Should The United states Constitution Be Ratified?

% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

Lately I have been doing a lot of thinking on the problems within our government and its abuse of power regarding The Constitution—particularly how the Supreme Court interprets our Constitution.  The Supreme Court is a valuable part to our system, because it is the last line of defense protecting the people from tyrannical government through the powers of law.  But it’s been quite a long time since the founding of our nation, and technology and corruption surrounding that technology has changed drastically.  There is no doubt in any person’s mind who is fighting for freedom and liberty in this day and age, that we have entered into a new form of resistance—particularly in the age of the internet.  

 

George Washington saw flaws in The Constitution of the United States, because he knew that a paper document could not cover the depth of a person’s inalienable rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and ultimately freedom.   

 

But, as history proves, though law is primarily created to govern the wicked and protect the innocent, unbridled corruption & unjust laws (which serve the wicked) attempt to govern the innocent, ultimately destroying innocents—stripping them of once basic rights—imprisoning them in a false sense of security, only to rip the rug from underneath them. Once awake, the victims blanch in to hopelessness and despair, fearing escape or rescue will never be theirs.

 

After the National Defense Authorization act (NDAA) was signed in to law, I realized the paramount importance of standing up for my freedoms and liberties. It seemed congress had no interest in preserving The Constitution of The United States of America. They have sworn to protect—particularly The President of The United States who feels he does not need to salute or pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States, let alone calling The Constitution an “Imperfect document“, and by that statement, what he really means is change The United States from a democracy to a Banana Republic—also known as a police states.  

 

There are numerous problems in this country, and it’s next to impossible to name all the issues it’s facing; however, if we the people revisit The Constitution of The United States of America, we can fix some of the problems that exist today—especially in these modern times.  

 

The reality is government is just an over glorified property manager, but the problem with the people is they sought out government as some kind of god or savior by making demands based on fear or entitlements.  There will always be a need for some level of government, but as our founding fathers warned…the government is to be kept on a very short leash and hold very limited powers. They feared unchecked government would turn into a tyrannical untamable beast—exactly what citizens are seeing today.  

 

It’s easy to put the blame on the American people for being too fat and lazy—to make sure government is doing what it’s supposed to be doing.  But there are other things to blame that are not entirely the fault of its citizens.  For example, our government is steeped in secrecy and propaganda.  Essentially creating false propaganda through news outletsto fool or pacify the American people.  Not to mention, that the very wealthy use the main stream media to control the general population and advertise their own political agenda.  Obviously this is illegal, but because the American people do not know this is happening to them they cannot do anything about it.

 

After prop 37 didn’t pass I really wondered why a society would be so complacent and apathetic to not want GMO labeling.  Companies likeMonsanto and The Hershey Co. contributed to what was eventually a $44 million windfall for “No on Prop 37,” while proponents were only able to raise $7.3 million, (California Watch).

 

So, it is hard to tell if the general public was blissfully unaware of the media manipulation or the majority really is asinine.  But mass stupidity could be contributed to fluoride and lead in the water and Chemtrails in the air.  Or this could be one giant case of “Ostrichitis” the perpetual burying of one’s head in the sad. 

 

Other issues that pushed me over the edge? When the police raided the little girls’ lemonade stand for not having a business license; when men were fined and sent to jail for collecting rain water on their own property; also, watching others being fined and thrown in jail for growing a gardenon their own property.  Our government is simply out of control.  

 

I am shocked that the founding fathers really didn’t include anything about a police force in The Constitution just a well-regulated militia.  In fact, the founding fathers didn’t really want a permanent standing army rather a navy, because that is the force that gave the final blow to the English empire.   Not to mention we are a nation that is surrounded by water and our neighbors are very friendly with the United States as a neighboring country.  

 

I do feel there are some issues in The Constitution which need to be addressed, or better yet, clarified.  

 

First and foremost I’d address The Second Amendment.  I think the way the founding fathers wrote that is vague and aggressively interpreted to suit anti-gun arguments or laws.  

 

If I were to add to the Second Amendment I would propose that “no law shall impose regulations, restrictions, registration, or state fees on any arms.”  

 

The Second Amendment also needs to classify what an “arm” is. This classification should be set forth to future technologies as well.  At the time the citizens of The United States had the best arms for that point in history. I’d like to say, “Any citizen may have any kind of weapon he or she feels will adequately protect them from harm from tyrannical government, or criminals”. Castle doctrine comes to mind.  

 

One issue I see abused a lot is the right to carry.  The right to bear arms means “the right to carry weapons” when translated literally, but somehow anti-gun nuts love to twist those words. Adding a blurb saying, “Any person can carry a weapon without restriction or regulation on carrying an arm.”  I can’t tell you the number of times I hear stories of police officers harassing a person for carrying a gun anywhere.  

 

Banning classifications of particular weapons bugs me. The whole point in having any weapon, constitutionally speaking, is to protect us from tyrannical government. Telling the American people they can’t have bigger guns than the government possesses is just down right crazy. Two cases come to mind one involving sawed off shotguns and the other is the case involving Katrina gun confiscation which resulted in a standoff between police and civilians. These cases prove just how important having equal or greater arms power to government is.  

 

I feel the same regarding explosives of any kind. While I understand the grave importance of keeping explosives out of largely populated areas, I do not like the idea that ONLY government can control and distribute explosives. That puts government in a higher position of power than citizenry.  The reality is there should not be a restriction on owning or possessing explosives. Think of this in terms of how fireworks are treated. A government constantly finding ways to demonize anything its citizens do is a government bent on tyranny. By modifying the language of The Constitution—to be more explicit and current in this modern era—both clarifies the meaning of the Second Amendment and reigns in a power that has run amuck and roughshod on its base.

 

The point here isn’t to be radical about what kind of weapons we can have but to shed light on the fact that the people of The United States are equal to paid public servants, and said public servants have no more rights or liberties then the American people as a whole.  So if explosives are not allowed in a city both civilians and peace and military cannot bring them in, because the law applies to all citizens of the United States. I consider an officer of the law having the same rights as every other citizen.  It’s a hard concept to grasp but it’s important that some kind of language be put in to The Constitution regarding our ability to equally protect ourselves, and have the same level of protection as a paid public servant.

 

Why is there an unbalanced relationship between citizens and police, or any other government entity with power? I’d like to point out that a police officer is nothing more than a public servant.  And as such, police officers have both a moral and professional obligations to not only uphold the law but to observe the same exact rights as the common everyday citizen. It must be clear that NO law enforcer has any more power than an average citizen.  Citizen’s arrest comes to mind. The only difference is an officer of the law is a paid public servant who is hired to make Citizen’s arrest as their chosen career.  It’s analogous to being a journalist—sure anyone can write news, and sure, citizens are protected by free speech to do so—paid or not. The issue in today’s society? Public servants somehow see themselves above the law or constitution.  The general public should be seen as the protectors of our society just as in Switzerland.  In fact,Switzerland does not have a standing army, instead opting for a people’s militia for its national defense. 

 

I love how the Swiss operate. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training—including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of their military obligations; thus, Switzerland has one of the highest militia gun ownership rates in the world.

 

Obviously politicians do their best to restrict the people from owning guns, but the Swiss seem to vote against these resolutions.  For a population with such large gun ownership, they have the lowest crime rate in the world.  Why? It’s because of how the Swiss educate and train the public in the use of weapons.  It reduces the fear factor and increases national participation.  Instead of fearing the sight of guns, every child should be exposed to guns so they have a reference, respect, and reverence for what the tool is used for.  I’d love to see such a program be implemented in public schools.  We can learn a lot from the Swiss especially since they are one of the few countries in the world that have hardly, if ever, participated in any war—except for defending their own country.  I think if the founding fathers knew about the Swiss and their gun laws, they would have adopted them.  The United States was practically foraged with a gun in the hand of every able body male.  

 

Why is hunting such an issue in The United States? I find it ridiculous any fees for hunting are required at all.  I understand the need to regulate hunting of particular animals, but I don’t like how a rich man can hunt but not a poor man–like somehow the rich man has more rights than the poor man.  First come first served has always worked with me.  It is the duty of man to take care of the environment the best we can, but not while restricting the liberties of other men.  

 

Now…on to The First Amendment. The first in The Bill of Rights is well protected in The United States, because it is the one freedom people use more often than any other freedom. This is why it’s so heavily guarded by its people.  I do see violations regarding such freedoms from time to time, but it’s not as bad as some counties.  With that said, the following is what I’d like to see added to The Constitution regarding The First Amendment.  

 

The freedom to assemble: I have noticed that our government does a few things when it comes to the right to assemble in protest. I resent is the use of “free speech zones.”  Obviously, this should be considered unconstitutional, but according to some judges they think segregating people protesting into free speech zones—basically in locked cages—is somehow constitutional. Alas, no! The blatant disregard of citizens protecting their rights, and freedoms, to both assemble and speak freely, clearly needs to be addressed more explicitly in The Constitution.

 

Police using force or control to rally people like cattle, restricting their ability to protest freely, at chosen public locale, is a direct affront, and violation of our freedom to assemble. What is particularly disturbing is the Police’s provocation and violent attacks against peaceful demonstrators. By asking groups to publicize or inform the government of both their intent to assemble and their location and time, both targets activists and costs them the element of surprise—a very powerful force in peaceful demonstrations. This regulation, requirement, or whatever you want to call it, has been misused many times in the last few years. There are mountains of evidence exposing police and government agents targetingprotesters with drones and sniper rifles.  Occupy Wall Street is a poster child for this abuse of power.  

 

There must be specific language added regarding government agents bullying people by “investigating” them and wire-tapping them even after winning a court case. Activists or people who win court cases legally possessing marijuana on a state level and winning using jury nullification—like how people who are fighting bad laws on marijuana get harassed by federal agents after being proven innocent; like Aaron Swartz who was fighting for internet freedom being put on trial for bogus charges, because he wanted the internet to be free.  The powers that be disagreed, and maliciously bullied Aaron to the point he felt there was no way out. Did he commit suicide or was he secretly killed by government agents? Not sure, but, we must NOT allow such a miscarriage of justice.  

 

Internet freedom must be protected—these “interwebs” are OUR freedom—the freedom to share information, the freedom to assemble through fiber optics, and the freedom to speak freely—unashamed, unabashed, unthreatened and unafraid.  

 

An “Internet Bill of Rights” is circling right now, and it must be to The Constitution. In a nutshell it states:

 

–Have the right to use the Web (“Freedom”) 

–Have the right to use the Web without censorship or obstruction (“Open”) 

–Should be treated equally while using the Web, an obvious nod at Net Neutrality (“Equality”)

 

This is not radical thinking; it’s just translating The First Amendment to the digital age.  

 

DDOS I feel should be added as a technological way to assemble. In a digital way people can protest at a click of a mouse, and a few strokes of a keyboard, rather than organizing physically. DDOS is more immediate, and potentially packs more of a punch. Our connectivity transcends state, government, and national boundaries. In-person protests are much harder for people to organize, so the internet is just the next step in our new age of humanity.  

 

The best way to reign in our corrupt system would be to revise the The Constitution requiring more government transparency, and protect those who have the courage to blow the whistle on such corruption. 

 

The use of executive powers and war powers have reach insane proportions. Though power mongering is nothing new, in our time, we’ve seen an epic increase to power grab. Our government uses war to grow government—using scare tactics to create unjust laws.  These laws usually involve Pre-crime ala Minority Report.  Art is imitating life when government thinks it can predict crime and rule people’s thinking.  ThePatriot Act, National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Executive Order for National Resources Preparedness Act (NDRP), all the cyber security laws: tapping every American restricting internet freedom, such as SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, and a million other laws that came out about restricting internet usage or internet surveillance.  During times of war a surveillance state becomes the government’s M.O. Just look at the use of local security such as TSA, NSA and DHS.  All of these entities are police state type entities.  

 

The innumerable laws restricting people’s inalienable rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and freedom in general is disturbing. Why should rights be limited based on one’s mental condition or mental impairment—or if they are a former prisoner in the prison system? What happened to rehabilitation, forgiveness, redemption, or second chances? Somehow these people have less rights in the eyes of politicians who use fear mongering to indoctrinate the public that mental issues are unilaterally bad, those with any documented mental issue are somehow bad, and we must take away their human rights in order to be safe on a the whole. Hearing politicians use the argument “Mentally unstable people can’t use guns” is frightening. While targeting the mentally ill seems like an easy argument for politicians, it usually leads to laws that restrict people rights to bear arms. And just who defines “mental illness?”  Any government entity can claim someone is mentally unstable if they don’t agree with the status quo, or doesn’t drink the fluoride in the water, or doesn’t takemandatory vaccines, or feels an RFID chip is part of the New World Order. This implementation of Social Darwinism and Eugenics has happened repeatedly in history, creating an atmosphere that is ripe forgenocide, ethnic cleansing, Eugenics and Democide. Even in The United States we’ve seen this in action from the Terri Schiavo case to kill lists to drone strikes.  

 

This also leads to restricting prisoners’ rights. Our government is quick to demonize all prisoners telling them they cannot vote, or ever bear an arm after prison release.  The fact is most crimes done in this country are nonviolent crimes. We have this massive prison population—more than anywhere in the world with over 2 million prisoners. It’s easy to demonize a prisoner even after he has been said to be rehabilitated from the system. The whole point of prison is to restrict people’s rights, and make them pay for their crimes during the time spent in prison.  Once released, they should be considered an American citizen like everyone else in this society. In 2013, the right to prevent Pre-Crime only applies to law abiding citizens.  

 

Same goes for DMV and all these silly “control” laws on driving a car.  Americans practically sign their identities away and are forced to pay fees for the right to drive. But if they are to be free to transport anywhere around the country shouldn’t this ability to transport ourselves from point A to point B be without cost?  License plates in every state are required, you have to pay fees to register a car or get a personal driver’s license. Get rid of all of that! It naturally restricts people’s rights.  Do away with all fines and fees pertaining to driving a motor vehicle, because it’s nothing more than a big racketeering scheme. Punishment should include nothing more than taking away someone’s license, and having them commit community service. But to take people’s income just encourages the state to use the highways as a means to collect money from the people. The practice of causing one to loose so much money they cannot feed their family or function properly in society is irresponsible. This is one more instance when the wealthy prosper and the poor get squashed. 

 

“Driving is a privilege not a right.”  The wording here suggests that drivers are in control of the capacity and state in which they choose to transport themselves from one place to another. This wasn’t the intent of our founding fathers. They had horse carriages, and they were free to go and go as they pleased. Travel should not segregate people or control people like the DMV does. It’s time our ability to travel freely be addressed explicitly in The Constitution.  

 

Before any bill, law, addendum, amendment, etc. is passed it must be made public to the people in its entirety—both in paper and electronic form! There should be a public posting and public notice of such postings.  The incremental dissemination of information amounts to Newspeak, what’s being proposed is not what’s actually discussed or passed. In recent years, this practice has been used repeatedly to dupe American citizens. Knowledge is power, and our powers that be know this and use it against us. 

 

This has allowed Congress to piggyback bills on top of bills that have nothing to do with each other.  We must end this, and NOW, and for three reasons: 1) it’s used as leverage to force support of another bill even though a congressmen/women do not agree with these bills; 2) It introduces unjust laws confusing the public what as to what the bill really is about; and 3) It encourages sacrificing one’s morals for getting bills passed. 

 

When I spoke with a representatives what they say is, “It is hard to be a person in public service, fighting for freedom and liberty, because we’re constantly run over by special interest and big money”.  It should be unlawful for any public servant to use their position of power to “raise money” issuing corporations and big banks “favors” or preferential consideration. Let’s make it illegal to conduct any kind of meeting with special interest groups—particularly groups with a history and habit of donating large sums of money to public servants to gain control.

 

Speaking of big money, no more bailouts and stimulus packages.  They end up encouraging a revolving door in politics and does nothing to serve the public. It’s a reverse “Robin Hood”—taking money from the people only to give it to the wealthy few.  

 

Companies associated with Mitt Romany has bought the steering wheels of all the major car companies, intending to commit black mail, they required car companies to pay 12 billion dollars the parent organization, and if they companies failed to comply, they threatened to destroy their stock. Companies failing to comply would collapse. So, to avoid a total shutdown, companies agreed to the demands—they paid 6 billion dollars to the company and made tax payers pay the other 6 billion dollars. That, my friends, is the infamous auto bail out scam. See, nothing ever comes out of bail outs or stimulus.  

 

Did you know, the Monsanto corporation gets 20 percent of its revenue from the U.S. government for its corn crops—this is in spite of the negative public opinion toward Monsanto. Yeah, bailouts equal bad news especially when Monsanto owns the EPA, FDA, and The Supreme Court—through their “guys” working for them.  

 

I hate the ideas of paying for any licenses: business licenses, fire arms licenses, etc. Such fees only encourage a whole host of corruption—this includes fees pertaining to United States patents. It costs on average of 10,000 dollars to patent your intellectual property. so much corruption comes out of licensing and patenting.  

 

The IRS is the biggest banking scam in history and they seem to be working under the moto of “guilty until proven innocent”. This is a direct affront to what our founding fathers intended our government to be. In 2013, our money goes from the people to the financial institutions, and the money never really gets back to the people. Our founding fathers said our dollar was to be based on gold and silver. Today we don’t need gold, because The United States can use other forms of currency like the petrol dollar. The United States dollar, as it stands now, is based on debt. This is precisely what Thomas Jefferson warned us about.

 

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.”  ~ Thomas Jefferson 

 

Welcome to 2013 my brothers and sisters!

 

And the Obamacare ruling was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court it to uphold the law, but Justice Roberts used the bench to create legislation. A clear violation of the job description as laid out in The Constitution. In his commentary, he stated, “The US is allowed to tax as much as it wants”, and that’s such a glaring fabrication, Justice Roberts should be embarrassed. Our founding fathers fled to America to escape excessive taxation without representation. 

 

The Federal Reserve must be abolished. It’s not even a federal bank.  Our government “Shall not tax its citizens, but rather rely on the prosperity of its citizens to fund government projects”. That is a healthier a nation is—businesses working—the more wealth created. In such a system any borrowed debt—foreign or domestic—goes back to the people in the form of interest. The way our monitory system stands now, it promotes poverty en masse.  However, if the bank was for the people, by the people, then its people would have enormous wealth. Until something changes we’re stuck in a system where our government just keeps giving money to other countries and corporations.  The system as it stands is based on greed and corruption.  In fact Canada had a banking system like that at one point in history till it was overrun by greedy politicians. The system worked very well while it was in place and the people made good progress toward national prosperity.

  

For those of you who have an idea about how the New World Order(NWO) works, it’s based on constant surveillance, monitoring, and ultimately control on a massive scale.  RFID chips seem to come to mind when thinking about the NWO. Thus, we need language in The Constitution stating, “No man women or child shall be forced to have any kind of identity tracking system issued for any reason. Should citizens so choose to decline participation in identity tracking (in any way, or for any reason) they shall not be punished financially, or restricted physically, from participating in any activities, purchasing, etc.”.  Such a rule restricts government control significantly.  And I’d add that “No government entity, official, or representative, shall seize financial assets unless convicted of a crime”.  Historically, The list of abuses are lengthy and egregious, and the lack of “innocent until proven guilty” running pervasively through our justice system must cease to exist. 

 

We must have protection, under the law, to combat what the governmenthas dumped on us. Through their approve crappy loans, just like the FDIC should protect and insure our cash money in the banks, there should be language in The Constitution addressing foreclosures and the seizing of assets. Perhaps something like this, “Any person borrowing money from any banking institution shall not have their house, or any other property, seized. Instead, money paid on loans or interest in to borrowing money must be issued back to the borrower. After money has been remitted, the property must immediately return to the bank”.  This prevents banks from stealing and repossessing possessing assets without facing consequences for their bad loan programs. Our financial system would not be bankrupt had banks not borrowed from our accounts to create these loans. Banks make way too much money on keeping people debt slaves, but if people had the right to say, “No, I will not be someone’s debt slave”, and then actually take back their money being paid into the bank, it would upend a system steeped in greed to a system of mutual respect and healthy fear of one another. 

 

Speaking of money why can’t Congress come up with a budget? This printing money needs to end. The Federal Reserve needs to stop creating money backed by nothing but air. In my revised version of The Constitution, I’d add language to say, “Congress shall not implement any kind of debt borrowing—at all—under any circumstances—to pay for public services”. Instead Congress MUST rely on what’s in the healthy financial economy to pay for public services.  Yes, it’s radical thinking, but it can and will work if this is addressed.  

 

Our society’s moral duty to take care of the sick, the lame, the destitute and the widowed has become problematic.  While I don’t agree with socialized healthcare, I do feel we have a duty as a society to take care of people that are unable to care for themselves. This does not mean having social security, but giving all people a fighting chance to survive. THAT is our moral obligation. It is our duty, and citizens of These United States of America, to help those who cannot help themselves.  It’s about community service and involvement not socialized programs.  Alaska does this when people lose their homes to natural disasters, a pilot is downed and needs rescued, or the elderly can no longer take care of themselves. The community pitches in.  This is the mindset, the people, need to adopt.  Again this kind of thinking is not socialism but community driven programs.  

 

 Doctors should be paid, by the community, to service the whole town for general sickness or health issues through wellness centers. This philosophy dates back to ancient Greece, when health and wellness was a societal focus.  The way the medical system is run now, doctors only listen to insurance companies not the patient. THIS MUST END.  Our health care system should not be subject to the wealthy or insurance—it should be equal practice and care across the board. The poor should have the same access to the same level of healthcare as the wealthy.  This isn’t about distribution, it’s about equal access. The two should not be confused. Equal access to high quality healthcare is not socialism, but a basic human right. This is the epitome of “inalienable rights”. It’s time to rid our legislatures of lobbyists and big pharma. Get big money, big pharma, big power, and big investors out already! If we don’t have a healthy society, then we have a society that will cost more expense, simply because illnesses cannot be addressed.   

 

Finally? The college and housing bubble. Enough is enough. Yes everyone has a right to education and the right to own property, but the fact is we have seen what these bubbles can do and there need to be measures to prevent such bubbles in the market. Each time the government intervenes in these programs it causes ripple effect ultimately creating even more problems. The only success I have really seen is getting a high school education, but I have learned that there is no “right” way to live life and success in life, if one’s determined, always finds a way to emerge.  

 

If you would like to discuss or make comments about these issues please leave a comment below.  While these ideas could be radical I do think our Constitution needs to be updated to address the problems of our corrupt system and the false interpretations by politicians, law makers and Supreme Court rulings. Sometimes I think the Supreme Court makes interpretations based on personal opinions, and I hope some clarifications or modifications to The Constitution can stop some of the bogus arguments of what the The Constitution is really about United States citizens’ inalienable rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and ultimately, freedom.