habit of looking toward this group. As you know, Amendment 10
empowers the States, or the Citizens, to handle public issues not
spelled out in the Constitution as being specifically delegated to the
Federal Government, nor prohibited being handled by the States.
Nothing in my New Constitution changes that Amendment.
Since the present Constitution requires that the States uphold and
sware alligance to the Constitution, the ratification of "a" (or my)
New Constitution will require that the States continue to do so. The
only amendment that I even slightly diminished is Amendment 1.
Therein, I deny freedom of speech to those in the professional media
who had gotten to use (abuse) their power by talking about their
personal political ideals, while the non-professional man-on-the-
street doesn't get a similar voice. When Rush Limbaugh, David
Letterman, or Oprah can use their celebrity to sway voters, that
corrupts our Representative Republic.
Don't worry that I have stopped fair news coverage. In the early days
of television, events were covered LIVE, as these happened. But now,
the 24-7, 365 day a year programs have biased reporters telling you
what has happened and saying such things as such-and-such candidate
has no chance of getting the nomination. Such statements, whether
'fair and balanced' or not, are effectively wagging the dog. Even
reading news with a raised eyebrow is getting to have an influence
that no free society can allow! If the people are allowed to see the
daily events as they happen, they are perfectly capable of making up
their own minds how to vote on election day. The entire new Amendment
1 follows. John A. Armistead, Author and Patriot
"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 of those Citizens who don't work for the media; 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 badger a candidate or office-
holder with acrid questions, nor violate the latter's right to privacy
by intentionally revealing non criminal interpersonal dealings. Any
person(s) who does the latter is committing a felony. However,
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. No medium's
programs or formats, nor the status of any of its associated employees
shall unduly influence any election or governmental process, or the
business shall be closed. 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."
On Apr 9, 6:07 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> I would be curious of any response he might provide.
> MUCH of your statist embrace neglects Amendment X.
> Best wishes,
> --MJ
> "No body of men can be said to authorize a man to act as their agent, to the injury of a third person." -- Lysander Spooner At 05:23 PM 4/9/2012, you wrote:Dear MJ:
> It's been about nine months since my last reply on this news group. I
> was so intrigued by that post of yours: "An Open Letter to Rush
> Limbaugh", by L. Neil Smith, a Civil Libertarian, that I penned him
> the following long email about myNewConstitution—which many of you
> have at least heard about. John A. Armistead, Author and Patriot
> 4/09/12
> Dear L. Neil Smith:
> I happily read your "open" letter to Rush Limbaugh. I also, happily,
> voted for Ron Paul in the SC primary. I am ultra conservative on
> fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. I've marveled how
> expertly (except regarding global warming) that Rush Limbaugh can
> correctly tag the issues of the day. However, one thing is missing
> from ALL media discussions of politics: The necessary 'call-to-
> arms' (figuratively, of course) to actually correct the problems that
> the commentators so relish discussing.
> Rush Limbaugh is a professional belly-acher. If the problems actually
> got FIXED, no one would have reason anymore to listen to him (or them)
> belly-aching. That same label fits Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, etc.
> To remain at the TOP in the media ratings, every one of them must
> include one or more "curls" in their slants on positions. The curls
> are statements seeming to support the "legitimacy" of the extreme
> left, socialist/communist positions. That, usually, is remarks
> claiming all of the problems are just the political business-as-
> usual. No commentator, out there, has correctly labeled those actions
> that exacerbate this country's problems as TREASONOUS, hang-them-by-
> the-neck-until-dead actions! President Obama's birth certificate was
> clearly created in a layered PDF format, which anyone, including an
> architect like me, knows did not exist when Obama was born. I have
> boldly called for the Secret Service, the #1 document-fraud-proving
> agency in the USA, to confirm that Obama is an illegitimate president,
> who should immediately be arrested, tried, and hanged for TREASON.
> That isn't "blowing a plastic whistle". That is using the POWER that
> theConstitutionhas over who can and who cannot become our
> president. Of course, if Obama gets hanged, YESTERDAY, as should have
> happened, the corrupt news networks (all of them!) would no longer
> have a GAME on which they can give 24/7 365 day a year coverage.
> Without the GAME of politics, why would anyone watch their
> advertisement-dominated programs?
> Unlike most who only complain about the problems, I have spent the
> last 16 years of my life actually trying to fix things! How? I have
> pinned and polished TheNewConstitutionof theUnitedStatesofAmerica. You haven't heard about it? Of course not. That's because
> the corrupt media—all of it—would be forever precluded from commenting
> on anything regarding politics. Stations purporting to be 'news'
> stations or networks would be allowed to COVER the news of the day as-
> it-happens, but NOT to have 24/7, smiley-faced commentators telling
> the voters the "significance" of what they are being shown or told.
> And it would become unconstitutional to poll the public about anything
> relating to politics. Amazingly, all of the following are
> unconstitutional, based on the SPIRIT of our originalconstitution:
> A. The US Senate. Such is an oligarchy—counter to the mandate that
> the USA be a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC—and was included because smallstatesblackmailed the Constitutional Convention into giving small
> (low population)statesequal power in at least one body of Congress,
> or those smallstateswould not sign the document. From day one, and
> as things now stand, the USA is predominantly an oligarchy, because
> the US Senate has the most power.
> B. The US Supreme Court. Nowhere in theConstitutiondoes it say
> that the Supreme Court has power equal to either the Executive Branch
> or of Congress. The mere inclusion of the Justice Department as a
> separate Article, does NOT give that department equality with
> anything! The defined "power" of the Supreme Court—tempered of
> course, by the SPIRIT of theConstitutionas a whole—only allows
> saying yes or no regarding the constitutionality of some law or issue
> being evaluated. NOWHERE in theConstitutiondoes it say that "only
> the Supreme Court has the intellect to understand theConstitutionand
> to decide how issues should be resolved". The SPIRIT of theConstitution—which clearly focuses on having the POWER be vested in
> the People—disallows having a single robe-wearing and politically-
> biased justice have more... "power" than either the Executive Branch,
> or the Congress. Therefore, the Supreme Court, as such has evolved to
> be, is a king-like alternative to a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, that is
> now, and always has been unconstitutional according to the overall
> SPIRIT of that document!
> C. Laws that run counter to the Will of the People. Nowhere in theConstitutiondoes it say that "laws" not having popular support can be
> enacted or enforced. In a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, the votes that get
> cast are supposed to reflect the Will of the People. Therefore, laws
> not having popular support are ALL unconstitutional and are
> UNENFORCEABLE, and without requiring the assent of ANY court!
> D. The rules and rituals of Congress can be determined by which
> "party" has the power. Nowhere in theConstitutiondoes it allow
> biased political parties to act as clearinghouses for whom we can
> consider as candidates for public office. And nowhere in theConstitutionare any GROUPS allowed to hold sway over the processes of
> our REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC!
> E. Political parties. Because those are the antithesis of a
> REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, such are now, and always have been
> UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
> F. Multi-dated Political Primaries. Having nonpolitical, preliminary
> votes to reduce the slate of candidates IS constitutional. However,
> having such be held on different dates gives the most power to those
> instateslike Iowa. A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC shall never allow the
> voters in a particular state to have more power than the voters in
> another state. Therefore, multi-dated political primaries are
> unconstitutional!
> G. The Electoral College System. When theConstitutionwas written,
> there was no available means for quickly collecting the votes from the
> variousstates. It was recognized that during the time required for
> electors to travel to Washington, that the national conditions could
> change. That is the reason electors where given the option of
> changing their votes. But know this: The SPIRIT of theConstitution
> has always demanded that the electors represent the Will of the People
> back home. Now, in our modern age, the instantaneous collection of
> the popular votes is a reality unforeseeable by the Founding Fathers.
> Because one-person-one-vote-fairly-counted is now possible, and is
> closest to being the TRUE REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC envisioned by the
> Founding Fathers, the Electoral College System is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
> H. Our Police State. Law enforcement, by the SPIRIT of theConstitution, has those agencies and their members working for The
> People—NOT being the Gestapo of Government or those therein.
> Therefore, law enforcement shall be deferential to each and every law-
> abiding citizen, and when they aren't, such shall have no legal
> authority to act to enforce anything—badges and guns not withstanding.
> I. Lobbyists. Whenever voting factions ban together in groups to try
> to maximize their power beyond one-person-one-vote-fairly-counted,
> those acting in the name of ANY group in the USA are trying to make
> the USA be a group-dominated governmental system—and that runs counter
> to our being a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. Therefore, all lobbying is
> unconstitutional, and those who persist in promulgating their biased
> group ideals, in any public forum, i.e., in the media, are committing
> treason.
> J. Laws Cast in Stone: TheConstitution, by its SPIRIT and content,
> requires that all laws passed have the consent of the governed. Since
> the ideals of the public change, there are likely laws on the books
> which no longer have public support. All of the latter are
> unconstitutional, and are thus unenforceable, and without requiring
> the assent of any court.
> K. Impeachment: TheConstitution'sprimary means for disciplining
> those in office who violate some law or standard is far too protective
> of such. Public officials are, first and foremost, employees of the
> PEOPLE. The SPIRIT of theConstitutiondemands that any public
> official or public employee can be fired from...
>
> 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