• 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.

ChrisABrown said:
Which the infiltration of government loves. And I do find people using the correct, original word.
Click to expand...

Where?

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.
Click to expand...

If you've a key to understanding Lincoln, you should share it.
 
ecofarm said:
Where?

If you've a key to understanding Lincoln, you should share it.
Click to expand...

Actually this thread and the other about the 9th Amendment, and these links right here.

The American Lawful and Peaceful Revolution

An audio presentation that has other aspects we should be aware of.

http://algoxy.com/poly/polypods/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.ca.brown6_17.mp3

But to relate it directly to Lincoln, I would only have to say that he tried to get the people to define a constitutional right under the 9th Amendment to negotiate with the south and amend the constitution abolishing slavery and dealing with the other issues before war was engaged. Such, intending to preserve the union is actually hyper constitutional. He would have succeeded, but newspapers in cities would not print his speeches. That is where the population centers are that control state legislations which in turn control Article V and amendment.

Our situation is different, AND the first thing dealt with is the thing that stopped Lincoln. The PURPOSE of free speech was abridged then, as it is now.

Oh, and I do not keep track of where I see unalienable, about 1/2 the time I see it, depending on if the author is informed about old english law or not.
 
Cordelier said:
I didn't pretend to answer your question... I answered it openly and forthrightly.
Click to expand...

Okay, you do not have a link. Are you trying to lie there.

And what about the answer to this question agent?

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...
 
ChrisABrown said:
Actually this thread and the other about the 9th Amendment, and these links right here.

The American Lawful and Peaceful Revolution

An audio presentation that has other aspects we should be aware of.

http://algoxy.com/poly/polypods/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.ca.brown6_17.mp3
Click to expand...

That qualifies as an obscure reference. I'm not gonna click on your or your friend's blog in defense of using archaic terminology. No offense, it could be fine work and entirely legit, but for me to spend a minute perusing it must be a somewhat legit source or a seedy claim in need of exposure; yours is neither.

But to relate it directly to Lincoln, I would only have to say that he tried to get the people to define a constitutional right under the 9th Amendment to negotiate with the south and amend the constitution abolishing slavery and dealing with the other issues before war was engaged. Such, intending to preserve the union is actually hyper constitutional. He would have succeeded, but newspapers in cities would not print his speeches. That is where the population centers are that control state legislations which in turn control Article V and amendment.

Our situation is different, AND the first thing dealt with is the thing that stopped Lincoln. The PURPOSE of free speech was abridged then, as it is now.

Oh, and I do not keep track of where I see unalienable, about 1/2 the time I see it, depending on if the author is informed about old english law or not.
Click to expand...

Abolishing slavery does not require the 9th, despite any sketchy political rhetoric of the time.
 
ecofarm said:
That qualifies as an obscure reference. I'm not gonna click on your or your friend's blog in defense of using archaic terminology. No offense, it could be fine work and entirely legit, but for me to spend a minute perusing it must be a somewhat legit source or a seedy claim in need of exposure; yours is neither.
Click to expand...

Not a blog, not a friends. Its a page and I authored it. Most things that are not archaic in law are invented by the infiltration of government to compromise law.

Do accept these two definitions of what is the most prime constitutional intent?

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling our unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

ecofarm said:
Abolishing slavery does not require the 9th, despite any sketchy political rhetoric of the time.
Click to expand...

No, but if an infiltrated federal government wants to start a war to do it, using the 9th to define a right to peaceful negotiation through Article V, with the south and amend to solve the issues, sure is a wonderful alternative and absolutely legitimate.
 
Cordelier said:
I answered you in post #40.
Click to expand...

This,

Cordelier said:
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...

is not an answer showing how the framers intended Americans create the unity required to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, through their states with Article 5, if the framers did NOT intend free speech to serve that PURPOSE.

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:
I'd tend to agree with you if we all lived in isolation... but we don't. We live in a world where your rights bump up against my rights. If we both lay claim to the same piece of land, then what option is there besides seeking arbitration from the courts? In the final analysis, we have a choice between living in a world where right makes might or one where might makes right.
Click to expand...

I understand and agree with what you say, but would prefer to use "co-exist" instead of "bump up against.' Just semantics. Certainly properties may be adjacent, contiguous and any number of other qualities, but I do not have a right to encroach on your rights, though some say that employment means a person gives up certain rights.
 
ChrisABrown said:
Curious how Americans seem acutely aware of the ultimate purpose of the 2nd Amendment. That being to protect the unalienable right to life; either by warding off direct threat, defending the nation from invasion, or hunting food, or, in the worst case, perhaps dealing with a government that becomes destructive to unalienable rights, when all other remedy has failed.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that's sheer nonsense.

The 2nd Amendment says absolutely nothing about any of those things. What it says is that "because we need militias, we have to regulate firearms, but can't be too strict about it." You're just imputing your own beliefs onto it.

Anyway....


But, what of freedom of speech? Do we simply have the right to express ourselves, and all expression is equal?
Click to expand...
Yes, we have the right to freedom of expression.

No, this right is not absolute.

No, not all expression is granted equal protections.

You can't defame someone, you can't threaten someone, you can't directly incite an insurgency. There are limits to the right to free speech.


The Declaration of Independence defines a right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.... So we arrive at the obvious ultimate PURPOSE of free speech, to enable the unity required to effectively alter or abolish through Article 5. And, clearly, the 9th Amendment.
Click to expand...
No, we don't. This is just more nonsense.

The 1st Amendment cites no links to any other documents or processes, legal or otherwise. It just says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." This was incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment, by the way -- before then, states could regulate speech however they liked. The idea that citizens need freedom of speech to propose amendments is slightly ludicrous.


Obviously, the 9th must include that unlisted PURPOSE for the right to freedom of speech, because without the unity of the people required, the constitution cannot be enforced, and may end as the supreme law of the land. So therein, the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech is to protect unalienable rights, which is consistent with the 2nd AMD, because with Article 5, the act of altering or abolishing can be done peacefully and orderly, which is the a prime intent of the constitution. With that considered, the 1st Amendment is deficient, which appears to have led to a great weakness in the people
Click to expand...
Or.... not.

"Freedom of speech" is not an unenumerated right, because... wait for it... it's an enumerated right. Most rights don't include any mention of their purpose; ironically, when they do, it's usually disregarded by those for whom those purposes are inconvenient (e.g. the broad disregard for the militia clause of the 2A). Similarly, the purpose of the 9th Amendment was a vain attempt by Madison to say "this list of rights is not exhaustive." Whoops.

Meanwhile, the people are not weak because of any errors in the language of the 1A. People either choose to defend their rights, or they don't. Words on pieces of paper bear no magic that forces anyone to protect a right. The people need to do it for themselves.


1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no. That has no business in a Constitution. It will legitimize any revolution, which is a disaster. (Could the FBI prosecute the Weather Underground for its attacks? Not if we instantiate a right to overthrow the government...) Especially since by definition, a successful revolution will basically invalidate the current Constitution.


2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that free speech have the ultimate PURPOSE of enabling the unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.
Click to expand...
Wow. That is even worse than the current 1st Amendment.

You know what kind of simple language would work better? Let me give you an example.

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

Why do we guarantee these rights? Because they are fundamental. Why do we protect these freedoms? Because they are fundamental. 'Nuff said.
 
Visbek said:
Sorry, but that's sheer nonsense.

The 2nd Amendment says absolutely nothing about any of those things. What it says is that "because we need militias, we have to regulate firearms, but can't be too strict about it." You're just imputing your own beliefs onto it.
Click to expand...

Did I describe the 1st amendment as statin those things? No, but you presented that I did say that. MISREPRESENTATION.

What I describe are interpretations of the natural law aspects that are recognized generally.

Visbek said:
Yes, we have the right to freedom of expression.

No, this right is not absolute.

No, not all expression is granted equal protections.

You can't defame someone, you can't threaten someone, you can't directly incite an insurgency. There are limits to the right to free speech.
Click to expand...

But I was not presenting its limitations, I was presenting its PURPOSES. Again, MISREPRESENTATION.


Visbek said:
No, we don't. This is just more nonsense.

The 1st Amendment cites no links to any other documents or processes, legal or otherwise. It just says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." This was incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment, by the way -- before then, states could regulate speech however they liked. The idea that citizens need freedom of speech to propose amendments is slightly ludicrous.
Click to expand...

And because it is implied that all speech is equal and because constitutionally supported speech is not defined, speech which preserves the constitution is not heard, and, the constitution may effectively end. That, is not constitutional.

Visbek said:
"Freedom of speech" is not an unenumerated right, because... wait for it... it's an enumerated right.
Click to expand...

Again, you misrepresent what I stated. The ultimate PURPOSE of free speech is not enumerated, and therefore speech which has that purpose is not respected and easily shared as widely as it must be.


Visbek said:
Yeah, no. That has no business in a Constitution. It will legitimize any revolution, which is a disaster.
Click to expand...

Now that is nonsense.

Nonsense because we can use Article V peacefully to make changes when the political system is inadequate. And it is now for a variety of reasons. One being that people cannot create and share informed opinions required for effective democracy because the ultimate PURPOSE is abridged

No input from Canadians is needed, if that is what you are.
 
Last edited:
ChrisABrown said:
Did I describe the 1st amendment as statin those things? No, but you presented that I did say that. MISREPRESENTATION.
Click to expand...
Uh, hello? Did you not read my post, or yours?

I didn't say anything about the 1A in that portion. You didn't say anything about the 1A in that chunk I was responding to, either.

You claimed the 2A was about the "right to life," including self-defense, national defense, hunting, and/or overthrowing a government. 3/4 of that is complete nonsense. The purpose of the 2A was to ensure that the regulations on militias were not so extreme as to infringe the right to bear arms.

It certainly wasn't to give rebels the legitimacy to overturn the government, as the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion made obvious to pretty much everyone. Except you, I guess.


But I was not presenting its limitations, I was presenting its PURPOSES. Again, MISREPRESENTATION.
Click to expand...
You asked "what of freedom of speech? Do we simply have the right to express ourselves, and all expression is equal?" I responded.


And because it is implied that all speech is equal and because constitutionally supported speech is not defined, speech which preserves the constitution is not heard, and, the constitution may effectively end. That, is not constitutional.
Click to expand...
The 1A does not go into details about what speech is or is not protected, and it is ludicrous to claim that "therefore all speech is protected." Speech that causes harm, in particular -- including inciting a crowd to revolutionary violence -- is not protected. Defamation, threats, incitements to violence, exposing classified documents, copyright infringement and more are not protected.

At the bare minimum, the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts make it pretty clear that many of the Framers and their contemporaries did not, in fact, want to protect all speech equally. Oh, and we have decades of precedents which make it very clear that not all speech is protected.


Again, you misrepresent what I stated. The ultimate PURPOSE of free speech is not enumerated, and therefore speech which has that purpose is not respected and easily shared as widely as it must be.
Click to expand...
Again, you appear have absolutely no clue whatsoever about Constitutional law.

The 9A has nothing whatsoever to do with purposes of enumerated rights. Purposes are not even remotely required in order for a right to be protected. Most of the Bill of Rights mentions no purpose at all.

(What is it that you think "enumerated" means, exactly?)

And where are these failures, exactly? We've seen people fighting to expand freedom of expression for decades. Where have you been?


Nonsense because we can use Article V peacefully to make changes when the political system is inadequate. And it is now for a variety of reasons. One being that people cannot create and share informed opinions required for effective democracy because the ultimate PURPOSE is abridged
Click to expand...
Egads. Do you even understand your own suggestions? Your own words suggest that rebellion against the government is Constitutionally protected. You're basically giving every violent rebellion a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. The very idea is stunning.


No input from Canadians is needed, if that is what you are.
Click to expand...
:roll:

Sounds to me like you could stand to read a constitution that is a little more up-to-date. Might do you some good.
 
Visbek said:
Uh, hello? Did you not read my post, or yours?

I didn't say anything about the 1A in that portion
Click to expand...

Oops my mistake. I meant the 2nd Amendment, but you got it.

But otherwise you are totally wrong because you have not explained how Americans are to defend the constitution. That is what matters.

Please explain what the framers intended to serve the purpose of creating the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech.
 
Cordelier said:
I answered you in post #40.
Click to expand...

No you did not. And I quoted it last post. Answer now please.

Please explain what the framers intended to serve the purpose of creating the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech.
 
ChrisABrown said:
Oops my mistake. I meant the 2nd Amendment, but you got it.

But otherwise you are totally wrong because you have not explained how Americans are to defend the constitution. That is what matters.
Click to expand...
No problem.

• Communicate preferences with elected officials
• Hold elected officials accountable
• Support and vote for for candidates who will defend those rights
• Engage in legitimate / legal protests
• Use civil disobedience as a form of protest
• File and/or participate in lawsuits
• Expose violations of rights

If you want a good history of how citizens defend their rights, then read up on the Civil Rights Movement and its tactics.

And hey, guess what didn't make the list? Armed uprisings against legitimately elected officials. Using violence to overthrow the government which abides by the Constitution does not qualify as "defending the Constitution."


Please explain what the framers intended to serve the purpose of creating the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech.[/i]
Click to expand...
Is that even English? I have no idea what you're asking.
 
Visbek said:
Uh, hello? Did you not read my post, or yours?

I didn't say anything about the 1A in that portion. You didn't say anything about the 1A in that chunk I was responding to, either.

You claimed the 2A was about the "right to life," including self-defense, national defense, hunting, and/or overthrowing a government. 3/4 of that is complete nonsense. The purpose of the 2A was to ensure that the regulations on militias were not so extreme as to infringe the right to bear arms.

It certainly wasn't to give rebels the legitimacy to overturn the government, as the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion made obvious to pretty much everyone. Except you, I guess.



You asked "what of freedom of speech? Do we simply have the right to express ourselves, and all expression is equal?" I responded.



The 1A does not go into details about what speech is or is not protected, and it is ludicrous to claim that "therefore all speech is protected." Speech that causes harm, in particular -- including inciting a crowd to revolutionary violence -- is not protected. Defamation, threats, incitements to violence, exposing classified documents, copyright infringement and more are not protected.

At the bare minimum, the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts make it pretty clear that many of the Framers and their contemporaries did not, in fact, want to protect all speech equally. Oh, and we have decades of precedents which make it very clear that not all speech is protected.



Again, you appear have absolutely no clue whatsoever about Constitutional law.

The 9A has nothing whatsoever to do with purposes of enumerated rights. Purposes are not even remotely required in order for a right to be protected. Most of the Bill of Rights mentions no purpose at all.

(What is it that you think "enumerated" means, exactly?)

And where are these failures, exactly? We've seen people fighting to expand freedom of expression for decades. Where have you been?



Egads. Do you even understand your own suggestions? Your own words suggest that rebellion against the government is Constitutionally protected. You're basically giving every violent rebellion a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card. The very idea is stunning.



:roll:

Sounds to me like you could stand to read a constitution that is a little more up-to-date. Might do you some good.
Click to expand...

horsecrap. the purpose of the second amendment was to impose a blanket restriction on the federal government so it couldn't interfere with a pre-existing right. Since the government was never given any power in that area in Article One, Section 8, this was merely a reiteration. the underlying natural right was that of self defense.
 
Visbek said:
Is that even English? I have no idea what you're asking.
Click to expand...

Lol! Pretending you cannot recognize English or understand the question is not going to work. It only shows you are manipulative and insincere. Very likely an enemy of the constitution.

Please explain what the framers intended to serve the purpose of creating the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech.
Click to expand...

American state Citizens do have the right to alter or abolish and Article V makes it codified law. The question is about the right to see a right serve a purpose to realize the meaning of another right.
 
You did not answer, you evaded!

Cordelier said:
I answered you in post #40.
Click to expand...

ChrisABrown said:
No you did not. And I quoted it last post. Answer now please.

Please explain what the framers intended to serve the purpose of creating the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech.
Click to expand...

Okay, you refuse to explain what the framers intended to enable the unity between the people needed to alter or abolish. That is clear. This is called UNACCOUNTABLE. Will you at least explain why?

What great sacrifice do you suffer from agreeing and accepting that the framers intended for free speech to serve the purpose of enabling the unity to effectively alter or abolish? What keeps you from simply accepting that free speech as our natural law has that purpose, and it is ultimate, because without your unalienable rights, you do not exist.
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
Is that even English? I have no idea what you're asking.
Click to expand...

Really, none at all? How could you possibly expect anyone to respect any of your argument if you cannot understand something as simple as this.

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the peoples unity required to effectively alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights if it was not free speech?
 
ecofarm said:
but for me to spend a minute perusing it must be a somewhat legit source or a seedy claim in need of exposure; yours is neither.
Click to expand...

Damn right. My page is based on the fundaments of the framing documents.

Do you accept these definitions of our most prime rights and intents of the constitution?

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that Americans use the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech to enable our unity under law in order to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.
 
Cordelier said:
I'm new here, so I certainly can't speak for the forum... but for speaking for myself, I haven't really commented on this thread because I haven't really figured out exactly what you're trying to say. It seems to me that you're suggesting the 9th Amendment is some sort of Constitutional self-destruct switch. We have the right to "alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights"? I assume this supposed "right" extends to using extra-constitutional methods (ie, non-democratic) to accomplish it's ends. If so, I think you're misreading the scope of the 9th Amendment.
Click to expand...

You say you’re new and you’re posting on a freedom of speech post.
But here on this forum you don’t have freedom of speech, you can’t call someone stupid, or other commonly used words during your debates, the moderator will give you a warning.
What ever happened to the old saying
Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Our rights slowly eroding away.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ChrisABrown said:
Really, none at all? How could you possibly expect anyone to respect any of your argument if you cannot understand something as simple as this.

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the peoples unity required to effectively alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights if it was not free speech?
Click to expand...
Dude. Seriously. That's just word salad.

I mean, really. Are you asking about the purpose of a government respecting freedom of expression? It doesn't need a purpose. It certainly doesn't protect freedom of expression in order to allow the violent overthrow of the existing government. Human beings have a fundamental right to express themselves freely, period. And that right certainly isn't limited to political speech.

Are you suggesting that the Framers intended for Americans to actually overthrow the government, and have that be legitimized by the Constitution? That's just nuts. Nothing suggests that citizens who want to overthrow the government should receive Constitutional protections for their actions. That wasn't the case for the Whiskey Rebellion, the Confederacy, anarchists in the 30s, Communists in the 50s and 60s, the Weather Underground, Tim McVeigh, or any other insurgency in American history.

As to Article V, you do understand that it does not legitimize the full rejection of the Constitution? It's a process to amend it. In the same way that there wasn't a process in the Articles of Confederation to dissolve the Articles of Confederation, or any means for a state to secede from the perpetual union, the US Constitution does not contain any method to shut itself down. If you want to replace the Constitution, you'll have to use some sort of extra-Constitutional method to do so.

You keep getting hung up on these nonsensical concepts that have no basis in the Constitution, no presence in Constitutional law, no basis in US jurisprudence, no basis in US history, and then you jumble it all up as though what you're saying makes sense. It doesn't. So at a minimum, either figure out how to express yourself more clearly, or stop expecting further responses.
 
Visbek said:
Dude. Seriously. That's just word salad.

I mean, really. Are you asking about the purpose of a government respecting freedom of expression? It doesn't need a purpose. It certainly doesn't protect freedom of expression in order to allow the violent overthrow of the existing government. Human beings have a fundamental right to express themselves freely, period. And that right certainly isn't limited to political speech.

Are you suggesting that the Framers intended for Americans to actually overthrow the government, and have that be legitimized by the Constitution? That's just nuts. Nothing suggests that citizens who want to overthrow the government should receive Constitutional protections for their actions. That wasn't the case for the Whiskey Rebellion, the Confederacy, anarchists in the 30s, Communists in the 50s and 60s, the Weather Underground, Tim McVeigh, or any other insurgency in American history.

As to Article V, you do understand that it does not legitimize the full rejection of the Constitution? It's a process to amend it. In the same way that there wasn't a process in the Articles of Confederation to dissolve the Articles of Confederation, or any means for a state to secede from the perpetual union, the US Constitution does not contain any method to shut itself down. If you want to replace the Constitution, you'll have to use some sort of extra-Constitutional method to do so.

You keep getting hung up on these nonsensical concepts that have no basis in the Constitution, no presence in Constitutional law, no basis in US jurisprudence, no basis in US history, and then you jumble it all up as though what you're saying makes sense. It doesn't. So at a minimum, either figure out how to express yourself more clearly, or stop expecting further responses.
Click to expand...

lots of words-even more mindless BS
 
Visbek said:
Dude. Seriously. That's just word salad.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, that is a label, a cognitive distortion, a minimization, and not a reality. Covert agents, cognitive infiltrators do that all the time.

Visbek said:
I mean, really. Are you asking about the purpose of a government respecting freedom of expression? It doesn't need a purpose. It certainly doesn't protect freedom of expression in order to allow the violent overthrow of the existing government.
Click to expand...

Hmm, there you go again, misinterpreting what I write. Never have I said "violent overthrow". I have used the term "Article V".

How about just answering the question before you are deemed too ignorant to understand it, or too corrupted to do so.

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the peoples unity required to effectively alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights if it was not free speech?
 
Visbek said:
Dude. Seriously. That's just word salad.

I mean, really. Are you asking about the purpose of a government respecting freedom of expression? It doesn't need a purpose. It certainly doesn't protect freedom of expression in order to allow the violent overthrow of the existing government. Human beings have a fundamental right to express themselves freely, period. And that right certainly isn't limited to political speech.

Are you suggesting that the Framers intended for Americans to actually overthrow the government, and have that be legitimized by the Constitution? That's just nuts. Nothing suggests that citizens who want to overthrow the government should receive Constitutional protections for their actions. That wasn't the case for the Whiskey Rebellion, the Confederacy, anarchists in the 30s, Communists in the 50s and 60s, the Weather Underground, Tim McVeigh, or any other insurgency in American history.

As to Article V, you do understand that it does not legitimize the full rejection of the Constitution? It's a process to amend it. In the same way that there wasn't a process in the Articles of Confederation to dissolve the Articles of Confederation, or any means for a state to secede from the perpetual union, the US Constitution does not contain any method to shut itself down. If you want to replace the Constitution, you'll have to use some sort of extra-Constitutional method to do so.

You keep getting hung up on these nonsensical concepts that have no basis in the Constitution, no presence in Constitutional law, no basis in US jurisprudence, no basis in US history, and then you jumble it all up as though what you're saying makes sense. It doesn't. So at a minimum, either figure out how to express yourself more clearly, or stop expecting further responses.
Click to expand...


TurtleDude said:
lots of words-even more mindless BS
Click to expand...

Yes, and intentional misinterpretations/misrepresentations.

Can I ask you to set an example of accountability and intelligent response related to constitutional intent? Do you accept these definitions of most prime constitutional intent?

1) We have the right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.

2) If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish then they intended that the ultimate PURPOSE of free speech be to enable Americans to unify under law in order to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom