On Feb 23, 2:37 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> wrote: > Einstein... If it comes in the original document it can not be an > "Amendment"
Dear Anointed One: My New Constitution is developed from, and expands upon, the original Constitution. Things like the 2nd Amendment are so well known that I kept the amendment numbers, sometimes expanding on and clarifying the language. When there was a totally new subject category without an obvious location, as from the original Constitution, I gave those new subjects amendment numbers. The voters will, of course, get to vote on the whole New Constitution package, including those "new" amendments. If I had simply used amendments to the original Constitution to express my improvements, the number of amendments would have exceeded four hundred. The way I have handled things is the best, I can assure you. — John A. Armistead — Patriot > > 37th Amendment: > No person, organization nor special interest group shall propose > or organize the boycott of a business(es); however, individual > Citizens can freely choose where to do business. Flagrant violation > is a felony, and a business harmed may sue in civil court. Amnesty— > but not citizenship for illegals—shall be granted to all persons > imprisoned, or about to be sentenced to imprisonment, for non violent > crimes that occurred before the adoption of this New Constitution. > At > the discretion of the apt prison warden, or of a judge having > jurisdiction, persons with a singular conviction of a violent crime > whose civil rights treatment, likely, would not meet the > requirements, > herein, shall be granted amnesty. > > On Feb 11, 7:28 pm, NoEinstein <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear MJ: For you "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." You've > > copied excellent quotes from Walter Lippman and others. Those people, > > in spite of their excellent rhetoric, never ventured to correct the > > problems they had observed. Within hours of my observing non-fair or > > non-functioning aspects of government, the judiciary, or the business > > "norms" in this country, I would be writing the most concise > > correction for those problems. Many times, the correction was from a > > combination of two or more clauses, often not closely spaced. Keeping > > my document to just ten ledger pages caused me to have to eliminate > > the verbal deadwood. Computer technology, and years of work, would > > have (if I had had just that intent) allowed reducing the words in the > > Constitution by 1/3rd, while improving the clarity. > > > The format looks like many sentences run together. Often times those > > sentences are powerful. The ordering of things follows the original > > Constitution in most cases. When there were whole new clauses without > > precedent, such have been added as though being amendments. Of course > > the citizens will get to vote on ratifying the entire New > > Constitution, and those very important amendments. This is an > > example: > > > "36th Amendment: All campaign contributions to candidates for public > > office shall be made anonymously through a Federal Campaign > > Contribution Clearing House, and such shall limit individual > > contributions per election, per candidate, to $1,000.00, and limit > > corporate contributions to $10,000 per election, per candidate > > (adjustable for inflation). With the exception of contributions from > > one’s family or business associates, accepting contributions from any > > other known source shall disqualify a candidate for office. > > > 37th Amendment: > > No person, organization nor special interest group shall propose > > or organize the boycott of a business(es); however, individual > > Citizens can freely choose where to do business. Flagrant violation > > is a felony, and a business harmed may sue in civil court. Amnesty— > > but not citizenship for illegals—shall be granted to all persons > > imprisoned, or about to be sentenced to imprisonment, for non violent > > crimes that occurred before the adoption of this New Constitution. At > > the discretion of the apt prison warden, or of a judge having > > jurisdiction, persons with a singular conviction of a violent crime > > whose civil rights treatment, likely, would not meet the requirements, > > herein, shall be granted amnesty. > > > MJ, you seem to be on-the-fence whether you concur with what I'm > > doing. I invite your more specific comments, because time does not > > allow me to be as wordy in future replies. Your "$" salutation amuses > > me. A functioning capitalist system will put the most dollars into > > the deserving (hard working) people's pockets. I hope you agree. — > > John A. Armistead — Patriot. > > > I invite those who are interested to read my recently published book: > > "The Shortest Distance; Harmony Through Prosperity", available at > > Amazon and B. & N > > > On Feb 10, 10:08 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >(3.) Our Constitution details the procedures associated with the > > > > Electoral College System for APPROXIMATING the democratic votes of the > > > > People. In pioneer times, the Electoral College was the only workable > > > > way to get the votes relayed to Washington. Before there was such > > > > thing as even a telegraph, it was electors on horseback, or nothing. > > > > But the SPIRIT of the Constitution demands that when technology—such > > > > as we have, now—enables the accurate counting of the votes of the > > > > People in a single day, that both the People AND democracy are best > > > > served by letting the popular votes decide elections! Any President > > > > who takes an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution”, > > > > must preserve, protect, and defend the OBJECTIVES of the Constitution, > > > > NOT just the horse and buggy era… ’traditions’ which are no longer > > > > serving the best interests of the People! > > > > There is no such thing as an 'Electoral College'. The DESIGN was for > > > > these various State Electors to NEVER come to a consensus, but instead > > > > to serve as a 'search committee' of sorts. The House of Representatives > > > > would then choose the president. This did not occur in practice (except > > > > once). > > > [D] Ditto the pedantry part in [C]. > > > You are obviously confused. > > > Regard$, > > > --MJThe art of politics, under democracy, is simply the art of ringing > > > it. Two branches reveal themselves. There is the art of the demagogue, > > > and there is the art of what may be called, by a shot-gun marriage of > > > Latin and Greek, the demaslave. They are complementary, and both of them > > > are degrading to their practitioners. The demagogue is one who preaches > > > doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots. The > > > demaslave is one who listens to what these idiots have to say and then > > > pretends that he believes it himself. -- H.L. Mencken -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
