The Constitution, "a near perfect document"-Amend Article V, bring it closer to perfection

[Christopher A. Brown]

The Constitution, "a near perfect document"-Amend Article V, & PREP. AMD., closer to perfection, w/secure defense of republic

The insincere Americans here and elsewhere refuse to comment on preparatory amendment to an Article V convention and simply continue to assert that is is a "bad idea" to rewrite the constitution. This is because to comment brings focus upon it. Their masters do not allow that.

The concept is fully logical and lawful. Article V is not a rewrite, and the one real limit is that all amendments must be constitutional is ignored by the insincere that continue to sow fear of our right to "alter or abolish" abusive government.



Article V (proposed draft amendment in italics)

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof,

following provision for citizens of all states opportunity to prepare to define constitutional intent within democratic conditions unquestionably constitutional across those states,

as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


It's taken awhile to realize that amendment of Article V itself is the proper way to assure preparatory amendment occurs with opportunity to have effect. The biggest issue was that most Americans do not know what Article V is. Let alone that it is their first constitutional right they can involve with.

No matter, this is a good way to learn. Time to wake up to the facts America. You've been set up, and agreement, the last thing you've been taught to do. is your only way out. We cannot use violence to get out of this situation. Any advocating such, or trying to state "it is the only way", might as well be working for the NWO, because that is what the NWO wants.

Folks in New Mexico, wake up! Riots are exactly what the infiltration of government wants. They need such in order to justify militarizing against the people. instead think about simple agreement on constitutional intent, then unity using that agreement through using a write in method and popularizing your own candidates. It is basically a party that ends partisan politics. The principal party. Only called such so it can fit into politics today.

http://algoxy.com/poly/principal_party.html

A petition to organizations of elite corporations and incumbents already promoting an Article V convention. The petition asks them to be accountable to the issue of constitutional intent.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/298/672/130/do-cos-and-alec-really-want-an-article-v-convention-with-constitutional-intent/

The page the petititonsite links to for full explanation.

http://algoxy.com/poly/alec_cos_petition.html

[fisharmor]

So the guys who willingly and knowingly turned the police forces the country over into an occupying army... those guys are going to do the right thing in an A5 convention?

[Anti Federalist]

So the guys who willingly and knowingly turned the police forces the country over into an occupying army... those guys are going to do the right thing in an A5 convention?

Maybe you'll have better luck.

[heavenlyboy34]

So the guys who willingly and knowingly turned the police forces the country over into an occupying army... those guys are going to do the right thing in an A5 convention?
Yup, that^^ There really aren't enough sane and/or rational people to elect representatives to a con-con who are selfless enough to make the CONstituion "liberty-friendly" in a meaningful way. Methinks y'all should focus on coming up with a coherent legal theory before messing around with A5 conventions.

[Christopher A. Brown]

So the guys who willingly and knowingly turned the police forces the country over into an occupying army... those guys are going to do the right thing in an A5 convention?

I swear, some Americans would rather die than read.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444637-Georgia-House-approves-Article-V-convention&p=5433668&viewfull=1#post5433668

That process takes the power from all those infiltrators of the federal government AND the state legislators that are unconstitutional and gives it to citizens.

But maybe you do not want that.

Amending Article V first assures preparatory amendment, which assures an education to the people. Once they learn what is going on, they will rise to a lawful and peaceful
Revolution.

[Christopher A. Brown]

This step by step process that educates the people has been posted for months now. Those that do not comment on it know it is logical, lawful and fully constitutional. Apparently they do not want Americans knowing about it.

Wonder why.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444637-Georgia-House-approves-Article-V-convention&p=5433668&viewfull=1#post5433668

[Christopher A. Brown]

Maybe you'll have better luck.

Everyone knows you are not accountable to comment on the logical and lawful process that can create a peaceful revolution,

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444637-Georgia-House-approves-Article-V-convention&p=5433668&viewfull=1#post5433668

You think Americans should start shooting or just bend over and become slaves, or worse. I can say that because you have not commented on the process in that link.

You are not a sincere American or an American accountable to reason..

[acptulsa]

Amendments to the Constitution must be Constitutional?

But if it were Constitutional, then we wouldn't need an amendment to make it Constitutional, right?


"We have always a right to correct ancient errors and to establish what is more conformable to reason and convenience."
-- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1801. FE 8:82 "We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

I guess, since he doesn't agree with you, Thomas Jefferson was iNsInCeRe?

[ClydeCoulter]

I think Mr. Brown to be sincere, but perhaps the timing is bad. The people must be educated in liberty, first.

Thomas Jefferson knew that there would need to be changes to our supreme laws, once the people outgrew the ancient coat. They must first fill the coat that was handed down, then a new one can be tailored.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Amendments to the Constitution must be Constitutional?

But if it were Constitutional, then we wouldn't need an amendment to make it Constitutional, right?

I guess, since he doesn't agree with you, Thomas Jefferson was iNsInCeRe?

Jefferson and I agree in everything you quoted. This thread is about correcting deficiencies and making yesterday's constitution work in today's world in every way.

Article V is the peaceful revolution he envisioned.

[Christopher A. Brown]

The people know liberty, but not freedom. A sailor is given liberty from the ship he is crew to. He is still controlled by the captain and the nation the vessel originates from.

Independence is a big part of freedom. The people have become dependent on corporations to a degree that is unhealthy and unwise. They have become apathetic with the corruptions created by media.

Basically the coat handed down has big holes blown in it by the civil war. Patching the old coat, refitting it is first.

After Americans get over the serious illness exposure to the corrupting elements of evil have created, then its conceivable they could fashion a new coat.

The people might be corrupted, but the natural law awareness of their vital needs is available. Unity based in action developed and directed by the root purpose of free speech is adequate to create unity sufficient to control Article V.

[Spikender]

With the citizenry we have today, is it really wise to have the citizens determine Constitutional intent?

I sometimes fear that my fellow citizens don't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

[Spikender]

Double post...

[Spikender]

Thanks for the triple, RPF...

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Christopher A. Brown]

Given things like this (46 percent of Republicans said they believe Obama is a Muslim) (http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0810/Poll_46_of_GOP_thinks_Obamas_Muslim.html) I don't see it as a plus-up.

Muslim and KGB agent.

http://www.globalpolitician.com/default.asp?27395-kgb-obama-usa

http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2012/10/russian-official-obama-is-communist-kgb_21.html?m=1

Good thing the potus and congress and courts have no authority when 3/4 of the states are ratifying amendments.




What I'd expect to see coming out of a move like this is what happened when they went in to amend the Articles of Confederation and came out with that POS Constitution.

How is it possible we have a forum where no one reads and only posts erroneous irrelevant fears of the constitution? Irrelevant in light is the process you generalize as "this".

I don't think you Understand Article V. Also, you are not reading and being accountable to a process that puts citizens in control of their states.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444637-Georgia-House-approves-Article-V-convention&p=5433668&viewfull=1#post5433668

[Christopher A. Brown]

With the citizenry we have today, is it really wise to have the citizens determine Constitutional intent?

I sometimes fear that my fellow citizens don't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Actually you are basically correct. However, that does not mean they are giving up on the concept of "alter or abolish". You might be surprised to know that Americans do not know that such a concept is their first right they can involve themselves with. Article V. I've never me anyone that realized that.

But again, that does not mean they really want to be clueless complainers. They know something is wrong. They've been conditioned to think that complaining automatically fixes the problem, or something. Not knowing about Article V and that constitutional intent controls it is a real handicap. Most politically active Americans are quite stuck in "the-box" created by the elite which is partisan politics.

At some point, and it is not far off, Americans are going to realize that NOTHING in the box creates actual solution. A small change here and there is all we will get out of it. Meanwhile, like a pack of lemmings we are fast approaching one cliff or another.

The obvious one is the economy. Americans have a vague idea the economic problem was artificially created, and that the complete lack of accountability which equates to "cold war" secrecy is at the root of it. They also have a sense of conspiracy grinding away while they are in "the-box", voting for one puppet or another who is playing the elite partisan game.

I mean we have Voluntarist who actually calls the constitution a POS. Completely ignorant that since 1871, we have not been under the 1787 constitution. Voluntarist has no alternative, except perhaps going back to a bunch of uncoordinated states trying to conduct business, which is only vaguely implied. Basically we have a thread of posters that are against using their first right and have NO alternate strategy to use of their first right.

The insincere group together and stand behind their peer group consistency as if it was something. It is nothing. They have no alternatives that offer comprehensive solution.

Preparatory Amendment will be a serious awakening for America. These un accountables never discuss that. They never acknowledge the process here.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444637-Georgia-House-approves-Article-V-convention&p=5433668&viewfull=1#post5433668

In the thread by Johnwk, against an Article V, trying to make Americans fearful. Un accountable to the concept of preparatory amendment for the SECOND time.

Basically, because free speech is abridged, my posting on these forums is a education for them. It at least raises a question, WHY aren't these supposed rebels here accountable? WHY are they not reasoning using facts of law? Why are they against Americans using natural law to unify and defend their rights, securing them?

Can there be that many un accountable people in one forum which has the pretense of being in support of the constitution?

I started on this path in October of 2013 at the dailypaul, thinking that a forum which has "Dedicated to Restoration of Constitutional government pasted across the top of each page, would have Americans that were unconditionally in support of the constitution. Well . . . it had FOUR. That is four times as many as this forum. I was banned as soon as my effort began to show success.

http://patriotaction.net/forum/topics/if-there-was-a-way-to-detect-and-block-cognitive-infiltration-of

So I went to that teaparty forum and posted about it. They were censoring my posts about NWO tactics, but DID pick up the Obama KGB issue. Here is seems to chill the social set. WTF?

Human beings are far more controlled by social instincts than they want to believe. So much so that IF they were beset with covert groups trying to fould their cognitition, they would be too afraid to react in anyway. Or at least it appears that way in the short term Long term no. This effort has an effect.

The citizens are the only ones that can determine constitutional intent. It is not rocket science. The root definition of the purpose of free speech, or the reaction to it, shows that. Sincere people accept it, but in a spooky social environment of un accountability against anything that actually has potential for solution, it takes some time. I have to put that time it. There is no other way.

[The Free Hornet]

Near perfect my ass. Takes this Article 1 Section 8 "gem":


To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html?ModPagespeed=noscript




Can there be that many un accountable people in one forum which has the pretense of being in support of the constitution?

LIBERTY is the only "pretense" I support. Besides, you can't hold individuals accountable to somebody else's laundry list. What response are you expecting? Capitulation perhaps.

Not liking many parts of the constitution and seeing the good parts completely ignored, I doubt with 99% certainty that this particular effort will yield benefits. Normally, I should hold my tongue and respect your intent in this thread. But your intent changes when you make a general accusation.

[erowe1]

Obviously any amendment to the Constitution would automatically be constitutional, no matter what it was.

I'm for improving the Constitution. But letting Congress call a constitutional convention wouldn't accomplish that.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Obviously any amendment to the Constitution would automatically be constitutional, no matter what it was.

I'm for improving the Constitution. But letting Congress call a constitutional convention wouldn't accomplish that.

Not sure just any amendment would be constitutional. ALEC is promoting an Article V convention for a reason, and I doubt it is constitutional.

Congress is probably not going to call one. For the simple reason they have no authority when 3/4 of the states are ratifying amendments. I suspect that some state legislators are going to waive sufferage and 3/4 of the states have a predominance of unconstitutional legislators that will propose then ratify amendments which do not have constitutional intent. There is definitely a protracted agenda unrolling.

It starts in 1911 when 2/3 of the states applied for a convention to stop the federal reserve. The titanic one year later killed 40 of Americas weathiest people against leaving the gold standard.

This petition is about making these organizations accountable to addressing constitutional intent, and assuring the people get opportunity to define it.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/298/672/130/do-cos-and-alec-really-want-an-article-v-convention-with-constitutional-intent/

ALEC invests heavily in cognitive infiltration. It is known the koch bros did massive astroturfing and they are the main force behind ALEC. I was surprised to find occupywallstreet cognitive infiltrators against making ALEC accountable to constitutional intent. These are the reasons I am strictly oriented on prime constitutional intent. We cannot go wrong.

[erowe1]

Not sure just any amendment would be constitutional.

Sure it would. The amendment, if it became part of the Constitution, would automatically be constitutional, no matter what it was.

[Anti Federalist]

Sure it would. The amendment, if it became part of the Constitution, would automatically be constitutional, no matter what it was.

Not sure why this is so hard for some folks to understand.

A ConCon populated by this current crop of AmeriKans would gut the Bill of Rights.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Sure it would. The amendment, if it became part of the Constitution, would automatically be constitutional, no matter what it was.

If it is just paper, that is true. However it is natural law, our instincts, actually defineable with biology. Therin is constitutional intent, and all amendments must have it to be a part of our "constitution". That is what our soldiers have died for, whether they knew it or not.

That is why the root definition of free speech cannot reasonably be denied. It is an absolute of our social nature and instincts.

These things are unconscious. They are basically spiritual. This is why we feel so violated when our rights are violated.

But yes, in name only, an unconstitutional amendment could be referred to as constitutional. Those doing so would be usurpers of the true constitution either by intent or ignorance.

When Americans start accepting that, they will be de evolving as human beings.

[Christopher A. Brown]

Not sure why this is so hard for some folks to understand.

Pretending that people here have not read and do not understand the step by step, legally valid process; the one you intentionally ignore pursuant to your masters agenda; is patently illogical and exposes you.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444637-Georgia-House-approves-Article-V-convention&p=5433668&viewfull=1#post5433668



A ConCon populated by this current crop of AmeriKans would gut the Bill of Rights.

Wrong.

ALEC would do that and I have a petition opposing such action.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444929-Do-COS-and-ALEC-Really-Want-An-Article-V-Convention-with-Constitutional-Intent

But you do not mention that, you put down Americans.

[Natural Citizen]

US Constitutional Convention: Power to people or right-wing battle tactic? (http://rt.com/op-edge/us-constitutional-convention-balanced-budget-780/)

Looks like an opinion piece. I just glanced over it.


Once upon a time, when knickerbockers were the rage and a gentleman could not sally forth without a fashionable white wig perched upon his natural locks, something truly remarkable happened.

The leaders in 13 British colonies below the St. Lawrence Seaway decided that they’d had enough of British rule and that they were going to form their own government. And not only that – their new country was going to be so big and so rich that it would one day put Britain in the shade. But that wasn’t going to happen without central organization.

Not everyone was enamored of this plan – many of the local farmers liked to keep things more grassroots. They penned castigating letters to newspaper editors, complaining that they had left Europe for a reason and were quite satisfied with local government the way it was. Considering these differences, the people in the 13 States (so recently colonies) called a convention to sort it all out. And at that fateful convention those who favored a big country and central government stole a march on their opponents, drafted a Constitution and pushed it through at State level tout suite in circumstances that are still controversial.

That country was the United States of America, the convention was the Philadelphia Convention and the ambitious Empire-builders who made it all happen are known as the Federalists or the Founding Fathers of the American Constitution.
Article v conventions The Founding Fathers also cleverly sealed the door behind themselves, by making it difficult for anyone to hold another such convention. According to Article V of the Constitution, only two-thirds “of the several States” may call for a convention to propose amendments to the constitution. If those amendments are then ratified by three-quarters of all states (through legislature or convention) they will become law. This kind of consensus is difficult to achieve, and so far the first constitutional convention remains the only one.
Until now.

Last month, Michigan’s legislature called for a constitutional convention under Article V, becoming the 34th State to do so...


Continued at link....

[Ronin Truth]

I've read way more than enough to know that the CONstitution is and was far far far from "near perfect". TPTB started violating and destroying it almost from day one. The Federalist CONstitutional coup was an attack on and a betrayal of the American revolution.

[osan]

The Constitution, "a near perfect document"...l (http://algoxy.com/poly/alec_cos_petition.html)


Meaningless assertion. Near perfect for what?. Without context, your assertion is empty blather.

The US Constitution embodies many fine ideas, but formalizes them in terrible fashion, that is, if freedom is the goal. It also embodies a basic framework for guaranteed tyranny, which is the condition under which every American now lives.

If you are going to make such assertions, I suggest you do so in a way that imparts actual meaning. I say this because people who are both smart and are paying attention will pick your sentences clean to the bone, pointing out the flaws such as the one I just listed.

[ProIndividual]

...the one real limit is that all amendments must be constitutional...

There is no such thing as an unconstitutional Amendment...the SCOTUS cannot overturn a ratified Amendment, and there is no way to undo an Amendment other than another subsequent Amendment. How can you logically say what I just quoted? You can't.

BTW, I'm all for an A5 Convention...and I want to submit an Amendment to abolish the state and the Constitution that established it (since it is already de facto dead anyways). All else is just tinkering around the edges of the real problem. My Amendment might not pass, but maybe something would, which would either move us toward that end, or just make this cult/criminal organization known as the state collapse sooner (and the sooner the better, since it is likely inevitable without Amending it out of existence).

[ProIndividual]

Jefferson and I agree in everything you quoted. This thread is about correcting deficiencies and making yesterday's constitution work in today's world in every way.

Article V is the peaceful revolution he envisioned.

I hate to tell you, but Jefferson advocated for violent, bloody revolution once every generation or so. I don't agree with that stance, but he did tell Governors to "pardon and pacify" rioters, because if they rioted that showed all the evidence anyone required that the governance they rebelled against was tyrannical and illegitimate. The peaceful revolution wasn't the bulk of his vision at all...he was trying to present a short term hedge, or an alternative route. And for the record, he opposed the Constitution's passage. He wasn't in the country at the time of its passage, but he wrote exactly that about it. He was decidedly anti-Constitution...until of course he got power. Same as how he was anti-slavery, but didn't free his slaves because of what it would mean for him financially. As much as I love reading Jefferson, and next to Paine he is my favorite Founder, he was a total hypocrite and not deserving, like any man, of being deified or having his ideas whitewashed.

[Ronin Truth]

Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
6 Sept. 1789http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/images/1ptrans.gif Papers 15:392--97


I sit down to write to you without knowing by what occasion I shall send my letter. I do it because a subject comes into my head which I would wish to develope a little more than is practicable in the hurry of the moment of making up general dispatches.

The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.--I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by an individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the society. If the society has formed no rules for the appropriation of it's lands in severality, it will be taken by the first occupants. These will generally be the wife and children of the decedent. If they have formed rules of appropriation, those rules may give it to the wife and children, or to some one of them, or to the legatee of the deceased. So they may give it to his creditor. But the child, the legatee, or creditor takes it, not by any natural right, but by a law of the society of which they are members, and to which they are subject. Then no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the paiment of debts contracted by him. For if he could, he might, during his own life, eat up the usufruct of the lands for several generations to come, and then the lands would belong to the dead, and not to the living, which would be the reverse of our principle.

What is true of every member of the society individually, is true of them all collectively, since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals.--To keep our ideas clear when applying them to a multitude, let us suppose a whole generation of men to be born on the same day, to attain mature age on the same day, and to die on the same day, leaving a succeeding generation in the moment of attaining their mature age all together. Let the ripe age be supposed of 21. years, and their period of life 34. years more, that being the average term given by the bills of mortality to persons who have already attained 21. years of age. Each successive generation would, in this way, come on, and go off the stage at a fixed moment, as individuals do now. Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. the 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation. Then no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of it's own existence. At 21. years of age they may bind themselves and their lands for 34. years to come: at 22. for 33: at 23. for 32. and at 54. for one year only; because these are the terms of life which remain to them at those respective epochs.--But a material difference must be noted between the succession of an individual, and that of a whole generation. Individuals are parts only of a society, subject to the laws of the whole. These laws may appropriate the portion of land occupied by a decedent to his creditor rather than to any other, or to his child on condition he satisfies the creditor. But when a whole generation, that is, the whole society dies, as in the case we have supposed, and another generation or society succeeds, this forms a whole, and there is no superior who can give their territory to a third society, who may have lent money to their predecessors beyond their faculties of paying.

What is true of a generation all arriving to self-government on the same day, and dying all on the same day, is true of those in a constant course of decay and renewal, with this only difference. A generation coming in and going out entire, as in the first case, would have a right in the 1st. year of their self-dominion to contract a debt for 33. years, in the 10th. for 24. in the 20th. for 14. in the 30th. for 4. whereas generations, changing daily by daily deaths and births, have one constant term, beginning at the date of their contract, and ending when a majority of those of full age at that date shall be dead. The length of that term may be estimated from the tables of mortality, corrected by the circumstances of climate, occupation &c. peculiar to the country of the contractors. Take, for instance, the table of M. de Buffon wherein he states 23,994 deaths, and the ages at which they happened.

Suppose a society in which 23,994 persons are born every year, and live to the ages stated in this table. The conditions of that society will be as follows. 1st. It will consist constantly of 617,703. persons of all ages. 21y. Of those living at any one [Volume 1, Page 69] instant of time, one half will be dead in 24. years 8. months. 3dly. 1[8],675 will arrive every year at the age of 21. years complete. 41y. It will constantly have 348,417 persons of all ages above 21. years. 5ly. And the half of those of 21. years and upwards living at any one instant of time will be dead in 18. years 8. months, or say 19. years as the nearest integral number. Then 19. years is the term beyond which neither the representatives of a nation, nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly extend a debt.

To render this conclusion palpable by example, suppose that Louis XIV. and XV. had contracted debts in the name of the French nation to the amount of 10,000 milliards of livres, and that the whole had been contracted in Genoa. The interest of this sum would be 500. milliards, which is said to be the whole rent roll or nett proceeds of the territory of France. Must the present generation of men have retired from the territory in which nature produced them, and ceded it to the Genoese creditors? No. They have the same rights over the soil on which they were produced, as the preceding generations had. They derive these rights not from their predecessors, but from nature. They then and their soil are by nature clear of the debts of their predecessors.

Again suppose Louis XV. and his cotemporary generation had said to the money-lenders of Genoa, give us money that we may eat, drink, and be merry in our day; and on condition you will demand no interest till the end of 19. years you shall then for ever after receive an annual interest of 125/8 per cent. The money is lent on these conditions, is divided among the living, eaten, drank, and squandered. Would the present generation be obliged to apply the produce of the earth and of their labour to replace their dissipations? Not at all.

I suppose that the recieved opinion, that the public debts of one generation devolve on the next, has been suggested by our seeing habitually in private life that he who succeeds to lands is required to pay the debts of his ancestor or testator: without considering that this requisition is municipal only, not moral; flowing from the will of the society, which has found it convenient to appropriate lands, become vacant by the death of their occupant, on the condition of a paiment of his debts: but that between society and society, or generation and generation, there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have percieved that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another.

The interest of the national debt of France being in fact but a two thousandth part of it's rent roll, the paiment of it is practicable enough: and so becomes a question merely of honor, or of expediency. But with respect to future debts, would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare, in the constitution they are forming, that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself, can validly contract more debt than they may pay within their own age, or within the term of 19. years? And that all future contracts will be deemed void as to what shall remain unpaid at the end of 19. years from their date? This would put the lenders, and the borrowers also, on their guard. By reducing too the faculty of borrowing within it's natural limits, it would bridle the spirit of war, to which too free a course has been procured by the inattention of money-lenders to this law of nature, that succeeding generations are not responsible for the preceding.

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.

This principle that the earth belongs to the living, and not to the dead, is of very extensive application and consequences, in every country, and most especially in France. It enters into the resolution of the questions Whether the nation may change the descent of lands holden in tail? Whether they may change the appropriation of lands given antiently to the church, to hospitals, colleges, orders of chivalry, and otherwise in perpetuity? Whether they may abolish the charges and privileges attached on lands, including the whole catalogue ecclesiastical and feudal? It goes to hereditary offices, authorities and jurisdictions; to hereditary orders, distinctions and appellations; to perpetual monopolies in commerce, the arts and sciences; with a long train of et ceteras: and it renders the question of reimbursement a question of generosity and not of right. In all these cases, the legislature of the day could authorize such appropriations and establishments for their own time, but no longer; and the present holders, even where they, or their ancestors, have purchased, are in the case of bonâ fide purchasers of what the seller had no right to convey.

Turn this subject in your mind, my dear Sir, and particularly as to the power of contracting debts; and develope it with that perspicuity and cogent logic so peculiarly yours. Your station in the councils of our country gives [Volume 1, Page 70] you an opportunity of producing it to public consideration, of forcing it into discussion. At first blush it may be rallied, as a theoretical speculation: but examination will prove it to be solid and salutary. It would furnish matter for a fine preamble to our first law for appropriating the public revenue; and it will exclude at the threshold of our new government the contagious and ruinous errors of this quarter of the globe, which have armed despots with means, not sanctioned by nature, for binding in chains their fellow men. We have already given in example one effectual check to the Dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay. I should be pleased to see this second obstacle held out by us also in the first instance. No nation can make a declaration against the validity of long-contracted debts so disinterestedly as we, since we do not owe a shilling which may not be paid with ease, principal and interest, within the time of our own lives.--Establish the principle also in the new law to be passed for protecting copyrights and new inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19. instead of 14. years. Besides familiarising us to this term, it will be an instance the more of our taking reason for our guide, instead of English precedent, the habit of which fetters us with all the political heresies of a nation equally remarkeable for it's early excitement from some errors, and long slumbering under others.


http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/v1ch2s23.html

[Ronin Truth]

ANTIFEDERALISTS VS FEDERALISTS



Anti-Federalist objections to the Constitution

Federalist defenses of the Constitution





http://staff.gps.edu/mines/APUSH%20-antifederalists_vs_federalists.htm

[jllundqu]

With all due respect... An A5 convention would require 3/4 of the states to agree to any amendment.

There is approximately ZERO FRIGGIN CHANCE IN HELL that 3/4 of these (non)United States would EVER agree on anything to come out of A5 Con.

[Ronin Truth]

With all due respect... An A5 convention would require 3/4 of the states to agree to any amendment.

There is approximately ZERO FRIGGIN CHANCE IN HELL that 3/4 of these (non)United States would EVER agree on anything to come out of A5 Con.

Maybe they'll just falsely proclaim it passed ratification even though it didn't really. Kinda like the 16th Amendment.

https://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/

[Christopher A. Brown]

that 3/4 of these (non)United States would EVER agree on anything to come out of A5 Con.

Can you agree and accept, for human beings generally, that the root definition of purpose for free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood?