Putting the FSP into high gear

[JohninRI]

I've spent many years thinking about and attempting to prove what has happened to America, and I'm pretty convinced from  my interactions with government that my theories are right on.  So, the next step is to figure out how to correct the problems.  We could of course scrap the whole thing and start all over again - which would bring on a whole set of new problems - or we could focus on making the changes where they are needed to clear up any confusion which has arisen throughout these many years..

The number one change I suggest is to add the word "RIGHTS" to the 14th Amendment.  This would instantly merge the 14th Amendment with the Bill of Rights as true rights and not just misapplied "privileges and immunities."  It has taken almost 150 years to read most, but not all, of the Bill of Rights into the privileges and immunities clause and those that have been read in have been done so as as regulated privileges and not true Rights.

The second change I would make is for the states to clarify their own Constitutions making anyone residing (Federal "residents")  or inhabiting (natural State inhabitant Citizens) their borders eligible for the protections afforded within the State Constitution's Bill of Rights through Constitution amendment or through State law.  Establishing a law would do because you are not changing the State Constitution, just the interpretation the court has established.

The third thing and probably the most doable is to draft, have someone in the State Legislature introduce, and work like hell to pass, a law mandating that juries in all criminal cases and all cases prosecuted by the State for violations of State Law or ordinances, decide questions of both law and fact and that every jury deliberation room have access to a complete set of State General Laws.

This is the final check and balance which is needed to rein in this government and restore everything which we complain has been taken from us.

From Sparf & Hansen v. U S, 156 U.S. 51 (1895)

[Beth221]

"my interactions with government"

are you referring to state government?  Because RI is really fucked up.  Its a police state, in case you didnt notice.  Where in RI are you from?  I just expatriated 3 weeks ago.  I can hook you up with some really great liberty activists, who share some of the same thoughts on government, if you would like.   

[JohninRI]

"my interactions with government"

are you referring to state government?  Because RI is really fucked up.  Its a police state, in case you didnt notice.  Where in RI are you from?  I just expatriated 3 weeks ago.  I can hook you up with some really great liberty activists, who share some of the same thoughts on government, if you would like.   

Believe me, I know all about RI Government.  I was referring to both State and Federal interaction.

[Tom Sawyer]

Scrolling through long post is one of my least favorite things...

please post a link to the longer stuff.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Kat! Send JohninRI a bill!

[d_goddard]

tldr

[Beth221]

Scrolling through long post is one of my least favorite things...

please post a link to the longer stuff.

Ditto

[dalebert]

tldr

You beat me to it, Denis.

I know what went wrong. It happened a couple of years ago when they established the *Authoritarian Model of Government (AMOG). It could only go downhill from there.

* Credit given to Menno

[Tom Sawyer]

tldr

You beat me to it, Denis.

I know what went wrong. It happened a couple of years ago when they established the *Authoritarian Model of Government (AMOG). It could only go downhill from there.

* Credit given to Menno

AMOG=Schnergenbergers

[JohninRI]

I'm sorry people, but the length of the post was intentional.  I wanted to demonstrate the amount of precedent there is available for juries deciding both facts and law in the United States.  I am kind of surprised though that there isn't any comment on my suggestions.

[d_goddard]

I'm sorry people, but the length of the post was intentional [...]  I am kind of surprised though that there isn't any comment on my suggestions.

The two are related

[K. Darien Freeheart]

I'll happily work to reduce the size of government as a step to eliminating it entirely.

I don't mean this to sound dismissive, but I seek to explain why I think some, if not most, people skimmed right over that.

Proving why the government should do something, based on case law or precedent, somehow means that the actions of government at ONE time are preferable to actions of government at another. It takes a lot more than precendent to prove to many people here why government at ALL should be condoned. Saying "We should do this because the Constitution does X, Y or Z" falls on deaf ears to people who don't recognize the authortity of the Constitution in the first place.

That's NOT to say that we'd not happily support the exact same arguement in a "Here's how it advanced liberty" perspective. It just means that proving it based on anything BUT the advance of liberty sends a message inconsistant, or in some cases directly conflicting, with the aims of many.

And it is just a LOT of reading.

[J’raxis 270145]

tldr

You beat me to it, Denis.

I know what went wrong. It happened a couple of years ago when they established the *Authoritarian Model of Government (AMOG). It could only go downhill from there.

* Credit given to Menno

Is Menno demanding royalties now?