You wrote:
> Dear Keith: Obviously, you are bright. Anyone agreeing with me has to be!
It is obvious to me that you have the arrogance required of a dictator. As for the implication by reference that you are "bright," let us look at some of what you have included in your reply to Keith.
> 1st Amendment: No law shall be made regarding the establishment of peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements shall be secular.
1) I read this to mean that your as yet un-ratified New Constitution already has Amendments attached to it. Am I correct? If so, why are these amendments not included directly in YOUR New Constitution?
2) Who is going to decide whether or not a religion is "peaceful"? A Christian? A Hindu? A Buddhist? An Islamic?
3) Who is going to ensure that "government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements shall be secular"?
4) Who is going to prevent a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic from influencing your secular government?
4) Why do you believe "government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements" need be secular?
> No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: the freedom of speech;
You already abridged the freedom of speech when you declared "government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements shall be secular."
> the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or other medium;
1) Who will determine whether a "press or other medium" is being "fair and pro-democracy"?
2) Why do you believe it necessary for a "press or other medium" to be "pro-democracy"? Democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner.
> the right of People to peaceably assemble; and the right of any Citizen or group to petition government or any of its branches or departments for redress of grievances.
It was nice of you to leave this portion of the 1st Amendment of our current Constitution in tact.
> Citizens so petitioning government shall receive appropriate, relevant, timely, comprehensive, helpful and just responses from proper authorities who have thoroughly read, understood, and addressed each salient aspect of the grievances or requests for directions or clarifications.
1) Who is to determine what constitutes an "appropriate, relevant, timely, comprehensive, helpful and just response"?
2) Who determines a "proper" authority from an "improper" authority?
3) Who will determine whether the "proper authorities" "have thoroughly read, understood, and addressed each salient aspect of the grievances or requests for directions or clarifications"?
I am having too much fun to continue.
Based on what I have read so far, YOUR New Constitution lack constructs such as...
Rule of construction
- If there is any significant doubt concerning whether an official has a power, or a person has an immunity from the exercise of a power, the presumption shall be that the official does not have the power, or conversely, that the person has the immunity.
- No person shall be unreasonably impeded from access to a randomly selected grand jury of 23, who, if they should return an indictment or presentment, may appoint that person or any other to prosecute the case, and shall decide which court, if any, has jurisdiction, and whether any official shall have official immunity from suit.
http://constitution.org/reform/us/con_amend.htm
On 3/2/2011 9:18 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
Dear Keith: Obviously, you are bright. Anyone agreeing with me has to be! But you are weak-spirited to suppose that things can be left going as they are... and the USA will somehow... survive. There are three approximately equal problem areas in the USA: (1.) The horrible and immensely wasteful school systems; (2.) The corrupt, elitist and controlling media; and (3.) our career-politician-dominated governments, seldom deferential to the electorates. Number (2.) is responsible for number (3.). That's why FIXING the media has to be a top priority! Fixing our corrupt governments can happen very quickly following the ratification of my New Constitution. But fixing the media will require monitoring what gets said and done and imprisoning errant individuals, or shutting down any media not conforming to the very clear dictates of my New Constitution. To wit: "Bill of Rights and Amendments: 1st Amendment: No law shall be made regarding the establishment of peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and disbursements shall be secular. No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: the freedom of speech; the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or other medium; the right of People to peaceably assemble; and the right of any Citizen or group to petition government or any of its branches or departments for redress of grievances. Citizens so petitioning government shall receive appropriate, relevant, timely, comprehensive, helpful and just responses from proper authorities who have thoroughly read, understood, and addressed each salient aspect of the grievances or requests for directions or clarifications. Failure to so respond to a rightful petition for redress of a grievance shall, on a single provable instance, terminate the apt one's employment, especially those in management or public office—including judges and justices—who ignore, frustrate or give the run-around to any competent Citizen who has been diligent in having a grievance properly addressed, or in having his or her civil rights fully upheld. No judge or justice shall presume that by performing the above required duties, that they in any way might be compromising their objectivity or fairness in court; justice be not "blind", but well informed. *** Freedom of the press or other medium mandates that there be reasonable truthfulness in reporting. Wanton distortion of the truth, or deliberate omission of the truth—except in cases of obvious fiction or satire—is prohibited. Stating or implying that a particular news medium has a collective voice (we) or position on any issue is prohibited, as for example via: anonymous editorials; regularly occurring accompanying comments; commentary programs financed by, or ideologically screened by, the same news medium; editorials named as being authored by management; editorial comments by others that are in any way ideologically censored, omitted or screened; or by comments occurring at specific times or designated locations that most would come to associate with the management of such medium, even if such are innocuous. No medium shall be a forum for promoting the ideology of its management or owners, nor shall they employ anyone who uses such job to hawk their personal political preferences—at risk of loss of license or closure of the business. Flagrantly editing news to promote the ideology of management is a felony. No medium shall analyze, assess, summarize, or make subjective judgments about any pending election or referendum. Nor shall they invite others outside of the media to do so. But factual, thorough coverage of the candidates or referenda issues—on an as occurs basis—is allowed, provided there are no comments, nor actions, as above, and provided the same unbiased coverage is given to all of the candidates or to all of the referenda issues. It shall be a 10 year felony to repress truthful news reporting in any medium by threatening legal action. No medium can be sued for libel for presenting material authored by others, but if a person is harmed by the medium's content, they shall be allowed to reply—without editing—in that medium. Each medium shall respond to breaking news without considering the response of any other medium. Injuries due to improper news coverage or non coverage shall not be excused by the media response. A medium reporting on government shall do so thoroughly, objectively, and with detachment— being neither laudatory nor critical by form, and not repressing thoughtful dissent nor its coverage. Every medium shall favor the truth over supposition, without parity nor bias. False or deceptive commercial advertising is prohibited. Deliberate use by any candidate, their staffs or election committees, of false or deceptive campaign speeches, slogans, advertisements, humor, or innuendo is a felony. No organization, nor part of the media, nor any special interest group(s) shall in any way endorse a slate of candidates for public office; flagrant violation is a felony. No medium shall display active public records without the free consent of the apt parties." And ... "It shall be a felony for any government official or employee, or any celebrity or media idol—past or present—to publicly endorse or campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office or job. Exhibiting ideological bias in a job terminates the employment. Candidates for public office shall be disqualified for soliciting new voter registrants; and no campaign shall aid or organize the transportation of voters to the polls. Keith, I FIX the media problems, not simply cross-my-fingers and hope the problems go away. I say: If something is BROKE, fix it! Time and again, that's what my New Constitution does! — John A. Armistead — PatriotOn Mar 2, 4:25 am, KeithInSeoul <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
A couple of days ago, John Armistead wrote this: *"When TV first started, everything was live. Reporters went where the news was happening and interviewed people on the scene. Many times those people were so nervous being live on-camera, that they didn't respond well. So, the God-damned media started "interviewing" (conversing with) others on their staff. Today, it is practically unheard of to have a live interview of anyone not employed by the media. What they do is to explain the news event, then give an almost immediate assessment of what that news event means to politics or etc. It all happens so fast that ordinary people don't have time to reason through the implications of a news story before the the media brain-washes them with their slants or spins on the news. An informed electorate is absolutely necessary for having a people-controlled government." * ==== Say what you will, I find this to be very astute, and pretty much on point. There is room for news commentary, and we have always had shows such as "Meet The Press"; which usually came on Sunday mornings, but John's point is well taken. A part of the problem, (if there is a problem) is that we now have 24 hour news channels, which require "filler". Thus, the rise of folks like O'Reilly, Hannity, Olbermann, Maddow, Matthews, etc., etc., etc. But there has also been a blurring of the lines now, and even at the local level;. We have news reporters now commenting and opininig on the news, which was never heard of ten years ago. Anderson Cooper, Britt Hume, Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric; they all "comment and opine" now, versus reporting the news. This is very much a slippery slope. NBC went so far this past election cycle as selling Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as some type of fair and balanced news reporters who were covering elections. I caught it, and I thinik most thinking Americans caught it, but I saw my daughter, (who is a 26 year old Moonbat) and others who viewed Olbermann and Matthews as legitimate news reporters. They are not, and therein lies the danger. I think this is what John points to, and his point is well taken. Whether there needs to be something contained within the Constitution addressing such an issue, is debatable. I would say, "No".
No comments:
Post a Comment