• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Ultimate Purpose Of The Right To Free Speech - Re-established through the 9th AMD.

Thoreau72 said:
That is a fair analogy, surveying land and establishing boundaries. Indeed, the constitution prescribes specific boundaries within which the government shall act, and beyond which it is not authorized.

In the spirit of the Ninth and Tenth, it seems to me letting the government be the arbiter of what the rights of man really and actually are is somehow an error.
Click to expand...

I'm recognizing the signs of a cognitive infiltrator w/cordy as his arguments reek of ones I've seen before and he's not being accountable to overarching issues. This effort I'm putting out goes very much against the koch bros and ALEC, who put a lot of money into astroturfing. I busted a group that was following me for perhaps a year.

Conservative political forums-manipulation

Surveying uses the principles of fairness that are supposed to be found in law, and is perhaps responsible for some of them. But cordy leaves out the frauds that are possible with government with surveying, just as he does with the constitution. Using interpretation as a final authority when the people are by the 9th, the "rightful masters" as they can define rights.

I've worked as a surveyor for 30 years, and cordy might know that, so chose that analogy. But I have massive experience with BLM perpetuating frauds over 100 years old in order to make tidy boundaries for the forest service and avoid setting any precedents that the people might use to protect the original boundaries of old deeds.

What the BLM dis was so confounding, baffling with BS; where the work a California surveyor did with my help and knowledge of the survey histories in Santa Barbara, recovering monuments 130 years old, was absolutely exceptional; that this petition form was not even conceived of to present the matter until 2 years ago.

Petition to BLM Drector
 
Last edited:
Cordelier said:
Again, there is already provision in the Constitution to change the government... they're called elections.

If you're talking about changing the government through non-democratic means, then I'd have to say that such actions would be entirely unconstitutional. As I said before, the 9th Amendment isn't the Constitution's self-destruct switch.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I never described anything non democratic, in fact I've used the word "marjority". But your selectivity exposes an agenda.

Petitions to state legislations in a MAJORITY is democratic, but outside of the political system that is completely corrupt.
 
Cordelier said:
Absolutely... but that has nothing to do with the 9th Amendment. The Constitutional amending formula is covered by Article V.
Click to expand...

Then if the people do not like the interpretation they redefine it and the courts have no lawful option except change their interpretation. You've failed to show they have any other lawful course.
Click to expand...

What authority do you think the people use to redefine the constitution so the courts interpretations are constitutional? They use the 9th.

If the states created the federal constitution and gave it authority, then Article V is in control of 3/4 of the states.
 
ChrisABrown said:
Hmm, I never described anything non democratic, in fact I've used the word "marjority". But your selectivity exposes an agenda.

Petitions to state legislations in a MAJORITY is democratic, but outside of the political system that is completely corrupt.
Click to expand...

Chris, if you have a majority supporting a change in government, that can easily be accomplished in the next election, can it not?

And if your aim is to amend the Constitution, and your majority is large enough, that can be accomplished through the amending formula put forward in Article V.

So I'm still puzzled why you keep bringing up the 9th Amendment. Perhaps it'd help the debate if you tell me what you expect the 9th Amendment to do that the electoral process and/or a constitutional amendment cannot?
 
ChrisABrown said:
What authority do you think the people use to redefine the constitution so the courts interpretations are constitutional? They use the 9th.

If the states created the federal constitution and gave it authority, then Article V is in control of 3/4 of the states.
Click to expand...

But the 9th Amendment doesn't guarantee any rights... it just says that there are rights that exist that aren't enumerated within the Constitution, but it gives no guidance whatsoever as to what those rights are. Accordingly, if you want to make a case for the existence of a specific right, you have to look beyond the 9th Amendment. All the 9th Amendment gives you is the canvas to paint on... the quality of the picture depends on your hand.
 
ChrisABrown said:
I'm recognizing the signs of a cognitive infiltrator w/cordy as his arguments reek of ones I've seen before and he's not being accountable to overarching issues. This effort I'm putting out goes very much against the koch bros and ALEC, who put a lot of money into astroturfing. I busted a group that was following me for perhaps a year.

Conservative political forums-manipulation

Surveying uses the principles of fairness that are supposed to be found in law, and is perhaps responsible for some of them. But cordy leaves out the frauds that are possible with government with surveying, just as he does with the constitution. Using interpretation as a final authority when the people are by the 9th, the "rightful masters" as they can define rights.

I've worked as a surveyor for 30 years, and cordy might know that, so chose that analogy. But I have massive experience with BLM perpetuating frauds over 100 years old in order to make tidy boundaries for the forest service and avoid setting any precedents that the people might use to protect the original boundaries of old deeds.

What the BLM dis was so confounding, baffling with BS; where the work a California surveyor did with my help and knowledge of the survey histories in Santa Barbara, recovering monuments 130 years old, was absolutely exceptional; that this petition form was not even conceived of to present the matter until 2 years ago.

Petition to BLM Drector
Click to expand...

*LOL* A cognitive infiltrator??!?

Just out of curiosity, how much per post do you figure the Koch brothers are paying me to manipulate your vote?
 
Cordelier said:
Chris, if you have a majority supporting a change in government, that can easily be accomplished in the next election, can it not?

And if your aim is to amend the Constitution, and your majority is large enough, that can be accomplished through the amending formula put forward in Article V.

So I'm still puzzled why you keep bringing up the 9th Amendment. Perhaps it'd help the debate if you tell me what you expect the 9th Amendment to do that the electoral process and/or a constitutional amendment cannot?
Click to expand...

You know the political system is hijacked and media won't give the public the truth, so democracy can't work, meaning you want the constitution to fail.

If free speech was not intended by the framers to serve the purpose of enabling the unity required to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did the framers intend to serve the purpose of enabling that unity?
 
Cordelier said:
*LOL* A cognitive infiltrator??!?

Just out of curiosity, how much per post do you figure the Koch brothers are paying me to manipulate your vote?
Click to expand...

Your pay is your problem. I'm going on your behavior and critical thinking. Here are some facts for the lurkers about cognitive infiltration.

Obama confidant?s spine-chilling proposal - Salon.com

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/snowden_cyber_offensive2_nbc_document.pdf

British spy agency taps cables, shares with NSA: Guardian | Reuters "For decades, the NSA and GCHQ have worked as close partners, sharing intelligence under an arrangement known as the UKUSA agreement. They also collaborate with eavesdropping agencies in Canada, Australia and New Zealand under an arrangement known as the "Five Eyes" alliance."
 
Cordelier said:
But the 9th Amendment doesn't guarantee any rights... it just says that there are rights that exist that aren't enumerated within the Constitution, but it gives no guidance whatsoever as to what those rights are. Accordingly, if you want to make a case for the existence of a specific right, you have to look beyond the 9th Amendment. All the 9th Amendment gives you is the canvas to paint on... the quality of the picture depends on your hand.
Click to expand...

The 9th guarantees that we can define rights that are not listed. Looking beyond the 9th we see the 1st amendment which is completly controlled by corporate media when it comes nationwide knowledge. Which controls opinion.

If there has been a wholesale destruction of unalienable right or treason, mass murder etc, the corporate media can represent it however it likes and no one will know the truth. This is patently unconstitutional. So again;

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights through Article 5, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required for state Citizens to effectively alter or abolish through their states if it was not free speech?
 
ChrisABrown said:
You know the political system is hijacked and media won't give the public the truth, so democracy can't work, meaning you want the constitution to fail.

If free speech was not intended by the framers to serve the purpose of enabling the unity required to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did the framers intend to serve the purpose of enabling that unity?
Click to expand...

I disagree with your premise... the media reports the truth everyday, just as they always have. If anything, I think the problem is too much information. But that's a good problem to have.
 
ChrisABrown said:
The 9th guarantees that we can define rights that are not listed. Looking beyond the 9th we see the 1st amendment which is completly controlled by corporate media when it comes nationwide knowledge. Which controls opinion.

If there has been a wholesale destruction of unalienable right or treason, mass murder etc, the corporate media can represent it however it likes and no one will know the truth. This is patently unconstitutional. So again;

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights through Article 5, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required for state Citizens to effectively alter or abolish through their states if it was not free speech?
Click to expand...

You're going off the rails here, Chris... the 1st Amendment isn't "completely controlled by corporate media"... if it were, you and I wouldn't be having this commercial-free conversation.
 
Cordelier said:
You're going off the rails here, Chris... the 1st Amendment isn't "completely controlled by corporate media"... if it were, you and I wouldn't be having this commercial-free conversation.
Click to expand...

Your selectivity exposes you again.

"There has been and is wholesale destruction of unalienable rights" and no one can share it and media is not sharing it.

This conversation does not qualify, at least on your part, as anything related to the PURPOSE of free speech.

I did ask a question, and you did evade it.

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights through Article 5, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required for state Citizens to effectively alter or abolish through their states if it was not free speech?
 
Cordelier said:
I disagree with your premise... the media reports the truth everyday, just as they always have. If anything, I think the problem is too much information. But that's a good problem to have.
Click to expand...

No.

Did the media tell anyone about the fact that NIST was deceived about the structural design of the core of the twin towers? No.

Did they even tell Southern California that the MTBE blended into the fuel for 10 years was causing all the creeks to loose their algae, then frogs, then fish, then birds? No. They didn't even tell them the combusted MTBE causes water to repel oxygen gas in even minor dilution concentrations.

How much has media told you about ocean acidification?

How about water damaged from fracking?

How about the six survivors of the LV shooting that have died since the shooting because they talked about seeing shooters on the ground with automatic weapons chasing people and firing on them? No

And no, what the media says explains very little about what is really going on in our world.

Meanwhile you have evaded this question a few times now.

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights through Article 5, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required for state Citizens to effectively alter or abolish through their states if it was not free speech?
 
Last edited:
Cordelier said:
You're going off the rails here, Chris... the 1st Amendment isn't "completely controlled by corporate media"... if it were, you and I wouldn't be having this commercial-free conversation.
Click to expand...

Need an answer here.

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights through Article 5, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required for state Citizens to effectively alter or abolish through their states if it was not free speech?
 
ChrisABrown said:
Your selectivity exposes you again.

"There has been and is wholesale destruction of unalienable rights" and no one can share it and media is not sharing it.

This conversation does not qualify, at least on your part, as anything related to the PURPOSE of free speech.

I did ask a question, and you did evade it.

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights through Article 5, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required for state Citizens to effectively alter or abolish through their states if it was not free speech?
Click to expand...

The only purpose intended for Article V was to provide a formula for future amendments to the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution has been amended 27 times and not a single one of those amendments has declared the Government of the day to be destructive to unalienable rights disputes your assertion as to the purpose of Article V, don't you think?

As to the 1st Amendment, the purpose for freedom of speech is an acknowledgement that a democratic form of government can only flourish when it's citizens are free to speak and associate as they please.
 
ChrisABrown said:
No.

Did the media tell anyone about the fact that NIST was deceived about the structural design of the core of the twin towers? No.

Did they even tell Southern California that the MTBE blended into the fuel for 10 years was causing all the creeks to loose their algae, then frogs, then fish, then birds? No. They didn't even tell them the combusted MTBE causes water to repel oxygen gas in even minor dilution concentrations.

How much has media told you about ocean acidification?

How about water damaged from fracking?

How about the six survivors of the LV shooting that have died since the shooting because they talked about seeing shooters on the ground with automatic weapons chasing people and firing on them? No

And no, what the media says explains very little about what is really going on in our world.

Meanwhile you have evaded this question a few times now.

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights through Article 5, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required for state Citizens to effectively alter or abolish through their states if it was not free speech?
Click to expand...

Let me get this straight... on one hand, you're a staunch defender of the freedom of speech... but on the other, you insist that the media reports the news you want them to report??
 
Cordelier said:
The only purpose intended for Article V was to provide a formula for future amendments to the Constitution. The fact that the Constitution has been amended 27 times and not a single one of those amendments has declared the Government of the day to be destructive to unalienable rights disputes your assertion as to the purpose of Article V, don't you think?

As to the 1st Amendment, the purpose for freedom of speech is an acknowledgement that a democratic form of government can only flourish when it's citizens are free to speak and associate as they please.
Click to expand...

Pretending to answer in evasion is the kind of tactic a covert agent attempts when they cannot answer without opposing their own agenda. It fails.

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights through Article 5, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required for state Citizens to effectively alter or abolish through their states if it was not free speech?
Click to expand...
 
Cordelier said:
Let me get this straight... on one hand, you're a staunch defender of the freedom of speech... but on the other, you insist that the media reports the news you want them to report??
Click to expand...

LOL, as if unalienable rights were a want! Exactly what corporations present to destroy them with complicit government creating a false status.

They are a needs agent cordy. Corporate media has no needs like living things do, only wants.
 
ChrisABrown said:
LOL, as if unalienable rights were a want! Exactly what corporations present to destroy them with complicit government creating a false status.

They are a needs agent cordy. Corporate media has no needs like living things do, only wants.
Click to expand...

inalienable
 
ecofarm said:
inalienable
Click to expand...

No, un-a-lien-able = cannot be taken by law. The infiltration of government tried to change it so it does not fit the true legal history or its intent. They always pull this crap.
 
ChrisABrown said:
No, un-a-lien-able = cannot be taken by law. The infiltration of government tried to change it so it does not fit the true legal history or its intent. They always pull this crap.
Click to expand...

Inalienable means part of human social nature, not subject to government authority. No one uses the exact spelling of the word from the Constitution legally or otherwise.
 
ChrisABrown said:
Pretending to answer in evasion is the kind of tactic a covert agent attempts when they cannot answer without opposing their own agenda. It fails.
Click to expand...

I didn't pretend to answer your question... I answered it openly and forthrightly.

I could also say that I'm not a covert agent and I don't have an agenda, but I assume that's what you'd expect a covert agent to say... so I won't. Besides, it makes me seem more mysterious if I don't deny it.
 
ChrisABrown said:
LOL, as if unalienable rights were a want! Exactly what corporations present to destroy them with complicit government creating a false status.

They are a needs agent cordy. Corporate media has no needs like living things do, only wants.
Click to expand...

Corporate media has the same freedom of speech that individuals have. I don't understand why you have a problem with that.
 
ecofarm said:
Inalienable means part of human social nature, not subject to government authority. No one uses the exact spelling of the word from the Constitution legally or otherwise.
Click to expand...

Which the infiltration of government loves. And I do find people using the correct, original word.

No one understands what Lincoln was referring to when he said, "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the court", but I do.
 
Cordelier said:
Corporate media has the same freedom of speech that individuals have. I don't understand why you have a problem with that.
Click to expand...


Expected.

Corporations will not defend the constitution either.

You are still evading answering this question.

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights through Article 5, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required for state Citizens to effectively alter or abolish through their states if it was not free speech?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom