-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?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

With Preparatory Amendment as the focus

Americans can realize the alternative politics that are functional when we agree upon constitutional intent. As their lives are trashed by unconstitutional government, they are realizing more and more

Accordingly, we need to agree upon constitutional intent and work to make the agreement expand. When this is observed, people will realize there is another form of politics we can initiate. It is the politics of "alter or abolish" and we are the masters, but WE MUST AGREE.

Perhaps now you see why it is so important for Americans to agree that the purpose of free speech is to assure that information vital to survival is shared and understood. Therein is the basis of a real and proper capacity to see free speech unabridged, because Americans are starting to die-fast because of what they do not know.

Then Americans need to agree that our vote needs to be secure. Therein is the real capacity to amend and secure the vote.

Americans already agree that campaign finance needs to be reformed.

As you can see, the simple, natural law purpose of free speech is the true, and real beginning of our capacity to "alter or abolish" and conduct an Article V convention.

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 we need to do is..."

that's a tall order.

A good portion of America have been sold on the Constitution as either an outdated piece of paper or as a "living document" that we change over time. So not even agreeing on original intent will solve the issue. The whole civil war era thing only complicates it, as does the new deal era. How many people are originalists? There are a lot of people here who would go back to the Articles of the Confederation.

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

Original intent & constitutional intent

There is an "apple and tree" type difference between constitutional intent an the use of the word "original".

"A good portion of America have been sold on the Constitution as either an outdated piece of paper or as a "living document" that we change over time. So not even agreeing on original intent will solve the issue. "

I would guess that you mean "original constitutional intent". That is fairly broad including the package of prime rights needed to preserve; freedom, rights and the constitution as the rule of law.

Therein is a natural law discussion necessarily very much like the thread where free speech, or its fundamental purpose to a free society of enabling the sharing and understanding of information needed for survival.

A question:

Are people uplifted and made secure in their feelings regarding their lives, well being, futures etc., when many assemble and indentify their similar concerns and perceptions of what effects them all in agreement?

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?

not sure what you mean to say or ask

but yes, original intent and constitutional intent are different concepts, at least to a large portion of the population.

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

It is do or die-It is our instinct and natural law

Meaning that all we have to do is start agreeing, and others will join, making it more visible.

Alternative media has been infiltrated cognitively with a number of serious pieces of misinformation. This does not mean we have to use or respect the info in anyway.

Consider all the other actions which people must agree on to effect. Suddenly getting Americans to agree that free speech has the purpose of assuring that information needed for survival is shared and understood, doesn't sound too difficult.

People can make this agreement and support its extension while they are doing all the other politics they feel might improve the situation.

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 definitely agree with this post

especially the part about alternative media. Hey I don;t agree with everything you say, but your heart seems like it is in the right place.

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

What's wrong with the

Articles?

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Nothing really

the persons that drafted the Articles were also libertarians. But if we're talking about getting people to agree on founders' intent, and you have subgroups even here that think that is irrelevant (if they believe we are focuisng on founders intent of the wrong document) then it becomes more difficult.

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

Since when did it take a majority to affect change?

In fact, history proves it's a minority that changes things, or at least starts the change.....

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Never

but it will take more than a small number to affect change.

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

#'s are bigger than you realize

and it only takes a few percentage points one way or another to move things

"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere".
--Voltaire

It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown

Correct, and IF agreement is fundamental to

constitutional intent, the agreement has the power to control the congress, the senate, the court and the president through 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?

Ron Paul gave me reason to be optimistic

during the last election, for sure.

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

Not Exactly

What I mean is the constitution does not "grant" or "confer" any new rights. The constitution criminalizes attacks on our natural rights (which existed prior to the constitution).

Your natural rights exist with or without the constitution. When the government ceases to protect your natural rights (as lawfully required by the constitution), then the responsibility falls to "the people". When government fails to uphold the constitution, the rule of law has failed, and society must engage in revolution to restore their rights.

In short, the founders understood that all governments must recognize and protect the natural rights of citizens in order to preserve peace, prosperity, and justice.

A lawful and peaceful revolution can be created through

Article V which is a re-statement of the Declaration of Independence and "alter or abolish". "Alter of abolish" may originate with some of the post Magna Carta sentiments which were where the people simply took their rights with enforcement action.

Jeffersons revolution every generation was Article V.

BTW, history does not present the Magna Carta accurately at all.

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 they did

and that is correct. I would hesitate to say the Constitution "is" natural law, though. It has many influences, such as the history and culture of the colonies, the popularity of Adam Smith's economics concepts at the time, the traditions of the people involved, etc. There is imperfection there but at least it recognized that government is inherently incompetent and often evil, and should be limited.

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

The Iroquois Confederacy contributed heavily and confirmed

earlier contracts based in natural law expression such as the Magna Carta.

Power corrupts, so government is inherently corrupt and must be purged regularly and remade with Article V.

The most important aspect is preparation for Article V. Obviously we cannot be "the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" if we do not know constitutional intent. Logical preparation for Article V simply make the nation more constitutional. Form that, the people can define constitutional intent. Once it is clear they can do that, we are ready for Article V. The preparations.

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?

Article V Is Not The Answer

If those in power don't obey the constitution (the rule of law), then an article V convention will change nothing. The constitution we have is excellent, we just need to remove the law-breakers from office.

Quit listening to Levin, he's an idiot.

The concept of Preparatory Amendment

needs evaluation before dismissing our first constitutional right and its purpose.

America prepares for all important political events. Therefore, these three issues need to be addressed BEFORE a general convention to propose amendments proceeds.

1)End the abridging of free speech
2)Secure the vote
3)Campaign finance reform

To restore constitutional government, we need these issues addressed.

The reason I created the thread "Can one American state the purpose of free speech" is to demonstrate how unconstitutional we are. With those issues fixed by amendment, we can conduct Article V properly.

BTW, I do not even know who levin is.

Comprehensive comment on Preparatory Amendment is required in order to be constitutional.

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?

agreed about Levin

and I wouldn't trust most of our citizens to be able to vote for representatives that could do anything but create a total fascist police state, i.e., just what we have now. A Constitutional convention would just eliminate any text that we could argue must be returned to.

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

Comprehensive comment upon the effect of

Preparatory Amendment needs to be made in order to be constitutional.

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 dont have constitutional rights

the constitution is telling the government not to do certain things. The first amendment is telling the government to leave religion, speech, and peaceful assembly alone.

Your first right is to "alter or abolish" abusive

government.

But you sound as if you might not claim 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?

I'll give you two answers

First answer, which I believe is the one you are looking for:

A1: The right to criticize the government.

But I'll give a second answer, the one I consider the real answer. The first one is a right, and yes that is a big part of the motivation of the founders in enacting the first amendment. But really, it is much broader than that:

A2. The right to free expression of any thought, no matter how repulsive, and the right to do so in any means possible, without any government action to monitor, restrict, or penalize the expression or the underlying thought.

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

The right to "alter or abolish" abusive government.

Way more than criticize.

A2 has an articulation of the right to freedom of expression which shows constitutional intent.

The big issue is the manifestation of the intent with regard to the population density we have now compared to when the contract was made.

The abridging of free speech is so complete that the people cannot readily agree that it has the fundamental purpose of assuring information needed for survival is shared and understood.

Currently, information relating to Article V, and how we are to transition from this sorry state of under-or- misinformation is the most vital to using Article V, or survival. Our constitution is our main tool for survival at this late date.

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?

hmmm

"fundamental purpose of assuring information needed for survivial is shared and understood."

I disagree that free speech rights extend only to 'information needed for survival'...if that is what you mean.

I'm not following your point on population density or Article V. Could you elaborate?

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

Agreed-survival and evolution

When the right to free speech was learned from the Iroquois,or rather its role in determining natural law which in turn guided their democratic decisions, there were very few people compared to the current populations. The level of information they had about their world was remarkable compared to our level.

Mostly this is due to media manipulation. We have no idea of what it will take to get the average information level back to the proportions it was. Accordingly, overkill is FULLY justified because the continuity of the constitution is at stake.

With mass media and how used to misinfo, overinfo the gov and corporations have become, they depend on it and we really have no idea of what we would be like as a people IF we actually had free speech. We really do not know what it is.

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?

Amen

not sure about the Iroquois being such an influence. I think that free speech was mainly to avoid the kind of oppression present in the European monarchies. But you could be right in part.

totally agree about free speech. I just wish the founders had gone even further in guaranteeing freedom of speech.

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

Freedom of speech is its own guarantee

Too bad we never learned its purpose and meaning.

The Iroquois were critical to the formation of the nation. There is some info I'm not sure of, but I do remember there were areas of history that it fits well enough.

http://www.federationmsta.org/algonquin.html

There is a doctrine of natural law called "The greater meaning of free speech". It defines which speech is supported publicly. This page has it.

http://algoxy.com/poly/meaning_of_free_speech.html

Constitutional speech is not just made freely, IT IS SUPPORTED (PBS and public access show this intent). All speech remains free.

It also has a draft of a revision of the 1st amendment as well as HOW it would be officially implemented.

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?

Recall the event of the 13 arrows

that would not break when bundled together.

Franklin was very impressed by the Iroquois chieftain Casatanengo (sp?).

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?