When in the course of human events it becomes clear that a portion of the American public no longer understands the clear and unambiguous words of our Constitution it is necessary to further clarify already simple and plain language that even your average third grader in 1776 could have understood. As such I propose that the time for a Constitutional Convention to aid in the process of dumbing down the Constitution of these United States is at hand and I do propose the following amendments.

Please forgive me for, what will be seen by many, as a radical step, but I propose nothing that I do not deem absolutely necessary for the furtherance of this good Republic and the proper functioning of our government.

Amendment XXVIII

In order to make clear that there is a limit on the power of Congress to tax the public and spend taxes that are gathered, the words “as defined only by the following list of obligations” should be added to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution so that it will read: ”The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States as defined only by the following list of obligations; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” in order to make it clear what James Madison and the founding fathers meant when they wrote it (ref: Federalist 41 by James Madison).

Further it is proposed that the following be added to the end of this article: “That should any representative in the Congress of these United States propose, vote in favor of or in any other way attempt to pass any legislation that proposes either a tax or expenditure on any item or program not justified in Article I, Section 8 shall be immediately impeached by the House, tried by the Senate and upon being found guilty shall be removed from office and barred from holding any future public office or trust.”

Amendment XXIX

In order to make clear that it is the President who is Commander in Chief of the armed forces and that Congress’s only role in the military is to declare war and provide for funds as they see fit it is proposed that Article 2, Section 2 be changed so that it will read as follows: “The President and not any member of Congress (even if she is the first woman Speaker of the House) shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”

Amendment XXX

That in order to make clear the powers of the Supreme Court of these United States Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution shall have wording added so that it shall read as follows: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority but not to the power to rewrite the Constitution and usurp the role of the Legislature to legislate and create law. But that should any act by any public official violate the limited powers of government granted under this Constitution or infringe upon the rights of any citizen it shall be deemed null and void by this Supreme Court. And that the test for such infringement shall be higher than the claim that one was simply offended by the actions of another or that they were caused severe mental anguish at hearing something they do not like. ”

Amendment XXXI

That in order to make it clear even to a ripe tomato what the blatantly obvious meaning of Amendment I to this Constitution is the words “a national church” shall be added and the first mention of the word “religion” shall be struck and that the word “thereof” shall be replaced with “religion” so that it will read even more clearly “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a national church, or prohibiting the free exercise religion.”

Amendment XXXII

That in order to make completely crystal clear the meaning of Amendment II to this Constitution additional wording shall be added so that it reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people, as in individual people (i.e. the citizens themselves) and not the government or any government entity, to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Amendment XXXIII

That in order to properly define the words “no” or “not” as used often to state a prohibition on the state from engaging in certain acts all instances of the word “no” or “not” shall be replaced with “no, and we really mean no as in never,” or “not, as it don’t even think about it ‘cause it isn’t going to happen no matter how hard you try to justify it,” respectively.

Amendment XXXIV

That to alleviate some of the confusion concerning the Fourth Amendment to this Constitution the term “unreasonable” shall be underlined, bolded and italicized to draw proper attention to it and that examples of “probable cause” shall be given so that it will now read: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause which includes, but is not limited to, the following non-exhaustive list: threatening to blow up buildings, threatening to commit acts of murder or other terrorist acts, purchasing large quantities of Ammonium Nitrate fertilizer and renting a Rider truck, acting in such a manner that draws suspicion before boarding an airplane, taking flying lessons but not being concerned about how to land the plane, inciting others to commit acts of terror, being caught on video tape or other recording medium accepting a bribe and so on but NOT, for example, the random searching of vehicles and the harassment of citizens on a road on New Years Eve because someone, somewhere may have consumed too much alcohol or other such nonsense, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Amendment XXXV

That in order to make it clear that the death penalty is indeed constitutional and not considered “cruel and unusual punishment” and that it is acceptable to deprive one of life as punishment, an additional sentence shall be added to the end of the amendment V so that it clearly reads: “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 land or naval forces, or in the Militia, 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 life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. That means that we have the right to deprive criminals of life if they are found guilty after due process of law so quit your damn whining.” And that amendment VIII shall be made to read “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted and that depriving people of life after due process is not cruel and unusual punishment because we just said that it was allowed in Amendment V.”

And finally (at least for this go around) …

Amendment XXXVI

That in order to make it clear that government is not the solution to the problems of the people, Amendment X to the Constitution shall be clarified so that it shall read: “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 because all you bureaucrats in Washington DC are not capable of managing our lives as well the vast majority of us are. And for those in society who are not capable of managing their own lives they can live off the generous charity of the rest of us. So you bureaucrats please keep your greedy little hands out of our wallets and stop trying to be our parents because you really, honestly and truly suck at it.” ]]> http://www.jordan-parliament.org/time-for-a-constitutional-convention/feed 1 http://www.jordan-parliament.org/immigration-and-slavery http://www.jordan-parliament.org/immigration-and-slavery#comments Mon, 25 Jan 2010 02:53:35 +0000 Admin http://www.jordan-parliament.org/immigration-and-slavery  

A huge debate in Congress about whether people who have come to our country illegally should have the right to purchase health care insurance has prompted me to offer my two cents worth.

The growth and success of the United States has been driven by people who have immigrated to America, most all of them were seeking a better way of life, it’s true that some came to our shores against their will, but even those people, for the most part, found a better life than they experienced in their homeland.

Irish, German, Italian, Norwegians, Swedes and many other Europeans along with slaves from countries in Africa were early immigrants to our shores, they provided labor for the demands of a country that was booming because of opportunities provided by the foresight of our founding fathers, those early settlers who had the vision to realize the power of people to succeed when they are provided opportunity.

Some of the early settlers in America were indentured slaves; they were bound by a contract for a period of time to a master who, in essence, owned them.  America has dealt in slavery from its beginning but few Americans realize that slavery still exists here.  Slavery was not condoned by the founders that fashioned our constitution but compromises involving greedy special interests allowed slavery to continue for many years.  Special interests and their influence on Congress allow defacto slavery to continue even today.

The issue of illegal immigrants in America is being perpetuated by those special interests who want to keep illegal people in bondage in order to profit from low wages.  Nothing has really changed since the writing of our constitution and nothing will change until we close our borders and enforce the law.

Slavery is defined as “bondage to a master or household” so the majority of the early immigrants to our country could be considered slaves since most had little choice but to work as slaves, or be employed by slave masters in companies seeking people who would work for low wages, much the same as today when illegal immigrants come to our country seeking a better life.

Chinese people immigrated to America during the time the country was expanding to the west and many were employed building railroads. Chinese immigrants were treated much the same as black slaves, the only difference was that they made a choice to come here.

The success of the American experiment was due largely to labor provided by people immigrating to our shores, but more than that it provided opportunity for many of those same people to elevate themselves from slavery by becoming entrepreneurs, or what some might consider modern day slave masters.

Many changes have occurred through the evolution of the United States and, other than the illegal immigrants from Mexico and other South American countries, few people are enslaved by their employer (though many may feel they are).  The biggest change we have seen in recent years is the destruction of opportunity for those who would like to lift themselves up from a perceived sense of slavery.  The view of many, who want to junk the capitalist free enterprise system in favor of central government solutions, is mostly responsible for the killing of opportunity in America.

The big question Americans must ask themselves is this, would you rather be enslaved by your employer who you can tell to “take this job and shove it”, or enslaved by your government, with no options except to find another country.

Back to the original question, whether illegal immigrants should be able to purchase health insurance, it does make sense economically because the more people who participate to spread the risk the cheaper insurance rates are.  However, the United States has laws and unless enforced they have no worth, when anyone who breaks the law is rewarded for doing so, what message does that send to future law breakers.

Because of bad government policy since the early 20th century, which has resulted in productive companies with better paying jobs leaving America, the United States doesn’t need immigration for low paid, low skilled jobs, it has plenty of people in the labor pool to fill those jobs, but most are unwilling because of a feeling of entitlement that has been created by politicians attempting to maintain a very prized position on their throne.

A recent news story about the First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama, that showed her connection to a slave, five generations ago, should fill all Americans with a feeling of pride about how America has dealt with the black slavery issue, but America still has people enslaved because of pure politics and greed.

As soon as we get rid of our guilt feeling about race and slavery and realize that all people perceive themselves as a slave at some point in their lives, and if we bond together to fix our income tax system that allows politicians to keep some people in bondage, and make government accountable to the people, we can restore the lost opportunity for all people in America.

This opinion article was written by Geezil, the Headmaster of the GeezilSchool.  Http://geezilschool.net




By: Keith Brandon

The real definition of a liberal, is certainly not the current usage of the word in modern day US politics. Many folks today that call themselves liberals are nothing of the sort as compared to our founding fathers definition of the word. Today, someone who is a Democrat, or considered a liberal, could span the gap of actually being a liberal in the strict definition to being a socialist, anarchists or neo-liberal.

Now then, are the liberal school systems and colleges in the US actually teaching the Constitution correctly? Why do I ask? Well, I see many in the Democrat Party, that seem to wish to turn America into a socialist society, regardless of what the Constitution says, and all the while they condemn the Republicans for trashing the document. It’s a giant tug of war that’s libel to rip the document to shreds either way. Not long ago, at a Think Tank meeting, I asked a gentleman;

“Don’t you feel that the liberal schooling is indeed, teaching kids to understand the Constitution only to find holes so they can promote their agenda towards socialism?”

He was a Constitutional Lawyer or at least had a degree in it and taught Constitutional Law in College. Remember in Constitutional law, there has to be someone to debate both sides. If something is un-constitutional there is someone to debate it and say it is constitutional. Those who profess to be constitutional lawyers are not necessarily following what that document is really suppose to be.

There is a ton of legislating from the bench these days. I hope you are not trying to pull rank because you taught Constitutional Law, that’s scary, many lawyers think they know it all or are smarter, but, really they are terrorizing our nation’s productivity with incessant and ridiculous minutia. Much of it is psycho-babble pretending to be intellectual in nature, it’s all a fraud.

There are those powers abroad that use our constitution against us and those from within who manipulate our constitution causing infighting and cases to come before the highest court that should not be there. The Constitution was not meant to be used against us by our enemies foreign or domestic. It was not written so people could attack our system to tear us down unnecessarily.

Many who study Constitutional Law do so only to force their will and personal agendas or the agendas of those who pay them and thus, they are undermining the entire process and reason for its existence – that should not impress anyone. Those who study Constitutional Law out of ego are dangerous. It is a pretty easy area of law really, it’s not nearly as difficult as learning how to practice let’s say OSHA law which is 42 stories high if you stack all the pages on top of each other. What it comes on 5-CD ROMs? The Constitutional all the supporting documents, museum letters, Bill of Rights, etc, etc. is hardly anything, that’s easy.

Personally, I am not very impressed with lawyers (especially those who have never done anything in the real world), those who proclaim justice and are so readily willing to take it away from others, or those who wish to right the wrongs they feel are bad, when they have not lived, experienced or even understand the other side (clueless).

Such people are all too often vindictive, ego-driven and often destroy the very justice they purport to uphold. I’ve seen it first hand, it’s pretty sickening. I know it’s all a lie, it’s all politics, games, it is disgusting, pitiful and nothing to be proud of. I doubt those who wrote the document would be very proud of any of the Constitutional Lawyers, Constitutional Professors or even half the members on the Supreme Court. They would be horrified as to some of the political nominations in the present period. I am.

The politician is a funny sort of creature, willing to throw away moral integrity, pragmatize their belief systems and say whatever it takes to win, so they can then go do what’s right? Pretty hilarious and a lot of hypocrisy there. Then once elected willing to do deals with the devil so that the devil will do deals with them. And we allow the 4th branch of government (the media whose stolen the minds of the masses) to pedestalize these folks? You have to be kidding me.  In closing comments to the Constitutional Lawyer, I stated:

“Personally, if you support such folks and you do teach Constitutional Law, boy I wouldn’t tell anyone if I were you. That doesn’t really sound like you are passionate, it sounds more like you are enjoying the sound and fury, chaos and controversy of the game, willing to live in a created reality now only to gain status to live in a changed reality of your choosing in the future regardless of the wishes others. Almost sounds like an unreasonable man who tries to change the world to fit their needs, and in the end they are the only ones who ever will change anything aren’t they?”

Just beware of those who tell you they know what it’s all about and that they are wiser than you because they are a lawyer or have studied Constitutional Law. Be very weary of those who claim to know what’s best for you, as they try to change everything to fit their skewed vision of the world over the rights of all of us. For now, I leave you; Think on this.

The real definition of a liberal, is certainly not the current usage of the word in modern day US politics. Many folks today that call themselves liberals are nothing of the sort as compared to our founding fathers definition of the word. Today, someone who is a Democrat, or considered a liberal, could span the gap of actually being a liberal in the strict definition to being a socialist, anarchists or neo-liberal.

Now then, are the liberal school systems and colleges in the US actually teaching the Constitution correctly? Why do I ask? Well, I see many in the Democrat Party, that seem to wish to turn America into a socialist society, regardless of what the Constitution says, and all the while they condemn the Republicans for trashing the document. It’s a giant tug of war that’s libel to rip the document to shreds either way. Not long ago, at a Think Tank meeting, I asked a gentleman;

“Don’t you feel that the liberal schooling is indeed, teaching kids to understand the Constitution only to find holes so they can promote their agenda towards socialism?”

He was a Constitutional Lawyer or at least had a degree in it and taught Constitutional Law in College. Remember in Constitutional law, there has to be someone to debate both sides. If something is un-constitutional there is someone to debate it and say it is constitutional. Those who profess to be constitutional lawyers are not necessarily following what that document is really suppose to be.

There is a ton of legislating from the bench these days. I hope you are not trying to pull rank because you taught Constitutional Law, that’s scary, many lawyers think they know it all or are smarter, but, really they are terrorizing our nation’s productivity with incessant and ridiculous minutia. Much of it is psycho-babble pretending to be intellectual in nature, it’s all a fraud.

There are those powers abroad that use our constitution against us and those from within who manipulate our constitution causing infighting and cases to come before the highest court that should not be there. The Constitution was not meant to be used against us by our enemies foreign or domestic. It was not written so people could attack our system to tear us down unnecessarily.

Many who study Constitutional Law do so only to force their will and personal agendas or the agendas of those who pay them and thus, they are undermining the entire process and reason for its existence – that should not impress anyone. Those who study Constitutional Law out of ego are dangerous. It is a pretty easy area of law really, it’s not nearly as difficult as learning how to practice let’s say OSHA law which is 42 stories high if you stack all the pages on top of each other. What it comes on 5-CD ROMs? The Constitutional all the supporting documents, museum letters, Bill of Rights, etc, etc. is hardly anything, that’s easy.

Personally, I am not very impressed with lawyers (especially those who have never done anything in the real world), those who proclaim justice and are so readily willing to take it away from others, or those who wish to right the wrongs they feel are bad, when they have not lived, experienced or even understand the other side (clueless).

Such people are all too often vindictive, ego-driven and often destroy the very justice they purport to uphold. I’ve seen it first hand, it’s pretty sickening. I know it’s all a lie, it’s all politics, games, it is disgusting, pitiful and nothing to be proud of. I doubt those who wrote the document would be very proud of any of the Constitutional Lawyers, Constitutional Professors or even half the members on the Supreme Court. They would be horrified as to some of the political nominations in the present period. I am.

The politician is a funny sort of creature, willing to throw away moral integrity, pragmatize their belief systems and say whatever it takes to win, so they can then go do what’s right? Pretty hilarious and a lot of hypocrisy there. Then once elected willing to do deals with the devil so that the devil will do deals with them. And we allow the 4th branch of government (the media whose stolen the minds of the masses) to pedestalize these folks? You have to be kidding me.  In closing comments to the Constitutional Lawyer, I stated:

“Personally, if you support such folks and you do teach Constitutional Law, boy I wouldn’t tell anyone if I were you. That doesn’t really sound like you are passionate, it sounds more like you are enjoying the sound and fury, chaos and controversy of the game, willing to live in a created reality now only to gain status to live in a changed reality of your choosing in the future regardless of the wishes others. Almost sounds like an unreasonable man who tries to change the world to fit their needs, and in the end they are the only ones who ever will change anything aren’t they?”

Just beware of those who tell you they know what it’s all about and that they are wiser than you because they are a lawyer or have studied Constitutional Law. Be very weary of those who claim to know what’s best for you, as they try to change everything to fit their skewed vision of the world over the rights of all of us. For now, I leave you; Think on this.