-8 votes

Is There An American That Knows What Their First Constitutional Right Is?

I refer to a right as something Americans have a right to use. There is a reason and purpose to these threads.

At the thread titled, "Can One American State The Purpose Of Free Speech?"

http://www.dailypaul.com/302112/can-one-american-state-the-p...

we learned that Americans not only do knot know the purpose of free speech, most cannot accept the logical root definition of its purpose. Or, maybe they do, but simply do not state that they accept the notion that the purpose of free speech is to assure information vital to survival is shared and understood.

Please clarify your position on the purpose of free speech here if you can accept that it is to assure survival. This is vital in the process of root usage of our first constitutional right which is the only strategy that can wield the authority to make the changes needed.

About 3 got close, some good points were made which were answered relating to the absolute need for free speech related to survival. There were a number of posters who were mostly unaccountable citing legal definitions of all sorts of the right. There was quite a bit of semantical confusion between; purpose, meaning, reason, right, ability and legal.

Generally a very low level of accountability, but, I do want to acknowledge a few posters that really saw into the exercise. Particularly Absolute Rights who saw the fundaments immediately and posted acknowledgement.

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3228151

This is not rocket science. In fact, children need to be able to understand it.

I have a great deal of experience on forums with this subject matter and have asked the first question about the purpose of free speech, purposefully, because it is not our first right.

Now, what is our first constitutional right?

A clue, we need our second constitutional right, free speech, to properly use our first constitutional right. Is there an American that knows their first constitutional right?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Instead of condemning everyone for ignorance Why don't

you explain it in a clear and simply way that people can understand it? If you can't explain it simply then you simply don't understand it.

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

I just noticed the cognitive distortions in BillRow's post

Where do I condemn?

Do I condemn?

Do I condemn everyone?

Do I call them ignorant?

Where are your examples of what you don't understand?

"minimizing, generalizing, all or nothing thinking, implied entitlement, not supported. How many posts ion this thread like that while NONE address preparatory amendment and what it does for our first right?

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Christopher, why are the majority of your posts and comments

down-voted???? Why are so many of them focused on pointing out the ignorance of the liberty minded people who contribute to this site? Must you put other people down in order to feel good about yourself?

The first definition in tha dictionary of the word Condemn is: 1. - express complete disapproval of, typically in public; censure

It appears that your intent is not to enlighten us but to condemn, especially since you have failed to clarify the meaning of your words and sentences.

FYI, The answer to any problem is always simple. If you can't explain it simply, and clearly then either you don't understand what your attempting to communicate, or else your intent is to confound and deceive.

Which is it?

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

Ha, giving credibility to the vote system shows a readiness

to participate in fraudulent opinion. Cognitive infiltration is real and things like the voting are soooooo easy to abuse, they mean nothing. In fact, extreme downvoting, dependent on context indicates that one should consider the matter something very important to look into.

It's official, there are infiltrations, and they are officially conducted with our tax dollars.

http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/

Free speech is abridged. How much attention do you think someone defending the constitution amongst the many forms of infiltrations? Contentious and controversial is NEEDED, to get any response at all.

Unless one fits their politics into mainstream misleading, uselessness, which so many no so much about.

Correct, any discussion about what is on MSM or, mainstream internet is misleading. That is why it is made easy to see.

You were supposed to cite a example of my condemning someone for being ignorant. You won't find that. You will find me condemning any who promote misleading, ignorant views which further weaken our constitutionality. When they are not accountable, I will condemn them.

You've not been accountable.

This is so dysfunctional, you haven't even stated what you do not understand.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

I don't understand you and have no desire to to waste any more

time on your convoluted rants (which appear to go on for 3 pages on this post along with numerous other posts on the same subject).

The bit of truth you attempt to teach is lost in a muddle of ego. You condemn repeatedly, then self-righteously ask "how and where did I condemn" and then you boast on your ability to condemn.

Good luck with your convoluted, ego driven reasonings.

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

Ad hominium your only action besides

pretending you do not understand.

Cognitive distortions abound in you post Mr. Rowe. Generalizations, minimizing, labeling are rife.

But no accountability to anything. Not even on topic.

Pretending to not understand that free speech enables sharing and understanding needed for survival; doesn't work.

Pretending that you cannot understand your first right protected by the constitution which you can utilize is from 1787 not 1792; doesn't work either.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

It's clear, but if the purpose of free speech is not accepted

wherein constitutional intent remains unstated, and no one understands how constitutional intent controls Article V, or won't even discuss it; I can't help you know what you don't know.

In fact it almost looks like you do not want others to know by implying it hasn't been made clear perhaps 1/2 dozen different ways. Implying that if you can't understand it, no one can.

For all we know, you could be pretending to not understand while a Greek chorus creates an aura of credibility. Typical cognitive infiltrator tactic.

As an alternative, you make yourself clear on how you intend to defend our rights without these methods of gaining authority through agreement upon constitutional intent at Article V.

Why won't you or anyone comment upon what "Preparatory Amendment" does to the Article V proposal?

Preparatory Amendment:

1)End the abridging of free speech

2)Secure the vote

3)Campaign finance reform

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Establishment of Justice.

hahaha Good to see you're still pushing Article 5.

Okay, but how?-Article V

We have a right to justice, and a right to establish it. Therein is Article V.

Article 5 is the right we use to establish the right we have. Free speech is the right which enables our use of a convention to propose amendments to the constitution which have full constitutional intent.

Yes. Article V is the only legal mechanism that has the authority to restore constitutional government. I cannot give up on what is a lawful, peaceful revolution creating constitutional government.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Yes-Preparatory Amendment removes the hazard

But I'm having a hard time getting any accountability to the fact here.

The unaccountable either do, or don't know the compromise to restoring constitutional government they are creating by not addressing Preparatory Amendment.

Basically, only one poster was even close to knowing their first right. Only one poster got close to knowing the purpose of free speech.

Perhaps egos are more important than rights and freedom. I mean folks post here thinking they know, then find out they don't; then they realize they cannot use natural law in discussion or know nothing about Article V except the icons of politics have made them afraid of it.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Constitutional gov=implied right to create/amend a Constitution.

My guess was based on you saying something like "It's simple really". I can't remember. So, I thought, "How would a child look at this?"

1) Before you can exercise any "Constitutional" rights (not exclusively referring to "natural" rights, but rights granted and/or recognized as inherent or by contract), you would first have to have a "Constitution". Right? (I could tell the OP wasn't asking about "natural rights".)

2) Assuming you have a "Constitution", "Declaration", or "other such Articles" means you exercised some right inherent or implied to "establish and ordain" it. In short, you had that right to begin with.

3) If you "established and ordained" a document stating what rights you retain that .gov shall not infringe or abridge w/o warrant supported by affidavit and signed by a judge, and what few and limited powers you grant to .gov to exercise on your behalf, then does it not imply that you had to exercise this right "first" in order to spell out what others you retain? (ref. Bill of Rights for those retained, among others.)

It really is that simple, and I was honestly taking a stab into the wind expecting to get cut down snidely by my intellectual superiors. And in fact I remember one such cut down when I learned the hard way what "cognitive distortions" is. Discussions like these are important to the preservation of freedom and liberty, more important than egos, and I don't know what preparatory amendment means, but want to learn. I don't believe this thread deserves down votes. All who down voted may have adhered too rigidly to their own beliefs, instead of just looking at the basic question Chris asked, within the context and parameters he set.

In closing, regarding Article V, I'm not afraid of it. I'm only concerned about the fornicating pieces of bovine fecal matter (crap! C.D. score climbing...) that would invariably be elected, or selected by the legislatures, to attend such a convention. I'm glad we have Article V. I just don't think we can use it in this climate w/o irreparable harm, but I'm open to understanding arguments counter to my position. If someone can make a better case than JBS "Beware Article V", I'll gladly check it out. Concern about the mindset of others does not equal fear.

Kelldor

P.S. I humbly remind folks to pls scroll up and re-read the very top sentence on the page. Thx. It's directly related to this thread. The one we have is not perfect but it's the best out there. "Restoring Constitutional Government to the United States of America" might someday after a collapse mean having to draft a new one for your new country if this one goes the way of the USSR. I hope we have a bunch of Chris Browns as delegates to that convention, or an Article V.

Right on! There is lots of precedent for our

authority.

It is all about unity to "restore constitutional government".

The question is "how" without free speech?

There is only one way, we have to stop doing what we always have done, so we no longer get what we've always got:-)

There is only one method having enough authority to end that abridging. Article V.

Accordingly preparation for Article V requires amendment ending the abridging of free speech.

This is difficult because we do not know the purpose of free speech so cannot see that what we have has not and will not serve that purpose.

Once that fact is shared, and people know something is very wrong, it will be much easier to assemble people into a mass. That mass can be educated about preparatory amendment which only allows three amendments UNTIL the nation knows it knows, constitutional intent.

With that knowledge in states citizens, they can assure all legislators respect constitutional intent. At that point, a general convention to propose amendments to the constitution can safely proceed.

It is actually very simple strategy, starting with a simple agreement between an ever growing group of citizens.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

I prefer to not...

categorize and compartmentalize rights.

Free speech is only as free as it is taught and passed down from one generation to another. To imply free speech is a consitutional right is ludicrous. The constitution secures ONLY what we strive to maintain and teach our children, inclusive of historic truths and falsities, BUT the constitution does not grant rights nor does it have the authority to claim granting capacity.

It has been made clear that our administrations through the years care very little for Constitutionality, otherwise oath of office would be paramount to party. Representatives must be Constitutionalists first if they are to take any oath of office seriously.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

Sad that you do not know your first constitutional right

It is not the right to free speech.

It is Article V.

Can you lead me to a constitutionalist that knows their first constitutional right?

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

I never stated it was the first right...

and no, I do not know any Constitutionalists.

And ultimately we really do not need a Constitution in order to claim the capacity that the article communicates. The true Constitution constitutes within memory as taught and learned and is concentrated by our capacity to explain what we've been taught and by our kindred that which they've learned from being taught.

Speech is essential to our being and functionality. It is by our creation of it free, with or without a document explaining such.

Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness

We have fundamental rights

in America, our fundamental human rights are protected by the constitution which makes them constitutionally protected rights, but not constitutional rights!

Do you recognize your first right protected by

the constitution as Article V?

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

No such thing as Constitutional rights.

.

If they do exist, are you ready to give them up?

I have a hard time understanding how millions of soldiers can sacrifice their lives for nothing.

I also realize that they did not have a complete grasp on what authority they were taking orders from, so they didn't do much to defend the constitution. However, they had enough of a sense of a deep and great truth of natural law of the constitution to do what they did.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

all

All Rights derive from property

Enonesoch

We all have a footprint, but government which taxes property

has agreed that to do so continuously, it will respect our rights.

Accountability to this concept was created with the Magna Carta in 1215.

With the Constitution, natural law dynamics were integrated to enable humanities advancement. Unfortunately the concept was hijacked in 1867.

Most importantly, we must know our first right and how to use it in order to protect all of the rest.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

There are no "Constitutional Rights", only "Natural Rights"

Our "natural rights" are not created by the constitution, and cannot be destroyed by any law. The right to own/bear arms, the right to free-speech, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to privacy are all "natural rights" (meaning they exist with or without a constitution).

The constitution is a document of law which exists to criminalize attempts by government agents to infringe those pre-existing rights. So there are no "constitutional rights", only "constitutional crimes".

For example: It is a "constitutional crime" to disarm lawful citizens, because the constitution deems such act a criminal violation of the "natural rights" of all people.

If a government fails to observe the natural rights of its people, and the same government also fails to prosecute criminal violations of the constitution, the only protection of "natural rights" is for the people to enforce "natural law".

Our 1st right is Article V-it is the highest authority

and it is a natural law which upholds natural law.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

natural law is a huge influence

on the Constitution, which I think is what you were saying. It wasn't the only influence, but one of them.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

The primary influence and the best influence was natural law

From what I can tell, everything else has elements that surrounds the problems.

The Magna Carta is natural law as well. The accountability aspects originated there such as "alter or abolish".

The main point is that Article V is our first constitutional right and we will need to unabridge freedom of speech in order to use it well.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

hmm

the Magna Carta had plenty of other influences as well.

In a way it is a little disheartening to realize how few documents historically have ever tried to limit government.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Can you list some of the other influences?

From my info, it appears as a real first on the planet. It was a showdown between rome and the free world. the free world won a concession.

It is having a hard time hanging onto it.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

you mean?

wealthy landowners gained a concession for a short time?

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

History misrepresents the event and the real issue

is fairly well unknown.

By no means were the historically recorded issues the real ones.

Runnymede was pure theatre.

The barons lost power, now they are trying to get it, and the colonies back, all the way.

If we do not use Article V, they may succeed.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Hate to say it

but "We the people" are getting what we deserve. Not you and I or most supporters of Dr. Paul, but the people at large are asleep, ignorant, uneducated, not thinking. They gorge themselves on mainstream news soundbites and then nod off to bad sitcoms every night. Until THAT changes significantly, I don't know how there are enough people to use Article V.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein