Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
ChristopherABrown
captain of 100
Posts: 107
Location: Santa Barbara California

Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

Post by ChristopherABrown »

This process will end the senseless violence between tyrannical, unconstitutional power and the American people. It will end the ability to make and promulgate law by unconstitutional American governments.

The American constitution and the intents of the framing documents contain a formula for the states to make the federal government obsolete and replace it when 3/4 of them are in agreement.

However, there are requisites that must be in place. The most vital is the unity of the people and that unity must be founded in prime constitutional intent to lawfully obsolete a government destructive to unalienable rights. The reason for this is the American people are the only entity that can define constitutional intent.

Simply by doing so, in mass, a government not acting pursuant to such intent, is technically made obsolete by the people it is supposed to serve. But such needs to implement existing legal process to control the ability to authorize legitimate government.

An imperfection in the constitution allowed the destructive government to proliferate. This raises the distinct possibility that the people defining constitutional intent can define intent closer to perfection. At that point, it becomes clear that the citizens of states should, pursuant to defense and enforcement of the constitution, seek to amend and further perfect the constitution eventually making the government which does not observe it, obsolete. This occurs with new, constitutionally conforming branches of government being created as needed by the states directing a purified congress with new amendment.

Up to this point, I've described, very generally, an action of law with a specific sequence. This proposal is idealistic, but so is our constitution.

I will now describe it specifically with the laws the people are to use in order to make a destructive government obsolete.

"We, the people", to exist in that capacity as defined in the constitution, must agree. When we agree in a majority upon a right not enumerated in the constitution the 9th amendment is invoked. To make that right a written law, which our government must obey, we must unify within our states and impose our definition of intent as supreme upon state legislations.

This is the true and greatest meaning of the supremacy clause retained as a right by the people, and the states have long ago agreed to it as they created it. Their individual constitutions echo these aspects of the federal.

The imperfection which allowed the government to proliferate despite its unconstitutionality is found in the lack of empowerment of the purely human purpose of communication for the sake of survival and adaptation. Simply allowing free speech is not enough. The elite will always have a louder voice with economic power and squash information vital to the peoples long term interests in favor of their short term profits.

Freedom of speech has the natural law purpose of protecting unalienable rights. The ultimate, lawful, specific legal purpose of free speech in America is to enable the unity to defend and enforce the constitution defending rights by limiting the power of government.

By our use of the 9th amendment we have the right to prepare for Article V. The first and foremost element of preparation is to end the abridging of the purpose of free speech. Therein is a chicken-and-egg paradox. How do we use the right without having its purpose available?

One great factor in our favor is the familiarity and simplicity of what must be shared, agreed upon and accepted. The following are the inquiries that must resound within the people to create agreement upon most prime constitutional intent invoking our power over states.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?


Only our love of liberty and love of our families, friends and community supporting our liberty and lives in the future can supplant the abridged, lawful purpose of free speech, with our determined, persistent focus empowering us towards unity.

All communications mediums need to be engaged by all age groups that can understand the above inquiry, to share it as widely and as often as possible UNTIL such information and agreement upon it causes a movement using legal due process to authorize 3/4 of the states amending, to create a new, fully constitutional republic of federal government piece by piece.

This is how we make government destructive to unalienable rights obsolete.

Below, is a brief step by step description of legal process as well as links to documentation of recent legal action showing technical, legal dysfunction establishing that the federal government is actually, already functionally obsolete.

http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All American soldiers have a right to know they act under a lawful, military authority. This peaceful, legal process linked here, will make it very clear to the existing federal government that it is, indeed, obsolete.

http://algoxy.com/ows/soldiersinquiry.html

User avatar
light-one
captain of 100
Posts: 712

Re: Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

Post by light-one »

Perhaps if people will unite under a common leader that will actually uphold and defend the Constitution, we can get our freedom back.

47% of the population take their direction from the democratic party, which in my opinion equates to being Satan's disciple.

One tenth of 1% of the population are LDS and the LDS leadership no longer promotes patriotism.

There are a couple of possibilities in parties like the Independent American Party that is calling people to action or the Constitution Party that apparently plans on making change by winning elections, which they have yet to do, even though they do have a considerable following.

Getting people to agree on a Plan of Action is no small feat. Patriots are under heavy fire and the spreading of truth can get you killed.

There is education as well as a plan of action along with how to unite other people in your area at: http://www.independentamericanparty.org/

Nearly half of the population are so incredibly uninformed or brainwashed, that they do not even admit that there is even a problem. People can't even agree on whether or not it is okay to kill unborn children.

If more than 30 seconds pass after the election without the total elimination of Obamacare, the abolition of the Dept. of Education, abolishment of the IRS, disbanding of BLM, Fish and Game, and Dept. of natural Resources, the EPA, etc., then the time for a peaceful resolution will have permanently passed.

ChristopherABrown
captain of 100
Posts: 107
Location: Santa Barbara California

Re: Obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

Post by ChristopherABrown »

light-one wrote:Perhaps if people will unite under a common leader that will actually uphold and defend the Constitution, we can get our freedom back.

47% of the population take their direction from the democratic party, which in my opinion equates to being Satan's disciple.

One tenth of 1% of the population are LDS and the LDS leadership no longer promotes patriotism.

There are a couple of possibilities in parties like the Independent American Party that is calling people to action or the Constitution Party that apparently plans on making change by winning elections, which they have yet to do, even though they do have a considerable following.

Getting people to agree on a Plan of Action is no small feat. Patriots are under heavy fire and the spreading of truth can get you killed.

There is education as well as a plan of action along with how to unite other people in your area at: http://www.independentamericanparty.org/

Nearly half of the population are so incredibly uninformed or brainwashed, that they do not even admit that there is even a problem. People can't even agree on whether or not it is okay to kill unborn children.

If more than 30 seconds pass after the election without the total elimination of Obamacare, the abolition of the Dept. of Education, abolishment of the IRS, disbanding of BLM, Fish and Game, and Dept. of natural Resources, the EPA, etc., then the time for a peaceful resolution will have permanently passed.
A very important point.

"Getting people to agree on a Plan of Action is no small feat"

Absolutely, unless contextual relevance for priority originating historically in 1776, with the Declaration, then the 1787 constitution is used within simple inquiry of natural law superseding the lack of education supplanting the need for a common leader.

The questions only need to be understood and have prime historical constitutional relevance to be lawful and rightful in every way, by the people.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?


"Nearly half of the population are so incredibly uninformed or brainwashed, that they do not even admit that there is even a problem. "

So true, but I've found I can gain agreement and understanding within 2 minutes with most people because even the uninformed remember the "alter or abolish" part and like it.

That free speech has a purpose which must be enabled in order to unify is requisite and nearly all can accept this when provided with the correct context of defending unalienable rights.

I really do believe, rationally, logically, lawfully that more than a majority can agree with this simple agree by inquiry any where and anytime.

The task is one of perseverance and patience where those that understand the use and point made with agreement to extend, by actively sharing the quasi formal agreement. Formal because defines constitutional intent, but informal legally or politically.

In simple recognition of priority of right is the right to alter or abolish the people must be enabled by use of their exclusive power, defining the constitutions intent with a majority agreement.

"Getting people to agree on a Plan of Action is no small feat"

The truth in that is the reason defining the need of universal, natural law agreement given to us by the framers of the documents at nations beginning.
Our unalienable rights are the vital need, and a means to alter or abolish government destructive to them is an integral part of governmental structure the states can impose.

But we need to also share that it is our time to invoke the 9th amendment also relating to Article V.

We have a right to prepare for Article V in order to assure all amendments have constitutional intent. Only "we, the people" can define it.

Most agree, if free speech has a purpose of sharing, effectively towards altering or abolishing, invoking our right; knowledge of a threat to unalienable rights, that such purpose, is abridged.

The 2nd, AMD shows a firearm has the purpose of defending unalienable rights.

The 1st AMD has a PURPOSE of free speech which is more complex. It is about understanding. Such actually has a natural law context with what is called the. "Greater Meaning Of Free Speech".

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

(Lamanites?

Consider 70% redacted in DOI, original framers correspondence removed. Also, historically hidden competition for inclusion and exclusion.)

This is an agreement completely out of the political partisan area and exists in law because it intentionally defines constitutional intent very specifically.

Activists can use that, with our support great things can be done, in time.

And this, would be perhaps the only part of your post I would question.

"Getting people to agree on a Plan of Action is no small feat. Patriots are under heavy fire and the spreading of truth can get you killed."

Yes, but since the purpose of free speech is abridged, they do not know of this lawful peaceful method. The patriots feel they have no recourse but to turn to the 2nd AMD, that is not working and very dangerous.

This is exactly why I've developed this Plan of Action. It has full legal process and validity by law once we simply share these prime intents and agree widely.

Once citizens start, and with a small amount of vocal understanding from those that ARE informed and can understand the law of the land and how it logically can be applied, can easily clarify the function, many can proactively, come forth and start the agreement.

Review the legal process sequence .

http://algoxy.com/law/lawfulpeacefulrevolution.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Consider, 3/4 of the states can simply de-authorize the existing congress and court then appoint new authorized divisions and branches, start a new congress after the PURPOSE of free speech.

The constitution really needs very little amendment to be perfect. Ending the abridging of the purpose of free speech and securing the vote by state agreement are the two most important. After that, Article V itself might be amended to include proper preparation of states citizens so they can assure all amendments have constitutional intent.
Last edited by ChristopherABrown on February 16th, 2016, 7:14 am, edited 2 times in total.

kennyhs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1537

Re: Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

Post by kennyhs »

President Franklin D. Richards

We could have a goodly number of substantial young men growing up in our midst who would become skilled and mighty in the law, and who could go into any of the courts and set forth the true principles of justice and equity in all cases. We need more of such men. We do not want men to become lawyers, turn infidels and live for nothing but the little money they can make. We want to raise up a corps of young men armed with the spirit of the gospel, clothed with the holy priesthood, who can tell the judges in high places what the law is. [Journal of Discourses, 26:102]

ChristopherABrown
captain of 100
Posts: 107
Location: Santa Barbara California

Attorneys not Lawful

Post by ChristopherABrown »

kennyhs wrote:President Franklin D. Richards

We could have a goodly number of substantial young men growing up in our midst who would become skilled and mighty in the law, and who could go into any of the courts and set forth the true principles of justice and equity in all cases. We need more of such men. We do not want men to become lawyers, turn infidels and live for nothing but the little money they can make. We want to raise up a corps of young men armed with the spirit of the gospel, clothed with the holy priesthood, who can tell the judges in high places what the law is. [Journal of Discourses, 26:102]
Wise words from a leader who must have known all aspects of the "BAR".

http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/H ... e_BAR.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, pro se representation is increasingly impaired as the federal circuit courts have unconstitutionally and illegally removed an 1885 local court rule which automatically provided a new magistrate and judge to a civil rights case filed, then dismissed to be be refiled with new co plaintiffs. This began in 2005 and is an effective denial of access to courts as pro se citizens with civil rights claims are always assigned to the same unconstitutional judge under the "related cases" rule.

Only the Supreme Court can write rules. The SEPARATE section of the local court rules which was titled "assignment of magistrates and judges" was very likely separated to facilitate quick easy removal. Only the section need to be removed and a single page of the index of the main body of rules exchanged and the secret removal was complete. This was done on 2005 with no note of the revision in the rules.
Last edited by ChristopherABrown on February 16th, 2016, 8:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
light-one
captain of 100
Posts: 712

Re: Attorneys not Lawful

Post by light-one »

ChristopherABrown wrote:
kennyhs wrote:President Franklin D. Richards

We could have a goodly number of substantial young men growing up in our midst who would become skilled and mighty in the law, and who could go into any of the courts and set forth the true principles of justice and equity in all cases. We need more of such men. We do not want men to become lawyers, turn infidels and live for nothing but the little money they can make. We want to raise up a corps of young men armed with the spirit of the gospel, clothed with the holy priesthood, who can tell the judges in high places what the law is. [Journal of Discourses, 26:102]
Wise words from a leader who must have known all aspects of the "BAR".

http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/H ... e_BAR.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We agree that the plan of action should be legal if possible. More than one prophet has declared that blood may be required.

BTW, the angelfire page is informative. I have saved it.

ChristopherABrown
captain of 100
Posts: 107
Location: Santa Barbara California

Re: Attorneys not Lawful

Post by ChristopherABrown »

light-one wrote:
ChristopherABrown wrote:
kennyhs wrote:President Franklin D. Richards

We could have a goodly number of substantial young men growing up in our midst who would become skilled and mighty in the law, and who could go into any of the courts and set forth the true principles of justice and equity in all cases. We need more of such men. We do not want men to become lawyers, turn infidels and live for nothing but the little money they can make. We want to raise up a corps of young men armed with the spirit of the gospel, clothed with the holy priesthood, who can tell the judges in high places what the law is. [Journal of Discourses, 26:102]
Wise words from a leader who must have known all aspects of the "BAR".

http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/H ... e_BAR.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We agree that the plan of action should be legal if possible. More than one prophet has declared that blood may be required.

BTW, the angelfire page is informative. I have saved it.
Yes, that is an interesting page, lots of links from it.

Here is another one I've found to be very informative. Quite surprising at how extensive it is.

http://www.barefootsworld.net" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, for a completely different perspective, this should be looked at too. Lots of different angles and a way of using grammar that might be useful at times. It at least will make you think, a lot.

http://dwmlc.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

With our agreement upon constitutional intent, our unity will be SO IMPOSING, so correct, that the powers that be will fade. There will be no bloodshed if we are patient and work for then use, understanding. Our constitution is an absolutely awesome structure for freedom using natural law.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

Post by freedomforall »

Why is it that government refuses to adhere to Article 1, section 8, clause 17?
How did they get to claim around half of the western US as theirs, which profoundly goes against that restriction?
How is it that people are getting imprisoned for trying to maintain their right of the pursuit of happiness, being treated badly and kicked off their land by a tyrannical government?

Case one: Harry Reid and son wanting the Chinese to build a nuclear solar plant right where the Bundy's live, and then calling patriots domestic terrorists.
Case two: The Hammonds get incarcerated twice for the same offense, and trumped up charges against 68 others for standing up to the Feds and the killer cops protected...all based on the fact that Government has no right to own the land in the first place. Isn't this reason enough to change the guards for our security as stated in the DOI.

The Feds have shown a complete disdain for the Constitution and have turned on the patriots with a vengeance...and if this keeps up, goodbye to our inalienable rights. Is the DOI worth no more than the paper it is written on at this point? Next is gun confiscation brought about by gun registration. The UK has warned America, Canada has warned America and Obama has been going with the One World Government plan and has even admitted it. So...who is going to step up, how will it be accomplished and when will it happen to save the Constitution?
mapwithcaption.jpg
mapwithcaption.jpg (61.36 KiB) Viewed 2604 times

ChristopherABrown
captain of 100
Posts: 107
Location: Santa Barbara California

Re: Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

Post by ChristopherABrown »

freedomforall wrote:Why is it that government refuses to adhere to Article 1, section 8, clause 17?
How did they get to claim around half of the western US as theirs, which profoundly goes against that restriction?
How is it that people are getting imprisoned for trying to maintain their right of the pursuit of happiness, being treated badly and kicked off their land by a tyrannical government?
I actually answer all of that in a post here. My first on this page.

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=41397&p=687920#p687920" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Please quote it and bring it back here for discussion if you like .

User avatar
light-one
captain of 100
Posts: 712

Re: Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

Post by light-one »

freedomforall wrote:Why is it that government refuses to adhere to Article 1, section 8, clause 17?
How did they get to claim around half of the western US as theirs, which profoundly goes against that restriction?
How is it that people are getting imprisoned for trying to maintain their right of the pursuit of happiness, being treated badly and kicked off their land by a tyrannical government?

Case one: Harry Reid and son wanting the Chinese to build a nuclear solar plant right where the Bundy's live, and then calling patriots domestic terrorists.
Case two: The Hammonds get incarcerated twice for the same offense, and trumped up charges against 68 others for standing up to the Feds and the killer cops protected...all based on the fact that Government has no right to own the land in the first place. Isn't this reason enough to change the guards for our security as stated in the DOI.

The Feds have shown a complete disdain for the Constitution and have turned on the patriots with a vengeance...and if this keeps up, goodbye to our inalienable rights. Is the DOI worth no more than the paper it is written on at this point? Next is gun confiscation brought about by gun registration. The UK has warned America, Canada has warned America and Obama has been going with the One World Government plan and has even admitted it. So...who is going to step up, how will it be accomplished and when will it happen to save the Constitution?
mapwithcaption.jpg
The police have sold out. Instead of protecting and serving the public, they harass and abuse at every opportunity. Most cops have only one purpose: revenue collection. In Oregon, the police should have put the sheriff and satanist Grasty in jail and told feds to back off or die. Instead, the cops sided with Satan and totally disregarded their oath of office and committed acts of treason. Now, every single officer in the county is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree. To NOT be guilty, they would have had to try to stop the premeditated murder of Finnicum. There is a war against the people and so far the people are docile. But the blatant disregard for the law by law enforcement will likely bite them in the butt because now they are targets and they will live in fear that every encounter with a citizen will be their last.

ChristopherABrown
captain of 100
Posts: 107
Location: Santa Barbara California

Re: Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

Post by ChristopherABrown »

light-one wrote:
freedomforall wrote:Why is it that government refuses to adhere to Article 1, section 8, clause 17?
How did they get to claim around half of the western US as theirs, which profoundly goes against that restriction?
How is it that people are getting imprisoned for trying to maintain their right of the pursuit of happiness, being treated badly and kicked off their land by a tyrannical government?

Case one: Harry Reid and son wanting the Chinese to build a nuclear solar plant right where the Bundy's live, and then calling patriots domestic terrorists.
Case two: The Hammonds get incarcerated twice for the same offense, and trumped up charges against 68 others for standing up to the Feds and the killer cops protected...all based on the fact that Government has no right to own the land in the first place. Isn't this reason enough to change the guards for our security as stated in the DOI.

The Feds have shown a complete disdain for the Constitution and have turned on the patriots with a vengeance...and if this keeps up, goodbye to our inalienable rights. Is the DOI worth no more than the paper it is written on at this point? Next is gun confiscation brought about by gun registration. The UK has warned America, Canada has warned America and Obama has been going with the One World Government plan and has even admitted it. So...who is going to step up, how will it be accomplished and when will it happen to save the Constitution?
mapwithcaption.jpg
The police have sold out. Instead of protecting and serving the public, they harass and abuse at every opportunity. Most cops have only one purpose: revenue collection. In Oregon, the police should have put the sheriff and satanist Grasty in jail and told feds to back off or die. Instead, the cops sided with Satan and totally disregarded their oath of office and committed acts of treason. Now, every single officer in the county is guilty of conspiracy to commit murder in the first degree. To NOT be guilty, they would have had to try to stop the premeditated murder of Finnicum. There is a war against the people and so far the people are docile. But the blatant disregard for the law by law enforcement will likely bite them in the butt because now they are targets and they will live in fear that every encounter with a citizen will be their last.
Yes, but why escalate the hand wringing when it is our option to unify behind prime constitutional intent and then compel our states to slowly obsolete the federal government piece by piece?

The first step is agreement upon definition of prime constitutional intent.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?


Can you agree and accept those simple definitions based in the framing documents?

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

Post by freedomforall »

light-one wrote:so far the people are docile.
Too many Americans ignorant to the Constitution and the liberty and freedom it promotes and grants.
light-one wrote:the blatant disregard for the law by law enforcement will likely bite them in the butt because now they are targets and they will live in fear that every encounter with a citizen will be their last.
Maybe so, but since the names of those Satanic Feds that killed Finicum are being withheld from the public for an indefinite time, the cops may feel they have nothing to fear. Most people don't know that the Feds are doing evil...they may think Finicum deserved being riddled with bullets having listened to mainstream media. The cops sure as heck didn't consider putting themselves in harms way before hiding their heads in the sand when Finicum received nine bullets into his body. A massive amount of Americans will believe any story by government puppets. Around here people don't even know that Hillary is behind the land grab for Uranium and natural gas, both for the Chinese. And Sheriff Ward is still in office. He wasn't elected, rather, he was appointed. Crooked legislators and officials are the real problem, the cops are the puppets to unlawful actions, and most of them are too dumb to know the difference...they don't even know the laws they're supposed to enforce, and they enforce laws taught to them by their superiors which are unlawful. I think all police chiefs should be removed from office that do not uphold their Constitutional oath, and all cops of all ranks for the same reason. After all, they work for the people, right?

Here is Gavin Seim schooling an officer of the law. Maybe we can learn from this and start holding cops accountable to the people. BTW, Gavin was helping those at the refuge.
How to Refuse a Checkpoint! Detained "BECAUSE" of the Constitution?
Seim Refusing Fruit Nazi Checkpoint & Driving Away.

ChristopherABrown
captain of 100
Posts: 107
Location: Santa Barbara California

Re: Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

Post by ChristopherABrown »

freedomforall wrote:
light-one wrote:so far the people are docile.
Too many Americans ignorant to the Constitution and the liberty and freedom it promotes and grants.
light-one wrote:the blatant disregard for the law by law enforcement will likely bite them in the butt because now they are targets and they will live in fear that every encounter with a citizen will be their last.
Maybe so, but since the names of those Satanic Feds that killed Finicum are being withheld from the public for an indefinite time, the cops may feel they have nothing to fear.
What if those videos are staged events to try and get people to try those things in real life, which instead may just get them assaulted, arrested and charged if they don't cease trying?

I agree, that such responses should be tried, but I've tried them, and the cops do not listen. They have their policy and procedure, unlawful as it may be. We should ALWAYS be lawfully working to change that from the top down.

Why aren't you working with constitutional intent here in the creation of lawful unity to eventually use our option to alter or abolish?

User avatar
light-one
captain of 100
Posts: 712

Re: Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

Post by light-one »

Working from the top down is one way. Working from the bottom up is another way. Both need to be done at the same time.

ChristopherABrown
captain of 100
Posts: 107
Location: Santa Barbara California

Re: Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

Post by ChristopherABrown »

light-one wrote:Working from the top down is one way. Working from the bottom up is another way. Both need to be done at the same time.
If everyone is working from the bottom up at the same time, yes. However, the purpose of free speech is abridged, so not everyone knows how to work on the ground against tyranny face to face with its soldiers, from the bottom up.

In order to end the abridging of the purpose of free speech and "alter or abolish" the government destructive to our rights, we must work from the top down.

This is a request at this bottom level, to acknowledge a logical, reasonable definition of constitutional intent that is required to work from the top down within the law of the constitution or Article V. Can you agree and accept this prime constitutional intent?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

User avatar
light-one
captain of 100
Posts: 712

Re: Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

Post by light-one »

ChristopherABrown wrote:
light-one wrote:Working from the top down is one way. Working from the bottom up is another way. Both need to be done at the same time.
If everyone is working from the bottom up at the same time, yes. However, the purpose of free speech is abridged, so not everyone knows how to work on the ground against tyranny face to face with its soldiers, from the bottom up.

In order to end the abridging of the purpose of free speech and "alter or abolish" the government destructive to our rights, we must work from the top down.

This is a request at this bottom level, to acknowledge a logical, reasonable definition of constitutional intent that is required to work from the top down within the law of the constitution or Article V. Can you agree and accept this prime constitutional intent?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
This is why the founders wrote the 2nd amendment...

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

Post by freedomforall »

light-one wrote:
ChristopherABrown wrote:
light-one wrote:Working from the top down is one way. Working from the bottom up is another way. Both need to be done at the same time.
If everyone is working from the bottom up at the same time, yes. However, the purpose of free speech is abridged, so not everyone knows how to work on the ground against tyranny face to face with its soldiers, from the bottom up.

In order to end the abridging of the purpose of free speech and "alter or abolish" the government destructive to our rights, we must work from the top down.

This is a request at this bottom level, to acknowledge a logical, reasonable definition of constitutional intent that is required to work from the top down within the law of the constitution or Article V. Can you agree and accept this prime constitutional intent?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
This is why the founders wrote the 2nd amendment...
This was also written, but who had the guts to enforce it? Now that most of government is against the Constitution and a high percentage of the people have been brainwashed into accepting a crooked government, by voting for the party and not a POTUS for all the people who upholds the Constitution and his oath of office, the DOI is faintly recognized as a way out.

From http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security---

This can't be done with cards and letters, nor can it be done with voting since this seems to have been rigged also. How can a hand full of Constitutionalists go up against the many and get anything done at present?
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is an article as to a real big problem:
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
545 people are responsible for the mess, but they unite in a common con

ChristopherABrown
captain of 100
Posts: 107
Location: Santa Barbara California

Re: Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

Post by ChristopherABrown »

light-one wrote:
ChristopherABrown wrote:
light-one wrote:Working from the top down is one way. Working from the bottom up is another way. Both need to be done at the same time.
If everyone is working from the bottom up at the same time, yes. However, the purpose of free speech is abridged, so not everyone knows how to work on the ground against tyranny face to face with its soldiers, from the bottom up.

In order to end the abridging of the purpose of free speech and "alter or abolish" the government destructive to our rights, we must work from the top down.

This is a request at this bottom level, to acknowledge a logical, reasonable definition of constitutional intent that is required to work from the top down within the law of the constitution or Article V. Can you agree and accept this prime constitutional intent?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
This is why the founders wrote the 2nd amendment...
Yes, but do you agree and accept those two definitions as prime constitutional intent?

ChristopherABrown
captain of 100
Posts: 107
Location: Santa Barbara California

Re: Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

Post by ChristopherABrown »

freedomforall wrote:
light-one wrote:
ChristopherABrown wrote:
light-one wrote:Working from the top down is one way. Working from the bottom up is another way. Both need to be done at the same time.
If everyone is working from the bottom up at the same time, yes. However, the purpose of free speech is abridged, so not everyone knows how to work on the ground against tyranny face to face with its soldiers, from the bottom up.

In order to end the abridging of the purpose of free speech and "alter or abolish" the government destructive to our rights, we must work from the top down.

This is a request at this bottom level, to acknowledge a logical, reasonable definition of constitutional intent that is required to work from the top down within the law of the constitution or Article V. Can you agree and accept this prime constitutional intent?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
This is why the founders wrote the 2nd amendment...
This was also written, but who had the guts to enforce it?
Citizens, the people must first know they are in agreement and indeed defining constitutional intent with unity. That is the conceptual legal status which a specific agreement upon constitutional intent brings and with that CAN come authority required to enforce it.

Accordingly, I ask, do you except those two definitions as definitions of constitutional intent?

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

Post by freedomforall »

ChristopherABrown wrote:
freedomforall wrote:
light-one wrote:
ChristopherABrown wrote:
If everyone is working from the bottom up at the same time, yes. However, the purpose of free speech is abridged, so not everyone knows how to work on the ground against tyranny face to face with its soldiers, from the bottom up.

In order to end the abridging of the purpose of free speech and "alter or abolish" the government destructive to our rights, we must work from the top down.

This is a request at this bottom level, to acknowledge a logical, reasonable definition of constitutional intent that is required to work from the top down within the law of the constitution or Article V. Can you agree and accept this prime constitutional intent?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
This is why the founders wrote the 2nd amendment...
This was also written, but who had the guts to enforce it?
Citizens, the people must first know they are in agreement and indeed defining constitutional intent with unity. That is the conceptual legal status which a specific agreement upon constitutional intent brings and with that CAN come authority required to enforce it.

Accordingly, I ask, do you except those two definitions as definitions of constitutional intent?
I suppose this is what the DOI was intended for, but that wasn't enforced by the people so perhaps an abolition of oversized and controlling government will require more than cheap talk. This is where the Elders of Israel are supposed to come in. President Benson stated that America will not be saved in Washington, rather, by patriots and the Elders of Israel coming together. So those two questions are not relevant any longer, the time for those to have had any effect is passed. Want some people may want doesn't corroborate what will happen in this regard.

ChristopherABrown
captain of 100
Posts: 107
Location: Santa Barbara California

Re: Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

Post by ChristopherABrown »

freedomforall wrote:
ChristopherABrown wrote:
freedomforall wrote:
light-one wrote:
This is why the founders wrote the 2nd amendment...
This was also written, but who had the guts to enforce it?
Citizens, the people must first know they are in agreement and indeed defining constitutional intent with unity. That is the conceptual legal status which a specific agreement upon constitutional intent brings and with that CAN come authority required to enforce it.

Accordingly, I ask, do you except those two definitions as definitions of constitutional intent?
I suppose this is what the DOI was intended for, but that wasn't enforced by the people so perhaps an abolition of oversized and controlling government will require more than cheap talk. This is where the Elders of Israel are supposed to come in. President Benson stated that America will not be saved in Washington, rather, by patriots and the Elders of Israel coming together. So those two questions are not relevant any longer, the time for those to have had any effect is passed. Want some people may want doesn't corroborate what will happen in this regard.
I'm sorry, but I don't see in what you posted where YOU agree with and accept these inquiry as defining prime constitutional intent as one of the people if you do.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

Post by freedomforall »

ChristopherABrown wrote:
freedomforall wrote:
ChristopherABrown wrote:
freedomforall wrote:
This was also written, but who had the guts to enforce it?
Citizens, the people must first know they are in agreement and indeed defining constitutional intent with unity. That is the conceptual legal status which a specific agreement upon constitutional intent brings and with that CAN come authority required to enforce it.

Accordingly, I ask, do you except those two definitions as definitions of constitutional intent?
I suppose this is what the DOI was intended for, but that wasn't enforced by the people so perhaps an abolition of oversized and controlling government will require more than cheap talk. This is where the Elders of Israel are supposed to come in. President Benson stated that America will not be saved in Washington, rather, by patriots and the Elders of Israel coming together. So those two questions are not relevant any longer, the time for those to have had any effect is passed. Want some people may want doesn't corroborate what will happen in this regard.
I'm sorry, but I don't see in what you posted where YOU agree with and accept these inquiry as defining prime constitutional intent as one of the people if you do.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
Answered.

ChristopherABrown
captain of 100
Posts: 107
Location: Santa Barbara California

Simple agreement and acceptance of prime constitutional intent is the goal

Post by ChristopherABrown »

freedomforall wrote:
ChristopherABrown wrote:
freedomforall wrote:
ChristopherABrown wrote:
Citizens, the people must first know they are in agreement and indeed defining constitutional intent with unity. That is the conceptual legal status which a specific agreement upon constitutional intent brings and with that CAN come authority required to enforce it.

Accordingly, I ask, do you except those two definitions as definitions of constitutional intent?
I suppose this is what the DOI was intended for, but that wasn't enforced by the people so perhaps an abolition of oversized and controlling government will require more than cheap talk. This is where the Elders of Israel are supposed to come in. President Benson stated that America will not be saved in Washington, rather, by patriots and the Elders of Israel coming together. So those two questions are not relevant any longer, the time for those to have had any effect is passed. Want some people may want doesn't corroborate what will happen in this regard.
I'm sorry, but I don't see in what you posted where YOU agree with and accept these inquiry as defining prime constitutional intent as one of the people if you do.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
Answered.
Could you please copy and paste the specific passage where you state your agreement and acceptance of those definitions of prime constitutional intent? I ask because I do not see in what is quoted where you have specifically answered with agreement and acceptance.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: Simple agreement and acceptance of prime constitutional intent is the goal

Post by freedomforall »

ChristopherABrown wrote:
freedomforall wrote:
ChristopherABrown wrote:
freedomforall wrote: I suppose this is what the DOI was intended for, but that wasn't enforced by the people so perhaps an abolition of oversized and controlling government will require more than cheap talk. This is where the Elders of Israel are supposed to come in. President Benson stated that America will not be saved in Washington, rather, by patriots and the Elders of Israel coming together. So those two questions are not relevant any longer, the time for those to have had any effect is passed. Want some people may want doesn't corroborate what will happen in this regard.
I'm sorry, but I don't see in what you posted where YOU agree with and accept these inquiry as defining prime constitutional intent as one of the people if you do.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
Answered.
Could you please copy and paste the specific passage where you state your agreement and acceptance of those definitions of prime constitutional intent? I ask because I do not see in what is quoted where you have specifically answered with agreement and acceptance.
President Benson stated that America will not be saved in Washington, rather, by patriots and the Elders of Israel coming together. So those two questions are not relevant any longer, the time for those to have had any effect is passed. What some people may want doesn't corroborate what will happen in this regard. The true test will be based on who actually steps up and fulfills the prophecy at the appropriate time.

From A Glorious Standard we read:

In October 1987, President Ezra Taft Benson solemnly declared, “We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said: ‘Even this nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground, and when the Constitution is upon the brink of ruin, this people will be the staff upon which the nation shall lean, and they shall bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction’” (October 1987, General Conference).

Like the waves of the ocean pounding on the sand, the tidal assaults on our freedom have advanced much and retreated some with each succeeding generation. However, just as the tide comes in, those assaults encroach a little further each time, never retreating completely. This steady departure from basic constitutional principles has led to an ongoing erosion of our freedoms right up to the present time. Certainly the Constitution was in great danger during the Civil War and in the immediate years following the conflict. Our Republic was never really the same, but the country remained intact and still afforded the greatest freedom to its citizens compared to anywhere else in the world.
However, as war continued to be poured out upon the inhabitants of the Earth (D&C 87), the assaults upon freedom proceeded relentlessly. While World War II raged, The Enemy Came By Night the situation of the U.S. was serious enough that J. Reuben Clark remarked: “You and I have heard all our lives that the time may come when the Constitution may hang by a thread. I do not know whether it is a thread, or a small rope by which it now hangs, but I do know that whether it shall live or die is now in the balance” (October 1942, General Conference).

And yet, though the size and power of government grew way beyond the intent of the nation’s founders, no people in the world enjoyed the liberties that Americans still did, and no nation prospered quite like this one.
This onslaught against the foundations of our nation’s freedom started soon after the Constitution was ratified, and continues up to the present time. With the exception of a relative handful of Americans who saw and understood what was happening, most of the damage was largely done right under the noses of the unaware masses. And, it went largely unnoticed by each rising generation, who didn’t know anything different from the situation into which they were born and grew up with. Living in relative “peace” (D&C 101:48), prosperity, and material plenty (D&C 101:47-50), the people of this nation paid little attention to the encroachments made upon their freedoms.
Notwithstanding the damage that has been done to our Constitution, it is still intact. However, it is hard to tell whether it is now hanging by many, a few, or just a single, solitary thread. One thing seems to be certain: the Constitution will soon be in such great jeopardy that its survival will seem hopeless. Hanging in the balance as the enemy comes “by night” (D&C 101:51) during a period of spiritual darkness, at that very point it will be saved. The prophets have so testified. Our responsibility is to do all we can to defend our Constitution now. And we must so live that we may be worthy to help save it when its destiny hangs by that single brittle thread.

ChristopherABrown
captain of 100
Posts: 107
Location: Santa Barbara California

Re: Simple agreement and acceptance of prime constitutional intent is the goal

Post by ChristopherABrown »

freedomforall wrote:
ChristopherABrown wrote:
freedomforall wrote:
ChristopherABrown wrote:
I'm sorry, but I don't see in what you posted where YOU agree with and accept these inquiry as defining prime constitutional intent as one of the people if you do.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?
Answered.
Could you please copy and paste the specific passage where you state your agreement and acceptance of those definitions of prime constitutional intent? I ask because I do not see in what is quoted where you have specifically answered with agreement and acceptance.
President Benson stated that America will not be saved in Washington, rather, by patriots and the Elders of Israel coming together. So those two questions are not relevant any longer, the time for those to have had any effect is passed. What some people may want doesn't corroborate what will happen in this regard. The true test will be based on who actually steps up and fulfills the prophecy at the appropriate time.

From A Glorious Standard we read:
I'm very sorry freedomforall, I'm really not interested in past presidents words.

I'm interested in your words. The ones that show simple agreement and acceptance for the two most prime rights conferred by the framing documents. It really is as easy as "yes" or "no". Please, do you agree and accept these definitions of prime constitutional intent?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Post Reply