John,
1) Since you claim to be a Patriot, please provide YOUR definition of
that word.
2) One does not need to "transcribe" the original Constitution, one
merely has to perform a "cut and paste" action - a technique you are
quite familiar with - as many sources of the Constitution exist on-line.
3) I would never spend 14 years making "that document" suit my "liking"
since I firmly believe "that document" is inherently the cause of our
existing problems. But if I were so inclined, I am certain it would not
take me 14 years - not even 14 months - and it would certainly be less
convoluted than your vain attempt.
I would start with a Preamble such as this:
With the understanding that no Person has the Right to rule over
another, the Government instituted upon the adoption of this
Constitution shall be Restricted to the powers specifically granted
herein. The sole purpose of this Government shall be the protection
of the Right to Life, Liberty, and Property for all Persons living
within the limits of the several States. The exercise of a Right not
infringing upon the Right of another is not subject to Regulation.
I would also attach a list of definitions for words of importance
because people are want to change the meanings of words over time. I
remember when "bad" meant "evil; opposed to good." Now half the
population equates "bad" with "good."
4) YOUR "already-in-place New Constitution" is already "dead in the water."
On 03/29/2011 09:18 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
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 »
--
The biggest obstacle to freedom and liberty is not knowing what
freedom and liberty are.
Learn How To Protect Your Identity And Prevent Identity Theft
<http://8f7ab0ybg8rx5p6mloffi9yw8t.hop.clickbank.net/>
--
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.
