Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Do you support the US Constitution?

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 1, 2011, 1 a.m. EST by Pope (52)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Have you read the US Constitution and do you support it?

211 Comments

211 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by ARod1993 (2420) 8 years ago

Yes, multiple times; I'm taking an introductory class in American politics, so we spend half the time trying to figure out exactly what the government of this country is and how it works, and the other half arguing about how that lovely little document guided our government into its current shape and form. Do I support it? What exactly are you asking me? I still see it as a highly relevant part of both our government and who we are as a people, and I feel like we can make most if not all of the changes this country needs within the framework the Constitution provides.

[-] 1 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 8 years ago

@ARod1993, for you:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/again-army-veteran-injured-in-oakland-clashes-with/#comment-293080

(And for anyone else who cares about this thread. No invites necessary.)

[-] 1 points by larryathome (161) from Red Bank, NJ 8 years ago

Exactly! Using article V, we can enhance it to protect us from the corporations by defining personhood and campaign finance laws!

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 8 years ago

Or enact a Constitutional Amendment that does this:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-would-an-anti-lobby-constitutional-amendment-/

-- I am simply unimportant

[-] 1 points by larryathome (161) from Red Bank, NJ 8 years ago

Article V is our process to amend as citizens. If you are interested in learning more about it, it is the secret that the top does not want you to know. Send me a private message.

[-] 1 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

That's encouraging, thank you for your good stewardship.

[-] 3 points by Jelm430 (87) 8 years ago

I have, has anyone read Thomas Paine's common sense

[-] 1 points by wiseoldowl (86) 8 years ago

good book

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Yea, I have. Because of its role in inciting the people to rebellion.

[-] 2 points by wiseoldowl (86) 8 years ago

There is no such thing as a "right" interpretation of the Constitution as each one of our founding fathers saw the same document in a different way. The language was perhaps intentionally put in a nebulous form for interpretation according to the discretion of the future generations and the needs that may occur so the same Contitution later got invoked for ending slavery some hundred years after it was written down. If the question is: Do you wish to interpret the Contitution in the same way it was interpreted maybe a hundred years ago, I would say NO WAY! The country has changed and will change. Contitutional "Purists" claim there is a correct interpretation of the Contitution the way fundies interpret the Bible, full of self seving ideas for right wing and white supremist groups to find something to support their fringe cause. No, I don't support that, if that is what you mean

[-] 2 points by youngandoutraged (123) from Iowa City, IA 8 years ago

I have read it, and we are in direct violation of it in many ways. The most important way is that we have not kept our constitutional obligation as citizens to look out for the well being of our country. This has allowed power structures to come into place that violate almost every part of our constitution. This is no longer by, of, and for the people, but by the money, of the politicians, and for the plutocrats. Unfortunately it has come to the point where we need to rise up to overthrow the corruption, but fortunately, that is provided for in the constitution. We are finally meeting our constitutional obligation to participate in our democracy, as well as our future. I only hope the movement can stay pure and remake our country as one by, of, and for it's citizens.

[-] 1 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

Well said. Do not be swayed by the socialist media campaign that wishes to coopt this movement. Remain vigilant and continually express your support of the Constitution and disgust of the establishment. God bless.

[-] 0 points by ChristopherABrownART5 (46) from Santa Barbara, CA 8 years ago

Yes, I've read the constitution, but would ask that the dynamics of social engineering represented with media and 40 years with semiotics disabling the people with a secret infiltration of government be observed in order to appreciate how article 5 is the obnly response to this.--

http://algoxy.com/poly/emergency_powers_statutes.html

On that page all the aspects of our current political position with regard to the constitution are available, the establshing past all the way back to the Magna Carta, through the civil war, and the defacto military government that came from it without returning to constitutional government. Yes, the facts proving this are there. In light of all that, an Article 5 convention is due, NOW!--

Here are some facts about the history of Article 5. Congress has been in serious violation of the constitution for about 100 years. Bill Walker sued them all to learn a few more things that were known.------

http://algoxy.com/poly/article_v_convention.html

[-] 1 points by NationaliseWallst (5) from Belleville, NJ 8 years ago

Why?

[-] 1 points by Nanook (172) 8 years ago

A new effort has been started to Occupy The Constitution. This effort launches a new Direct Democracy tool called the National Opinion Collection System ( NOCS ). This tool creates a process to capture ALL the comments of EVERY citizen about major social issues, elections and bills before congress. This effort is described at http://occupywallst.org/forum/occupytheconstitution-introduction

[-] 1 points by mtmama (34) 8 years ago

By the way, when people say that us healthcare is not constitutional, what is Article 1, Sec. 8, paragraph 1--Congress is authorized to provide for the general welfare of the public. I think that means healthcare. But, the real question is, can we afford it, while we occupy so many other countries?

[-] 0 points by jay1975 (428) 8 years ago

Madison, in Federalist 41 said that the way the government is to provide for the general welfare of the nation is to only exercise the powers specifically laid out in the Constitution. He reasoned that the government cannot, and should not try, to provide for the livelihood of every citizen as that would defeat the purpose of having a limited government.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

It's the best document ever invented on the subject

[-] 1 points by MortgagedTent (121) 8 years ago

Yep and Yep.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

It's very difficult document to read. I think many know the highlights and have a good idea of what means in general.

I think this document is analyzed more then it's read. Of course, you could try bite the bullet read it all the way through but your chances of really understanding what it says and what it means is slim.

The declaration of independence is a much easier read, and here's the part that most are familiar with:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[-] 1 points by WeTehPeople (6) 8 years ago

I believe it needs multiple reforms, but it was a good foundation. Consider signing my petition at we the people to allow citizens to introduce federal ballot initiatives. This is a crucial piece of the process that our government is missing and it could really benefit from this. Our representatives no longer have the courage to pass reforms that are really popular with the people. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/use-petition-site-allow-citizens-introduce-federal-legislation/976hF353?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 8 years ago

Like everyone else, I enthusiastically support ALL of it that I agree with and vehemently oppose the parts I disagree with and I especially oppose all of the judicially activist "misinterpretations" that I disagree with and support all of the judicially activist "clarifications" that I agree with.

Of course the many" misinterpretations" are much more agregious than the few simple "clarifications" and I can prove it. Just read the other posts on this site, that I agree with.

Seriously folks, representative democracy under a suitable constitution providing for the rule of law is the most practical government and potentially fair form of government available to us, right here and right now.

There is much better prospect for fixing it than inventing a new one. Fixing this one has been much to slow and there have been missteps.

One has only to have watched the struggles of others to start from scratch to doubt the prospects for success of that approach right now.

[-] 1 points by CancelCurrency (128) 8 years ago

No hard feelings guys, but Canadians and Mexicans and the rest of South America are americans also. If you call yourself "american" it does not distinguishes you from them. How people in this global occupy movement will understand who are you? And why anybody would be ashamed of his origins and not tell that he is romanian US citizen? I think it is not healthy to hide your ethnicity. Every nation has good and bad things in its history. It is important how you behave not who you are ethnically. Jews ashamed for their past, blacks for their. If you want good reputation you should care more how you behave, not hide your origins or change name from "negro" to "black", to "african" etc. Your will not change reputation of your kind by this. If you do not respect your ancestors and others, who would respect you? I am not romanian but met many romanians and I think they are much more educated and culturally advanced then many, many in the rest of the world. And their music is totally captivating. I do not know other nation more friendly and hospitable then romanians. Sorry, guys.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Yes, and it provides for a Supreme Court empowered to interpret it.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

Any effort to control the corporations is bound to be insufficient and fail. Every effort to do so has always resulted in the ability of the corporations to adapt and avoid any effort at control. The only solution is to seize all corporate assets and reorganize them democratically from below in the interest of everyone rather than in the interest of a tiny group of share holders.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

The Bill of Rights should be right up front, right after the Preamble. It should be the preamble. There should be a unicameral legislature and no independent executive branch. If there is to be a second legislative chamber it should be based in the work place. A commitment to human rights as opposed to commerce should be made explicit in the document.

[-] 1 points by larryathome (161) from Red Bank, NJ 8 years ago

In fact, YES! I am supporting our use of Article V to stick it to the corporatocracy by stripping their ability to buy our politicians. Take notice, Citizens United and Americans For Prosperity! A focus group is working on ground swell to use Article V to stick it to you Koch brothers. We are going to take your money out of politics.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 8 years ago

We I to rewrite it I would put the Bill of Rights up front rather than as a set of amendments. Personally I also favor a unicameral parliamentary system rather than an independent executive. If we are to have a bicameral legislature the second chamber should be a work place based body rather than an elitist Senate. Finally, a commitment to human rights rather than commerce should be made explicit in the body of the document.

[-] 1 points by OQPi (162) 8 years ago

Of course.

[-] 1 points by Fathergita (7) 8 years ago

Yes, but I'd like it to be revised heavily. First we need to overthrow the king and all his men, for any real revision I'm afraid.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Can you imagine the constitution this guy would write?

[-] 1 points by scaevity (2) 8 years ago

Has anyone heard of Thomas Jefferson's, one of the original founding father of the US, view on the constitution? He believed that it should be rewritten relatively frequently, as the needs and situations of the past are very different from those of the present and blindly holding on to old laws for their own sake does us no good. The laws are here to protect us, we aren't here to protect them and make sure they never change. Thomas Jefferson never intended the constitution to outlive his own generation and instead the constitution has been around since 1789 -- the oldest working constitution in the world. If we really believe in the constitution, maybe we should believe in those who were instrumental in shaping it -- and realize that it's time to create a new one, one that applies to and benefits all the people of today.

This is just one quote from Jefferson on this topic: "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Jefferson was a tremendous philosopher. Philosophically he's right in respect to the 19 years but he's wrong about the right of appeal. What we do have inherent in the Constitution is a right of revolution. Jefferson was not involved in the writing of the Constitution. But he was involved in the Dec which serves to legitimize a challenge of authority. There is some level of jealousy here, because he was not involved in the writing of the Constitution, and he here plays one against the other. Keep in mind that he had reference to the Dec inscribed on his tombstone. Jefferson's true hope was that this government, by the people, for the people, in its more or less exact framework, would last for a thousand years.

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 8 years ago

He also said there should be a bloody revolution every 20 years. He changed his opinion after he saw how the French revolution turned out (the Republic devolved into a dictatorship).

Likewise he changed his opinion that the U.S.C. should be rewritten and instead held that States should follow the amendment procedure to modify, rather than completely start over. He also evolved the concept of nullification... a power reserved by the 10th amendment to the Member States so they can ignore unconstitutional laws passed by the Union.

Nullification was used by the Northern States to effectively kill the Fugitive Slave Act. (They said Congress has no authority to remove black citizens from the north and deport them to the south. That is an internal state matter.) Because of that nullification it gave people like Harriet Tubman and other slaves a way to seek asylum under protection of northern governments.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

And nullification will again become an issue with Obamacare.

[-] 1 points by davideasternsun (4) 8 years ago

Russell Means comments on the Meaning of Life

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3b9rnwCbMQ

[-] 1 points by L3employee (63) 8 years ago

I have read the US constitution. Do I support it? Yes, in the sense that I support a constitution. I'm especially fond of the preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

As you might imagine, I'm especially fond of that "promote the general welfare" part.

But, it was written on paper (parchment perhaps), not carved in granite. Now, the constitution has done pretty well with that "insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence" bit. But I am finding that I think it's kinda falling down on the "establish justice", "promote the general welfare", and "secure the blessings of liberty" parts.

While it is certainly true that the preamble has nothing in it that is legally binding, it does describe the purpose of the constitution. When the document as a whole fails to live up to the promise of it's preamble, it's time for the document to be changed.

Support the constitution? Sure! Support it exactly as it is written at this moment? Somewhat less sure.

[-] 1 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

Your premise is incorrect. The Constitution has not failed, we have. It is our job to keep it in the forefront of all government decisions. Together we can do that again and purge the corrupt vandals from our house.

[-] 1 points by L3employee (63) 8 years ago

I can agree that we have failed. Can't entirely agree that the constitution has not. I'm here because I believe it should always represent the interests of "the 99%". If Supreme Court decisions (i.e. "citizens united") interpreting the constitution can be made that are entirely against the interests of "the 99%", then the constitution may need a serious review. We failed in that "peoples united" was only the most recent court decision that was against the interests of the most of us. OWS really needed to start in the 1980s.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Your interpretation of "promote the general welfare" in the vernacular of the day is entirely false. More, it is superseded by state's rights.

[-] 1 points by L3employee (63) 8 years ago

You assume an interpretation of "promote the general welfare" that I did not express. Vernacular of which day? This one, or 1789?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

True, you did not express an opinion of "general welfare." But I have noticed references to it use this forum. I'm just saying that it's a huge mistake to look at words of the past through the eyes of a modern conceptionalism. Even such words as "charity" held an entirely different connotation.

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 8 years ago

""promote the general welfare" part."

The author of the Constitution is James Madison, and he said "provide general welfare" is limited by a list of powers directly underneath it (provide a post office, navy, army, et cetera). He also said any doubt shall be removed simply by reading Amendment 10, which states Congress shall not exercise any power it was never given.

And no the Constitution is not set in granite. You can change it whenever you wish simply by amending it. For example if you think Congress should provide a Hospital system, then pass an amendment to provide that power.

[-] 1 points by L3employee (63) 8 years ago

I said that I had read the constitution, not that I had it memorized word, for word. In any case, I did not rely on memory to quote the preamble. My source was: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html . I'm sure if the difference between "provide general welfare", and "promote the general welfare" is significant in your thinking, though.

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 8 years ago

Wow you missed the point. Congress was not given a blank slate to exercise unlimited powers for the general welfare. It is only allowed to exercise the powers specifically enumerated in Article 1, and all other powers are reserved to the People and the People's State legislatures (amendment 10).

For example: Congress has no authority to outlaw marijuana or alcohol. That is not one of its powers, but instead reserved to the People or the States respectively.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

They can't own a hospital.

[-] 1 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 8 years ago

Before answering that question, we must first understand constitution based government and why we should support it. I found this youtube video concise and very educational (10 min).

The American Form of Government: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE

[-] 1 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

Thank you.

[-] 1 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 8 years ago

One more clarification (this is how I look at it):

To visualize representative democratic republic (our system), draw a large circle and draw many small circles in it. Each circle is a "popular" right (i.e., representing preferences of the larger percentage of the population) and each circle is protected by law and the constitution. The larger cycle is our system. Your total rights are represented by these circles. In some circles you are fully represented, in some partially and in others you are not represented. Cumulatively you are more represented than not. Let's name some of these circles to visualize better : a) gun law, b) abortion rights, c) stem cell research, d) corporate personhood, e) special tax exemptions, f) voiding bank regulation laws, g) increasing statutory laws, h) outsourcing election system to private corporates -- pending. You name it.

The danger as you may notice immediately, is when these circles start not to represent the preferences of larger population. It's called corruption as we the majority (the 99%) start losing our representation in this system, becoming minority. This is where #OWS movement starts to make sense. It's all about protecting our rights, our way of lives and eliminate special interest (corruption) from our system. How we will do it? By demanding to restore our laws and the constitution.

Feel free to argue.

[-] 1 points by suyabaa01 (244) from Milford, CT 8 years ago

If you like that, I have one more suggestion for you.

Justice with Michael Sandel by Professor Michael J. Sandel; Harvard Law School: http://itunes.apple.com/itunes-u/justice-with-michael-sandel/id379064095

If you have iTunes on you machine (Mac or Windows), you can download this introduction course and watch it at your pleasure and pace. You will also find more similar links on that page if your interest further grows.

P.s. All 'iTunes U' courses are free. 'iTunes U' an immense educational source. If you don't have iTunes on your computer, you can download it from Apple Web site, it's free: http://www.apple.com/itunes/

Enjoy it as I did immensely.

[-] 1 points by madeinusa (393) 8 years ago

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. Thomas Jefferson

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff135362.html#ixzz1caiRJV4n

[-] 1 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

Andrew Jackson was another beast that destroyed the banksters.

[-] 1 points by Lexicaholic (8) 8 years ago

Yes.

[-] 1 points by Sanchez (76) 8 years ago

No. No. It is a total joke, outdate, archaic. I was written in a different age in a different context. It also does not work very well. It allows for the wealthy to dominate. The constitution outlines how things are suppose to work but in reality the details were left to be worked out by the capitalists who perverted it. Other problems: Bicameral legislature, outdated parliamentary rules, electoral college, elections, and other fundamental things. At the very least, we need parliamentarian system. Our system is controlled by plutocrats, the wealthy class who have hijacked it and exploit it by controlling the politicians through money and bribes and the good life. It was founded in an largely agrarian and mercantile world with slavery and only propertied classes voting. Nowadays, it does not even function. It malfunctions. It is corrupt, dysfunctional and bereft of ethics and concern for the welfare of the majority of people. The Financiers largely control it. They represent less than 1/2% of the population. It should be 99.5% or 99.8% not 99%. And of course, much of the 99% are brainwashed to believe in the fantasy of competition versus cooperation. Sorry, we are a cooperative species without a large group of shared identities. And, ultimately, the largest category of humans is humanity and fundamental shared spirituals values. This is one world, one family. And it is our ultimate destiny to help one another. That is the most sane, the most noble, the most equitable system. It is where most people can be content, complete, and have freedom balanced by justice and equality. It may take a while, even a few hundred years. But that is the goal of healthy and successful living for the mass of humanity. Capitalism must be regulated, controlled and limited by the concern for humans and organic life. We live to work, not work to live.

[-] 1 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

Its created the most successful civilization in history and you claim it to be archaic and not effective. What a sad state we live in when the general public can't even recognize what is around them and how it came to be. Can I see some proper ID Sanchez?

[-] 1 points by Sanchez (76) 8 years ago

Saying the Constitution created a successful Civilization is like saying my driver's license created a great driver: in other words, totally non-sensical. It is probably not worth it since you are a dogmatist but (sigh, oh well, here goes). There are many factors that account for the success of any civilization, great or not. The most obvious in American history are the following: 1) Resources, mostly untouched; 2) No previous great civilization in existence, hence no cultural fetters; 3) Land to be taken from the natives who were killed off by disease or war; 4) Cheap labor-slavery, indentured, women & children, immigrants (all considered property); 5) A constant source of very cheap and exploitable labor-immigrants; 6) the hard work and inventions of many Americans; 7) Virtually no competition in the hemisphere; 8) A collection of bankers, merchants, landed aristocracy & industrialists who wielded great power and essentially controlled the govt. apparatus and used or abused it as they saw fit; 9) a strong military that eliminated the Indians, took Mexican and Spanish lands and threatened Europe with the Monroe Doctrine which said that everything is our hemisphere was to be in our sphere of influence, warning Europeans to fuck off; 10) a capitalistic system that eventually gave rise to the pre-eminent world power after those in Europe were decimated or worn out by war.

I doubt you will even reflect on this and digest it (as most dogmatists do) and will react emotionally. You probably do not know your history very well (most do not) other than the simple brain-washing you got as a student in high school (assuming you took no history classes in college). I am a student of history and politics for forty years. I make it my business to have reflected on matters social and economic since I have been a radical for that time period. For most people, their credentials are pieces of paper that allow them to establish credibility with the Power Structure which allows them entry into the normative world as long as they do not rock the boat, so to speak. Those who speak truth to power get screwed most of the time. There is a great tradition of radicals who fought the power structures in this country and forced the powers that be to make reforms. Abolitionists, suffragettes, workers, unions, those in the civil rights and peace movements: all worked to help fashion a more civil and just society most often against men of power who sought to deny basic rights to nearly every one of them. Those who follow the Constitution today like those before them seek to stop change, reform and progress and have done so only the the mass movements of the people and progressive leaders.

[-] 1 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

Well first let me apologize for my ID remark. I honestly thought you were another troll. It is refreshing to meet someone who shares such zeal for history even if we stand on different perspectives of it. Together sir we can ensure those injustices do not happen again by educating others but they are hardly reason to get rid of the Constitution. Lets be honest, its awesome. Men however, are not. We dont need another Trail of Tears to teach us about how cruel we can be. However, despite our conquering nature we also helped to spread forms of democracies globally to intercept and reject communism which is way worse than anything we ever did in America. I do enjoy a good debate and no Im no dogma queen, I am just a Patriot at heart, an honest one.

[-] 1 points by Sanchez (76) 8 years ago

Okay. But the Constitution is seriously flawed. First, it was crafted by men of a particular class who sought to protect their status. Second, compromises meant the creation of a system which is more easily manipulated. The bicameral legislature is a thing of the past, archaic. Fifty state govts. make governance that much more difficult and challenging. We need a parliamentary system. The Senate allows states with very small populations to be over-represented in the Senate. The fact I often use to demonstrate this absurdity and injustice, is the following: the ten top populated states with a total population of over half that of the U.S. have as many senators as the 10 least population states with a population of about 3% of the population of the country. These under-populated states tend to be more rural and more conservative. The Senate, in effect, should be abolished. To designate states as having 'rights' makes no sense in modern times, if it every did. We understand how the Founding Fathers designed things because of compromise. But particularly in the 21st century, it is a bad idea. Other things that have to go: electoral college, filibuster and other parliamentary rules which make governing near impossible. I advocate a Voters' Bill of Rights to include 10-12 reforms including, for example: public financing, voting on Sundays, a paper-trail, no advertising, etc.

The country needs Major Reforms in its electoral, legislative, financial and tax systems to just begin to address problems, corruption, manipulation and injustices. The Constitution is a framework most often ignored by the powerful or manipulated by them. To give but one tiny example of how bad things have gotten: after the S&L crisis in the late 1980s, over a 1000 bankers were indicted and found guilty. In the recent banking scandals, not one banker was indicted. This, because Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all protected these abuses. The first two because they contributed to the changes in laws that allowed such corrupt practices and the Obama because the Powerful are just too dangerous to fuck with (he wants to be re-elected). The space here is all to brief to detail the true nature of our govt. which is Plutocratic in nature and generally with some exceptions, has always been.

[-] 1 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

Im all about banishing the electoral college. Our votes don't even count. I disagree about the states rights. Why shouldnt a sparsley populated state have equal representation? That just leads to manipulating the few. I also believe the men who framed the Constitutiin were of the best 'class'leadership and more like them would make this country great again. Men like Andrew Jackson would never have allowed a central bank in the first place. What is different in the 20th century other than demographics which are afforded not any attention as "all men are created equal..." Technology shouldn't matter. Men are still just as flawed and greedy. Foreign interest in our country through subversion and corruption are just as great.

[-] 1 points by Sanchez (76) 8 years ago

"Why shouldnt a sparsley populated state have equal representation? That just leads to manipulating the few." WTF!!!!!!! Dude, like, do you realize this makes no sense?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

My greatest concern is one of demographics; the minorities have polarized in the cities. Which is really cool. But as a result they are possessed of the ability to actually take an election with but a minority vote. And no minority should ever rule a majority.

You know freedom is all about the ability to tell someone to go fuck themselves. And when government starts telling me that I have to take food off my table to provide "social justice," I'm going to claim personal justice, protected by state's rights, and tell them to go fuck themselves. That's what freedom's all about. And here in America we ain't given it up without one hellacious fight.

[-] 1 points by Sanchez (76) 8 years ago

the only reason we have state's rights is due to the particular history of our nation. the concept of giving rights to a state as if that state represented some different humans with different interests, is, of course, logically absurd. with 13 colonies and some with lower populations, the smaller ones thought (apparently, although i have not read this through primary sources) that they would be outvoted by larger states. Of course, this still makes no sense. Why would people in one state have specific interests more than the whole population of another state? logically, it does not hold up; farmers in two adjacent states have more in common that farmers and merchants within a single state....and so on and so forth; the real reason probably lies in slavery and the fear that the larger populated southern states who could could slaves as 2/3s of a person would have more power (i don't know but it makes sense). This minority ruling a majority is gobbledygook. What minority are you referring to. The minority of what. If you went to a meeting and the majority voted on something and passed it, would it make sense to immediately voice opposition because the majority is ignoring the minority; the argument is specious in the extreme. Majority rules, pure and simple. Next, people like you will want the winners in a football game to give the other team one last chance because they are so close, only winning by four points in football, say. The 600,000 people in Wyoming have as many senators as the 30 plus million in california. this is one reason why our system is so dysfunctional. I suggest if you are a christian, you go back and read the new testament where jesus talks about helping the poor; you sound like a very self-centered, selfish, rightwing fucking asshole

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Its logical because there is no such thing as national economy. We exist as a series of local regional economies which have merely expanded our base as a result of improved transportation. The political interests of those on eastern Long Island are not the same as those of LA, and in fact, might be in direct opposition.

All politics is economic. All government is economic at its core. It is how we allocate access to resources. America's "freedom" is resources. Because we cannot live without resources.

What states represent are the maximum ability to defend. If the people who inhabited New Mexico had attempted to establish their borders further into Texas, they would have met the opposition of those regional people that were inhabiting Texas. And, in fact, border wars raged everywhere for years. The need and desire for these borders still exist because of the local and regional economies that have developed within.

What the state actually represents is a regional or territorial people. The original 250 tribes of Native Americans were themselves states, as the maximum ability of a territorial and regional people to defend and protect. Confederated, as in the Iroquois League of Nations, they are a "nation."

I'm not going to defend the failure of Virgina and the Carolinas to emancipate, and then allocate the vote to blacks, with the signing of the Constitution. The reason it did not occur is that slavery was forcibly introduced, promoted, maintained, by an English merchant class closest to the Crown intent on profit. This is mercantilism, the political economy. And it legally owned the South as an extension of the Crown. Slavery, as a form of feudalism, developed over a period of many generations as a viable, albeit somewhat inefficient, economic means, just as it had heretofore existed in most parts of the world; it served to support a minor aristocracy which freed them from the necessity of labor. Slavery was incorporated into economic logic, and therefore incorporated as the polity, and when these two forces sat down to negotiate a more perfect union, they met as diametrically opposed.

Had it not been for that one statement, of all men are created equal, held in awe with a northern religious righteousness, which Jefferson had plagiarized having previously spent years in philosophical consideration of (he repeatedly attempted to have slavery outlawed in VA; he was denied by the Crown), abolitionism would have never even gained a voice. And the black man in America would be enslaved to this very day. And so would the poor white man. That's not to say the Civil War would not have occurred - it may very well have - because politics is economic at its core and there were difficulties.

What you are attempting to do, is usurp the minority opinion, as possessed of equal power, of a Wisconsin, when it is in fact, it is the very pluralism of America that has afforded the minority any voice at all. If you take that minority opinion from a Wisconsin, you will marginalize all minority opinion.

[-] 1 points by Sanchez (76) 8 years ago

The states are an outdated concept and the borders nonsensical. This framework was founded, as I said, simply due to the unique founding of our nation-having been 13 colonies each with a charter from the King. They are not unique any more than cities are unique or individuals which is to say everything is unique. The senate owes its existence to this together with the founding fathers desire to control the destiny of the country should it ever really decide to take democracy or republicanism seriously. Note the obstacles they put in the way. Legislatures were to select senators, not the 'people.' The so-called protection of minorities was more a ruse to dupe the people into believing that the 'Fathers' were really concerned with minorities. Yeah, sure. So, real minorities like Slaves, Indians and women (the last actually a majority numerically), workers had their RIGHTS assiduously protected by the majority[this is sarcasm], (we might ask ourselves what majority by the way). The country, for all its blather about minority rights has done a pretty shitty job of protecting them without the constant battle of said minorities to fight for the obvious. The most outstanding examples being Blacks, Women and Workers. The Black man would be enslaved till this day???? WTF??? You think that rebellion would not have broken out all over the South? The farmers in Wisconsin and MIchigan have more in common with each other than these two states. Teachers in California and New York have more in common than those two states. How the hell do you think the Germans, French, Danes, Canadian deal with minorities? You think they ignore them? Well, yes, the parliamentarian system is obviously much better. Mexico which adopted our system is totally fucked up. Our system is dysfunctional in the extreme and only functions superficially according the the Constitution. Real Power is in the Corporations and the Moneyed class (.2% of the population) which has an influence and dominance over the body politic way beyond its puny numbers. The elections are for show, domestic political consumption, to convince the people that they have the power to change things. That is the fantasy and most people have bought it through inculcation, brainwashing and the psychological need to think we are better than others: the pathological psychology that instructs us to be patriotic and to accept as dogma the bullshit fed to us by politicians and teachers. Dude, you need to awaken from your sleep. The Plutocracy loves the fact that the people are mesmerized by the Constitution and its supposed outline of "how our wonderful government works." This fantasy keeps people from understanding who really runs and controls things. And it ain't you or me. If you do not understand that then there is not even any hope of a reasonable discussion.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

What I see in your babble is, first, an attempt to usurp state rights. Secondly, it is an attempt to usurp majority opinion in Congress in the form of the bicameral legislature. Because you are not happy with the current state of affairs. This is the very reason it was created, to ensure that minority opinion was not forced upon a majority.

Your explanation of the state is juvenile because it neglects the fact that we are a territorial creature. Each and every one of us is a government unto ourselves, and also a state unto ourselves, in the sense that we all require approximately one square meter of habitation. And we will all defend our right to inhabit that one square meter; only through conquest can you displace another. We are heterosexual; we require a mate to reproduce - that's two square meters. We will have, say, four children; that six square meters. And since we are a communal species whose very existence is dependent on others, well, you get the picture... We are conjoined; possessed of common belief and a common economic logic, combined it forms the cohesive bond. Together we will defend our right to inhabit this territory. And years will go by and new generations will be born; inevitably resources will be challenged, schism will develop, and some will leave to inhabit more remote areas as an extension of ourselves. And we will continue to do this until one day we meet another people; also intent on steadfastly defending their territory. This is a "state'; the maximum defensible boundary of a territorial people. And this was the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, Virginia; South Carolina and Georgia, etc... it was the Abenaki, the Dakota Sioux; and it was Chiapas, and Chihuahua, on and on, all and all, and all the world was inhabited by states of territorial peoples.

To confederate by mutual agreement to the benefit of all, and establish some central authority, for the purpose of combined defense, or to facilitate interstate trade, etc., is one thing. But to suggest that a federal government might have the authority to transfer the economic right from one state to another is absurd. Because we are still human; we still have presence; we require our space and therefore economic logic. We are biologically programmed to defend that space, our presence, our logic, to the death. Any state that does not defend its economic right must eventually cease to exist as a state. And that is exactly why half of Mexico in living in my backyard right now. Because they failed to defend themselves.

We're a compassionate people. You want to know why? Because we can afford to be. You want us to help you out? We'll bring our troops home; we'll send them into Mexico and South America; we'll label it a "humanitarian mission" - because it is - and we'll give that country back to it's people; we'll return you to the state of your state rights. Because right now, if you are living outside the law in America... you are living in a "state of nature" with no protections whatsoever. Don't attack the government that through strength of law has granted you this opportunity for refuge. Join them, and together we can beat this monster. Aren't you tired of being an intermediate culture?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

I don't know, but I think you can hit him with Franklin's argument here. Because Franklin provides all the scientific evidence.

[-] 1 points by amanoftheland (452) from Boston, MA 8 years ago

What version of the constitution are you referring to? Is it the one with or without the original 13th amendment? the more you know about the constitution the less you will like it.........

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 8 years ago

What version of the constitution are you referring to?

The one that is in effect right now. I think that was self-evident in the OP's question.

Also if you are referring to the 3/5 ths clause, it was originally supposed to count slaves as "0" in order to weaken the Slave states power in Congress, and encourage them to free the slaves to become full citizens (and then they would count as 1). Of course the slave states realized that's what was going on, and threatened to never join the new union. Thus a compromise was reached.

[-] 1 points by amanoftheland (452) from Boston, MA 8 years ago

you Sir are lacking in constitutional knowledge, http://www.trosch.org/law/13th-amendment.html Your tattered constitution in not what your were led to believe. Also I thing its worth pointing out that the constitution created federalism and came into being 1n 1789 a full 13 years after 1776. Not one drop of colonist blood was spilled for the constitution.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

But feudalism speaks to property rights and labor, and not government. Labor rights are an entirely different issue.

[-] 1 points by amanoftheland (452) from Boston, MA 8 years ago

Please read again FEDERALisim not feudalisim

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

The Constitution guaranteed only republican form of government. The feudalism that you speak of did not arrive by way of the Constitution as a matter of government, but by way of property rights and the lack of labor law.

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 8 years ago

And even if it was ratified, why does it matter? Politicians would simple refuse titles of nobility, or pensions, etc from foreign powers. It would be a null issue.

If it concerns you so much, just tally the number of state ratifications as of today and see if it passed. It would then be amended effective 2011.

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 8 years ago

It's not "missing".

It was never ratified. Like the Equal Rights Amendment.

[-] 1 points by amanoftheland (452) from Boston, MA 8 years ago

Did you even bother to read the link? "Therefore, the 13th Amendment's official date of ratification would be the date of re- publication of the Virginia Civil Code: March 12, 1819." Not to mention the publication of the Amendment in various state law books as late as 1860. I myself have seen copies of it in Colorado territory laws from the 1850's

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 8 years ago

Pbulication of VA Code does not mean it was ratified. You would need to dig into the VA Legislature's notes and find the actual vote tally to see if it was passed.

[-] 1 points by amanoftheland (452) from Boston, MA 8 years ago

ROLF, You really need to go back to propaganda school. Nothing gets printed in the laws of a state unless its passed by law makers as law. Since VA was the last state needed to pass it then it was ratified. they printed it therefore prima facie evidence exists.

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 8 years ago

13th amendment scam - http://www.quatloos.com/13th_amendement.htm

Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999

From: Larry Becraft <becraft@hiwaay.net

When Bill Benson and I tried to rip the 16th amendment out of the constitution, I had to immerse myself into the law of ratification of amendments. First, an amendment's ratification is a decision committed to the political branch of the government, meaning the Congress. The President and the courts play no role in the ratification process. When an amendment is proposed in the typical manner, states ratify the amendment and send notice of ratification to the Secretary of State. Once a sufficient number of states ratify, the Secretary of State proclaims its adoption. The number of states required to ratify are not limited to those in the Union at the time of the amendment's proposal. Although there is no litigated decision on the point, the accepted scholars declare that states admitted after the proposal of an amendment must likewise join in the ratification process. It seems that the courts would agree with these scholars.

In reference to the "missing" 13th amendment, I have over the years had a number of people mail me material regarding the issue, which I have studied. In order to prevail on this argument, the proponents must refuse to count states that entered the Union after this amendment was proposed; they limit the number needed for ratification to those in the Union when this amendment was proposed in 1810. But even with this invalid limitation of the number of states needed to ratify, the proponents admit that they cannot prove that Virginia ratified. All they have are published copies of constitutions of the period that include this amendment. You cannot prove that an amendment was ratified without having the actual state ratifications of sufficient number to meet the constitutional threshold. But further, you need a proclamation from the Secretary of State of ratification. The proponents do not have this essential proof of ratification. While this issue is an interesting study, there is no substance to it.

But the proponents also desire to make other wild claims. While titles of nobility are limited to titles like prince, princess, duke, etc., (I don't know all the various names) they expand this definition to things like "honor" and "esquire," from which they draw the conclusion that lawyers have a title of nobility. Go ask any lawyer if "esquire" is a title given him by some monarch and he will tell you the same thing I am telling you now: he has no title given to him by a monarch. These terms are just customary salutations and clearly are not titles of nobility. (second half of letter truncated)

~ Larry Becraft

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 8 years ago

this 13th Amendment Scam has been thoroughly de-bunked time and time again by a number of qualified and accredited researchers, probably most thoroughly by Jol A. Silversmith in his work: “The Real Titles of Nobility Amendment FAQ”, appearing at http://www.thirdamendment.com/nobility.html and his “The ‘Missing Thirteenth Amendment’: Constitutional Nonsense and Titles of Nobility” at http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 8 years ago

re has been a lot of discussion over the years about the fact that this Amendment was established to prohibit members of the BAR Association from participating in government offices.

If that were the sole purpose for this Amendment it is wasted energy. Our Founding Fathers were much more straight forward than that.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time: and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office. - Article I, Section 6, Paragraph 2 - Constitution for the United States of America

This provision was established to maintain the clear dividing line that had been drawn between the three branches of the government. Violation of this provision create a direct conflict of interest because members of the BAR would be officers of the court in the Judiciary branch and members of the legislature in the Legislative branch.

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 8 years ago

"Nothing gets printed in the laws of a state unless its passed by law makers as law."

Mistakes happen. In my own State I found an error in the published tax code. After a couple calls, it was confirmed that the printer made an error. BESIDES it should be easy enough to dig through VA Legislature's archives and find the 13th amendment vote. The ayes and nays.

[-] 1 points by amanoftheland (452) from Boston, MA 8 years ago

error in the tax code vs. error in constitutional amendments. The tax code is huge, the constitutional amendment is 2 or 3 paragraphs. Also you are ignoring the fact that from 1819 till 1860 the first 13th amendment was published many times over in various State and territory law books. See the following: Word of Virginia's 1819 ratification spread throughout the States and both Rhode Island and Kentucky published the new Amendment in 1822. Ohio first published in 1824. Maine ordered 10,000 copies of the Constitution with the 13th Amendment to be printed for use in the schools in 1825, and again in 1831 for their Census Edition. Indiana Revised Laws of 1831 published the 13th Article on p. 20. Northwestern Territories published in 1833. Ohio published in 1831 and 1833. Then came the Wisconsin Territory in 1839; Iowa Territory in 1843; Ohio again, in 1848; Kansas Statutes in 1855; and Nebraska Territory six times in a row from 1855 to 1860.

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 8 years ago

Whatever. As my posts above show, the 13th amendment was never ratified. It's a scam (see the letter from Attorney Becraft).

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

People need to get off this slavery kick. Seriously. Because the Constitution totally neglected all of the white slaves that were traditionally sold on blocks right along side the African. Why is there no mention of this in our history books? The fact that we had blacks amongst our slave population, exasperated with the invention of the cotton gin, has totally distorted both the historical focus of our American history, including slavery, but also all of the conversation that proceeds from it.

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 8 years ago

White slavery had been abolished several decades before the constitution was written in 1786.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Absolutely not. It existed well into the mid 1800s, and in the form of child labor, right into the early 1900s. You need to do your history.

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 8 years ago

A slave is someone who is treated as property (non-human). Your example is not slavery, especially since the child is being paid for his/her labor.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

I think you need to rethink what you just said.

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 8 years ago

No. I see no problem with what I said.

If a person is paid for his labor, he is being compensated. No rights violated.

If a person is not being paid, only then has his labor has been stolen (near slavery).

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

The fallacy of your argument lies within this: all slavery is voluntary and that included the African. And also those millions of whites that were simultaneously sold to the Muslims, 50% of which were immediately castrated as eunuchs, one quarter of them either bleeding to death or dieing of infection. And those hundreds of thousands of poor that were sold into the North American colonies. Many of whom, opted for death over transport.

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 8 years ago

all slavery is voluntary and that included the African

Probably the dumbest thing I've read this year. Yeah the Africans volunteered to be kidnapped from their home, drug 5000 miles away, and to become property in the US or UK rather than be free. Yep. Uh huh. Sure.

And Spartacus really loved being a slave under the Roman empire. That's why he was happy and obedient... oh wait, he wasn't. He rallied thousands to rebel and demand freedom.

Whatever.

Nutjob. You probably think 9/11 was an inside job done by the pentagon too. You're sick in the head.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Slavery was an integral part of African culture, yes. The whites were much more prone to suicide; the Native American was virtually impossible to enslave because they both refused to work and simply disappeared.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 8 years ago

I do believe we need a Social Contract amongst each other, so yes we should follow the Constitution. Do I think it is relevent? No. It can be changed and it's not based on science. To think our society is the last society is really closed-minded.

[-] 0 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

It's timeless and has gotten us this far. We only began to fail when we started to move away from in 1913 with the Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment. What are we supposed to be open minded to? Communism, genocide, imperialist banking cartels? The only things lying outside of the Constitution are the very evils that wish to destroy us.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 8 years ago

Communism, genocide, imperialist banking cartels? Are these our only options? Capitalism and the constitution are only ideas, they are not bounded by any physical law. Like I said before we need a contract to live by, but the Constitution has been trampled on so much that we can't take it literallly. Our fore fathers left the option to amend the Constitution for a reason; because they knew the world would change. Since the Constitution is only enforced upon those that don't have the ability to change laws, we have to assume it's flexible. And we have to preserve the laws that apply to the majority and disregard the laws that have been abused by the few. I am on your side; our Social Contract has been broken over and over again. But, some rules are meant to be broken and we can't view the Constitution as scripture.

[-] 0 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

The Constitution created a social contract as you call it. This contract applies to men. Times have changed but men have not, only their tricks.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 8 years ago

Unfortunately, corporations have rights under this contract so that just shows that it can be manipulated. I'm not saying we throw it out, but I'm just saying we shouldn't treat it as scripture.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

All associations of people have a right to express a collective opinion. Without this freedom of speech the political party would not exist, news stations could not broadcast, and the OWS would not exist as a politically expressive non-profit entity. You are an incorporation, defined under tax law, as a non-profit. This is all besides the point, Citizens United is very narrow in scope - it applies to the right to use electronic means within 30 days of an election.

The Dems fear this right because they know we are going to broadcast again within 30 days of the next election.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 8 years ago

There is a big difference between people expressing their opinion and giant corporations buying opinions. The people of the corporations have individual rights, but the corporations should not share the same rights. A corporations entire existence should be to divide our labor and make lives easier. The corporation doesn't have thoughts or feel pain. The corporation doesn't need basic necessities in life. The people do. What is the point of having a corporation if it's not serving people's needs?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

The incorporated village is a corporation entirely intent on serving the needs of a community of people. They are everywhere in the US.

The non-profit is a corporation of people intent on serving the needs or interests of people. Again, they're everywhere. More, they exist for the sole purpose of avoiding income tax. They exist in many forms - religious organizations, social organizations, labor organizations, political parties. OWS is itself a not-for-profit.

What you seem focused on is a business entity. It's entire purpose is to separate the creator from the business. And for this reason they are theoretically taxed at a higher rate.

One vote for every tax payer - the ultimate expression of political opinion. And the corporation does not get a vote. For this reason, they attempt to persuade.

But free speech is free speech. And all have a right as associations of people to express a political opinion. But expressing opinion does not equate to buying legislation because obviously if they are expressing opinion they already own the politician. This is not how corporations operate; their activities are of a clandestine form.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 8 years ago

I can see the distinction you are making between an incorporated village, non-profit and for-profit, but these can not be lumped together in one category. An incorporated village holds elections for representatives, although sometimes they don't operate in our best interests, but these corporations have rights under our constitution because they were created through the democratic process. I am only focusing on the business corporation because they have constutional rights that serve their interests, but are not bounded by the rights of the individuals of the corporation. If they felt that they deserve the right to free speech, then the people of the corporation should have constitutional rights within the corporation. If someone exercised their right to free speech and protested the corporation, they would be fired. This is like saying if a person protested the incoporated city they are from, then the city can throw them out. It sounds ridiculous, but if we are going to lump business and city corporations together, these are the questions we need to ask.

If business corporations feel they deserve constitutional rights, they should not be allowed to pick and choose what part of the constitution they are going follow. If they want rights that is perfectly fine, but then the people need to have rights within the corporation. To me personally, it's just silly to give a private dictatorship constitutional rights and the people of the corporation aren't 100% protected by these same rights. This is an oxymoron but people never even think much about it.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

These corporations do not have rights under the Constitution. You need to actually read and study Citizens United.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 8 years ago

When someone asks for literature that means they are cordial to your cause. Don't be a condescending dick when they ask for it. I looked up what you mentioned and are you seriously defending this?

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

183 pages... As you read this, if you are unfamiliar with the legal terminology, or anything that pertains, it's also available on the Internet. You will be at a definite disadvantage if you do not understand it.

I wasn't entirely satisfied with Clarence Thomas but overall I was very satisfied with the way it was dissected, and the overall response, yes. This is definitely a free speech issue and I am not at all in favor of limiting or chilling free speech. And I would add to this that I consider myself a strict Constitutionalist.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 8 years ago

Sure I'll take a look. Do you have any good links?

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Do you know how to say, "gooo- guhl"?

[-] 0 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

It absolutely applies to all Americans and applied correctly would not even be in question. The Constitution is not the problen, the inability to adhere to it is. There is nothing wrong with getting rich. There is everything wrong with using wealth to influence legislature.

[-] 1 points by ddiggs690 (277) 8 years ago

Now we can agree on that.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Anywhere where business interests are permitted to exist and government attempts to regulate their behavior, there will be attempts to buy favor. It doesn't matter what kind of government exists, it's going to occur.

[-] 1 points by Dalton (194) 8 years ago

I have.

As to supporting it, what do you mean? I'm glad we have one, but that isn't to say I wouldn't like an amendment or two.

[-] 1 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

If you support it then the answer this movement seeks can be condensed into a clear message of "Cut back to the Constitution". It's very simple.

[-] 1 points by Dalton (194) 8 years ago

I think you'll find we need some actual laws as well ...

[-] 1 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

We have too many laws. I would suggest simplifying elected officials to not having been a member of any organization that allows foreign interest membership and that once elected to President an individual must resign any party, public, or private club memberships to show true representation of all the people.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 8 years ago

The constitution had good intentions however it was based on a double standard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSJmYnHdvsc

It was created within a monetary system. Money itself creates inequality, requires scarcity, is based on debt, and promotes corrupt forms of behavior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDXD4amBa_Q

The economic system must be updated to promote collaborative forms of behavior. A resource based economy would accomplish this however it would also require a different form of decision-making (government) which utilizes science and direct democracy. Therefore the original purpose of the constitution would remain (liberty) but the method of accomplishing it would be updated.

[-] 0 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

We had all that with the power for Congress to print and issue currency. We effed up by giving it over to a private bank. We just need to repeal the 16th amendment and Federal Reserve Act. Also see Executive Order 1110, the main reason JFK was assassinated.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 8 years ago

I agree that we had a much better system before the private central bank was established.

Although I believe that kind of corruption was a direct result of the competition based system.

In a competitive system (like the monetary system) groups will do everything to gain power and even if lobbying is outlawed, new methods will be developed, and/or laws will be repealed/enacted.

e.g. Rockefeller funded a group to lobby for the Volstead act which started prohibition. This was because Ford wanted to create cars with engines that ran on alcohol rather than oil. People back then would have been able to create their own fuel and more cars today could be running on ethyl alcohol had it not been for prohibition.

Money itself is based on debt and promotes inequality. It is only necessary as a means of coercing people to perform tasks they dislike. We can automate most of those tasks which are necessary for society today. That would free up the rest of the necessary functions for volunteers. (That's 'if' money didn't restrict access to everything)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2xVey00nMI

[-] 1 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

Unless most of the worlds population disappears we are stuck with money. Rockefeller said "competition is a sin" by which he meant literally in that all elitists should work toward a common goal: world domination. Competition keeps prices low and innovation up. Monopolies are the culprits of what you speak of.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 8 years ago

That isn't necessarily true.

Money is simply the socially accepted form of distributing goods and services. There exist gift economies which function just as well however they lack the technologies which enable a higher quality of life. Many groups live without money and one group in particular, The venus project, is attempting to create a test city which provides human necessities abundantly so no money is required.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy

The elitists are still working within a competitive frame-set pitting themselves against people they consider 'lower class'. Monopolies are only bad because they exist within a competitive system. So one group gains an advantage by abusing another.

The same monopoly in a collaborative system has an incentive to aid the other group. We don't see this because we only see competitive money monopolies.

Also innovations increase as larger groups collaborate and provide feedback. e.g. open source movements

[-] 1 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

A monopoly is bad because it cannot be competed with. Outside of capitalism a monopoly is knowm as an Oligarchy which is the most common form of government, ie: power held by an elite few....communist dictatorial tyrranies.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 8 years ago

That once again is in a competitive atmosphere.

"Communist" countries had banks, had a military, and used money.

It relied on forcing people to perform menial tasks they disliked. In this way the few elites running the state were competing against the personal interests of the people.

The intention for equality in such a government could never occur because there was no direct democracy, no feedback from the people. And technology was not utilized to free people from menial labor. Their society would never become equal because it utilized money which itself promotes inequality.

There are however working examples of collaborative societies: look at gift economies

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

What about reproductive rights? Are we going to gift that too? Because if we don't, I see some serious problems developing here in the world of equal.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 8 years ago

Give an example of a problem

Addressing overpopulation or is it something else?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

It's the very dynamics of the male/ female relationship itself. It will totally undermine your fantasy of resource equity.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 8 years ago

How so?

The distinction between males and females are exaggerated through advertising. Yes, there are obvious physiological differences however all of these differences have been associated to male-centric or female-centric activities and products.

Girls and guys learn what it means to be masculine or feminine based on their culture. The same can be said about 'appropriate' relationship dynamics.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

I'm talking about inter-actional dynamics, not physiological distinctions.

[-] 1 points by RicoSuave (218) 8 years ago

Many people are putting blame on politicians for deviating from our intended constitutional government. Yes, they share a lot of blame.

What I don't see coming out of this movement is any criticism of the branch of government that has done the MOST damage in bastardizing The Constitution.

That would be the Judicial Branch.

The Judicial Branch has done far more damage to our constitutional republic than Congress.

It is far easier to repair damage done by previous sessions of Congress in a new session of Congress, then it is to repair damage done to the republic by the Judicial Branch.

The Judicial branch is FAR TOO POWERFUL and has taken that power for itselves.

There really is no "checks and balances" in the three branches of American government. The Judicial Branch has long claimed superiority.

If you want to make change .... that has to change.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

example ; FDR and his court packing scheme. That whole era was a shame sadly

[-] 1 points by RicoSuave (218) 8 years ago

Very true.

One of the few things I liked about FDR was that he vehemently opposed public sector unionization.

He knew the dangers it posed to the taxpayers.

[-] 1 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

You are correct and they do need to be publicly ostracized for their actions or inaction's as well.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Actually it would be impossible, very difficult, for Congress to overturn the Supreme Law of the land. It simply does not have the authority to do that despite Obama's past allusions to a "committee."

[-] 1 points by CancelCurrency (128) 8 years ago

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

There's 70 million armed citizens in this country who believe wholeheartedly in the right to bear arms. Try taking their Constitution or their government. Or even their state rights. Really, go for it. You know, I mean we're not talking minor insurrections here centered in the cesspools which are our cities. By the time they're done they'll not only own this country, Canada will be annexed and we'll be drinking tequila laced margaritas in Mexico City.

[-] 1 points by drcumella (15) 8 years ago

It didn't age well.

[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 8 years ago

yes. Im a Mexican-American. I came here because of the Constitution.

[-] 1 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

God bless you sir, you truly embody the spirit of America! Do you support amnesty for illegal aliens?

[-] 1 points by moediggity (646) from Houston, TX 8 years ago

Yeah and yeah of course!

[-] 1 points by Teacher (469) 8 years ago

Yes and yes. I think we might add an amendment or two, specifically term limits for congress and ending money in politics.

[-] 1 points by lkart5 (84) from Red Bank, NJ 8 years ago

Ah and you may get it if a big enough push from this movement calls for use of Article V. We can get our amendments if we so choose!

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 8 years ago

At this point the Tea Party would steamroller any constitutional convention. OW has to grow (not a hostile criticism). OW is not ready organizationaly to take on the well funded, professionaly led and disciplined Tea Party in such a venue right now.

[-] 1 points by amanoftheland (452) from Boston, MA 8 years ago

constitutional conventions are dangerous in a country where the people are fractured and ignorant. If we opened a constitutional convention we would end up being a state of the UN.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Worse than that; this would be a dictatorship because the mistakes introduced would erode the very things that prevent it.

[-] 1 points by amanoftheland (452) from Boston, MA 8 years ago
[-] 1 points by lkart5 (84) from Red Bank, NJ 8 years ago

Surprise, but there are some in the Tea Party that want a convention. Remember that they demanded a balanced budget amendment, but they do want to have states rights observed under the constitution. Agree with them or not, I generally dont, but they do believe in the constitution.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

The relationship of fed to the state, as explained by the Founding Fathers, is one of a dual sovereignty - the states exist as co-sovereigns in respect to each other and also the Federal government. The Federal government is only authorized to assume supremacy in respect to but four distinct areas. But what has happened is that people have risen to positions of power in the Fed, with a political agenda, and attempted to force their opinions, through strength of law, on the states. It's not gonna fly.

[-] 1 points by lkart5 (84) from Red Bank, NJ 8 years ago

It may not fly to call on Article V just yet, but with enough ground swell and support behind the idea of a convention, it will no doubt resonate and happen. Then and only then will corruption be rooted out. It is our only recourse, because the government will never offer an amendment to cut their own throats. Campaign finance reform will have to come from the people directly and us using it for the first time in our history is key.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

You're wasting my time.

[-] 1 points by lkart5 (84) from Red Bank, NJ 8 years ago

Tell that to the people here. http://www.foa5c.org

A load to learn there. If you can give me a one liner, I can give you a ton to support my theory. In fact, I am pushing for it.

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 8 years ago

We almost had a convention in 1910(?), but Congress quickly acted to intervene. THEY want to be the ones to write the amendments, so they will be favorable towards Congress. An amendment written by the States in a convention might limit Congressional power, and they certainly don't want that.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

You need to look at the Equal Rights amendment.

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 8 years ago

Why?

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 8 years ago

Have you read any book ever?

[-] 0 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

Yeah the last good one I read other than my Dean Koontz novels was "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. You should check it out.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 8 years ago

I've read Atlas Shrugged. I'm sure you haven't.

[-] 1 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

Because you have a crystal ball that tells you so? I read it last year, my friend and fellow constitutionalist at work recommended it to me. I think it was a great idea but it was flawed in that the businessmen actually had hearts. False paradigm. People need to realize that power centers are just that. Power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately.

[-] 1 points by EndGluttony (507) 8 years ago

Then you know it sucks.

[-] 1 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

It was a thousand page buildup to a romance ending in fairy tale land. However there is some truth that balance needs to be had between corporations and the government. Yes, it did suck but was worth reading.

[-] 0 points by Killumination (80) from Los Angeles, CA 8 years ago

Pizzazz Picasso and the Killumination - Killuminati ft. Gaje http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLUpGGmku8g

Pizzazz Picasso and the Killumination - Change (Killumination version) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SMrnx6nkRw

Pizzazz Picasso and the Killumination - The inevitable incredible truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wg1bH6-1YY

Pizzazz Picasso and the Killumination - The all seeing eye http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgKS4i-u0OM

http://www.reverbnation.com/Killumination

Donate!!!

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=NKRL8TGE95H2Y

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 8 years ago

I've read it and a couple of times in my life I've been compelled to swear that I will defend it,etc (ironically when I was forced into involuntary servitude - the draft 1967 to participate in a war that Congress never declared.) So ask me and I'll tell you what a computer programmer once told me- a system is designed to do what it does! So the Constitution is designed to allow undeclared wars, conscription, surveillance, presidentially decreed executions, etc. So you get my drift.....

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

I've read it; studied it, and every aspect of the impetus that created it. I've also studied the creation of the original thirteen state constitutions, and additionally read the constitution of the thirty seven states which would eventually follow. In reference to the states, I was looking first for a continuity of sorts but also some rather specific things.

I've also studied early English law, and I did this for a reason. There is also some curiosity here respecting English parliamentarianism and German consensus democracy.

I try to follow all Supreme Court cases... My concern is that anything can be challenged, and run up the courts, where a very small panel of so called "Wise Men" has the ability, in effect, to interpret and rewrite it at will. If we are to assume that the Constitution was written in simple and plain language, in an effort to make it accessible to all, and limit ambiguity, with an eye towards affording some maximum freedom, then any additional attempts to legislate or amend must exist in but one of two forms: either it is redundant as the reaffirmation of, or, it serves to limit freedom in the favor of one over another. AND... in this area in particular, any legislation that limits freedom here, favoring one over another, must by its very nature represent a minority opinion, which is in search of force of law; because if it were a majority opinion, by the very nature of the Constitution itself as the guarantor of maximum freedom, there would be no need of any challenge or amendment at all.

I think it's very important that people understand precisely what law is, to define the word precisely; and to understand that this is a Constitutional Republic, a Nation of Law. And to understand what that means. Because a world without law, or one possessed of rather flexible law, is a world that is easily corrupted at will.

I'm going to add to this that I don't like the way budget reconciliation was implemented and twisted to legislate Obamacare. And I find, that it is unconstitutional on at least four grounds, and possibly five, some of which cannot be challenged because the Constitution has been so badly trimmed of its strength.

[-] 0 points by electrictroy (282) 8 years ago

OF COURSE. If only because of Amendments 9 and 10. (Rights and powers are reserved to the People and the People's State Legislatures.) It is what protects us from tyranny.

Now if only we could get Supreme Court Justices that support those amendments too, instead of bending over backwards to explain why the Congress should have power to tell me what kind of Toilet I can put in my house, or prevent me from smoking marijuana while watching the Simpsons. - Any person with sense knows Congress was never granted such far-reaching authority.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

It's getting worse though with the appointment of liberal judges. This triumvirate of Dec, Constitution, and Bill of Rights, is the guarantor of freedom - it's not the hey you gotta register your car kind of legislation - and there is need to conserve, in an effort to preserve, that law.

[-] 0 points by w9illiam (97) 8 years ago

I support most of it if we could just implement it for the first time it would be nice.

[-] 0 points by RichardGates (1529) 8 years ago

i support following it for a change http://www.citicommons.com/resourcs

[-] 0 points by OccupyWallStreetButtons (16) 8 years ago

OCCUPY WALL STREET Pinback Buttons! - only 99 cents

A portion of proceeds will go toward the local movement in the form of food and water. If you have a few extra bucks, drop off a box of apples or anything you can to the folks outside in your community!

Free Shipping Offer! http://buttonbasket.com/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=25

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Isn't it illegal to not uphold and defend the constitution?

[-] 1 points by amanoftheland (452) from Boston, MA 8 years ago

it would be unlawful Illegal pertains to law merchant unlawful pertains to common law. To different animals all together.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

Merchant law is pretty interesting.

[-] 1 points by amanoftheland (452) from Boston, MA 8 years ago

It sure is, it give way to rumors that the peak of MT. McKinley Is actually sea level.............. never been up there to see the marker myself.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 8 years ago

thanks teech

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 8 years ago

Have you?

What if we don't and think it should be reviewed extensively?

[-] 0 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

the bill or rights if 100 percent correct, and lets remember what "congress shall make no law..." means

[-] 0 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

support it almost 90 percent....that income tax amendment is pretty freakin evil

[-] 0 points by Pope (52) 8 years ago

The 16th amendment needs to go.

[-] -1 points by oldfatrobby (129) 8 years ago

No and No.

I was taught at the best public schools there are, and I know that the Founders conspired against minorities, women, and the earth when they wrote the Constitution. They planned on having the earth warm to drown the indigenous peoples of Micronesia. they were bad bad bad people who were never liberated by the modern philosophy of Trotsky and the Beastie Boys.

[-] -1 points by Scout (729) 8 years ago

What the IRS website and the Government in general refuse to recognize is that the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was never ratified by a majority of the States. Only two or less States properly ratified the proposed Amendment.so the IRS is acting illegally!they have no legal power to levy income tax

http://www.libertyforlife.com/constitution/us-16th-failed-ratification.htm