Dear J. Ashley: There are a zillion positive concepts that are beyond the grasp of an anarchist like you! If you had transcribed the Constitutional word by word the way I did, you would realize that the SPIRIT of that document is intent upon LIMITING the power of Government! The Founding Fathers expected the SPIRIT of the document to dictate what can be done more than an itemized section and sentence for every conceivable issue. You are really shallow, Jonathan. I admire Keith of Tampa for stopping reading your bluster. — J. A. Armistead — Patriot > On May 25, 11:56 am, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > John, > > You are once again guilty of obfuscation. Who among the members of this > group could not have guessed that would happen? It seems to be an > obsession with you. > > Simple questions require no more than simple answers. > > Earlier I asked you two simple questions: > > 1) Where in the Constitution does it prohibit political parties? > > A simple reply with article and section number was all that was > necessary. That concept seems to be beyond your grasp. > > 2) Does any part of the Constitution or any Law require the Secret > Service to look into the qualifications of the President? > > If you believe a "yes" answer applies, then why do you not provide > factual information to back up your claim? Instead, you choose to rant > about something entirely unrelated. > > So, rather than dodging my questions by asking me to "explain why > 'outsiders' other than our seated public officials get to dictate a > single thing that goes on in this country," why don't you answer the two > simple questions I posed? > > I'll even help you with the first question by providing a link to an > online copy of the Constitution. > > http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html > > Give it your best shot! > > On 05/24/2011 05:06 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear J. Ashley: I had answered where in my New Constitution, because > > I assumed that was your question. The most important part of the > > present Constitution is where it tells how our representatives are > > selected, and how each of those has a parity of the US population > > served. Governments of that type are representative (parity) > > REPUBLICS, and (supposedly) require the representatives to be doing > > the will of their electorates. That places the POWER in the hands of > > the people, not at the whim of those representatives (who aren't > > royalty). > > > The US Senate, which was originally selected by the legislatures of > > the several states, was an ill conceived OLIGARCHY. Since there has > > never been a parity of the population served by each senator, that > > means the USA has two conflicting political systems, and the oligarchy > > is the one which isn't FAIR. Giving undue power to smaller population > > states slaps REPUBLIC ideas in the face. So, the US Senate is and > > always has been, unconstitutional. > > > Political parties are unconstitutional because they impose a power > > structure within Congress that gives the... "power" to the winning > > party, rather than having a parity of power on every single issue > > voted upon. The straw breaking the camel's back is giving the Speaker > > of the House; the chairmen of committees, and those having seniority > > more power than every other member of Congress has. Political parties > > aren't required to follow the FAIR principles of equal power of > > representation. That's like having visitors from foreign governments > > come in and saying what can be done and when. > > > The Constitution doesn't sanction having pseudo-governmental bodies be > > the clearing houses for determining who our public officials can be. > > By the time most public officials move beyond county commissioner, > > they must have already SOLD their souls to the left or right planks of > > the parties. When individuality is destroyed, fair representation is > > destroyed! Requiring term limits or a balanced budget amendment can > > never pass because the opposing political party has close to a 50% > > control on the votes. Without the political party labels, voters > > could make decisions based on REASON, not based mainly on "tradition" > > and what the party line says to do. > > > Rather than asking me why political parties are unconstitutional, why > > don't you explain why "outsiders" other than our seated public > > officials get to dictate a single thing that goes on in this country. > > Give it your best shot! � John A. Armistead � Patriot > > > On May 24, 1:52 am, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> John, > > >> Once again, you are guilty of obfuscation. You avoid any and all > >> questions posed to you. > > >> Earlier in this thread, based on an assertion you made, I asked you > >> directly: Where in the Constitution does it prohibit political parties? > >> You have yet to answer (because you can't). Yet you have once again made > >> that assertion. > > >> Also based on an assertion you made, I asked you: Does any part of the > >> Constitution or any Law require the Secret Service to look into the > >> qualifications of the President? You have yet to answer. > > >> Instead you change subjects by opening your post with, "The 'myth' is > >> that with the right President the country will be OK." That is, of > >> course, completely off topic. Who ever made the claim that "with the > >> right President the country will be OK"? > > >> On 05/23/2011 08:43 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > >>> Dear J. Ashley: The "myth" is that with the right President the > >>> country will be OK. Well, the USA isn't OK after a lot of > >>> presidents! The only requirement for a candidate with our corrupt and > >>> failing government should be the repudiation of political parties. > >>> Those were never constitutional, but are effectively running things. > >>> Kick all political rituals in the ass! The easiest way to do that > >>> would be for the candidates to start eschewing campaigning (live) in > >>> any of the states. TV debates are an excellent enough way to select > >>> our candidates. � J. A. Armistead � Patriot > >>> On May 22, 12:19 pm, Jonathan Ashley<[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>> John, > >>>> You live in fantasy land. Facts are facts! While "a positive thinker" > >>>> like you might have dreams of a clown with a contrived television show > >>>> running our country, the clown has to first declare himself a candidate. > >>>> That you would be suckered into believing that a hustler with a gimmick > >>>> ("you're fired") would be some kind of savior for the United States says > >>>> volumes about your thinking process (e.g., lack thereof). > >>>> On 05/21/2011 07:17 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > >>>>> J. Ashley: Any communication involves two, the sayer and the > >>>>> receiver. You and I are different 'receivers' and so interpret the > >>>>> same communiqu� differently. A positive thinker, like me, wants a > >>>>> "you're fired" man to be President. A negative thinker, like you, was > >>>>> hoping Trump would not enter the race. You would have made a great > >>>>> lawyer, because those like to make their point. They could do that in > >>>>> a game of musical chairs with a tack in each seat. Get the point? > >>>>> Ha, ha, HA! � J. A. A. � > >>>>> On May 20, 10:41 pm, Jonathan<[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> John, > >>>>>> Trump never dropped out of anything. He declared, "After considerable > >>>>>> deliberation and reflection, I have decided not to pursue the office of > >>>>>> the Presidency." That's not dropping out. That's declaring he has no > >>>>>> intention of entering the race. > >>>>>> On 05/20/2011 05:44 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > >>>>>>> J. Ashley: Then what was Trump dropping out of? � J. A. A. � > >>>>>>> On May 19, 6:50 pm, Jonathan<[email protected]> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> *John, INLINE:* > >>>>>>>> On 05/19/2011 01:47 PM, NoEinstein wrote:> Dear Jonathan: > >>>>>>>>> (1.) Most in the media considered Donald Trump to be a contender > >>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>> President. You, an anarchist, aren't bright enough to know the > >>>>>>>>> present, let alone project the way future events could have played > >>>>>>>>> out. > >>>>>>>> *I do not care what "most in the media" decided for YOU. Donald Trump > >>>>>>>> never declared himself to be a candidate. Who are you going to > >>>>>>>> believe? > >>>>>>>> The media? Or, Donald Trump?* > >>>>>>>>> Answer to (2.) is at *** in the preface, copied below: > >>>>>>>>> "Preface: > >>>>>>>>> The Will of the People is the foundation of government. > >>>>>>>>> The > >>>>>>>>> People must be represented faithfully and without bias so that > >>>>>>>>> government can properly and efficiently perform its functions in the > >>>>>>>>> coming ages. Federal government shall be limited to functions that > >>>>>>>>> cannot be better performed by local and state governments. Such > >>>>>>>>> shall > >>>>>>>>> be the enabler of freedom, justice, fair commerce, climates of > >>>>>>>>> opportunity, cooperative efforts, and national security both > >>>>>>>>> internal > >>>>>>>>> and external. Such shall be businesslike yet human; impartial yet > >>>>>>>>> focused; considerate of our environment, heritage, peace and > >>>>>>>>> tranquillity; effective without boastfulness; *** and divorced from > >>>>>>>>> politics. The federal government shall not be considered to be > >>>>>>>>> synonymous with the USA, and those therein are not a ruling class > >>>>>>>>> nor > >>>>>>>>> are they dictators; rather they are the servants of the USA and > >>>>>>>>> shall > >>>>>>>>> be answerable to it and to any law-abiding Citizen or Citizens > >>>>>>>>> thereof. We honor these objectives for the benefit of our-selves > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> our posterity." > >>>>>>>> *I am assuming you have just posted the preface to YOUR New > >>>>>>>> Constitution. Once again, you are guilty of obfuscation. You did not > >>>>>>>> answer my question. Where in the Constitution (the existing one - not > >>>>>>>> YOURS) does it prohibit political parties?*> (3.) In my New > >>>>>>>> Constitution the 'speaker' is simply a parliamentarian > >>>>>>>>> who happens to be presiding. That person shall have no power to > >>>>>>>>> direct the course of proceedings based on their personal biases. > >>>>>>>>> This > >>>>>>>>> is the sentence which you neglected to copy: > >>>>>>>>> " The House makes the rules for its proceedings, punishes disorderly > >>>>>>>>> members, and with the assent of 60% can expel a member for a > >>>>>>>>> violation. ***But no rule shall be made that concentrates power in > >>>>>>>>> any individual(s) beyond his or her one vote." That excludes > >>>>>>>>> allowing > >>>>>>>>> the speaker, or chairmen of any committees, to have any more 'power' > >>>>>>>>> than the members have. > >>>>>>>> *What does YOUR New Constitution have to do with reality?*> > > ... > > 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.
