Jonathan: Do this: Transcribe the original Constitution, and spend the next fourteen years making that document to suit your liking. Then, you can get a referendum on your constitution. My bet is that you won't get the 60% of the votes required to change even one word of my already-in-place New Constitution. — J. A. Armistead — Patriot > On Mar 28, 11:56 am, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > I read Article III of YOUR New Constitution in its entirety yesterday. > It is both wordy and convoluted. > > Let's examine the first line of Section 8: > > * It�s a felony for any person, organization, group, or special > interest � publicly or privately � to lobby judges or justices for > influencing their rulings; also, for any judge or justice to > accept a bribe in exchange for a judicial favor. > > It took you 39 words to state what can be stated more effectively in 26 > words. > > * The lobbying of Members of the Judicial system by any Person is > prohibited; as is the issuance of Favor by any Member of the > Judicial system. > > In addition to being wordy, YOUR New Constitution fails to provide > remedy. One can provide such remedy by adding the following: > > * Persons found guilty of Lobbying or the issuance of Favor under > Article III, Section 8, shall be imprisoned for not less than 10 > Years and/or deported. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > "'My country, right or wrong' is a thing that no patriot would think of > saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk > or sober.'"�Gilbert Keith Chesterton > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > On 03/28/2011 07:55 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > Folks: Jonathan shows his anti-America ideas with every word he > > utters. There are no moderators on this group. So, he, MJ and Mark > > hang-out here because my readership is high. Those who love America > > are invited to attack these socialist-communists. I have better > > things to be doing. Thanks! � J. A. A. � > > On Mar 26, 7:35 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> John, > > >> If "naive, pesky losers" like myself failed to ask questions regarding > >> the excrement self-proclaimed intellectuals like yourself keep spilling > >> forth, less-discerning individuals in this group might blindly accept > >> the bull crap you have written. > > >> It is /highly/ unlikely that you will ever get the opportunity for an up > >> or down vote on YOUR New Constitution. I say that because the casinos I > >> visited during my recent trip to Las Vegas had no idea YOUR New > >> Constitution even existed. If Vegas doesn't know about it, the masses > >> necessary for its passage surely don't. > > >> In the unlikely event you ever have the opportunity to place YOUR New > >> Constitution before the voters, it is my belief that ambiguous > >> provisions such as "Every two years an unbiased review panel shall > >> apprise the Citizens of the job performance grade, as herein, of seated > >> judges and justices" and "It is TREASON for a judge or justice to rule > >> with disfavor on the supremacy of a fair democracy" (both from Article > >> III, Section 1) will insure more "down" votes than "up" - even from our > >> dumbed-down society. > > >> On 03/26/2011 03:48 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > >>> Jonathan: The only opinions of others that matter are the one-day, up > >>> or down votes for ratification of my New Constitution. I don't have > >>> time to explain to a naive, pesky loser like you the sociology and the > >>> psychology of how and why people make up their minds one way or the > >>> other. I highly recommend "The Power of Positive Thinking" to you. > >>> "Great things are never accomplished by the skeptical." � J. A. A. > >>> � > >>> On Mar 25, 1:12 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> John, > >>>> You failed to address "the opinions of others are a necessary requisite > >>>> for the passage of YOUR New Constitution." How do you envision YOUR New > >>>> Constitution being enforced when you will never get it instituted? > >>>> On 03/25/2011 09:53 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > >>>>> Dear Jonathan: If I had wanted to have the opinions of others > >>>>> influence anything, I would have sought public office and had my > >>>>> insightful solutions neutered in committees and on the floor of the > >>>>> House and the Senate. I realized, early on, that the status quo > >>>>> governmental processes are so screwed-up that our country has gotten > >>>>> away from the "leave-me-alone to make-my-own-way" ideals of the > >>>>> founding fathers. Not a single person would have risked their lives > >>>>> to come to America if they had supposed every hard-earned dollar they > >>>>> make would be taxed and controlled to serve the LAZY members of > >>>>> society who want the right to vote, but are unwilling to support their > >>>>> own weight in society. > >>>>> It was only after the Civil War that media coverage started showing > >>>>> photographs of political candidates and of rallies and conventions. > >>>>> From that day forward, ego-maniacal career politicians became the > >>>>> norm. And those were treated like (unconstitutional) royalty by the > >>>>> media�which is largely responsible for the long, slow decline of the > >>>>> US economy. My New Constitution will pin-back-the-ears of the corrupt > >>>>> US media, and remove all undue influences by those purporting to > >>>>> assess the events of the day. Once John Q. Public starts watching > >>>>> news COVERAGE rather than 24-7 news commentary, the USA will again be > >>>>> on the path to success and prosperity for the vast majority of > >>>>> hardworking Americans! � John A. Armistead � Patriot > >>>>> On Mar 24, 12:39 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> John, > >>>>>> I am fully aware that my opinions "are neither sought, considered, nor > >>>>>> appreciated." It appears that no one's opinions are ever "sought, > >>>>>> considered, nor appreciated" by you. Unfortunately for your ego, the > >>>>>> opinions of others are a necessary requisite for the passage of YOUR > >>>>>> New > >>>>>> Constitution. Unless, of course, you plan on seceding from the Union to > >>>>>> create a one-man nation. > >>>>>> On 03/24/2011 09:19 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > >>>>>>> Jonathan: Judging from quick scans of two of your TOME '+ new posts', > >>>>>>> you lack the ability to be concise in your wording of ideas. I don't > >>>>>>> have the time, nor the desire, to personally explain to you things > >>>>>>> that I've already explained in detail, if you would only read back > >>>>>>> into my thread. Please quit bugging me to get personal with you about > >>>>>>> my New Constitution. I can assure you, Jonathan, that your opinions > >>>>>>> in these regards are neither sought, considered, nor appreciated. � > >>>>>>> J. A. A. � > >>>>>>> On Mar 23, 12:47 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> John, > >>>>>>>> If, as you stated earlier, YOUR New Constitution "defines the limits > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>> both business, social, and governmental influences of our lives." > >>>>>>>> Will it allow me the right to live my life in any way I choose so > >>>>>>>> long > >>>>>>>> as I respect the equal rights of others? > >>>>>>>> Will it allow me to defend my right to life, liberty, and > >>>>>>>> property-rights � rights that existed naturally before any > >>>>>>>> government > >>>>>>>> was created? > >>>>>>>> Will it allow me the freedom to travel unrestricted � a right that > >>>>>>>> existed naturally before any government was created? > >>>>>>>> Will it limit government initiation of force to actions that involve > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> prior initiation of force by others � such as murder, rape, > >>>>>>>> robbery, > >>>>>>>> kidnapping, and fraud? > >>>>>>>> Will it allow businesses to compete on equal footing � no special > >>>>>>>> privileges to Monsanto, AT&T, Lockheed Martin, etc.? > >>>>>>>> I could continue, but you have a tendency to not answer any > >>>>>>>> questions � > >>>>>>>> preferring instead to resort to name calling. Will this instance be > >>>>>>>> any > >>>>>>>> different? > >>>>>>>> On 03/23/2011 08:51 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Dear Jonathan: You don't qualify to interpret even one sentence of > >>>>>>>>> my > >>>>>>>>> New Constitution! The proper function of government is to pass only > >>>>>>>>> the minimum number of laws to be sure capitalism�the concept of > >>>>>>>>> which > >>>>>>>>> has existed for millennia�doesn't become unfair or burdensome to > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> people. There are no "czars" or government officials required to > >>>>>>>>> pull > >>>>>>>>> any of the strings. > >>>>>>>>> Maximum civil liberties parallel having the MINIMUM of government > >>>>>>>>> interaction with the people. And that is NOT anarchy. My New > >>>>>>>>> Constitution clearly defines the limits of both business, social, > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> governmental influences of our lives. I recommend to others (than > >>>>>>>>> Jonathan) my recently published book: "The Shortest Distance; > >>>>>>>>> Harmony > >>>>>>>>> Through Prosperity." from Amazon, and Barnes and Noble. There is a > >>>>>>>>> chapter on spheres of freedom that explains how your personal > >>>>>>>>> freedoms > >>>>>>>>> are limited only when those directly and negatively impact the > >>>>>>>>> freedoms of others. If anyone thinks they have the "freedom" to > >>>>>>>>> tell > >>>>>>>>> others how to live their lives, I would suggest you immediately > >>>>>>>>> moving > >>>>>>>>> out of the USA. No "group" nor individuals will have the power to > >>>>>>>>> limit your personal liberties�trust me on that! � John A. > >>>>>>>>> Armistead > >>>>>>>>> � Patriot > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 7:02 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> John, > >>>>>>>>>> Hopefully you realize that the term "capitalism" was non-existent > >>>>>>>>>> when > >>>>>>>>>> the Constitution was written. It first appeared circa 1854. > >>>>>>>>>> Setting that aside, in pure capitalism, also called the free-market > >>>>>>>>>> system, all economic decisions are made _without government > >>>>>>>>>> intervention_. Yet YOUR New Constitution appears to ignore that > >>>>>>>>>> concept. > >>>>>>>>>> Any constitution that wants to promote free market enterprise > >>>>>>>>>> should by > >>>>>>>>>> necessity prevent government intervention into business. > >>>>>>>>>> I must also point out that if one has to codify "maximum civil > >>>>>>>>>> liberties" (as YOUR New Constitution is want to do) it implies that > > ... > > read more »
-- 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.
