The Correct 29th Amendment

[osan]

I've had this kicking around in the back of my mind for awhile now, so I am putting it out here for your thoughts. This rather large Amendment aims to correct most of the problems we face as the result of the weaknesses of our Constitution. I'd rather write a new one, but that is not going to happen. This Amendment is not going to happen, but it was fun messing with it. Take a look and see what you think.

One of the consequences of this would be that all "law enforcement" organizations would be reduced to professional investigation units with NO enforcement authority whatsoever. Any cop, for example, engaging in enforcement action against another would be guilty of a felony and would spend a minimum of 5 years at hard labor or in solitary, no exceptions and no mercy. The practical effect there would be to de-ball cops and sheriffs and all other potential abusers of power. They would be reduced to having to beg assistance by US. That would likely result in far better behaviors by them toward us and would completely limit their ability to abuse us because those to whom they would appeal for aid would be free to tell them to go scratch in the event that what they were asking help for turned out not to be very kosher.

Take a look at article 13 - for example, the War Powers Act would become instantly null and void. We could no longer go to war without a declaration. This Amendment would unwind an incredible amount of very bad statute and would restore Common Law to our courts, which again may not be perfect, but it is worlds and universes better than what we now have.


It may not be perfect, but I do believe that 90%++ of our problems would be neatly solved by this, my Amendment XIX. if you have any ideas for improvement, which I am sure it could use in some abundance, lets see it.


AMENDMENT XXIX

Whereas, The People are the Individual Sovereigns of any country and,

Whereas those of a nation's population who by choice function as agents or other instruments of official governance and,

Whereas the relationship of The People to said agents or instruments is that of the Sovereign to the servant,

Be it herein and perpetually set forth as the Supreme Law of the Land the following:

1. No Person holding government office at any level or manner within the territory of the United States may possess or cause to be possessed by any department, office, agency, or other instrument of government or governance, public or private, any weapon, weapons related systems, or any other technology or instrument disallowed to The People.
2. During their tenure of office, such public officials, whether elected, appointed, hired, or otherwise contracted and who officially speak or otherwise act to diminish, limit, violate, ban, prohibit, or otherwise in any way disparage the absolute right of every free man to keep and bear arms equal in power and of equal or equivalent form to those of the greatest capabilities of any military organization on the planet shall be guilty of treason and shall be subject to immediate arrest by any citizen of the United States. Upon establishment of reasonable evidence in support of such charges, such Persons shall be tried in a Court of Common Law and if convicted shall spend no less than one year at hard labor. Any subsequent convictions for the same offense shall each double the sentence of the most recent previous conviction. Conviction on multiple charges shall each carry separate and equal sentencing and shall be served consecutively. Anyone knowingly and falsely charging such Persons such that they be arrested and investigated shall be guilty of a felony to be punished upon conviction by one year at hard labor and guilty of a tort, the compensation for which shall be determined in a Court of Equity should the aggrieved parties choose to take action.
3. The Military shall never be allowed weaponry of greater power than of those allowed to Individuals regardless of circumstance.
4. The People may ban certain arms and systems to the Military as may be expressed in Law. Such bans may be instated by any governing body at any functional level whatsoever. The People may similarly ban technologies and systems from other governing organizations as may please them. Such bans may never be instated against private Individuals in violation of their Rights.
5. No governmental branch, department, agency, office, or other organization, subdivision, or individual member or agent thereof other than the military proper shall be permitted the possession or employment of weapons of any sort, at any time, in any manner, or for any reason whatsoever. If such entities find themselves in need of such material force to discharge some Duty of Office on behalf of The People, they shall be required to solicit the help of volunteers from the Body of The People who shall render such aid without the benefit of compensation, save for the direct costs for which they can present true and legitimate receipts or other proof of expenditures incurred by them in the discharge of their services. Such volunteers would be limited to no more than 10 (ten) days of such voluntary service per calendar year. Any person volunteering beyond this limit shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by not less than 120 days at hard labor and shall be guilty of having violated the Public Trust and shall be forever barred from again operating in such capacities.
6. All publicly funded organizations possessing as part of its charter, structure, function, or purpose the enforcement of law, regulation, policy, statute, or any other governmental fiat are forthwith disbarred from directly conducting and executing any enforcement action pursuant to such laws, regulations, and policies. All enforcement activity shall be conducted through the solicitation of volunteers as per point 5 (five) above.
7. All Courts of Criminal Law shall operate under the jurisdiction of the Common Law. No other jurisdiction whatsoever shall be permitted, including Canonical Positive Law, Trade Law including Uniform Commercial Code, International Law, Canonical Ecclesiastical Law, or any other.
8. Any Judge or other officer of a Court of Criminal Law applying non-Common Law jurisdiction of any sort including law, rules, procedures, and standards in such a court shall be guilty of a heinous breach of the Public Trust, shall be removed from their position, tried, and if convicted serve not less than 5 (five) years at hard labor or in solitary confinement. Each count for which such a person is found guilty shall have its own and separate sentencing. Anyone so convicted shall be disbarred from ever holding public office again in any capacity whatsoever, whether the position be elected, appointed, hired, or otherwise contracted. They shall furthermore be guilty of having committed a tort against the violated parties, the compensation for which shall be determined in a Court of Equity, should the aggrieved parties choose to take action.
9. Any governing official, whether elected, appointed, hired, or otherwise contracted to discharge duties in the Public Trust and who shall have violated that trust in any degree whatsoever, whether against a single individual or group thereof shall be guilty of a heinous breach of the Public Trust, shall be removed from their position, tried, and if convicted serve not less than 5 (five) years at hard labor or in solitary confinement. Each count for which such a person is found guilty shall have its own and separate sentencing, each to be served consecutively. Anyone so convicted shall be disbarred from ever holding public office again in any capacity whatsoever, whether the position be elected, appointed, hired, or otherwise contracted. They shall furthermore be guilty of having committed a tort against the violated parties, the compensation for which shall be determined in a Court of Equity, should the aggrieved parties choose to take action.
10. Individuals may disregard any and all law that violates their fundamental Rights. Individuals may defend themselves against unlawful actions made against them by persons not in accordance with the law up to and including taking the lives of such persons in defense of their rights, lives, and property. He may come to the aid of any other person being violated and take similar action with the same immunity and right as if he were defending his own rights, life, and property upon having demonstrated sound judgement in the context of the prevailing circumstance.
11. The military shall never be permitted to function as a domestic enforcement entity at any time, in any manner, to any degree, or for any reason whatsoever. Their sole function shall be the defense of materially direct attacks against the People and Territories of the United States. Any such use of the military against The People of the United States shall constitute an act of treason against said People. Those responsible for such misuse of military forces shall be guilty of high treason and upon conviction shall be sentenced to death by public hanging.
12. The Rights of Free Men are absolute and sacrosanct as are the Obligations of one to the rest not to violate the Rights of Others. Those convicted of so violating the Rights of Others and who shall have been subsequently assessed a definite criminal debt shall be known as Felons or Criminal Debtors and shall be stripped of their Constitutional Privileges, their Rights abridged as specified by Law until such time as said debt has been discharged in full. At that time such Persons are automatically restored to full rights. Any Person released from prison or other incarceration shall be deemed to have discharged their criminal debt in full and shall once again enjoy their natural status as a Free Man. So-called "nations", "states", "governments" and all other such abstract concepts are to be understood as non-existent per se and therefore cannot possess rights or any other characteristics save that of being conceptual in nature and serving as short-hand terms to render communication simpler. In the context of human civil life, only Natural Men possess Rights. States, Governments, etc. can possess Rights not even to the degree that stone or any other non-living object can.
13. All Crimes Mala Prohibita are hereby and forthwith repealed and banned for all time, as are all other laws not in accord with the specifications of this Constitution. Only laws against Crimes Mala In Se shall retain their effect.
14. This Amendment may not be repealed under any circumstance and may be superseded only by a similar Amendment that further strengthens the position of the People with respect to that of those functioning as governors in service to the People and under the Seal of the Public Trust.
15. All elections in the United States shall be by paper ballot and by no other means whatsoever. Each voting precinct shall have no less than 20 (twenty) witnesses present as ballots are counted. Ballots shall be counted by no less than 10 (ten) persons, each subsequent count to be taken independently of the previous ones and marked separately. Any precinct unable to provide 10 counters and twenty witnesses to the counting shall no be allowed to host voting activities. All voters will be required to show proof of United States citizenship in order to vote and shall provide upon their ballots a thumb or other finger print upon handing said ballots in for counting.
16. The Amendment Process shall be corrected as follows:

• Amendments must be available in final form for Public review for a period of no less than 5 (five) years.
• Any alteration of the proposed Amendment resets the review interval.
• Amendments shall be placed on a referendum for vote by the general public.
• Amendments must be ratified by no less than 90 (ninety) percent of a State's citizens.
• Amendments must then be ratified by the State legislature in order to be said to have been ratified by that State.
• A State Legislature is not obliged to ratify in the event that the population of that State has done so.
• A State Legislature cannot ratify an Amendment that has not been ratified by its citizens.
• One hundred percent (100%) of the State legislatures must ratify such an Amendment in order for it to become part of this Constitution.

17. Amendments XI through XXVII are hereby and forthwith repealed for all time.

[Sonny Tufts]

There are many flaws in the proposal, but I'll just focus on nos. 7 and 8.

At common law, a person accused of a crime could not testify in his own behalf and could not call witnesses in his defense. In addition, unlike statutory crimes common law crimes were unwritten, so that a person might not know ahead of time that his actions might be punished later -- there was no prohibition against ex post facto laws. Is this really the system you want?

[T.hill]

Why repeal all of the amendments succeeding the Bill of Rights?

[osan]

Why repeal all of the amendments succeeding the Bill of Rights?

because they are shyte?

[osan]

There are many flaws in the proposal, but I'll just focus on nos. 7 and 8.

At common law, a person accused of a crime could not testify in his own behalf and could not call witnesses in his defense. In addition, unlike statutory crimes common law crimes were unwritten, so that a person might not know ahead of time that his actions might be punished later -- there was no prohibition against ex post facto laws. Is this really the system you want?

Fair enough - as far as I am concerned, the entire body of criminal law as it applies to individuals could be specified with some good rigor in about half a dozen paragraphs. If we are going this far, why not go farther and do the law right for once? In simplest terms, there is only one crime: violating the rights of others. In realistic terms, it boils down to a small handful of specific categories of acts, including murder, theft, battery, destruction of property, trespassing (this one may be questionable depending on specific definitions)and perhaps rape as a specia a case of battery. There may be one or two others I am not grok king at the moment.

the bottom line is this: the so-called law is so insanely twisted up and hence dangerous to one and all that if we are to be serious in our discussions about correcting the problems, we must consider with great care a tabla rasa approach. For my money it is the only way that makes the talking worthwhile.

what other flaws do you find?

[Kodaddy]

What happens when you repeal the repeal of prohibition?
Am I still allowed to get drunk tonight?

[osan]

What happens when you repeal the repeal of prohibition?
Am I still allowed to get drunk tonight?

The Volstead Act is similarly repealed. None of that ever belonged there in the first place.

IOW, you're safe.

[Weston White]

Fair enough - as far as I am concerned, the entire body of criminal law as it applies to individuals could be specified with some good rigor in about half a dozen paragraphs. If we are going this far, why not go farther and do the law right for once? In simplest terms, there is only one crime: violating the rights of others. In realistic terms, it boils down to a small handful of specific categories of acts, including murder, theft, battery, destruction of property, trespassing (this one may be questionable depending on specific definitions)and perhaps rape as a specia a case of battery. There may be one or two others I am not grok king at the moment.

the bottom line is this: the so-called law is so insanely twisted up and hence dangerous to one and all that if we are to be serious in our discussions about correcting the problems, we must consider with great care a tabla rasa approach. For my money it is the only way that makes the talking worthwhile.

what other flaws do you find?

I think what you might be referring to is natural rights--think Thomas Paine's Rights of Man, also our Declaration of Independence (partly Locke inspired) and of course the Magna Carta. Additionally, there is the Natural Law Doctrine or Theory as originally theorized by St. Thomas Aquinas, which is based more-so upon divine (right vs. wrong and societal relationships) principles. Serving to aid us along in acknowledging that one does not need a criminal statute to come to realize that murder, rape, theft, and negligence are wrong, while murdering in self-defense is justifiable or excusable homicide; and also there is contract law, quid pro quo and accord and satisfaction, tort law, establishing a duty of care to perform, for example.

Ultimately, it is such natural rights that have been imbued into our own Bill of Rights.

[osan]

I think what you might be referring to is natural rights

Well yes, but I am not sure of the derivation of NRs so while my notions maybe identical in substance, they may spring from a conceptually different root. Words, being the devilish things they can be, when one goes well enough down the rabbit hole language begins to show certain weaknesses. This is not unlike quantum physics where the world becomes very strange because it behaves in ways that our word-generated perceptive foundations cannot grok.

I have demonstrated apodictically that human rights can be derived in toto without the need to involve God or anything else other than the Cardinal Postulate, that all men share equal claims to life. If one accepts the Postulate as true, the rest follows naturally, directly, completely, correctly, and intuitively obviously. In past discussions I have also asserted that the absence of the need to include God in the derivation is, in fact, God's gift to us that we might arrive at truth without having to invoke the Name at every sentence. The "God" portion of things is so blindingly apparent to me that it becomes so very clear that going on and on about God in the ways some people do is redundant precisely because God is in everything. No need to restate the obvious until our eyes bleed.

--think Thomas Paine's Rights of Man, also our Declaration of Independence (partly Locke inspired) and of course the Magna Carta.

I'd have to read them first. The need there is vanishingly small as I have derived truth for myself and by my own means, which is a good thing because it makes it mine. Far too many people do nothing save parrot what others have told them. That is not understanding.

one does not need a criminal statute to come to realize that murder, rape, theft, and negligence are wrong, while murdering in self-defense is justifiable or excusable homicide

Further evidence of just how wildly interesting this world is. These notions are born into us - they part of what we are and are in no sense separate from us.

; and also there is contract law, quid pro quo and accord and satisfaction, tort law, establishing a duty of care to perform, for example.

All complications of the simple notion of voluntary transactions.

Ultimately, it is such natural rights that have been imbued into our own Bill of Rights.

True, but not in a manner I would term "well done". The Constitution is a cluster copulation. It takes us to the door of a magnificent place, allows us to peer in, but lets us go no further. It is the preface to a much larger work and nothing more. It is by no means sufficient to the task to which it was set. It is not even close - not because the document is "bad" per se, but rather because it is inadequate in the context of human proclivity. On the average, human beings are astonishingly horrid creatures. They are "nice" when it is easy and convenient. When it is not, things tend to be very different. There are many fabulously good people in this world, but alas they are hopelessly outnumbered by those who are utter beasts under the thinnest veneers of civility. It is against the whim and caprice of the average man that a constitution must be written, not just to save the idiots from themselves, but to protect the superior man from the inarticulate and brutish mob who has always outnumbered him and always likely shall. I do not care what the mob does so long as they mind their manners. Force is the only thing that keeps the brutes in check. This has been historically demonstrated in the case of every empire with which I am familiar. It is the disease of empire that poisons the minds of great hordes and turns them away from their innately peaceful and equitable nature into mindless, grasping, avaricious beasts of no blood. Empire is fact and it will remain as such until such time as circumstance removes it. Humanity will likely not remove empire as the standard operating environment any time soon. Given this, it behooves the good and smart and industrious people, those who understand proper human relations, to set into place radical conceptual frameworks in the form of documents that are clear, correct, and complete such that the task of the tyrant to usurp becomes disagreeably difficult.

The ancient Japanese had it right: trespass against my rightful territory and I will cut you physically down with my sword. That should be the law of the land. In this way are people kept very mindful of their neighbors' displeasure. It is by this law that those failing to show the proper respect for the rights of those around them are given the stern lesson, which may in some cases prove fatal. Fatality is the price we might pay for violating the rights of our fellows and so it ought to be.

When I write my new constitution I designed the conceptual architecture very carefully so as to make certain elements inviolate such that no tyrant or other low rent usurper or bully could in any way credibly claim he was following the Immutable Law of the Land. This feature is necessary or the door to tyranny is left wide open no matter how prettily it may have been hung with garlands and bunting.

Because the Constitution is so poorly written, the devil has taken the hindmost since the earliest days. Slowly at first, almost imperceptibly, but in time he got better at it and he is now chipping away at a very short phalanx with a wild hammer and chisel. We are witnessing the dissolution of the last vestiges of human freedom on the planet, make no mistake about that.

[bolil]

Quivering with jealousy, I clap my mind's hands.

[osan]

Nudge?

[Christian Liberty]

because they are shyte?

I feel like the 13th amendment should stand at least. Not sure it would really matter though: I doubt any state would reinstitute slavery.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I feel like the 13th amendment should stand at least. Not sure it would really matter though: I doubt any state would reinstitute slavery.

I think the right to vote (15th and 19th) are important too. The parts of the 14th that deal with racial equality should be kept. I'd keep the eleventh because having the President and Vice President be completely opposed to each other wouldn't work well. Congressional pay raises taking affect after the next election is nice as well. People in DC should also have their vote count (23), even though they vote wrong.

[Christian Liberty]

I think the right to vote (15th and 19th) are important too. The parts of the 14th that deal with racial equality should be kept. I'd keep the eleventh because having the President and Vice President be completely opposed to each other wouldn't work well. Congressional pay raises taking affect after the next election is nice as well. People in DC should also have their vote count (23), even though they vote wrong.

I have mixed feelings on some of that. Generally my feeling on gross rights violations at the state level is that any states who do so should be kicked out of the union, but should not be literally forced to respect human rights. Since I believe in the right to secession, I would say that any state which the rest of the country deemed to have grossly violated human rights could be forced to "go it alone" and become their own country, but that's it. That would really go for just about anything deemed serious enough, slavery, abortion funding, whatever. Of course we could, and probably would, debate exactly what's what with regards to this, but I think you get my point. I think its acceptable for the republic to stop associating with states that do certain things, but not to literally force them to do those things.

I really didn't think much about the amendments other than the 13th, its just that the 13th was the one that first jumped out at me. I agree with the one about congressmen's pay raises only taking effect next election, but I'd rather see that amended to say that Congress is literally not allowed to raise their pay, ever (I wonder how this would affect Fed policy... hmmm...) I don't think DC's votes should count, based on the original idea of 50 independent Republics. I'm sorta indifferent to the 11th... I really just don't care. Honestly, were Obama and Romney really that opposed to each other? I seriously doubt they'd have a problem working together anymore than Obama and Biden are. Back when the 11th was actually passed there was a serious ideological divide between the limited government camps, and the moderately big government camps, now its just two huge government camps that are mostly arguing over what order they want to do crap. I guess if Rand Paul were elected I'd want him to have a libertarian leaning VP, but I don't know if he'd actually pick one anyway. Regarding the voting amendments, I kind of have mixed feelings. Ideally men would vote as the leaders and representatives of their families, but I know in practice it doesn't really work like this. Ultimately, however, I care about having informed voters. As long as the income tax exists, I think only people who pay at least some income taxes should be able to vote, much in line with how the Founders only let property owners... people with an actual stake in the outcome of elections, being able to vote. I'd also like to see voters being required to at least have a basic knowledge of who or what the crap they're voting for, but I can't think of any way of doing this that wouldn't be abused by TPTB.

Ultimately this is all "second bests" though because ultimately I'd love to see both voting and the government abolished. That would be the ideal.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I have mixed feelings on some of that. Generally my feeling on gross rights violations at the state level is that any states who do so should be kicked out of the union, but should not be literally forced to respect human rights. Since I believe in the right to secession, I would say that any state which the rest of the country deemed to have grossly violated human rights could be forced to "go it alone" and become their own country, but that's it. That would really go for just about anything deemed serious enough, slavery, abortion funding, whatever. Of course we could, and probably would, debate exactly what's what with regards to this, but I think you get my point. I think its acceptable for the republic to stop associating with states that do certain things, but not to literally force them to do those things.

The way I would do it would be that every state has to agree to abide by human rights if they want to be part of the Union. If you don't, then you can leave. So pretty much what you said.

I really didn't think much about the amendments other than the 13th, its just that the 13th was the one that first jumped out at me. I agree with the one about congressmen's pay raises only taking effect next election, but I'd rather see that amended to say that Congress is literally not allowed to raise their pay, ever (I wonder how this would affect Fed policy... hmmm...) I don't think DC's votes should count, based on the original idea of 50 independent Republics. I'm sorta indifferent to the 11th... I really just don't care. Honestly, were Obama and Romney really that opposed to each other? I seriously doubt they'd have a problem working together anymore than Obama and Biden are. Back when the 11th was actually passed there was a serious ideological divide between the limited government camps, and the moderately big government camps, now its just two huge government camps that are mostly arguing over what order they want to do crap. I guess if Rand Paul were elected I'd want him to have a libertarian leaning VP, but I don't know if he'd actually pick one anyway. Regarding the voting amendments, I kind of have mixed feelings. Ideally men would vote as the leaders and representatives of their families, but I know in practice it doesn't really work like this. Ultimately, however, I care about having informed voters. As long as the income tax exists, I think only people who pay at least some income taxes should be able to vote, much in line with how the Founders only let property owners... people with an actual stake in the outcome of elections, being able to vote. I'd also like to see voters being required to at least have a basic knowledge of who or what the crap they're voting for, but I can't think of any way of doing this that wouldn't be abused by TPTB.

Well, poll taxes have been used in the past for the purpose of excluding blacks from voting. I think having people actually pay to vote is a horrible idea. I think with DC they shouldn't be a state but I don't like the idea of disenfranchising over half a million Americans because of where they live, they're affected by laws our government passes. So 3 Electoral votes is good with me. I support Puerto Rico becoming a state should they feel like becoming one, or if they feel like becoming an independent nation, that's cool too. Same goes with Guam, Virgin Islands, etc. If I could get rid of one amendment it would the 16th (Income tax). Not sure which other ones I would get rid of.

[Christian Liberty]

The way I would do it would be that every state has to agree to abide by human rights if they want to be part of the Union. If you don't, then you can leave. So pretty much what you said.

Agreed.

Well, poll taxes have been used in the past for the purpose of excluding blacks from voting. I think having people actually pay to vote is a horrible idea. I think with DC they shouldn't be a state but I don't like the idea of disenfranchising over half a million Americans because of where they live, they're affected by laws our government passes. So 3 Electoral votes is good with me. I support Puerto Rico becoming a state should they feel like becoming one, or if they feel like becoming an independent nation, that's cool too. Same goes with Guam, Virgin Islands, etc. If I could get rid of one amendment it would the 16th (Income tax). Not sure which other ones I would get rid of.

Not saying every single person, but I think a good portion of DC's population benefit from government thuggery. So of course they'll vote for it. I forgot to mention that I don't think people who work for the government, ESPECIALLY as military or police, should be allowed to vote either.

Puerto Rico being a state and having a vote (or Guam, Virgin Islands, etc.) makes more sense to me than DC being able to vote.

And yeah, the 16th would be the most important.

Regarding poll taxes to vote, I wasn't suggesting that, I was simply saying that people who don't pay income taxes shouldn't be able to vote, not that there should be an extra tax to vote.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Not saying every single person, but I think a good portion of DC's population benefit from government thuggery. So of course they'll vote for it. I forgot to mention that I don't think people who work for the government, ESPECIALLY as military or police, should be allowed to vote either.

Well, I disagree with you there, especially since if I was in charge of things the military would be shrunk and stay within our borders. The criminal justice system would also be reformed.

With DC voting, government jobs is part of it, but Conservatives could work on minority outreach which will definitely help in DC. Getting rid of a lot of government jobs might get the people working for various unnecessary agencies to move somewhere else, decreasing the percentage of liberals in the city.

Puerto Rico being a state and having a vote (or Guam, Virgin Islands, etc.) makes more sense to me than DC being able to vote.

I think Puerto Rico should become a state, the independence movement is weak, and remaining a territory/commonwealth is quite pointless.

And yeah, the 16th would be the most important.

Regarding poll taxes to vote, I wasn't suggesting that, I was simply saying that people who don't pay income taxes shouldn't be able to vote, not that there should be an extra tax to vote.

Although I don't necessarily agree with you, I see your point.

[heavenlyboy34]

1. The military shall never be permitted to function as a domestic enforcement entity at any time, in any manner, to any degree, or for any reason whatsoever. Their sole function shall be the defense of materially direct attacks against the People and Territories of the United States. Any such use of the military against The People of the United States shall constitute an act of treason against said People. Those responsible for such misuse of military forces shall be guilty of high treason and upon conviction shall be sentenced to death by public hanging.

This one especially stuck out for me. This assumes that a standing army is legitimate. If by "military" you mean the militia, it makes more sense. "Armies" as we know them are (on paper) only supposed to be raised in the event of a war declaration or defensive action.

[Christian Liberty]

Well, I disagree with you there, especially since if I was in charge of things the military would be shrunk and stay within our borders.

The idea is that government workers have a vested interest in keeping big government. You actually illustrate my point with your "if I was in charge of things" post. Government leeches are not going to vote for you, for that very reason. Are there exceptions? Of course. But in general government workers would vote for your statist opponent over you because you threaten their stolen income.

The criminal justice system would also be reformed.

See above. Preventing people who make money off the criminal justice system from voting would help with this problem.

It doesn't deserve to be called "justice" system either, but that's another issue

With DC voting, government jobs is part of it, but Conservatives could work on minority outreach which will definitely help in DC. Getting rid of a lot of government jobs might get the people working for various unnecessary agencies to move somewhere else, decreasing the percentage of liberals in the city.

This is something I still don't know the answer to. 90+% of black people vote Democrat, but why? It can't have anything to do with being black in and of itself (I know this is probably a given, but just to cover all my bases), otherwise Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell couldn't exist. Hispanics are less confusing, for better or worse, a lot of it is probably immigration related. Income is always going to play a role, and I know minorities are generally poorer than white people, which probably makes a difference.

And of course, minorities are disproportionately hurt by the War on Drugs. My problem is, Democrats are mostly in favor of this just as much as Republicans are. Are most black people who vote Democrat unaware of this fact? If so, a Rand Paul could probably point it out and win some of them from the Dems, assuming the media didn't succeed in portraying him as a racist.

I think Puerto Rico should become a state, the independence movement is weak, and remaining a territory/commonwealth is quite pointless.

I don't know why Puerto Rico would want to be part of the American Empire, but whatever

Although I don't necessarily agree with you, I see your point.

Much like with government jobs... the parasite class shouldn't be voting. This is really more pragmatism than principle though. Principle says that all governments... and thus, voting... for everyone... should be abolished. This is more a pragmatic debate of how to get closer to that more quickly.

This one especially stuck out for me. This assumes that a standing army is legitimate. If by "military" you mean the militia, it makes more sense. "Armies" as we know them are (on paper) only supposed to be raised in the event of a war declaration or defensive action.

War declarations should be illegal too. War should only be permitted if someone declares war on you, or otherwise attacks you and thus practically creates a state of war.

[osan]

I feel like the 13th amendment should stand at least. Not sure it would really matter though: I doubt any state would reinstitute slavery.

The 13th is completely unnecessary and always has been. That slavery was allowed speaks not to the inadequacies of the Constitution but rather the hearts and minds of men.

I think the right to vote (15th and 19th) are important too.

These are contractual rights, not fundamental. They should be spelled out, I agree, but that could be done elsewhere. Were this nation "right", the issue of voting would be rendered irrelevant in large measure.

The parts of the 14th that deal with racial equality should be kept.

Extraneous belaboring of the obvious buys us... what, exactly? I do believe the racial question is long settled. We're not enslaving this group or that. We are enslaving everyone with splendidly consistent equality anymore... well, except for the whipmasters, of course.

I'd keep the eleventh because having the President and Vice President be completely opposed to each other wouldn't work well. Congressional pay raises taking affect after the next election is nice as well. People in DC should also have their vote count (23), even though they vote wrong.

So nice, in fact, that the nation is on the verge of collapse into rank tyranny.

I think we can do a far better job.

[osan]

I have mixed feelings on some of that. Generally my feeling on gross rights violations at the state level is that any states who do so should be kicked out of the union, but should not be literally forced to respect human rights. Since I believe in the right to secession, I would say that any state which the rest of the country deemed to have grossly violated human rights could be forced to "go it alone" and become their own country, but that's it. That would really go for just about anything deemed serious enough, slavery, abortion funding, whatever. Of course we could, and probably would, debate exactly what's what with regards to this, but I think you get my point. I think its acceptable for the republic to stop associating with states that do certain things, but not to literally force them to do those things.

The problem with your thinking here is that you treat "states" as if they actually existed and that they were mono-bloc entities. There is no such thing as a state, per se. There are only the individuals making up the population of a geographical area. We may label that area a "state" as a matter of convenience of expression, but we $#@! up royally when we allow our thinking to run astray and start regarding "state" as something other than a mere conceptual convention. When we attribute characteristics such as "rights", "powers", and "dignity" to a "state", the intelligent and smart man can know for certain that the train is off the rails and careening down the ravine and about to kill everyone on board.

What happens when a "state" goes tyranny-simple and refuses to let people leave?

Ultimately this is all "second bests" though because ultimately I'd love to see both voting and the government abolished. That would be the ideal.

That may well be, but we have at least 6000 years of positive reality wherein empire was born and has grown like a cancer. Eliminating it will not happen any time in the coming 10 generations, all else equal. The best for which we can hope, assuming nothing extraordinary occurs like an asteroid strike, is to peel back and cut away the layers of tyranny that is the natural product of empire and hope for days less horrid than what we now have and, heaven forbid, not keep heading in this current and so very wrong direction.

[Ronin Truth]

Proposed alternative:

Amendment XXIX

Harm no other in their person or property, then do as you please.

simplify!

[osan]

This one especially stuck out for me. This assumes that a standing army is legitimate. If by "military" you mean the militia, it makes more sense. "Armies" as we know them are (on paper) only supposed to be raised in the event of a war declaration or defensive action.

What I am attempting to do here is speak in the vernacular of the Framers. It is a less perfect tongue that that which I would use, were I king, but at some point practicality must have a say in how one proceeds or he will likely spend the rest of his days spinning his wheels, going nowhere.

Were I king, all empire worldwide would be abolished. This, of course, requires empire-like power to enforce, so we are in a bit of a catch-22.

Freedom requires a brand of intelligence and smarts that is today more rare than lips on chickens... at least those not in Monsanto laboratories.

It seems the best for which we can hope to hope any time in the coming 100 years is a slow march toward what I shall conversationally label a proper minarchism. Peel back the layers of empire's handiwork and reduce governors to mere servants and guardians of the right and proper principles underpinning proper human relations. To hope for autodiathism to arise in the face of at least 6000 years of bred-in empire mindset flies beyond the pale of good reason. Most people appear to be constitutionally incapable of shedding the most fundamental presumptions that have underpinned and nourished empire's rise to global primacy. Where the mind goes, the butt soon follows. The only way to defeat empire is to discredit is at the radical level such that there is no wiggle room to argue that the problem lies in implementation and not in rubric. I do believe we will see NAMBLA members raping little boys under the protection of statute long before people will reject the fundamental presuppositions that underpin their world views such that they cling to empire as frightened children to their deceased mothers' breasts. This is very deeply seated stuff.

[Christian Liberty]

The problem with your thinking here is that you treat "states" as if they actually existed and that they were mono-bloc entities. There is no such thing as a state, per se. There are only the individuals making up the population of a geographical area. We may label that area a "state" as a matter of convenience of expression, but we $#@! up royally when we allow our thinking to run astray and start regarding "state" as something other than a mere conceptual convention. When we attribute characteristics such as "rights", "powers", and "dignity" to a "state", the intelligent and smart man can know for certain that the train is off the rails and careening down the ravine and about to kill everyone on board.

States do exist... they shouldn't, but they do. That said, I'm talking about what should be done in the immediate term with regards to the Federal Republic that does exist, not the ideal situation.

What happens when a "state" goes tyranny-simple and refuses to let people leave?

What if another country does that? Let's say... North Korea. Its people aren't allowed to leave, and its in tyranny. By your logic, the US should attack North Korea. What exactly differentiates "states" and "countries" in your outlook?

If a state wants to become its own country and thus oppress its own people, its no more the business of the United States as if Cuba or North Korea oppresses its own people.

That may well be, but we have at least 6000 years of positive reality wherein empire was born and has grown like a cancer. Eliminating it will not happen any time in the coming 10 generations, all else equal. The best for which we can hope, assuming nothing extraordinary occurs like an asteroid strike, is to peel back and cut away the layers of tyranny that is the natural product of empire and hope for days less horrid than what we now have and, heaven forbid, not keep heading in this current and so very wrong direction.

That was exactly the point of the first parts of my post. I know governments aren't going away right now, hence why I'm focusing on making them as non-oppressive as possible, yet never losing sight of the fact that all governments are immoral.

[osan]

Proposed alternative:

Amendment XXIX

Harm no other in their person or property, then do as you please.

simplify!

Simplistic. Not because you are wrong. I agree completely with you. The problem lies in the practical application. The world is rotten with dullards and the corrupt. The latter will twist words any which way to alter meaning and the former are incapable or unwilling (both?) to identify the evil that is being foisted upon them. Plenty of those, in fact, welcome the evil because they believe that they profit from it in some meaningful way. The truth is, such people are happy to sell their souls for the least token fortune waved before their glazed and avaricious eyes. Such people are willing, if not always happy, to see his fellow trampled under roughshod foot so long as he is getting what he thinks he wants.

That is why my amendment, rough and flawed as it is, is so verbose. Such circumlocution is necessary in order to pin meaning's hide as securely to the barn door as possible. Still no guarantee of safety from the usurpers, but I see no reason why Theire jobs should be made anything less than the most difficult ones imaginable. Onus rests with US to keep them at bay and because so many people place so much stock in written words it follows that those words should act pursuant to the goals of proper human relations with the greatest armor against liberty's enemies as we are able to furnish.

I'd just as soon dispense with all this bull$#@!, but that will avail us nothing and Themme everything. The synchronistic human mind is deeply poisioned with falsehood. Insanity runs wildly across the face of the globe and there is no possible way we are going to rein that in with any elegance. Brute force, unbending determination, courage, and competent contrivance and composition are the only tools that hold out even the least hope that the human race will be able to stuff the genie of empire back into its bottle.

[osan]

OK, I just vomited this from my cranium. I think this is closer to correct.

Amendment XXIX

Because individuals holding positions of public office and other governmental duties occupy positions of special trust and privilege, they must be held to a higher standard of action. Intent is largely irrelevant to the actual results that arise from the choices made by those in such positions.




The purpose of this Amendment is to address those results and to specify the hazards all such individuals shall face for the commission of Crimes and Violations against those to whom they swear oaths of good faith and competent service.


Free Men stand under the constant threat of others who would see them subdued and reduced in status to some form and degree of servitude or slavery. It matters no whit whence the threat, but when “government” in any form or fraction thereof becomes the source of such threats, the risks to life, limb, and other properties of Free Men are most acutely set to hazard.

This Amendment seeks to reduce the means and abilities by which any government instrument may be set against the Free Men of America by outlining in detail the limits to be placed upon all such instruments, as well as the hazards they face in the event of any violation of the Rights of a Free Man. It further reasserts the powers of Free Men to resist violations by “government”.

Definitions

This section shall list and define all special terms used in this Amendment


Instrument, “government instrument”


Any individual who has been elected to public office, whether by the people, by another governing body, or by any other means whatsoever.


Any individual appointed to any public office or other position by any means, to any governmental position whatsoever.

Any individual hired as a governmental employee to any position whatsoever.


Any individual contracted to discharge any duties of government whatsoever.


This applies not only to individuals, but any group thereof imaginable that might be elected, appointed, hired, or contracted pursuant to the duties specified herein.


The specifications of this definition applies to any and all levels and forms of governance/government, whether federal, state, county, city, or village. There is no form, level, type, category, or degree of “government” to which this definition does not apply.


Crime
A Crime is any act committed by any government instrument in violation of the rights of those to whom such instruments have sworn an oath of good faith and service.


Criminal Debt


That which is owed by an individual in consequence of having been duly convicted of a criminal act in a court of Law, by a jury of one’s peers.


Violation


A violation is any act committed by a government instrument for which there is no rational and just basis. Prevailing circumstances provide no mitigating relief for instruments who act to violate Free Men who have committed no criminal acts for which interference would be otherwise justified.


Amended Crime


An Amended Crime is one where the perpetrator of said Crime has made sufficient reparations his victim for each criminal act to assess said victim as having been remade as whole in terms of every loss suffered at the hands of the perpetrator.


Unamended Crime


An Unamended Crime is one where the perpetrator is either incapable or unwilling to make whole the victims upon whom he has committed violation.

In the case of incapacity, the Crime committed may not be regarded as being aggravated beyond the usual measure of such a Crime. For example, in the case of death resulting from the Crime, there is no means of restoring the victim to wholeness.

In the case of no will to amend, the Crime committed may be regarded as being aggravated beyond the usual measure of such a Crime. For example, in the case of theft, the perpetrator refuses to return the stolen items to his victim, or provide said victim with a suitable replacement.

Oath of Good Faith and Competent Service


Prior to perfecting any governmental instrument, the individual(s) in question must take the following oath, which shall remain in force for the duration of the instrument’s tenure:

“I , <state full name>, do solemnly swear under pain of severe penalties to which I accede in advance, to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and to defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

I do further solemnly swear, under pain of severe penalties to which I accede in advance, to abstain under all circumstances from committing Crimes and other violations of the rights of those to whom I swear this oath, which is to say the entirety of the People of the United States of America.

I do finally and solemnly swear, under pain of severe penalties to which I accede in advance, to make whole all those whom I may damage, whether through accident, ignorance, or intent. Any refusal to make my victims whole shall stand as prima facie proof of criminal intent against my victims. To this I accede in advance.

Pursuant to the above sworn oath, I hereby waive my Constitutional rights to privacy and to not self-incriminate in all matters relating to every facet of my sworn duties of office and position as a public servant. I vow to answer all questions put to me with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.


I swear this oath of fealty, good faith and competent, honest service to every individual man, woman, and child to whom the duties of my office shall apply. I so swear this oath in full capacity to do so, and without mental reservation. I swear it upon my honor, and my life, understanding and accepting that both may be forfeit if I violate this attestation and affirmation of duty to the Free Men of America.


Free Man


Any human individual living within the territorial borders of the United States of America who is not living under Criminal Debt.


Criminal


Any human individual living without the territorial borders of the United States of American who is living under Criminal Debt.

Limits of Action

Under no circumstance, including those of declared “emergencies” and “crises” shall any government instrument be empowered to violate the Constitutionally recognized and protected Rights of Free Men. within the territorial boundaries of the United States of America, nor those of any American citizen who may be abroad of those boundaries.


The Bill of Rights, as embodied in Amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, reign supreme, all other considerations and purports to governmental power waning to near vanishing in the shadows of those enumerations.

Waiver of Rights

Where matters concerning the duties of an instrument’s office and position are concerned, prior to perfection of the instrument, the individual must agree to a waiver of certain Constitutional protections. The waiver shall include the following:

1. 1. Right to privacy
   2. Right to remain silent
   3. Right to not self-incriminate
   4. Right to legal counsel

Pursuant to these waivers, all instruments agree to answer fully and with complete candor and honesty all questions put to them during investigations of possible Crimes and Violations committed by themselves or other instruments against Free Men.

Refusal to answer in the ways required shall be taken to constitute prima facie proof of one’s criminal intent and shall result in not one day less than ten years at hard labor with no possibility of parole at a military barracks such as that found at Ft. Leavenworth.

Amended Violations

Any instrument convicted of a Crime or other Violation and who amends his deeds sufficient to the victim’s assessment shall have their penalties reduced in severity as judge and victim(s) shall agree.

Unamended Violations

Any instrument convicted of a Crime or other Violation and who is either incapable of making proper amends due to the nature of the Crime, shall endure the full force of penalties but may be shown consideration if the victims accede to it.

In the case where the convicted refuses to make amends where he might otherwise be able to do so, the Crime shall stand as aggravated and the convict shall bear the full force of penalties, with neither consideration nor mercy, the victim(s) having no say in the matter.

Penalties

Those convicted of Crimes or other Violations as instruments of government shall bear the following penalties:

1. Immediate loss of office/position, as well as all benefits, rights, privileges, and protections attached thereto
2. Prohibition from holding any public office or position, whether elected, appointed, hired, or contracted, for life.
3. All properties of the instrument shall be forfeit. Any properties transferred to other parties, which can be demonstrated to have been so transferred as a measure to avoid forfeiture, shall come nonetheless under forfeiture.
4. Any family member of the instrument who can be proven to have had knowledge of the Crime(s) in question and who failed to come forward to expose said Crime(s) shall be deemed equally guilty and shall endure equal penalties.
5. Unamended Crimes shall be punished with not less than ten years at hard labor and not more than life at hard labor, save those that constitute Treason, which shall punished by public hanging.

False Accusation

Pursuant to truer justice, and given the severity of the penalties for instruments convicted of Crimes or Violations, government instruments must enjoy proper protection against false accusation. To that end, anyone who accuses an instrument of Crimes and/or Violations in a formal manner shall face the precise same hazards of those whom they so accuse. In the case where accusations prove to be intentionally false, the accuser shall suffer the punishments that would have been meted to the instrument, had said instrument been convicted.