Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
AceMan

How the constitution should be written TODAY

29 posts in this topic

The United States Congress and/or the State Legislatures shall make no law based upon beliefs of any establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free private and unadvertised exercise thereof unless behaviors prescribed by the religion constitutes a crime, or a Civil Offence or is engaging in political and legal affairs, in such cases the law shall be supreme and not the religion.

Life, and Legal Decisions made for the Incompetent, and for Children cannot be based upon religion. 

The freedom of speech and of the press shall not be infringed, however other than to prohibit harassment, defamation, discrimination, and verbal abuse and violence. The right of the people peaceably to assemble, criminal organizations shall not be considered a peaceable assembly.

And a petition to the Government for a redress of grievances must be supported by evidence of a valid reason in your own personal life, other than personal gain, and cannot include bribery or a racket.

A well regulated, governmentally administered Military and Police Force being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to the services provided by a competent Military Force to defend the Nation, and a competent Police Force to protect the public shall not be infringed.

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, unless the Owner commits violence against our Military and Police Forces.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against searches and seizures shall be respected unless the people are using their persons, houses, papers and effects as instruments of criminal activity.

And no Warrants shall issue, but upon reasonable suspicion, supported by circumstances that reasonably conclude the existence of criminal activity , and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized, unless lives and the nation are in imminent danger, in such case no warrant shall be required.

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the Military, 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 Imprisonment, Fines, Probation, and/or Community service; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself unless lives or the public and the country is in imminent Danger.

Nor be deprived of liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just reasoning.

 

In all criminal trials, the defendant shall have the right to a public trial, in a court of the law that exists in the Jurisdiction that the crime occurred in, by an impartial jury of the Legal Jurisdiction where the crime has been committed, and that Legal Jurisdiction shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the criminal charges; to be confronted with the witnesses against him or her; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his or her favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his or her defence.

 

In Law Suits in a court of law, where the monetary value in damages does exceed Ten Thousand Dollars, the right of a trial by a jury shall not be infringed, and the evidence of wrongdoing presented by the plaintiff shall be heard and respected if it makes sense, and the court shall not on the basis of the defendant's representation deny the Plaintiff justifiable compensation.

 

Bail that exceeds Two and a Half times the annual income of the defendant shall not be required.

Bail shall not be required of an Indigent defendant, nor a Defendant on a Fixed, Government supplied income.

Fines exceeding Five times the Defendant's income shall not be imposed, nor Cruel punishments that cause Injury, Mental Illness and/or Death Inflicted.

 

A Right that is granted by the Constitution does not, and cannot be used to deny the people other rights in the Constitution.

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, until such time as the Federal Government takes legal Jurisdiction over a matter, in which case the Federal law shall be the law in every state.

 

 

 

 

That's how fixing the issues in America starts.... and its NOT the end, by far.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now just go through the system, and if you believe that is really the way, then just like Obama and Bush before ya, you can work to make those things happen. It's by the process we fix them system, and thus improve it. If anyone here watches Venture Bros (or just need a googlable refrence), the constitution is the Orb. It's an idea that's been toyed with since Plato, and we're still working out the kinks and forever will it be the object that can lead both to demise and utopia. That, after all, is what God told you the fruit, would do.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, AceMan, that is how America doesn't walk but runs down the road of totalitarianism. I am pro second amendment and not inclined to need a nanny state hovering over my every move. If that's what people want, then I suggest they buy an island somewhere and move.

Edited by Cinnamon
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 No law based on an established religion is kinda vague. I don't fully understand. Am I being a dick by pointing out murder is pretty much okay then since I can't think of a major religion that condones murder? Am I misreading and twisting. I hope not, I didn't mean to. I might've.... If you're saying freedom of religion for all, I'm in. Everyone has a right to practice thier faith and others allowed to protest it if they so see fit, all in a legal and civilized way clearly directed in the current law.

You don't get to make the state the parent. As the parent, that is my decision. Don't like it? I know kung-fu. 

Criminal orginazations allows terminalogy to make it like they do now. Disagree, you're a terrorist! It's literally the same shit wrapped in new bread.

How about we just restore the proper checks and balances and maintain em like we did for 160 years or so.

The next two wrap into one about my, Disagree, you're a terrorist! Now I own your land and your strawman.

Warrantless searches? Home invasions? Are you a parody?

Military tribunals? What is this, what am I reading? Is this serious?

I skimmed the rest. I respect your postion. I can no longer respond to this thread.

Edited by Last1oftheJedi
just trying to be proper and clean this up right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No law based on an established religion is kinda vague.

(no vagueness exists)

I don't fully understand. Am I being a dick by pointing out murder is pretty much okay then since I can't think of a major religion that condones murder?

(The law doesn't permit murder)

Am I misreading and twisting. I hope not, I didn't mean to. I might've.... If you're saying freedom of religion for all, I'm in. Everyone has a right to practice thier faith and others allowed to protest it if they so see fit, all in a legal and civilized way clearly directed in the current law.

(The current law just gives people the golden pass to do whatever they want, however they want for religion)

You don't get to make the state the parent. As the parent, that is my decision. Don't like it? I know kung-fu.

(the state should have jurisdiction over how a child can be handled by you, and if you know kung fu, we know send in the appropriate forces to defeat you) 

Criminal orginazations allows terminalogy to make it like they do now. Disagree, you're a terrorist! It's literally the same shit wrapped in new bread.

(That's your problem if you want to create an organization centered around breaking the law)

How about we just restore the proper checks and balances and maintain em like we did for 160 years or so.

(Because this isn't 160 years ago, this is 2015, and there are checks and balances, and the supreme court is part of that process, like it or not)

The next two wrap into one about my, Disagree, you're a terrorist! Now I own your land and your strawman.

(That's right, your property is in the USA....  America's land isn't for sale to you)

Warrantless searches? Home invasions? Are...are you here to troll as a nazi? Shit I'mma get a warning point for that one e.e (had too, sorry, only time I poke that bear, swear!)

(No warrantless searches or invasions of your home, unless lives or the nation is in danger)

Military tribunals? What is this, what am I reading? Is this serious?

(No Military tribunals exist for civilans, I copied and pasted the Amendment)

I skimmed the rest. I respect your postion. I can no longer respond to this thread.

Edited by AceMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Son, in all fairness, you have written 12 posts and you have amassed 11 red goodies. By all accounts it should by now be clear that your opinion (valued) does not hold sway on this forum.  You are not going to convince the bulk of this forum to follow your line of thinking.

The constitution of the USA is fine, it is the vile, conniving, ruthless bastards who continuously try to manipulate, massage and distort the core values that are the problem here!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you're right it is ruthless bastards that are the problem, but there is only a few ways to fix the problem and tightening up and modernizing the language in the constitution is one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, AceMan, that is how America doesn't walk but runs down the road of totalitarianism. I am pro second amendment and not inclined to need a nanny state hovering over my every move. If that's what people want, then I suggest they buy an island somewhere and move.

No, if that's what people want, that's what the people should have, and more and more and more people are leaning somewhere towards my post.

Just not in rednecktown which nobody should care about anyway....  because that's not where the population lives.

Edited by AceMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, if that's what people want, that's what the people should have.

So, in your way of thinking, it's mob rule? That's what democracy is. What about the people who don't want it?

Edited by Cinnamon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in your way of thinking, it's mob rule? That's what democracy is.

Yes the United States has a Democratic process in place... if the people want security, the people should have security.

Both the People AND The government have to agree to it.

Edited by AceMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the United States has a Democratic process in place... if the people want security, the people should have security.

Debate failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.