New Party ....Constitutionlist Party of The United States

CPOTUS
Come Piss Off The United States

I beg your pardon in advance for my lack of grammar, spell check, and for my zeal for common man's dreams.. I am giving my all here. Imagination, knowledge, research, faith and hope.
Common man in this , my definition, extends to all those born of a woman that is impregnated by a man. Regardless of race, creed, nationality or governmental issuance.

The Party to end Democrat's and Republican's Fiasco
Made of left and right that agree on one master. The constitution. No wavering. No comprimises or Quid pro Quo.
Traitors to be taken to trial as evidence shows from all sources national and international.
Government officers and military are sworn to uphold and defend the constitution as an oath of office / enlistment.. Those that break those oaths will be prosecuted.to the fullest of the law.
While any person trying to cooerce an oath taker to abandon their oath will be treated not only as treason to the constitution but as battlefield treason. Punishible by firing squad. No court.

One profession has profited and grown in this country within and without its two party system for all elected offices to the point of unconscionable of course is the legal profession.
Our forefathers created a three tier government. Executive, Legislative and Judicial. In the hopes that the powers over the mass would be disementated and therefore minimized. Unfortunately, the years
passed and the profession of lawyers was deemed needed in each branch. The influx of lawyers inundated the government to the point that it would take a lawyer to decipher the extent of corruption.
Oops, did i mix the word lawyer with corruption? Indeed it was a misnomer.
Lawyers only are needed in an advisarial situation. It wasn't their fault that the congress wanted to impeach a president and he needed a lawyer..
Congress is in the business of making new laws. Wow a lawyer is most knowledgable of laws ..would be a good fit.
the Supreme Court....of course you dont get here now days without being a lawyer.

As of this year, 2010, 25% of congress are multi-millionaires.
0% live on minumum wage.
0% live on household income of $100,000 per year

How is it that YOU can call these people your represantitives?
Maybe they represent how you want to live?
Maybe they represent how you wish to live?
Maybe they represent the way that you will live if they dont renig on their campaign promises.
regardless of laws and obsticles.
New to the country ...study the most sucessful and emulate them. .....greed, corruption . taking from the weak and prey on the innocent.

Do you really think they represent You?
If not , why do you support them?
Maybe ,, they are the best of no other choice?
Lets get the Constituniounlist party going.
NUMBER ONE RULE. NO SPECIAL INTEREST FUNDING.
Funging only by American people.. No corportation funding.... Real live people...

Can you see how hard this would be?

Funding of the campaign would be dwarfed by corperations and special interest groups into the coffers of the advisary.
Unless we could have supporting information of funding in advertisements of their candidate listed on each and every advertisement.
This would truly be transparency in government.

Ya, I"m a redneck that thinks roadkill should smell like a skunk.
Lets just make it another mile and we can roll down the windows and breathe fresh air!

[edit on 3-3-2010 by awakentired]

reply to post by awakentired


I am not too sure if you know who Chuck Baldwin is, but HE ran for the office of President in 08 under the banner of the Constitutionalist Party.

Star and flag. I hope that people respond to this thread. We need a viable third party in this country. One that is not owned by corporate interests.

Watch the third party debates on C-span in the next election.

You will hear more talk about the Constitution of the US in those debates than in all of the other debates of the two big parties combined.

Good luck with this. I've heard it's incredibly difficult to start a new party over there but here is hoping this one has a chance.

More than anything else right now you guys need a new party.

reply to post by awakentired


I like the name, it sounds better the than the Leave me the Frell Alone Party!

But why do we have to listen to a piece of paper? It is a living document?

Oh that pisses me off! Well, what that translates into is that ANYTHING GOES!

If the government does not have to follow a predetermined set of rules, what is the definition of that?

Tyranny, in my eyes!

S&F OP

Why is it, if people want to change or modify the Constitution, they do not use the LAWFUL system?

Because THEY do not believe in LAW. They believe ANYTHING goes in regards to the RULING CLASS.

Wake up America, if the gov does not follow LAW, what does that mean?


[edit on 3/3/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


If the United States Constitution was not a living document, Americans would not have the bill of rights. Remember that they were amendments to the original constitution.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy

If the United States Constitution was not a living document, Americans would not have the bill of rights. Remember that they were amendments to the original constitution.

What?

Please tell me you did not say that. The first 10 AMENDMENTS were created for a specific PURPOSE.

Yes, the founders were going to go ahead and draft the constitution without them, BUT, they saw that CERTAIN things had to be laid out.

Please do not tell me that the BILL OF RIGHTS has been taught to you that they were added later?

These were added to the Constitution for the VERY reason for the # the government is doing NOW.

Please tell me you were joking or something?



edit to add-Yes, the Constitution was MEANT to be MODIFIED as necessary! THAT IS WHAT AMENDMENTS ARE FOR!

Why is it that people that believe in a socialist society think that IT IS PERFECTLY FINE TO BREAK THE LAW?

Give me an explanation for that please?

[edit on 3/3/2010 by endisnighe]

Im sure something like this can be done. As long as they are not owned by corporate giants. Because what we have now are nothing but corporately owned seats in the house. Examples: $4.5 million for wood research, $800,000 for the University of South Alabama for oyster rehabilitation in Mobile, $2,192,000 for the Center for Grape Genetics in Geneva. And the list goes on and on and on.
A new party is what quite a few countries could use. Out of control spending, debts increasing daily or by the second.
It's quite obvious a lot of governments are out of control with every aspect of what they were elected to do.
A huge majority are in it for the power, their corporate sponsors and other elected officials around the world.
They are not for the people any more and haven't been for quite a long time.
A new fresh start is recommended in my book.

reply to post by endisnighe


A living document is one that can be amended, if the United States Constitution was not a living document, it could not be amended, period. I was taking issue with you complaining that the US constitution was a living document.

Now, you backpedal and bring up another issue trying to cover your tracks. You seem to think that Socialist nations are unable to follow the rule of law for some reason. I live in one, we still have the rule of law. I'm from another Socialist country, we followed the laws there too. If you're living in the United States, you are not living in a Socialist country, you're still capitalist. That's all I've got to say on that one, your question makes no sense and it's not on my original point, be glad I addressed it at all.

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
reply to post by endisnighe

 

A living document is one that can be amended, if the United States Constitution was not a living document, it could not be amended, period. I was taking issue with you complaining that the US constitution was a living document.

Now, you backpedal and bring up another issue trying to cover your tracks. You seem to think that Socialist nations are unable to follow the rule of law for some reason. I live in one, we still have the rule of law. I'm from another Socialist country, we followed the laws there too. If you're living in the United States, you are not living in a Socialist country, you're still capitalist. That's all I've got to say on that one, your question makes no sense and it's not on my original point, be glad I addressed it at all.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


WHAT? AGAIN?

If the United States Constitution was not a living document, Americans would not have the bill of rights. Remember that they were amendments to the original constitution.

What?

Please explain to me again HOW I AM BACKPEDALING!

A living document per YOU means that it can be amended.

Please explain to me the amendment you are referring to!

What I am referring to is our government attempting to circumvent the LAW by NOT amending the Constitution when THEY want to pass laws that ARE CONTRADICTING THE CONSTITUTION.

NOW, tell me again how the BILL OF RIGHTS were amendments!

edit to add-THE LIVING DOCUMENT THING is what pisses me off. It is one of the things the manipulators say to legislate without following the Constitution. Sorry to Jimmy for my Hotheadedness.

[edit on 3/3/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
reply to post by endisnighe

 

If the United States Constitution was not a living document, Americans would not have the bill of rights. Remember that they were amendments to the original constitution.

This is incorrect as a point of history and the American meaning of the phrase. The Constitution is not a living document, it has a simple and rather blunt meaning.

The addition of the Bill of Rights was simply to address the people as the Constitution really only addresses the operation of the government.

If anything, it was to place additional restrictions and/or explanation of restrictions on the government.

A living document is one that can be amended, if the United States Constitution was not a living document, it could not be amended, period. I was taking issue with you complaining that the US constitution was a living document.

This is untrue. A living document, to Americans at the least, is one with a dynamic meaning, when the Constitution clearly does not have a dynamic meaning.

If you're living in the United States, you are not living in a Socialist country, you're still capitalist.

This is highly debatable, although fascist would probably be more accurate. America is really a patchwork of Capitalism mixed with Socialism and Communism with a liberal helping of Fascism to really set it all bonkers.

We have not been Capitalist for the better part of 100 years.

Originally posted by endisnighe

What I am referring to is our government attempting to circumvent the LAW by NOT amending the Constitution when THEY want to pass laws that ARE CONTRADICTING THE CONSTITUTION.

According to modern legal precedent, primarily from the Supreme Court, Congress has practically unlimited power through the Elastic and Commerce Clauses. So, technically they are mostly within the framework of the Constitution.

We all know it's garbage, but who's going to take your word for it over a "constitutional scholar"?

NOW, tell me again how the BILL OF RIGHTS were amendments!

Not sure what you mean here. The Bill of Rights were the original amendments. The preamble to the Bill of Rights is an interesting read.

For clarification, the constitution went into effect on March 4, 1789. The bill of rights was proposed on September 25, 1789, and they weren't ratified until December 15, 1791 and they went into effect March 1, 1792.

They are not original to the constitution, they are amendments to the constitution.

Hey OP, check this out!
GOOOH (Get out of our House)

[edit on 3-3-2010 by METACOMET]

reply to post by KrazyJethro

We all know it's garbage, but who's going to take your word for it over a "constitutional scholar"?

I want Obama to do another townhall near where my friends and I that discuss Constitutional law, are near. Go there and ask a couple of questions like, where does it define income as labor in the Constitution or where does it give the Federal Government the right to infringe upon a States rights, to declare something illegal?

NOW, tell me again how the BILL OF RIGHTS were amendments!

Not sure what you mean here. The Bill of Rights were the original amendments. The preamble to the Bill of Rights is an interesting read.

This here Jethro was where Jimmy tried to say because the BILL OF RIGHTS were amendments was the proof that the Constitution was a living document.

I just got a LITTLE short with that. I was trying to say that the Bill of Rights were first inferred but the founding fathers added them to give the distinct components of the BILL OF RIGHTS because of possible future misinterpretations of the Constitution.

I do not know where I got that, maybe it is a misconception of mine or maybe I read it somewhere.

Jimmy had the misconception that these were normal amendments not listed components of the Constitution.

Anymore questions?




Sorry to Jimmy for my Hotheadedness.

[edit on 3/3/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


Wow, settle down there mate!
en.wikipedia.org...
Check out the first line there: "In the United States of America, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known."

Here's the source that Wikipedia cites for that:
www.loc.gov...
That's from your Library Of Congress.

There you go, the Bill Of Rights are amendments to the United States Constitution. A Brit really should not have to explain that to an American, ever!

As for your belief that the United States Government is passing laws that are unconstitutional, you have a way to solve this: The United States Supreme Court. If you believe a law to be in conflict with the constitution, challenge it.

If your challenge is found to be in error, then your opinion is not accepted, and the constitution is not being violated. If this is disagreeable to you, since it is a branch of the federal government policing itself, remember that the United States government derives its sovereignty from and by the citizens. Therefore, if the decision is accepted by the people, then the government is affirmed through the general will of the population. As such, if the court finds against you and the people abide by that decision, e.g. do not rebel or amend the constitution, you are wrong.

Now you are still backpedaling, dropping little bits of venom from each of your "revisions" to your question, but I don't think you're trolling anymore, so I fully did oblige you with an answer. Cheers mate!

Originally posted by endisnighe
I want Obama to do another townhall near where my friends and I that discuss Constitutional law, are near. Go there and ask a couple of questions like, where does it define income as labor in the Constitution...

It doesn't, but that has nothing to do with anything. The Constitution merely sets up the framework for the structure and operation of the government.

Also, he won't have a Town Hall that isn't extremely well regimented.

...or where does it give the Federal Government the right to infringe upon a States rights, to declare something illegal?

That all depends on what it is the State is making illegal. A state couldn't outlaw guns, and I'd imagine that would be ok to over-ride.

What are you talking about, and is it topical?

This here Jethro was where Jimmy tried to say because the BILL OF RIGHTS were amendments was the proof that the Constitution was a living document.

I just got a LITTLE short with that. I was trying to say that the Bill of Rights were first inferred but the founding fathers added them to give the distinct components of the BILL OF RIGHTS because of possible future misinterpretations of the Constitution.

I do not know where I got that, maybe it is a misconception of mine or maybe I read it somewhere.

Jimmy had the misconception that these were normal amendments not listed components of the Constitution.

Anymore questions?

I don't have a complete understanding of the English system, so I'd hope that the English would be reasonable when speaking to me about it.

The same it true here, only the other way around. Be kind to your local British.





[edit on 3/3/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


Jimmy, that maybe the explanation that is given on Wikipedia.

The Bill of Rights were only named Amendments for some reason I have no clue on.

They did not Amend the Constitution.

They were part and parcel of the original draft.

As for the SC deciding the Constitutionality of given legislation is also part and parcel of our problems in the US.

I cannot go into it further, I wish Jean Paul was here to describe the problems inherent with these components of the workings of the three systems.

Now, what you said about the SC deciding on the Constitutionality of law.

Just as an example, the SC decided that McCain/Feingold **** was UN Constitutional. That only took 9 years or something to be decided!

Some kind of problem there?

A law in effect for that many years, that is UN C?

How many of the 600,000+ statutes that we have, are UN C?

Will we EVER KNOW?

Sorry to Jimmy for my Hotheadedness.

[edit on 3/3/2010 by endisnighe]

Originally posted by endisnighe
Jimmy, that maybe the explanation that is given on Wikipedia.

The Bill of Rights were only named Amendments for some reason I have no clue on.

They did not Amend the Constitution.

They were part and parcel of the original draft.

They "Amended" the Constitution because that is what they did and is the proper legal term for adding to a legal document. Additionally it was not part and parcel of the original draft that I have read, at least not in any finalized form.

There were a lot of ideas thrown around during that time, but if the final draft did not include it, it was not legally binding.

reply to post by endisnighe


A law has to be challenged in order to come before the supreme court in the United States. The court does not simply review every law as it is passed and decide for themselves what the constitutionality of it is. Instead an American citizen has to make a case for it before it is heard. Theoretically a law passed by the first congress, and on the books ever since, could be challenged and overturned today.

I like that system quite a bit actually, it encourages citizens to get involved in the process of law and offer their own oversight on the federal government. If an American thinks a law is unconstitutional, they can be the one to challenge it, that is awesome power for the individual, and an inspired way to conduct review!

reply to post by KrazyJethro


Okay Jethro, you are getting me confused. The 16th Amendment is the basis of taxation for the US which was enacted to eliminate our debt due to war and was supposed to be temporary.

The main question behind this Amendment was where did the government change the meaning of income to include labor. At the time, labor was never included in the definition of income.

As for the Federal Government making something illegal that is legal in the state, I am referring to Marijuana. This of course could be used in thousands of different components. I am just saying with this, where in the US Constitution does it give the right to make these type things illegal.


Yes, our system is messed up enough, me trying to understand their's? Sorry, I thought the basic tenet involved when drafting the Constitution was the ability to understand and use it by normal folk like me.

But the further and more corrupt components of the LAWYER system developed, the more complex and IMPOSSIBLE they made it to understand. Almost with the ability to make the court system to say anything.

The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it's invalid on its face. – Potter Stewart (1915-1985), U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Walker v. Birmingham, 1967

When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all. – Justice William O. Douglas

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. – South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. – Thomas Jefferson

The error is in the assumption that the General Government is a party to the constitutional compact. The States formed the compact, acting as sovereign and independent communities. – John C. Calhoun

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy. One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly may not be submitted to vote; they depend on no elections. – Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U.S. Supreme Court Justice, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943

If the jury feels the law is unjust, we recognize the undisputed power of the jury to acquit, even if its verdict is contrary to the law as given by a judge, and contrary to the evidence … and the courts must abide by that decision. – US v Moylan, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, 1969, 417 F.2d at 1006

The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy. – John Jay, first U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice

There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all. – Antonin Scalia, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Arizona v. Hicks, 3/3/87

I cannot assent to the view, if it be meant that the legislature may impair or abridge the rights of a free press and of free speech whenever it thinks that the public welfare requires that it be done. The public welfare cannot override constitutional privilege. – John Marshall Harlan, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Patterson v. Chicago

Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency. – Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948), Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Home Building & Loan Assn v. Blairsdell, 1934

It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error. – Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U.S. Supreme Court Justice, American Communications Assn v. Douds, 1950

No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than any [constitutional] provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. – Roger B. Taney (1777-1864), U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Ex parte Milligan, 1866

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. – Richard Henry Lee (who drafted the the Bill of Rights) 1788

We have rights, as individuals, to give as much of our own money as we please to charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of public money. – David Crockett, Congressman 1827-35

[edit on 3-3-2010 by METACOMET]