the next fourteen years making that document to suit your liking.
Then, you can get a referendum on your constitution. My bet is that
you won't get the 60% of the votes required to change even one word of
my already-in-place New Constitution. — J. A. Armistead — Patriot
>
On Mar 28, 11:56 am, Jonathan Ashley <jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
wrote:
> John,
>
> I read Article III of YOUR New Constitution in its entirety yesterday.
> It is both wordy and convoluted.
>
> Let's examine the first line of Section 8:
>
> * It�s a felony for any person, organization, group, or special
> interest � publicly or privately � to lobby judges or justices for
> influencing their rulings; also, for any judge or justice to
> accept a bribe in exchange for a judicial favor.
>
> It took you 39 words to state what can be stated more effectively in 26
> words.
>
> * The lobbying of Members of the Judicial system by any Person is
> prohibited; as is the issuance of Favor by any Member of the
> Judicial system.
>
> In addition to being wordy, YOUR New Constitution fails to provide
> remedy. One can provide such remedy by adding the following:
>
> * Persons found guilty of Lobbying or the issuance of Favor under
> Article III, Section 8, shall be imprisoned for not less than 10
> Years and/or deported.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "'My country, right or wrong' is a thing that no patriot would think of
> saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying 'My mother, drunk
> or sober.'"�Gilbert Keith Chesterton
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On 03/28/2011 07:55 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Folks: Jonathan shows his anti-America ideas with every word he
> > utters. There are no moderators on this group. So, he, MJ and Mark
> > hang-out here because my readership is high. Those who love America
> > are invited to attack these socialist-communists. I have better
> > things to be doing. Thanks! � J. A. A. �
> > On Mar 26, 7:35 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> > wrote:
> >> John,
>
> >> If "naive, pesky losers" like myself failed to ask questions regarding
> >> the excrement self-proclaimed intellectuals like yourself keep spilling
> >> forth, less-discerning individuals in this group might blindly accept
> >> the bull crap you have written.
>
> >> It is /highly/ unlikely that you will ever get the opportunity for an up
> >> or down vote on YOUR New Constitution. I say that because the casinos I
> >> visited during my recent trip to Las Vegas had no idea YOUR New
> >> Constitution even existed. If Vegas doesn't know about it, the masses
> >> necessary for its passage surely don't.
>
> >> In the unlikely event you ever have the opportunity to place YOUR New
> >> Constitution before the voters, it is my belief that ambiguous
> >> provisions such as "Every two years an unbiased review panel shall
> >> apprise the Citizens of the job performance grade, as herein, of seated
> >> judges and justices" and "It is TREASON for a judge or justice to rule
> >> with disfavor on the supremacy of a fair democracy" (both from Article
> >> III, Section 1) will insure more "down" votes than "up" - even from our
> >> dumbed-down society.
>
> >> On 03/26/2011 03:48 PM, NoEinstein wrote:
>
> >>> Jonathan: The only opinions of others that matter are the one-day, up
> >>> or down votes for ratification of my New Constitution. I don't have
> >>> time to explain to a naive, pesky loser like you the sociology and the
> >>> psychology of how and why people make up their minds one way or the
> >>> other. I highly recommend "The Power of Positive Thinking" to you.
> >>> "Great things are never accomplished by the skeptical." � J. A. A.
> >>> �
> >>> On Mar 25, 1:12 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> John,
> >>>> You failed to address "the opinions of others are a necessary requisite
> >>>> for the passage of YOUR New Constitution." How do you envision YOUR New
> >>>> Constitution being enforced when you will never get it instituted?
> >>>> On 03/25/2011 09:53 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>> Dear Jonathan: If I had wanted to have the opinions of others
> >>>>> influence anything, I would have sought public office and had my
> >>>>> insightful solutions neutered in committees and on the floor of the
> >>>>> House and the Senate. I realized, early on, that the status quo
> >>>>> governmental processes are so screwed-up that our country has gotten
> >>>>> away from the "leave-me-alone to make-my-own-way" ideals of the
> >>>>> founding fathers. Not a single person would have risked their lives
> >>>>> to come to America if they had supposed every hard-earned dollar they
> >>>>> make would be taxed and controlled to serve the LAZY members of
> >>>>> society who want the right to vote, but are unwilling to support their
> >>>>> own weight in society.
> >>>>> It was only after the Civil War that media coverage started showing
> >>>>> photographs of political candidates and of rallies and conventions.
> >>>>> From that day forward, ego-maniacal career politicians became the
> >>>>> norm. And those were treated like (unconstitutional) royalty by the
> >>>>> media�which is largely responsible for the long, slow decline of the
> >>>>> US economy. My New Constitution will pin-back-the-ears of the corrupt
> >>>>> US media, and remove all undue influences by those purporting to
> >>>>> assess the events of the day. Once John Q. Public starts watching
> >>>>> news COVERAGE rather than 24-7 news commentary, the USA will again be
> >>>>> on the path to success and prosperity for the vast majority of
> >>>>> hardworking Americans! � John A. Armistead � Patriot
> >>>>> On Mar 24, 12:39 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> John,
> >>>>>> I am fully aware that my opinions "are neither sought, considered, nor
> >>>>>> appreciated." It appears that no one's opinions are ever "sought,
> >>>>>> considered, nor appreciated" by you. Unfortunately for your ego, the
> >>>>>> opinions of others are a necessary requisite for the passage of YOUR New
> >>>>>> Constitution. Unless, of course, you plan on seceding from the Union to
> >>>>>> create a one-man nation.
> >>>>>> On 03/24/2011 09:19 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>> Jonathan: Judging from quick scans of two of your TOME '+ new posts',
> >>>>>>> you lack the ability to be concise in your wording of ideas. I don't
> >>>>>>> have the time, nor the desire, to personally explain to you things
> >>>>>>> that I've already explained in detail, if you would only read back
> >>>>>>> into my thread. Please quit bugging me to get personal with you about
> >>>>>>> my New Constitution. I can assure you, Jonathan, that your opinions
> >>>>>>> in these regards are neither sought, considered, nor appreciated. �
> >>>>>>> J. A. A. �
> >>>>>>> On Mar 23, 12:47 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>> If, as you stated earlier, YOUR New Constitution "defines the limits of
> >>>>>>>> both business, social, and governmental influences of our lives."
> >>>>>>>> Will it allow me the right to live my life in any way I choose so long
> >>>>>>>> as I respect the equal rights of others?
> >>>>>>>> Will it allow me to defend my right to life, liberty, and
> >>>>>>>> property-rights � rights that existed naturally before any government
> >>>>>>>> was created?
> >>>>>>>> Will it allow me the freedom to travel unrestricted � a right that
> >>>>>>>> existed naturally before any government was created?
> >>>>>>>> Will it limit government initiation of force to actions that involve the
> >>>>>>>> prior initiation of force by others � such as murder, rape, robbery,
> >>>>>>>> kidnapping, and fraud?
> >>>>>>>> Will it allow businesses to compete on equal footing � no special
> >>>>>>>> privileges to Monsanto, AT&T, Lockheed Martin, etc.?
> >>>>>>>> I could continue, but you have a tendency to not answer any questions �
> >>>>>>>> preferring instead to resort to name calling. Will this instance be any
> >>>>>>>> different?
> >>>>>>>> On 03/23/2011 08:51 AM, NoEinstein wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Dear Jonathan: You don't qualify to interpret even one sentence of my
> >>>>>>>>> New Constitution! The proper function of government is to pass only
> >>>>>>>>> the minimum number of laws to be sure capitalism�the concept of which
> >>>>>>>>> has existed for millennia�doesn't become unfair or burdensome to the
> >>>>>>>>> people. There are no "czars" or government officials required to pull
> >>>>>>>>> any of the strings.
> >>>>>>>>> Maximum civil liberties parallel having the MINIMUM of government
> >>>>>>>>> interaction with the people. And that is NOT anarchy. My New
> >>>>>>>>> Constitution clearly defines the limits of both business, social, and
> >>>>>>>>> governmental influences of our lives. I recommend to others (than
> >>>>>>>>> Jonathan) my recently published book: "The Shortest Distance; Harmony
> >>>>>>>>> Through Prosperity." from Amazon, and Barnes and Noble. There is a
> >>>>>>>>> chapter on spheres of freedom that explains how your personal freedoms
> >>>>>>>>> are limited only when those directly and negatively impact the
> >>>>>>>>> freedoms of others. If anyone thinks they have the "freedom" to tell
> >>>>>>>>> others how to live their lives, I would suggest you immediately moving
> >>>>>>>>> out of the USA. No "group" nor individuals will have the power to
> >>>>>>>>> limit your personal liberties�trust me on that! � John A. Armistead
> >>>>>>>>> � Patriot
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 7:02 pm, Jonathan Ashley<jonathanashle...@lavabit.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> John,
> >>>>>>>>>> Hopefully you realize that the term "capitalism" was non-existent when
> >>>>>>>>>> the Constitution was written. It first appeared circa 1854.
> >>>>>>>>>> Setting that aside, in pure capitalism, also called the free-market
> >>>>>>>>>> system, all economic decisions are made _without government
> >>>>>>>>>> intervention_. Yet YOUR New Constitution appears to ignore that concept.
> >>>>>>>>>> Any constitution that wants to promote free market enterprise should by
> >>>>>>>>>> necessity prevent government intervention into business.
> >>>>>>>>>> I must also point out that if one has to codify "maximum civil
> >>>>>>>>>> liberties" (as YOUR New Constitution is want to do) it implies that
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
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