Re: Thom Hartmann says Liberals & "Tea baggers" should UNITE!
- From: jos boersema <joshb@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 21 Nov 2009 10:23:52 GMT
On 2009-11-21, jos boersema <joshb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to talk.politics.misc.][...]
On 2009-11-20, Doug Bashford <playing@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thom Hartmann says Liberals & "Tea baggers" should UNITE!
Yes we have some differences, but compared to
"America is going to
Hell in a handbasket,"
It is, what you're going to do about it !
...they are minor.
...claims that the differences between the Liberals
& "Tea baggers" is mostly a product of political
leadership that fears our uniting.
He might be right. I hate to admit that sometimes
I feel I'm being played.
All political parties are corrupt, of course you're being played if
someone tries to usurp your movement into the existing corrupt strata.
For political party formation, also check my site (which technically
attempts to usurp your movement now too, do note, but please also
do considder it!) ... http://www.socialism.nl/party/nl/david-we
Here proposed Constitution, merged with the USA Bill of Rights (having
precedence):
http://www.jhwh.be/post/002/merged/usa-BillOfRights-merged-constitution-.txt
The Bill of Rights replaces chapter 2, which is the chapter that is
supposed to contain individual protections / human rights, etc.
Chapter B: The Bill of Rights
_B.0.a Precedence of the Bill of Rights
_B.1* * First Amendment
_B.2 * Second Amendment
_B.3 * Third Amendment
_B.4 * Fourth Amendment
_B.5 * Fifth Amendment
_B.6 * Sixth Amendment
_B.7 * Seventh Amendment
_B.8 * Eighth Amendment
_B.9 * Ninth Amendment
_B.10* * Tenth Amendment
Chapter B: The Bill of Rights
_B.0.a Precedence of the Bill of Rights
The rights enumerated in this chapter B under the Bill of Rights, where
they may seem to conflict with further provisions in this Constitution,
are having precedence. The Government must redress a grievance of
disparity between this Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution
promptely by altering the Constitution in a reasonable way to conform
with this Bill of Rights, unless this Bill of Rights itself is being
changed by the prescribed protocol for changing the Constitution,
Article _1.1.a-1 Changes.
..
.. Reasoning. Maybe someone else would like to change proposed Constitution
.. to conform with the Bill of Rights ? Above law gives it precedence,
.. the easy way out, enough to make it function. There may be different
.. ways as to how this is to be further merged, a later process could
.. decide on that.
..
.. This whole Constitution proposal only contains a chapter 2 with
.. individual protections to complete the model. It does not matter for
.. the model and it wasn't the intention to create another or better way
.. to protect individual rights / liberties / obligations. The original
.. chapter 2 is only here to complete the model, which obviously would be
.. better with some form of these rights in the Constitution. Therefore
.. it really doesn't detract at all from the proposal to throw out the
.. original, and put something else in that serves the same purpose.
..
.. NOTICE: Bill of Rights articles (not ammendments anymore I guess) that
.. have had letters changed are marked with a star (the words Congress
.. became Government, and "United States" in ammendment 10 became
.. "Country Council" in article B.10, the word "effects" has been removed
.. from the Fourth Amendment, because I distrust it as referring to
.. parasitic documents like shares/stocks/loans ? The word adds practically
.. nothing to that Amendment, and though it probably is not a danger
.. against the finance monopoly of the common good I've removed it so that
.. it surely won't.)
..
.. Source of the Bill of Rights: wikipedia
.. #Wikipedia (en) Sat Nov 21 09:33:51 UTC 2009
..
.. It is obviously also possible to re-insert that chapter 2 again.
.. To be perfectly honest it doesn't matter that much I think, it would
.. be interesting and traditional for the Americans to include this
.. in their Constitution, I'd say I'd be for it at least.
_B.1*
* First Amendment
Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.
_B.2
* Second Amendment
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.
_B.3
* Third Amendment
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house,
without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a
manner to be prescribed by law.
_B.4*
* Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and ......., against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
_B.5
* Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a
Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of
War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the
same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.
_B.6
* Sixth Amendment
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State
and district where in the crime shall have been committed,
which district shall have been previously ascertained by law,
and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to
have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
_B.7
* Seventh Amendment
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall
exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be
preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise
re-examined in any court of the United States, than according
to the rules of the common law.
_B.8
* Eighth Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
_B.9
* Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.
_B.10*
* Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the ....Country Council... by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the ...Local Governments...,
are reserved to the ...Local Governments... respectively, or to
the people.
(...)
That is on the record then isn't it.
I'm not too confident in trial by jury by the way, but if that's what
you want to do. I'm sympathetic to gun ownership, though it has
drawbacks. I'm saying that, although it doesn't really matter what I
think, but it is obviously so that once you are willing to follow
outlined plan on my site (why not ?) that this carries the risk that
more people would listen to my opinions then is wise for them to do.
That jury trial and gun ownership seem to be the big contentions,
neither i really care much about. Absolute freedom of speech is
definitely the better choice over vague restrictions that may end
abused (then why does the USA have a 'libel' law by the way, why
can't you let people lie under the assumption that it is freedom
of speech and the truth should be able to win on its own ?).
So ... i'm definitely for using the Bill of Rights and maybe other
such, merged with the model. I'm personally not at all confident in
the way the USA elects its Government and I'm definitely saying that
my model is probably a lot stronger / better, so I definitely would
argue for doing away with: USA Constitution on electing Government.
You can count on that.
You can also count on that I want to do away with the freedom to
sell money for profit in businesses (investment), if not this way
then any other way. Also doing away with businesses being solde and
bought, and with soil being bought and sold (unless it is underneath
housing, in which case it'd be some corrolary of the house sale).
You can count on that, too.
*
Police privacy invasion protection (note: "crime of greed" does NOT
refer to some absurd prohibition on 'greed' or 'want,' but to denote
a certain category of crimes within the whole realm of crime, so as
there is violent crime for the sake of violence (beating), and as
there is robbery and thievery for the sake of 'greed,' and that's
what's meant. The idea is that real carreer criminals only commit
crimes of greed, and not any other types, in particularly not 'crimes
of speech' (if there is such a thing, such as lying/misinformation etc).
The idea is only to target carreer criminals for a loosening of the
search protection, so that political opponents of maybe certain
people can not get abused under that clause that allows easier searches
for carreer criminals (who, after all, must live from the proceeds of
crime, implying it becoming 'greed crimes.').)
_3.2.b-4 Police and Privacy
The police is allowed to suspend temporarily and in individual
cases the right to Privacy, see Article 2.1.e, Privacy, if doing
so is vital to solving a crime.
_3.2.b-4.1 Police Privacy, oversight
The right of the Police to search evidence and criminals by
invading Privacy, is overseen case by case by Judges.
For persons not having committed a crime of greed in the last 10
years, two Judges will have to agree to the search. During the
search a witness of the Court of Justice will be present, from
start to end.
For persons having had committed a crime of greed not more then
10 years ago, one Judge will have to agree to the search.
For persons having been convicted to prison for a crime of greed
more then 3 times in the last 10 years, no Judges will have to
agree to the search.
_3.2.b-4.2 Police Privacy, Compensation
The duration of Privacy invading activity, even if it - the
subject - is not hindered in any way, is reimbursed at the average
wage for one person, plus unreasonable damages.
Note that this is chapter 3, so that remains if chapter 2 is thrown out,
but in the context of the Bill of Rights and subordinate to it
(according B.0.a, until resolved -- by the way a good way is to just
go for the merged law, and later in due process of Government resolve
it, as that would provide a clear singular process and prevent premature
disagreements fracturing the people that like the Bill of Rights version
above the chapter 2 version // you can use both I don't mind. For
variety sake a Bill of Rights version seems interesting.)
--
http://www.socialism.nl
.
- Prev by Date: The History of Espionage for the Entertainment of Entertainers
- Next by Date: USA controlled pipeline through to central Asian oil / gas fields is the REAL reason western troops invaded Afghanistan and Pakistan
- Previous by thread: The History of Espionage for the Entertainment of Entertainers
- Next by thread: USA controlled pipeline through to central Asian oil / gas fields is the REAL reason western troops invaded Afghanistan and Pakistan
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
