and basic fundamental understanding of how government is ran, who is running, their basic tenets of what they are standing for and overall direction they wish to move the country.

On the side CON civic test for ability to cast a vote:

Although tempting and could bring about a change in voter knowledge, the use of a test might actually drop voter participation. What about that person that just isn't good at tests, but has all the knowledge? His ability to vote will be hampered and thus he will just walk away and not vote.

A test shouldn't be the delineating line in which we reserve peoples' ability to vote.

My major reservation is: Who creates the test? The politicians? The current administration? What if it is outdated? Who updates it? What if, say in a district, the 'supposedly' run out of tests and thus unable to re-register or register voters for an upcoming election?

Thus in conclusion, my stance would be that a voter test, even a basic civics test would do harm in voter turn out than good. There are far basic things that we can accomplish in regards to getting people out more often and not just for National elections.

It starts in your town/city/village and goes from there. If we do not care for our own towns, why would we really honestly care for our own Country?



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
----------Continued From Above-----------


Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by endisnighe
  • Reinstate the Constitution; any and all statutes that restrict or go against the given rights of the States or the Citizens are instantly abolished.

  • This isn't prudent to do instantly. There are tens of thousands of pages of law and code to go through. This would require a massive undertaking that would require time. Reasonable removal would need to be proposed item for item.

    Well, we would have to take the necessary time to accomplish this, no doubt about it. But they've been messing up our Law Structure for over 100 years & it's expected that the problem can't be fixed in a single day. The best tool we have currently is the Law of Jury Nullification, should any particular item shows up in a courtroom.

    The key to this is that Statutory Law never had lawful jurisdiction over Citizens in the first place...A good start would be to stop the enforcement of Statutory Law outside of its limited jurisdiction.


    Originally posted by KrazyJethro

  • All property taxes will be eliminated. When you purchase your item, you own it! The government is not allowed to continually tax you forever on something. PERIOD!

  • This is a State issue, so no Federal is needed or would be Constitutional.

    This is a factor if you're dealing with the federal Bureau of Land Management. As is, there is a Due Process of Law procedure to gain Allodial Title, Fee Simple on private ownership of land; Satisfy this & the land is yours. If you currently hold a Deed, it's not enough; check it carefully & if it describes you as a Tenant, then the land ain't yours. This means that there are other people/interests that have some form of "equity interest," with a stronger "legal claim," on the land & you must satisfy all of it to obtain the Allodial Title. The only real change I see a need for on this issue would be to make the information about the Due Process more easily & readily available to the general public; This is important information that's been "kept under wraps" for far too long as it is..


    Originally posted by KrazyJethro

  • Energy exploration will be allowed unabated but all energy profits originally going to the Fed will go to the people instead. All avenues of alternative energy will be explored.


  • I would provide no benefit to either side. It is not the responsibility of the government to choose sides really. What the consumer wants the consumer will buy.

    I would say that the government can encourage private research & development, but provide no funding...Unless first put to a popular vote to determine exactly where, under what terms & how much funding will be used, with complete transparency of information so that the People can make the best choices. After all, the money belongs to the People & we should have a say as to where it goes.


    Originally posted by endisnighe
    But in todays world we do need at least a standing army.

    Do we really? The 2nd Amendment specifies the Right of the States & the People to form militias, but where is the justification for the Feds to organize a military? In times of war, the President can already take command of State militias & they're already well-deployed for defensive purposes all across the country. As far as the Founding Fathers were concerned, every able-bodied citizen with Arms is also considered to be part of the militia. During WW2, a Japanese general was asked to consider an invasion on American soil & his reply was that it wouldn't work, because there would be "a gun hiding behind every blade of grass."

    Wake up! We have a population over 300 million people in the USA...As it is, the US Armed Forces comprise only perhaps 3% of the total population! And think of the taxpayer-cost to maintain it! More than half the population would be armed (the old Persian "million-man army" brought against Greece would have nothing over us!) & many would also be members in State militias! Who would be fool enough to invade us? This is the whole concept for Arms ownership on the individual level in this country...Arms for defense, not offense! The only use government has for a large national standing military is for offense in other nations! There's a lot more to the Preamble's "provide for the common defense" clause than forming a national military...It also means not infringing on the Rights of the People to defend ourselves!


    Originally posted by endisnighe
    I would consider a provision that allowed them to stay if they have not done any illegal acts while here and a position of employment is available and willing to sponsor them as a citizen. That could be a work around.

    I'd say that they would have to at least apply with Immigration Services for a proper work/education visa, if not actually seeking to be Naturalized as a citizen...The reason being that, if they're already here illegally, then they're already committing Trespass at the very least. This addresses your "if they have not done any illegal acts" statement.


    Originally posted by abecedarian
    reply to post by endisnighe
     
    Just adding my thoughts. I found your proposition to remove all illegals without offering some method to become legal and remain in situ to be a little harsh, but only a little. Though I personally think they should be removed I am not without compassion.

    I don't advocate the idea of stopping any legal immigration processes...Just clamp down on the illegals. I think we should cut back on the number of legal immigrants though; The US already legally immigrates more than any other country in the world & our population tops 300 million already & over 30 million of that is a conservative estimate of the illegals already here! To much growth, too quickly (whether legal or not) is always a pain in the social services, employment & housing sectors.


    Originally posted by fmcanarney
    It is mandatory to get immunization shots.
    For the common good and welfare of others and self.

    Nope...A person's body is their own property & have the Right to determine what they do (or not do) with it.

    Originally posted by fmcanarney
    It is mandatory to attend school.
    Again common and self welfare.

    Nope. Again, the parents have the Right to determine where & how their child gets education. Home schooling with a certified instructor is only one lawful alternative to public schools. In the 1800's , when the Wild West wasn't fully settled, education was not mandatory, but depended on the parents' ability to pay the school teacher for their kids to attend. There was no "government subsidies" capable of dictating the education the kids received.

    Originally posted by fmcanarney
    Mandatory for car indurance.
    Again common welfare.

    Partially true, under both federal & state laws...The Supreme court has numerous citations specifying the Right to Travel Freely. All of that licensing/insurance/traffic regulation crap only has Statutory jurisdiction. As pointed out in this thread already, Private Citizens are outside of that jurisdiction. This type of statutory regulation is lawfully enforceable only on commercial (business/commerce) and/or official (government) activities on public roads. The only thing that makes it enforceable on Citizens is when they register their Privately-owned Automobiles so as to become re-classified as Motor Vehicles; this is what turns a Rightful Traveler into a Regulated Driver. Yes, People regularly "volunteer themselves" into statutory regulation when there's no "mandatory" about it; the States are more than willing & eager to do so because it means more money in the Treasury.



    Originally posted by littlebunny
    Freedom demands we stay diligent.

    ...AND vigilant.
    Thomas Jefferson:

    Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

    Wendell Phillips:

    Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few.

    Without vigilance, corruption will sneak back in. As much as I hate to use the word, it should be "mandatory" (
    ) as part of whatever education that parents provide for their children, so as to emphasis vigilance down through the generations; the children should be taught the Constitution, Bill of Rights & some of the most important tenants of Common Law, as well as the historical context surrounding the establishing of the USA. They've been taking our Rights & liberties away under a multi-generational basis, so we should also guard ourselves on a multi-generational basis.

    -------Continued Below--------------



    posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:05 PM
    link   
    ---------Continued From Above-------


    Originally posted by endisnighe
    To get the right to vote people must-
    We require the people to pass a test. This test is always the same. You must get a 90% or higher for you to get the right to vote. It must be done every 4 years. You can take it as many times as you like.
    It is only about two things, The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.
    What do you think?

    Hmmm...Once the whole "public education" issue is straightened out, this would be a moot point. However, even though the Constitution forbids any "religious test" to determine qualification for Office, an intelligence test of this sort would be in order. In short, don't force the test on voters...Instead, force it on candidates for Office!



    Originally posted by littlebunny
    However, on this issue... Even though we have freedom of speech, we cannot yell fire in a movie theater, or say the word bomb or anything other in an airport, or physically threaten the President, and for excellent reasons for all.

    There is very good reason for this, under the Law. If you yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you cause a panic...If anyone is injured in the panic, then you have violated their Rights. The actual Supreme Court ruling that this is based from is: "The lawful exercise of Rights can never be converted into a crime." However, the meaning of "lawful exercise" is that every Right we have contains the underlying responsibility of not violating the Equal Rights of others. This is, in truth & by Law, the only restriction on all of our Rights.


    Originally posted by fmcanarney
    Is it in the common welfare in a majority rules country that the majority in fact do rule? Via the vote?

    This assumption is only half true...The government is not allowed to enforce even an overwhelming public mandate on anything, if it causes them to act in Breech of Oath to the Constitution. Sure, the Constitutional Republic does contain some democratic processes, but they are all limited in by representative (Republic) procedure under the terms of the Constitution. In short, not even We the People can "vote away" our rights, as can be done in a democracy.

    You seem to have trouble with figuring out what "general welfare" is all about: The Preamble is the general statement, but the rest of the Constitution contains the specified means to achieve those generally-stated goals. The "general welfare" clause has been mightily abused by the government in presuming that the Preamble grants any leeway to violate any other part of the Constitution. It surprises me how many people actually make the same mistake between the Preamble & the Constitution as a whole.


    Originally posted by endisnighe
    What I meant by licensing is not in regards to ownership or rights but of permitting and licensing for the rights of business. Remember all of the discussion about Capitalism? I would try to open up the ability to create new businesses by relaxing the licensing structure back to the states.

    Actually, the Feds already have far too many regulations on businesses anyway...More regulations are enforced, the more the free market is stifled & the more that it costs us for the government to enforce those regulations. This is one of the major reasons why so many companies are outsourcing...The Feds are regulating away most of their profits & forcing us to pay more taxes! Yeah, We the People are getting screwed from both ends!

    Fewer regulations will encourage companies to come back into America. Of course, some regulations will have to be retained, such as those designed to protect consumers from fraud & exposure to toxins & so forth, but nit-picky regulations have been letting the government suck vital economic advancement from companies, the same way that excessive taxation sucks it out of the population.


    Originally posted by Someone336
    You know, I also noticed a lot that myself (a leftist) most certainly agreed with. It's funny, if you get down to the core issues, the majority of right-wingers actually agreed with left-leaning libertarians ideals.

    Actually, the true concepts between liberals & conservatives has been twisted by partisan politics...conservatives were originally resisting change to the Constitution (preserving it as is), but the liberals were concerned with making changes that promote more liberty. As it is, both parties seek nothing less than huge (& expensive) government control on every aspect of life; only their methodology is different.


    Originally posted by ownbestenemy
    I think us exiting that stage would weaken the U.N. IF and only IF we make a good case on why it is defunct and why we are leaving.

    I wouldn't say exiting the UN would work very well...At least not without "easing out" of it. I would suggest kicking them out of our country & make them find somewhere else to set up their roost though.


    Originally posted by Someone336
    Good question on who retools it. Wishful thinking, but it would need a global movement calling for action to do it. The only way to achieve such a thing would be to make the masses aware of the negative attributes of the current U.N., much the way the anti-globalization movement's voice erupted into the Battle for Seattle.

    This might be a good start for "easing out" of it, I think...Thomas Jefferson already agreed...

    Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

    ...Twice...

    Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.




    Originally posted by ownbestenemy
    Maybe every bill should have a list of terms and the meanings they actually meant at the end of the bill. Wouldn't take any extra effort and it would clear up to the general public what is actually being pushed forward

    Or maybe postings of Law Dictionaries for free public use? Both hard copies in Civic Buildings, libraries, etc. (Same places that proposed Bills are posted) as well as on the internet. At least that way they won't have to waste so much extra paper on each proposed Bill, every single time they post one. There is the Paperwork Reduction Act to consider. I still wonder how many trees had to die just to distribute the notices of the damn thing.



    Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
    The federal government should be very limited in what it provides. The state and local governments are the appropriate place

    The Feds already are restricted...Anything that's not already in the Constitution is off-limits to the Feds anyway. Let's not forget the People too, when you mention the States; Let's also not forget that the States have to obey their own Constitutions as well.
    All Political Power originates from the People:
    Preamble (excerpted) -

    We the People of the United States... ...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    And all Political Power cycles back to the People:
    10th Amendment -

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



    Originally posted by ownbestenemy
    The most overlooked amendment is the 10th amendment

    Highly overlooked also (at least by the Feds) is the 9th Amendment; they're always looking to screw over Rights that aren't specifically in the Bill of Rights, but do exist in the Common Law.

    ------------Concluded Below---------------



    posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:06 PM
    link   
    ---------Concluded From Above------


    Originally posted by Oaktree
    I am well aware that the government controlling these resources flies in the face of what our nation should be, however, these resources have been controlled by private interests so far, and look where that has gotten us.

    Under the Property Rights concerning Allodial Title (as I've mentioned) includes the mineral Rights, the waterways that enter & exit the property & even a few miles of airspace over the property! We simply have to re-assert our Property Rights to obtain all this for ourselves. Then, it would be up to the corporations concerned to start making offers...And the only thing allowed by the government (specifically, the Courts) would be to arbitrate the negotiations, not dictate upon them.



    Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
    What do you think about outlawing Presidential Executive Orders? I think it is absolutely necessary and can see no downside.

    Considering that the President currently has the ability to enforce them as if they were Law when they clearly have no legislative process beforehand, I'd say "yes." Simply because the President has no authority to enforce "non-laws." However, not all EO's are designed to rob Citizens of Rights or liberties; Some EO's wouldn't require prior legislation because they only reiterate & re-enforce terms that are already in the Constitution (notice my earlier reference to EO 11110). So I'd have to modify that to include the condition that, upon the first violation of Individual and/or Civil Rights, that the President be immediately removed from Office & any actions taken upon it be rendered void...And to pay appropriate reparations to the victims of the violation. In short, not really outlaw EO's (unless they are clearly in contradiction with the Constitution) but also pay extra vigilance as to how far they're enforced.


    Originally posted by DeathShield
    I figured ideally we would rely on charity to take care of these problems, but charity alone can't take care of the millions of others of americans who have no health care. What do we do?

    Just consider that, when the government is downsized & streamlined within Constitutional limits, that will allow more People to keep their money...Ergo, more people will be free to donate & support charities. How many more people would be helping out the charities if they aren't so concerned about becoming a charity case already? As the economy improves for the People, the more people will be charitable...And the fewer People there will be that need to rely on charities! It seems to me that once the biggest issues are resolved, this one in particular will be self-correcting. So it starts to become obvious that the more the government tries to do, the more it screws up all of us.


    Originally posted by seethelight
    The vast majority of this will never ever happen. Too many people have vested interests that contradict these very (in most cases) idealistic aims.
    What America needs is to be broken up into manageable units. There is no history of sustainable nations the size of the US.
    That should tell us were going the wrong direction.

    I can't agree with this, because the foundation of the Constitution & Bill of Rights already specifies that we're not a nation of independent territories, but a Union of States under the Common Law; The States themselves are already "manageable units." We're nothing like the EU...They were already sovereign nations that were forced together by politics & economics. The US joined the States under mutual agreement to fulfill specific common purposes, mostly to deal with mutual defense & to conduct negotiations/trade with foreign nations. Looking at the 9th & 10th Amendments, it's clear that the State & People were meant to retain most Sovereign Powers over the federal government. The biggest problem in this country is how much of those Powers were stolen. I'm not writing anything about "idealism," I'm writing about the Law as it is...Concrete facts, not idealistic dreams.


    Originally posted by ziggystrange
    Question,
    In the new America what will be the role of the President?

    Question,
    How is a mandatory Civics class less dictatorial than a mandatory test.
    Specially since you say you don't believe anything should be mandatory.

    #1: The role of the President will be exactly as the Constitution says, no more & no less; refer to the Presidential Oath of Office & how it pertains to the role of the Executive Branch if you have trouble figuring it out...Hint: It's in Article 2
    #2: Civics education would be no more mandatory than parents needing to provide for the education of their children; but then again, how many parents want to see their children grow up without any education at all? IMO, that means that education itself is not mandatory, but if education is provided, then the Civics education will be a part of it.



    posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 09:29 PM
    link   
    reply to post by ownbestenemy
     


    I agree about the civics test. My original thoughts were that people would shy away from such things and thus would lower voter turnout even more.

    In terms of a Civics course being mandatory, technically it wouldn't be "mandatory" besides the fact that you need it if you would like to vote. What is the difference between a mandatory civics class and a mandatory algebra class? I believe both have their merits and should be stressed upon. How many other things are you FORCED to do in the public school system?

    As far as people who drop out of school or who are in private school systems or home schooled, a government mandated civics class could be provided free of charge. There is really no pressure on the individual, just the fact that they sit through and actually TRY to understand the Constitution and the rights they are entitled to. If they wish to opt out of it, then that is there choice,

    A test seems too much to me, I believe the effort alone should show that people actually care enough to want to have a say in their government.




    To answer your question ziggy as to whether my belief that nothing should be mandatory is rational or not, yes, it very much is so.

    Freedom is freedom. Freedom isn't mostly free, or free in certain conditions - it is freedom. In my eyes people should have the ABSOLUTE FREEDOM to exercise any of their rights as long as it does not infringe on the rights or exercising of rights by other people. While we live in a loose form of such a society today, one can not say that the slew of pointless laws and regulations regarding our freedoms does not hinder such.



    posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:06 PM
    link   
    Alright everyone, to this point I see I had made a few mistakes in my OP. Too bad we are not allowed to edit for too long. I was attempting to set up in my own mind what I stand for in all of the aspects in our current situation in government.

    Thank you all for all of the civics lessons, I do really appreciate it.

    As for any detractors, like I have said and am reiterating again. I am here to learn, not just issues that I believe in but issues that everyone has.

    As for my idea on the testing, I guess that can be tabled for ever, but I do wish something could be done to re-teach the rights to the people.

    I guess we could require just a couple of sentences at the top of each voter card like such-

    Your rights, such that laid out by our Constitution, are not given by said Constitution, but are by rights inherent to yourself, hence the Constitution just restricts your government from taking them from you. You have all the rights that do not hurt another or infringe on another's rights.



    As for mandatory civics lessons, I would back such a thing but will not include that in my final draft here.

    As for other posters, I will get to your comments in a moment. I am going to copy my original and do the modifications we have discussed.

    I do appreciate your time and diligence in teaching and helping with this.



    posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:22 PM
    link   
    RIGHT VS. LEFT ROUND 103294958693928539385939218749483902912


    I wonder if anyone on either side of this fight even realize they are nothing but pawns and TPTB want you to fight with each other. You would think after the last 10 years of this crap most of us would see the facts but I guess stupidity can not be underrated. Maybe another 10 years of the same old we elect this guy and he is the same as that guy will wake people up? Nah we will still be doing this in 2020 wondering why nothing changes.


    We need something new not from the old establishment and we need to suffer alot worse to get it. We need to get back to what our founders had in mind it is that simple.



    posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:37 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Subjective Truth
     


    Hey ST. I am putting this together hoping to show that both sides are not that far apart.

    I am currently rewriting the OP and will post it with everyone's addendums included.

    Do you have any suggestions or modifications?



    posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:48 AM
    link   
    Alright, at this time I have pretty much eliminated several points and expanded explanations of others. Here is my latest form. This is a work in progress. I feel I need to set down what I stand for and put my thoughts in order. Thanks again everyone for your help. I will respond to each and everyone of you when I get a chance.



    1. Reinstate the Constitution; any and all statutes that restrict or go against the given rights of the States or the Citizens are removed. This to be fazed in as fast as possible. Presidential Orders that do not have Constitutional backing to be removed. Any and all following ideas refer back to THIS ONE, if there are any discrepancies. Items such as the War on Drugs, licensing for beauticians, or alternative medicine are direct causal problems due to this. There are already protections from injury due to being injured. As I said, all following and questions refer back to this one.

    2. Banking System-Federal Reserve to be abolished. Congress will be required to follow the Constitutional requirements to return to a commodity based monetary system. Be it Gold/Silver, or another conglomerate of commodities such as oil, corn etc. Nationalizing banks is an argument fought over many times in our past and I am sure into the future. I feel that something needs to regulate the out of control loss of value of our money. This may be repaired by reinstituting a commodity backed monetary system. Also a possible restricting of usury rates can be investigated. All assets of the Federal Reserve and any and all banks and individuals that have stolen money from the American People (e.g. Paulson with his sale of GS stock at a value of $300 million) to be used to pay off as much of the debt as possible. All of this to be determined by a trial of all involved in the fleecing of the American People. Barter and the like in no way will be infringed upon.

    3. Institute and keep the regulations required to maintain the functionality of our stock market. I believe a time based regulation is required here. Economists need to hash out controls, that in no way are a detriment to a free market but are necessary to stop manipulations in said market. No mass manipulation of stocks, like the Goldman Sachs computer software allowed even near the stock market.

    4. Instant removal of all Federal Agencies that are null and void in a Constitutional Government. Example Given-IRS, with the Fair Tax to be instated; ATF-all three things that are legal, why do we need an agency to enforce it? All contracts that exist right now, between the Fed and Private Corps to be reassessed and open bidding will be reinstituted. No favoritism allowed. Any contracts that are for things that are required for the Federal Government to do, will be dismissed, if it is the job of the government-do it.

    5. Removal of all our troops from all foreign soil except where they want us to stay. If they want us to stay, they will pay us 75% of all operational costs. This to be phased out over a 5 year period. We will set up a strategic plan for the defense of our country. Bases that are necessary to remain open for our defense. State Militias and National Guards are sufficient for our protection in country, but a necessary defensive posture in strategic locations around the world is still a viable necessisity. A necessary, non interference and retaliation for attacks Treaty will be written and signed by our country. Any and all countries wanting to join can. Our involvement in the UN will fall back to just a member nation, we will slowly completely pull out. Any involvement in any multi-national governing body is un-Constitutional. Any treaties that are now in effect that have ANY limitations on the American People, are henceforth abolished.

    6. All illegal immigrants will be given a 6 month window to sell all assets they do not want to take with them; they will be required to return to their own nation of origin. They will be allowed to hold their current positions, as long as that window remains open. We will pass a law that will give a fine of .5% of value of the business for hiring an illegal after this time. Also for each illegal hired, the corporate owner and board will be given a 60 day minimum sentence. For each additional offense, the punishment will be tripled. The illegal immigrants that are sent back to their nations of origin will be allowed to immediately request return and citizenship status, if they have never broken any laws except for illegal entry and have employment availability upon their return. All future immigration will be only allowed as our ability to absorb them. Exemptions such as for marriage, political refugees, and other such legitimate reasons on a per case basis. The ability to absorb, referring to unemployment statistics and other factors. Limited visas and the like need to be assessed and any nation where terrorist organizations exist, no visas are allowed to be given.

    7. All economic treaties, such as NAFTA that are, in direct violation or detriment to our countries sovereignty and economic well being, are hereby null and void. Regulations that are placed on our businesses that do not include safety or toxicity concerns need to be removed so that we can compete in the global economy. If these are not removed, than a tariff system necessary to make up for these detriments to our competitiveness needs to be installed. I feel just the removal of the regulations would free us up to become the masters of our own domain again.

    8. Energy exploration will be allowed unabated but all energy profits originally going to the Fed, will go to the people instead. Unabated in no way means unsafely or allowing rampant pollution. All avenues of alternative energy will be explored.

    9. All secrets not directly necessary for the absolute safety of the nation will be released immediately. Total transparency will be required and any and all attempts to circumnavigate this will end in jail time and expulsion from the country. FINAL.

    10. Corporate laws and regulations will be completely reassessed. And ALL CORPORATE LAWS PERTAINING TO CITIZEN'S WILL BE REMOVED! Removal of all Corporate Personhood. Corporations are not people; they will not be given the same rights as people. This is in reference to organizations that are allowed to lobby our government. Also with this removal, land cannot be owned by a corporation. This has to be researched and all necessary adjustments necessary made.

    11. Complete idiocy like the Monsanto’s killer gene GMO's, fluoride in our water, and other totally blatant idiocy will be outlawed. All the crazy agricultural regulations will be reassessed. Any and all collusion that caused these insufferable detriments to us shall be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of our Constitution.

    12. Term limits, balanced budget, lobbyists, P.A.C. removal and OTHER control measures will be installed to stop the out of control career politicians (criminals).

    13. The Original 13th Amendment will be researched and if found to be thrown out illegally, it will be reinstated. This is in regards to the holding of Titles of Nobility and the holding of dual citizenship. Anyone with dual citizenship shall not be allowed to hold ANY office in our country.

    14. Any and all future laws will be required to be; posted on line 7 days prior to any vote. required to be in final form and will be required to written in common sense and common law verbiage, No pork will be allowed to be attached to any bill, constitutional justification necessary , no justification-no law, there is a limit to the length of a bill of 250 pages, if at anytime it becomes necessary to exceed this limit, the display period will be extended another 7 days for each and every additional 50 pages.

    15. A Fair Tax will be the only allowed form of tax to be implemented EVER. A use tax, per se, something that is applied for all purchases. Their will not and cannot be a luxury or sin type tax to be installed. It will only be allowed to be across the board rates. Allowance for removal of products is a possibility, like food, clothing or possibly rental of basic living quarters. All transactions other than this need to be enforced, including such items as the transfer of stocks and the like. What I am getting at here is a consumption tax. Something that cannot be avoided by the ELITE of our country. The more you spend, the more you pay. I suggest the removal of the food and such for the benefit of the poorer of us. Their purchases are more in line with their sustenance.

    16. All yearly property taxes will be eliminated. When you purchase your item, you own it! The government is not allowed to continually tax you forever on something. See Fair Tax proposal. This is in regards to the Allodial Title. This is not a State issue, any detriment to completely owning property hence having to pay future taxes on said property, is a detriment to our rights of ownership. Allodium Title-"land which is absolute property of the owner, real estate held in absolute independence, without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgement to a superior. It is thus opposed to feud." No more illegal use of Eminent Domain to take private land, if the land is needed for the use of the government that is allowed, no more better tax base bull.

    17. The current income tax amendment will be repealed.

    18. All federal licensing, regulations, permitting will be abolished if not directly related to interstate commerce.

    19. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other social systems will need to become opt in/opt out. A necessary transition phase needs to be instated to remove the PONZEII scheme from our necks. This right here will be the most important, behind reinstating the Constitution, for our survival as a nation.

      Continued-

      [edit on 1/4/2010 by endisnighe]



    posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 01:50 AM
    link   
    Continued-

    20. Our current NATION’s debt will be removed as quickly as humanly possible. I feel everyone currently involved in government should be assessed a 95% tax rate on all current assets and future earnings until this debt is paid off. Other asset seizure should be implemented on companies involved in the Military Industrial Complex including all of the main stockholders and corporate officers.

    21. A fourth branch of government needs to be introduced. The sole purpose of this fourth branch of government is to be the watchdog of the other three. If any member of any of the other three branches breaks any of the laws of the Constitution, this third branch will instruct a Federal Court to begin immediate proceedings of trial. Examples of violations-a holder of an office breaking their oath of office or a branch of federal government seizing property illegally. This branch will have the full authority to request investigation of any member of the government including the President. This kind of brings us to a quandary of its enforcement strength. Some kinks would need to be worked out. I know the Constitution has in it this provision, but we can see it has failed us. Choosing this fourth branch’s members should be in no way involved with anything that can be manipulated. Also it should not do any of the investigation or judgment, which should be left to the existing court system. It would need to only have appointment authority to start the proceedings against the individual or individuals. This branch could be the location of the start of the Petition for Grievances component. A member on ATS has some brilliant ideas behind this.



    posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:01 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by endisnighe
    reply to post by DeathShield
     

    ... If something catastrophic happens you will be taken care of.
    (cut)
    But for your information, if you need some care, go to any emergency room and you cannot be turned away. That is the law!

    If you have ANY assets you are screwed, ny dad was eligible for ss and medicare my mother was younger and not. they went thru basically 700,000 dollars in assets/savings/retirement accounts my dad built up his whole life, when she got ill, plus the nursing home owns their home now, before eligible for help. from decent retirement to food stamps, which you would presumably do away with, ssi, ditto- and not very liveable- she gets 200 somethiong, total allowable is 674? - any other income depending on if it is earned (50% after first $20) or unearned (100% after first $20), and 50% of spouse's income deducted. leaving my brother and i huge unpayable debt we can't sell the house to pay. I am unable to work- yes a horrid one-limbed parasite that should drag myself out to dig ditches with my bare teeth and tongue, lol! (and to those who say- wellll you can type=- you can work: just a paragraph takes about 1/2 hour to type then edit to be readable...)

    as for the e.r. thing- they are ONLY required to provide basic diagnostics and determine if you have life n death issue, then stabilize you. or deliver child. that's it. and they still are allowed to and will bill you and often send to collections before considering writing off the cost. even with medicare/medicaidanything else up to their discretion. i am billed. after my life-threatening (sorry, still here :/) events previously, which the feds & state took all but tiny amount of my settlement to repay themselves- supposedly for paying out to hospital n drs etcetcetc- and i still got billed last month- 2 years later- cas they still didn't pay hosp everything when i was runned over n put in this condition... in december, had i been admitted n taken care of, instead of just barely stabilized n tossed 3 times, would not have gotten so severe to require what they did, and overall prolly cost huge amount more. basically they hoped i'd die- the fed/state bureaucrats running ohp and medicare, i guess, who drive hospitals to do such things.

    ON TOPIC: so do these things- disability, caring for sick, indigent, e;derly, etc, go to states or we just handed cyanide capsules? i dunt care either way. if i had a gun, i'd be long gone...

    [edit on 4-1-2010 by ExParrot]



    posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 02:11 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by Subjective Truth
    RIGHT VS. LEFT ROUND 103294958693928539385939218749483902912


    I wonder if anyone on either side of this fight even realize they are nothing but pawns and TPTB want you to fight with each other. You would think after the last 10 years of this crap most of us would see the facts but I guess stupidity can not be underrated. Maybe another 10 years of the same old we elect this guy and he is the same as that guy will wake people up? Nah we will still be doing this in 2020 wondering why nothing changes.


    We need something new not from the old establishment and we need to suffer a lot worse to get it. We need to get back to what our founders had in mind it is that simple.


    sorry to double-post. but i have been waiting for this one all through like what? 6 pages? you really are drinking the kool-aid/public water system water, aren't you? there is no conservative/liberal, its part of the Matrix of obfuscation, my friends... I fell for it not once, but twice, lol, first as a liberal then as the opposite... dun't matter. on the issues TPTB care about- NWO, one world, police state, war war war.... they all agree in the end... and that's where we the people end up taking it. wake up, lol,



    new topics

    top topics



     
    25
    << 4  5  6    8  9 >>

    log in

    join