John,
You wrote:
*> Dear Keith: Obviously, you are bright. Anyone agreeing with me has to
be!*
It is obvious to me that you have the arrogance required of a dictator.
As for the implication by reference that you are "bright," let us look
at some of what you have included in your reply to Keith.
*> 1st Amendment: No law shall be made regarding the establishment of
peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but
government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements shall
be secular.*
1) I read this to mean that your as yet un-ratified New Constitution
already has Amendments attached to it. Am I correct? If so, why are
these amendments not included directly in YOUR New Constitution?
2) Who is going to decide whether or not a religion is "peaceful"? A
Christian? A Hindu? A Buddhist? An Islamic?
3) Who is going to ensure that "government, its campaigns, processes,
slogans, and disbursements shall be secular"?
4) Who is going to prevent a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic from
influencing your secular government?
4) Why do you believe "government, its campaigns, processes, slogans,
and disbursements" need be secular?
*
> No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: the freedom of
speech; *
You already abridged the freedom of speech when you declared
"government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements shall
be secular."
*> the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or other medium;*
1) Who will determine whether a "press or other medium" is being "fair
and pro-democracy"?
2) Why do you believe it necessary for a "press or other medium" to
be"pro-democracy"?Democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep
deciding on what to have for dinner.
*> the right of People to peaceably assemble; and the right of any
Citizen or group to petition government or any of its branches or
departments for redress of grievances.*
It was nice of you to leave this portion of the 1st Amendment of our
current Constitution in tact.
*> Citizens so petitioning government shall receive appropriate,
relevant, timely, comprehensive, helpful and just responses from proper
authorities who have thoroughly read, understood, and addressed each
salient aspect of the grievances or requests for directions or
clarifications.*
1) Who is to determine what constitutes an "appropriate, relevant,
timely, comprehensive, helpful and just response"?
2) Who determines a "proper" authority from an "improper" authority?
3) Who will determine whether the "proper authorities" "have thoroughly
read, understood, and addressed each salient aspect of the grievances or
requests for directions or clarifications"?
I am having too much fun to continue.
Based on what I have read so far, YOUR New Constitution lack constructs
such as...*
Rule of construction*
If there is any significant doubt concerning whether an official has
a power, or a person has an immunity from the exercise of a power,
the presumption shall be that the official does not have the power,
or conversely, that the person has the immunity.
*Access to grand jury, appointment of prosecutors*
No person shall be unreasonably impeded from access to a randomly
selected grand jury of 23, who, if they should return an indictment
or presentment, may appoint that person or any other to prosecute
the case, and shall decide which court, if any, has jurisdiction,
and whether any official shall have official immunity from suit.
The above constructs come from Jon Roland of the Constitution
Society.http://constitution.org/reform/us/con_amend.htm
On 3/2/2011 9:18 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
Dear Keith: Obviously, you are bright. Anyone agreeing with me has
to be! But you are weak-spirited to suppose that things can be left
going as they are... and the USA will somehow... survive. There are
three approximately equal problem areas in the USA: (1.) The horrible
and immensely wasteful school systems; (2.) The corrupt, elitist and
controlling media; and (3.) our career-politician-dominated
governments, seldom deferential to the electorates. Number (2.) is
responsible for number (3.). That's why FIXING the media has to be a
top priority! Fixing our corrupt governments can happen very quickly
following the ratification of my New Constitution. But fixing the
media will require monitoring what gets said and done and imprisoning
errant individuals, or shutting down any media not conforming to the
very clear dictates of my New Constitution. To wit:
"Bill of Rights and Amendments:
1st Amendment: No law shall be made regarding the establishment of
peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but
government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements shall
be secular. No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: the
freedom of speech; the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or
other medium; the right of People to peaceably assemble; and the right
of any Citizen or group to petition government or any of its branches
or departments for redress of grievances. Citizens so petitioning
government shall receive appropriate, relevant, timely, comprehensive,
helpful and just responses from proper authorities who have thoroughly
read, understood, and addressed each salient aspect of the grievances
or requests for directions or clarifications. Failure to so respond
to a rightful petition for redress of a grievance shall, on a single
provable instance, terminate the apt one�s employment, especially
those in management or public office�including judges and justices�who
ignore, frustrate or give the run-around to any competent Citizen who
has been diligent in having a grievance properly addressed, or in
having his or her civil rights fully upheld. No judge or justice
shall presume that by performing the above required duties, that they
in any way might be compromising their objectivity or fairness in
court; justice be not �blind�, but well informed. *** Freedom of the
press or other medium mandates that there be reasonable truthfulness
in reporting. Wanton distortion of the truth, or deliberate omission
of the truth�except in cases of obvious fiction or satire�is
prohibited. Stating or implying that a particular news medium has a
collective voice (we) or position on any issue is prohibited, as for
example via: anonymous editorials; regularly occurring accompanying
comments; commentary programs financed by, or ideologically screened
by, the same news medium; editorials named as being authored by
management; editorial comments by others that are in any way
ideologically censored, omitted or screened; or by comments occurring
at specific times or designated locations that most would come to
associate with the management of such medium, even if such are
innocuous. No medium shall be a forum for promoting the ideology of
its management or owners, nor shall they employ anyone who uses such
job to hawk their personal political preferences�at risk of loss of
license or closure of the business. Flagrantly editing news to
promote the ideology of management is a felony. No medium shall
analyze, assess, summarize, or make subjective judgments about any
pending election or referendum. Nor shall they invite others outside
of the media to do so. But factual, thorough coverage of the
candidates or referenda issues�on an as occurs basis�is allowed,
provided there are no comments, nor actions, as above, and provided
the same unbiased coverage is given to all of the candidates or to all
of the referenda issues. It shall be a 10 year felony to repress
truthful news reporting in any medium by threatening legal action. No
medium can be sued for libel for presenting material authored by
others, but if a person is harmed by the medium�s content, they shall
be allowed to reply�without editing�in that medium. Each medium shall
respond to breaking news without considering the response of any other
medium. Injuries due to improper news coverage or non coverage shall
not be excused by the media response. A medium reporting on
government shall do so thoroughly, objectively, and with detachment�
being neither laudatory nor critical by form, and not repressing
thoughtful dissent nor its coverage. Every medium shall favor the
truth over supposition, without parity nor bias. False or deceptive
commercial advertising is prohibited. Deliberate use by any
candidate, their staffs or election committees, of false or deceptive
campaign speeches, slogans, advertisements, humor, or innuendo is a
felony. No organization, nor part of the media, nor any special
interest group(s) shall in any way endorse a slate of candidates for
public office; flagrant violation is a felony. No medium shall
display active public records without the free consent of the apt
parties."
And ... "It shall be a felony for any government official or employee,
or any celebrity or media idol�past or present�to publicly endorse or
campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office or job.
Exhibiting ideological bias in a job terminates the employment.
Candidates for public office shall be disqualified for soliciting new
voter registrants; and no campaign shall aid or organize the
transportation of voters to the polls.
Keith, I FIX the media problems, not simply cross-my-fingers and hope
the problems go away. I say: If something is BROKE, fix it! Time
and again, that's what my New Constitution does! � John A. Armistead
� Patriot
On Mar 2, 4:25 am, KeithInSeoul<[email protected]> wrote:
A couple of days ago, John Armistead wrote this:
*"When TV first started, everything was live. Reporters went where the news
was
...
read more »
