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
