ChrisABrown
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2017
- Messages
- 254
- Reaction score
- 19
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
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.
But, what of freedom of speech? Do we simply have the right to express ourselves, and all expression is equal?
The Declaration of Independence defines a right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, then the constitution, law, grants a right to a convention to propose amendments to the constitution, Article 5. But that is done by the states. Meaning the people must have the unity required to control their state legislations through democratic majority with the right of redress of grievance, and direct them to form conventions proposing amendment.
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.
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
Accordingly, states Citizens, must create consensus upon definition and newly list a right, in majorities and assert that upon their state legislations to form conventions to propose amendment to the constitution.
Some may think congress has the role of this, but congress is amiss in their duty, and will do no such thing. In which case, Article 5 reads to empower 3/4 of the states to define such intent for the constitution. Therefore it is up to the people to create a majority in 3/4 of the states that define that right, which is not listed and not to be denied or disparaged.
I would suggest that simple language like this will work well.
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 the unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.
Whereas 1), connects to historical intent, and 2) enables that intent.
But, what of freedom of speech? Do we simply have the right to express ourselves, and all expression is equal?
The Declaration of Independence defines a right to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, then the constitution, law, grants a right to a convention to propose amendments to the constitution, Article 5. But that is done by the states. Meaning the people must have the unity required to control their state legislations through democratic majority with the right of redress of grievance, and direct them to form conventions proposing amendment.
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.
Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
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
Accordingly, states Citizens, must create consensus upon definition and newly list a right, in majorities and assert that upon their state legislations to form conventions to propose amendment to the constitution.
Some may think congress has the role of this, but congress is amiss in their duty, and will do no such thing. In which case, Article 5 reads to empower 3/4 of the states to define such intent for the constitution. Therefore it is up to the people to create a majority in 3/4 of the states that define that right, which is not listed and not to be denied or disparaged.
I would suggest that simple language like this will work well.
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 the unity under law needed to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights.
Whereas 1), connects to historical intent, and 2) enables that intent.
Last edited: