Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual. || World News

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Re: Wringing-the-Neck of Empty Ritual.

John,

1) Since you claim to be a Patriot, please provide YOUR definition of that word.

2) One does not need to "transcribe" the original Constitution, one merely has to perform a "cut and paste" action - a technique you are quite familiar with - as many sources of the Constitution exist on-line.

3) I would never spend 14 years making "that document" suit my "liking" since I firmly believe "that document" is inherently the cause of our existing problems. But if I were so inclined, I am certain it would not take me 14 years - not even 14 months - and it would certainly be less convoluted than your vain attempt.

I would start with a Preamble such as this:

With the understanding that no Person has the Right to rule over another, the Government instituted upon the adoption of this Constitution shall be Restricted to the powers specifically granted herein. The sole purpose of this Government shall be the protection of the Right to Life, Liberty, and Property for all Persons living within the limits of the several States. The exercise of a Right not infringing upon the Right of another is not subject to Regulation.

I would also attach a list of definitions for words of importance because people are want to change the meanings of words over time. I remember when "bad" meant "evil; opposed to good." Now half the population equates "bad" with "good."

4) YOUR "already-in-place New Constitution" is already "dead in the water."

On 03/29/2011 09:18 AM, NoEinstein wrote:

Jonathan:  Do this: Transcribe the original Constitution, and spend 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:      * Itï¿½s a felony for any person, organization, group, or special       interest ï¿½ publicly or privately ï¿½ 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.'"ï¿½Gilbert 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!  ï¿½ J. A. A. ï¿½ 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."  ï¿½ J. A. A. ï¿½ 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 mediaï¿½which 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! ï¿½ John A. Armistead ï¿½ 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.  ï¿½ J. A. A. ï¿½ 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 ï¿½ rights that existed naturally before any government was created? Will it allow me the freedom to travel unrestricted ï¿½ 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 ï¿½ such as murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, and fraud? Will it allow businesses to compete on equal footing ï¿½ no special privileges to Monsanto, AT&T, Lockheed Martin, etc.? I could continue, but you have a tendency to not answer any questions ï¿½ 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 capitalismï¿½the concept of which has existed for millenniaï¿½doesn'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 libertiesï¿½trust me on that!  ï¿½  John A. Armistead ï¿½ 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