was to transcribe the former into my computer. Try doing that, and you
will realize how few really important things are covered in that
document. My New Constitution saves all of the good stuff, but makes
those things more clearly expressed. Rather than depend on Congress
to pass laws based on a too-short constitution, I expanded the scope
to include things average citizens should know in order to protect
themselves against abuses from government or from businesses. As many
foreign nations have realized, American businesses often haven't
played fair. So, I set minimum standards of fair business practices
here and abroad. For example:
"Laws shall be concise and well defined. If—due to brevity,
simplicity or lack of foresight, etc.—such laws have consequences
outside the intended or implied scope, for justice and expediency, a
judge may decree rightful, specific exceptions without new
legislation. *** Only laws, rules, regulations and procedures that
are in the best interest of the People and the world environment shall
be passed, enacted or enforced, and no business contrary to such shall
be allowed to prosper. *** No business, organization nor alliance
shall use their auspices to sway the House for selfish gain. No
business shall exist that uses computer invasion to coerce sales or to
monitor others—regardless of any disclaimer or pact. There shall be
no discrimination against any law abiding Citizen, business or
organization due to arbitrary categorization. No public nor private
regulation shall require disclosure of a person's stand or vote on any
issue which might cause them discrimination. Laws shall respect the
People's diverse mores without setting arbitrary social standards. No
government shall criminalize behavior that the Public considers to be
innocuous, or is macro-typical, or where government isn't being
deferential to the Public; nor shall they: prosecute victimless crimes
other than gross reckless endangerment; restrict the freedoms of
Citizens through oppressive laws and procedures; enact laws too broad
in scope to address narrow issues; pass laws disallowing any
reasonable criminal defense, or solely at a bureau's request;
selectively or inequitably enforce any laws; impose unfair,
drastically different punishments due to one's sex, race, color, creed
or age; nor sentence someone differently due to their having a prior
criminal record. An arresting officer may reverse such with impunity
at any time, regardless of the forms, procedures or processes begun.
The arrested person shall be freed and the record expunged. Agreeable
restitution to crime victims may, at their option, substitute for the
apt trial."
— NoEinstein —
>
On Feb 15, 11:40 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Einstein,
>
> Over the last year or so I have read every one of your posts.
>
> I find your "Constitution" to be a Knee Jerk reaction to todays world.
> We do not need a Knee Jerk, we simply need compliance in letter and
> spirit to the existing constitution.
>
> On Feb 14, 11:47 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Dear MJ: Your tact and your manners, in general, aren't on a par
> > with
> > your library of worthy quotes from others. Albert Einstein covered
> > for his Moron IQ by memorizing quotes, so he could say those things
> > when apt. Your doing the same thing impresses few, I'm sure. So, I
> > must decline to reply to you in the future. You individual approval
> > of anything in my New Constitution certainly won't be part of the
> > ratification process. — John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
> > On Feb 14, 1:29 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > So you are going to ENDLESSLY spew fallacy?
> > > Why not simply posit your Constitution instead so it can be discussed and we might get somewhere?
> > > Regard$,
> > > --MJIt is amazing how many people think that they can
> > > answer an argument by attributing bad motives to
> > > those who disagree with them. Using this kind of
> > > reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything
> > > about anything, without having to bother to deal
> > > with facts or logic. -- Thomas SowellAt 01:20 PM 2/14/2011, you wrote:On Feb 14, 10:09 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > > Dear MJ: Your tact and your manners, in general, aren't on a par with
> > > your library of worthy quotes from others. Albert Einstein covered
> > > for his Moron IQ by memorizing quotes, so he could say those things
> > > when apt. Your doing the same thing impresses few, I'm sure. So, I
> > > must decline to reply to you in the future. You individual approval
> > > of anything in my New Constitution certainly won't be part of the
> > > ratification process. — John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
> > > > Why you imagine spewing fallacy aids your cause is unknown.
> > > > I can certainly understand WHY you would prefer NOT to support (or attempt to) your efforts or claims.
> > > > Regard$,
> > > > --MJA state of skepticism and suspense may amuse a few inquisitive
> > > > minds. But the practice of superstition is so congenial to the
> > > > multitude that, if they are forcibly awakened, they still regret
> > > > the loss of their pleasing vision.
> > > > -- Edward Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_At 11:36 PM 2/13/2011, you wrote:Dear MJ: Your tact and your manners, in general, aren't on a par with
> > > > your library of worthy quotes from others. Albert Einstein covered
> > > > for his Moron IQ by memorizing quotes, so he could say those things
> > > > when apt. Your doing the same thing impresses few, I'm sure. So, I
> > > > must decline to reply to you in the future. You individual approval
> > > > of anything in my New Constitution certainly won't be part of the
> > > > ratification process. — John A. Armistead — Patriot
>
> > > > On Feb 12, 9:35 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > MJ, you seem to be on-the-fence whether you concur with what I'm
> > > > > doing. I invite your more specific comments, because time does not
> > > > > allow me to be as wordy in future replies. Your "$" salutation amuses
> > > > > I would need to see the TEXT of this Constitution in order to
> > > > > discuss it. I erroneously believed we were discussing the US
> > > > > Constitution ... and then you wanted to instead argue about something
> > > > > I STILL have not seen -- as though I instead had.
> > > > > Post the text already.
> > > > > I will provide the text of something that appears quite workable.
> > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > --MJThe fact that I have no remedy for all the sorrows of the world is no reason for my accepting yours. It simply supports the strong probability that yours is a fake. -- H.L. Mencken
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> > > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
> > > --
> > > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
> > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > > * Read the latest breaking news, and 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment