Please Support the Constitution Club   

 Click Here

The "Principal Party"-Informal, based in Constitutional intent for Article V, our first right.

I'm sick beyond description of party politics.  So much so that even dealing with the re-registration to simply support the essence of the principles that are the intent of our founding documents as America, is more than I can fathom.

I spoke to a voter registrar employee.  Discerning voter intent was a big deal in their office.  They are Americans acutely aware of the importance, indeed, sacredness of the citizens vote.

Diebold and other voting practice issues aside.  There is a plan.

Obviously Lincoln's words of 1859 need to be realized.  "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts."  He could only be referring to Article V because congress, the courts, the senate and the president have no authority of ratified amendment of 3/4 of the states convening.

Our first Constitutional right is to "alter or abolish" abusive government from the DOI in 1876.  The codification restrains the right somewhat because it is given to states to propose and ratify amendments.  Therefore we must have strategy to assemble states.  This proposal includes that.

Our first right is Article V and proper preparation for the most important political event of the nations history is mandatory.

What does preparation for Article V consist of?

If the people are the rightful masters, then they must have informed opinions and an acute sense of priorities.  This only occurs through free speech, it is abridged so far and so long we do not even know what it is.  I do.

Free speech exists so that information needed for survival is shared and understood.

Obviously, if the Constitution is to be defended and a compliant federal government restored, we need ROBUST free speech.  Over compensation to degrees hard to calculate is the SAFE way to proceed Constitutionally.

Preparation calls for revision of the 1st Amendment and inclusion of the excluded 70% of a natural law doctrine communicated by the leaders of the Iroquois Confederacy to the framers, but removed from our written record of all types.  It was far too powerful a concept for the people to be included in the contract tended by elements eventually seeking to trash it. 

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are the last 30% of what was called, "The Greater Meaning of Free Speech".  It was told to me by Michigan Indian named Gregory Baker in perhaps 1990.  I had forgotten it until perhaps 2002 when I began integrating it into what turned out to be a fringe understanding of the Constitution or the details surrounding the primacy.  It goes like this.

Through free speech, an understanding can be gained, from that can be created; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

If there is skepticism of this, consider, you will not be able to get a mother or father to relinquish a societal right that holds high and honors the ability to share knowledge which may protect their child's life.

It goes against our instincts to do that.  This is natural law.

We are in agreement right now across this nation concerning this issue in every way.  But only the person reading this message at constitutionclub.ning.com is aware of it.  So pass this on like nothing you've ever heard and shared before.  Be aware I've written a draft revision of the 1st Amendment that fixes much of what is wrong or supplies what is missing.

There are 2 more amendments needed for proper preparation and I'm sure everyone will agree and accept those as well.

2) Secure the vote-end the diebold and vote counting scam.

3)Campaign finance reform-revers + citizens united

After those amendments at the onset of an Article V convention, then a general convention can proceed assured that all amendments will have constitutional intent.

This is the platform of the "Principal Party" which is explained by a 8.5x11 given to the county voter registrar in the county of a person who wishes to step out of party politics and only vote for people that support the prime principles of America unconditionally.

The voters of the Principal Party work with the ballots provided with consistency enabling the registrars to be confident in their interpretations of voter intent.

This is called getting out of the box or a new paradigm that unconditionally supports the Constitution with a full comprehension of its prime principals.

Ask me how this is used in states to purify and purge unconstitutional officials at the state level while working on proposed amendments.

Views: 215

Replies to This Discussion

into agenda 21 new rules coming into place 37,500 dollar fine for missuse of rainwater.

http://www.dailypaul.com/303322/agenda-21-epa-redefining-water-in-u...

Mr Brown have you ever vsited my side of the Article V site  http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/ron-nielsen.html

Wow, lots of issues that amendment might constitutionally effect.
As you can see, the principal party holds Arrticle V as our first constitutional right, and seeks a convention, properly done, to manifest that profound principal on this society to restore constitutional gtovernment.

I have a feeling you may well be involved with sussing out HOW issues are best effected by which amendment.  I will spend some time looking at that page to expand on that possibility further.

As Wayne has indicated, and I concur, unity towards Article V is really the goal-how it might be created, so perhaps something in the rough strategy I've authored will relate your page to this critical beginning.

http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/insist-it-means-what-it-...

Historical Support - Insist It “Means..What It Says It Means”

"If we do not insist on the ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION and it means what it says and says what it means then all is lost for there is no CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC"

Absolutely, the people define the republic and did.  We can understand why and provide reasoning within prime constitutional intent.

"we are examining what persons - long dead - were thinking or believing at the time they penned the words...many get lost in that examination...it alone could stop us in our tracks and prevent us from evolving this project...we must agree that the most we can do is to try our best to decipher the intent and the meaning - we are not going to gain absolute answers that satisfy everyone."

Not sure that is totally true.  Consider; what if people understood the specific level of generalizing that covered the critical aspects, which are ideals while context is held to human fundaments.  Ideals are not to be compromised, only to be met, eventually.  Meaning the framers intended us to know how to define constitutional intent because it is required at an Article V convention.

You and I certainly are not going to allow anyone to define that IF there is historical indication that the people have that authority.  Lincoln said "the people are the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" and he could have only been referring to Article V.  Which provides some support for the notion he was going to make the nation constitutional once exit from wartime concerns was effected.

The statement also predicates robust free speech, because there is NO WAY these populations can do it the way they think and communicate currently.

http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/lawman.html

"the County Sheriff is the highest Law Enforcement Officer in the State.  Local government, controlled by local citizens with local representation on local issues.  This is the back-bone of Constitutional intent, yet somewhere along the line of history a different path has been taken. "

I agree, but I'll point out that an actual definition of constitutional intent is still not provided.  The backbone of enforcement, yes.

Let me make a general approach at definition, which should be consistent with all I've posted so far.

The constitution intends that we live, and be empowered to organize and communicate to protect our lives.  That is its first premise.  Secondly, it intends to see itself as the rule of land, defended against usurpation which could put the peoples lives in jeopardy.

Defense and preservation are similar, but preservation is  against erosion while defense is deflecting attack.  Erosion occurs over time and attack is a significant effect in a short period.

Freedom of religion only reduces internal conflicts from different religions which lends itself top greater unity and capacity for defense and preservation.

Defense and preservation are greatly enhanced by freedom of speech which literally puts Americans in touch with each other at some level.  They are greatly enhanced by Americans having whatever weapons potential military offense might attack with.  This assures domestic dominance by the people, or rule by consent.

The above are very general but I feel very important to find acceptance with if the issue of constitutional intent is addressed because such simple premise can be extended logically by the people to evaluate amendments proposed at Article V.

I really like the definitions of; loving country, supporting & defending, on that page.

After doing a site search for the term "constitutional intent", I conclude the words are probably used more times at your site than any I've seen, including my own:-)  Which I think is absolutely wonderful, because Article V pivots upon constitutional intent.  So hopefully my definition of the primary structure of constitutional intent is acceptable.

If Article V is a goal, we are definitely going to have to be able agree on constitutional intent.

BTW, I've found an old house bill from 1874 which appears to be so embarrassing it was removed from history(?)  I suspect it is part of what happened when the congress preceding the 1871 corporate constitution made the 14th amendment.  

HR2204 removes all courts of jurisdiction from Indian Territories which is a violation of every verbal and written treaty ever made.  There may be a relationship in some way.  There are 4 more pages if there is interest.

Attachments:

thank you this is time well spent ive been on this subject for a few years.

Yes, time well spent developing understandings of our social contract that can help us to defend and preserve that which assures our survival and ability to adapt.

_____________________________

How about this general summary of the highest principles comprising constitutional intent.  Is this acceptable?  If not, what principals come before these?

The constitution intends that we live, and be empowered to organize and communicate to protect our lives.  That is its first premise.  Secondly, it intends to see itself as the rule of land, defended against usurpation which could put the peoples lives in jeopardy.

Defense and preservation are similar, but preservation is  against erosion while defense is deflecting attack.  Erosion occurs over time and attack is a significant effect in a short period.

Freedom of religion only reduces internal conflicts from different religions which lends itself top greater unity and capacity for defense and preservation.

Defense and preservation are greatly enhanced by freedom of speech which literally puts Americans in touch with each other at some level.  They are greatly enhanced by Americans having whatever weapons potential military offense might attack with.  This assures domestic dominance by the people, or rule by consent.

Now for my question, does anyone here think a Constitutional Convention would straighten out the mess we are in? NO is the only right answer, and you know why...CONgress is full of CON men, not Congressmen or women who are all on the take... You would have a better chance of nailing Jello to a wall then to find even one who hasn't sold out...Their politicians for crying out loud...they would sell their own mother's dirty underware if they thought it would get them re-elected...!!!! Talk about preserving what little we have left of the bill of rights...forget the paper shreader, break out the burn barrel.....Sheesh what a mess!

Article V? Seems to me we would be opening a real can of worms with all the Congressional non leaders in Office we have today. Dump the entire Congress we have, and I mean all of it, and when the NEW REFORMED Congress takes office, only then can we really correct the Original Document as chartered in 1789. All thoughts are welcome.

RSS

© 2018   Created by Keith Broaders.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service