Comment: Couldn't leave this alone without a final analysis (`;`)

(See in situ)


Couldn't leave this alone without a final analysis (`;`)

With respect,
I couldn’t stop thinking about this proposal of yours. At first, the idea seemed very sound. Even noble, given the state of affairs in today’s world.
I reread all of your replies and studied the Amendment itself in order to get a sense of how this would work, and to whom it would apply.

Quotes of your replies;

“So much is omitted, that the document needs review and amendment. But first Americans have to agree on a few things. Do you think it is a good idea that we be allowed, even empowered to share information vital to our survival? Do you think our constitution intended that?”

“How important is sharing such facts if the constitution is to stand? Shall it fail because we follow the rules you choose to observe and promote? Or shall it stand because we use the obvious purposes which exist in natural law as our social contract?”

"1) To assure information needed for survival is shared and understood.
2). To enable unity amongst the people
3). Unity for defense of the constitution
The constitution is a conceptual shield against tyranny.”

And, the revision you propose:

REV. Amendment I
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Congress shall see that nothing abridges the freedom of speech and the primary methods or systems of it shall be first accessible for the unity of the people with its possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Congress shall see that nothing abridges freedom of the press in its service to the unity of the people; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances or defense of this constitution.”

Unfortunately, you are putting Congress in charge of assuring how freedom of speech is disseminated. Trusting them to make sure information that is “vital to our survival” is released to the public. That is a mistake. They are already supposed to uphold the Constitution under oath, and we see how that turned out.
Also, who is to judge what information is confidential (right to privacy), what is vital and what is kept under wraps to protect the security of our country? Admittedly, the way it is now, everything gathered is flagged need-to-know whether it is or not vital to security. But, who will make that decision? Certainly you cannot have everything accessible to everyone. I have secrets I surely don’t want YOU to know. They’re personal. Who will determine my right to privacy?

And, what if that information is proprietary? A discovery by a company that could change the computer industry, let’s say. That would provide an easy way to access information – real-time without connecting to anything, for pennies. Are we to force that information from them under the guise of ‘the public good’?
An even scarier scenario;
What if I have knowledge of the Congress misleading the public?
For one, will you force this knowledge from my lips by any means necessary?
And, two, the very entity you have put in charge of insuring the free flow of that information is the subject of contention. Do you honestly think they’ll give themselves up? Or, would they more likely go to any length to cover their butts – even to the point of eliminating me – Hypothetically.
(No, you En ES Aa goons who are reading this, I have no such intel to disclose. And, I’m not suicidal, for the record.)

This next bit is more mush than substance. “possible greater meaning through understanding one another in; forgiveness, tolerance, acceptance, respect, trust, friendship and love protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Using ‘possible’ opens too many doors that may not be able to close in the future. ‘Possible’ is not purposeful.
And, all that love, forgiveness and respect stuff has no place in a document meant to restrict a Government’s power over its constituency. Like I said in an earlier post, it would make a good bumper sticker, not a good Amendment.
And what if we don’t want to share? What if we don’t want you to know our business? This proposal can easily be interpreted as the means to allow Congress to extract information deemed to be “vital” from whomever they think is holding it.
Again, I state, your proposal is a roadmap to tyranny.
It would create an information gathering bureaucracy that has no boundary.
I’ll remind you that Congress does not recognize the boundaries already placed upon it. So, this would be a boon to their info gathering buddies. They would not need to ‘work around’ the restrictions placed on them as they do now, you’d give them the Constitutional tool to allow it.
This is why the framers made it deliberately difficult to amend the Constitution.
I commend you on your effort, and the intent with which you offer this proposal. But, in the final analysis, it would do more harm than good.
In my humble, but learned opinion.

"Trust, but verify"
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."
- Ronald Reagan