Jonathan, the socialist-communist, has the respect of no patriotic American, and is thus undeserving of being replied to. — J. A. A. — > On Mar 4, 2:02 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected]> wrote: > "We have to pass MY New Constitution so that you can find out what's in > it, away from the fog of the controversy." -- John A. Armistead � Patriot > > On 03/04/2011 10:33 AM, MJ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > *"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, > > away from the fog of the controversy." -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi > > > *At 01:24 PM 3/4/2011, you wrote: > >> Hey Einstein, > > >> Manners go both ways. Your constant "talking points" about your > >> proposed constitution coupled with your obstinate refusal to post it > >> in its entirety so people can read "In Context" and form a worthwhile > >> opinion for themselves is rather hypocritical and here is why: > > >> The very fact that you have undertaken your monumental task says that > >> there are many parts of the present constitution that you find > >> repugnant, worthless, unusable (etc). Yet you do not allow anyone > >> else the opportunity to read what you HAVE written so they can get a > >> full sense of the proposed document... (Old son, that is EXACTLY what > >> Pelosi said about Obamacare.) When sections are posted and then > >> criticized you call everyone who finds ANY fault at all a > >> communist/socialist, when that is EXACTLY what you are doing with the > >> present Constitution.... by your own means test that would make YOU a > >> communist/socialist as well as it is that very present Constitution > >> which you are de-bunking that allows you the possibility of writing > >> yours. > > >> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 11:55 AM, NoEinstein <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> Folks: Those without manners (respect for me) like Jonathan, the > >> socialist-communist, are undeserving of a reply. � J. A. A. � > > >> On Mar 3, 11:16 pm, Jonathan Ashley <[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> wrote: > >> > Once again, John has resorted to name calling instead of > >> answering the > >> > 10 specific questions I asked regarding HIS New Constitution. > > >> > "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human > >> stupidity, and I'm > >> > not sure about the former." > >> > - Albert Einstein > > >> > On 3/2/2011 7:19 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > >> > > Folks: Jonathan, the socialist-communist, is undeserving of > >> a reply. > >> > > � J. A. A. � > >> > > On Mar 2, 1:29 pm, Jonathan > >> Ashley<[email protected] > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> > >> > > wrote: > >> > >> John, > > >> > >> You wrote: > > >> > >> *> Dear Keith: Obviously, you are bright. Anyone agreeing > >> with me has to > >> > >> be!* > > >> > >> It is obvious to me that you have the arrogance required of > >> a dictator. > >> > >> As for the implication by reference that you are "bright," > >> let us look > >> > >> at some of what you have included in your reply to Keith. > > >> > >> *> 1st Amendment: No law shall be made regarding the > >> establishment of > >> > >> peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, but > >> > >> government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and > >> disbursements shall > >> > >> be secular.* > > >> > >> 1) I read this to mean that your as yet un-ratified New > >> Constitution > >> > >> already has Amendments attached to it. Am I correct? If so, > >> why are > >> > >> these amendments not included directly in YOUR New Constitution? > > >> > >> 2) Who is going to decide whether or not a religion is > >> "peaceful"? A > >> > >> Christian? A Hindu? A Buddhist? An Islamic? > > >> > >> 3) Who is going to ensure that "government, its campaigns, > >> processes, > >> > >> slogans, and disbursements shall be secular"? > > >> > >> 4) Who is going to prevent a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, > >> Islamic from > >> > >> influencing your secular government? > > >> > >> 4) Why do you believe "government, its campaigns, processes, > >> slogans, > >> > >> and disbursements" need be secular? > >> > >> * > >> > >> > No law nor private or civil action shall abridge: the > >> freedom of > >> > >> speech; * > > >> > >> You already abridged the freedom of speech when you declared > >> > >> "government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and > >> disbursements shall > >> > >> be secular." > > >> > >> *> the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy press or other > >> medium;* > > >> > >> 1) Who will determine whether a "press or other medium" is > >> being "fair > >> > >> and pro-democracy"? > > >> > >> 2) Why do you believe it necessary for a "press or other > >> medium" to > >> > >> be"pro-democracy"?Democracy is nothing more than two wolves > >> and a sheep > >> > >> deciding on what to have for dinner. > > >> > >> *> the right of People to peaceably assemble; and the right > >> of any > >> > >> Citizen or group to petition government or any of its > >> branches or > >> > >> departments for redress of grievances.* > > >> > >> It was nice of you to leave this portion of the 1st > >> Amendment of our > >> > >> current Constitution in tact. > > >> > >> *> Citizens so petitioning government shall receive > >> appropriate, > >> > >> relevant, timely, comprehensive, helpful and just responses > >> from proper > >> > >> authorities who have thoroughly read, understood, and > >> addressed each > >> > >> salient aspect of the grievances or requests for directions or > >> > >> clarifications.* > > >> > >> 1) Who is to determine what constitutes an "appropriate, > >> relevant, > >> > >> timely, comprehensive, helpful and just response"? > > >> > >> 2) Who determines a "proper" authority from an "improper" > >> authority? > > >> > >> 3) Who will determine whether the "proper authorities" "have > >> thoroughly > >> > >> read, understood, and addressed each salient aspect of the > >> grievances or > >> > >> requests for directions or clarifications"? > > >> > >> I am having too much fun to continue. > > >> > >> Based on what I have read so far, YOUR New Constitution lack > >> constructs > >> > >> such as...* > > >> > >> Rule of construction* > > >> > >> If there is any significant doubt concerning whether an > >> official has > >> > >> a power, or a person has an immunity from the exercise > >> of a power, > >> > >> the presumption shall be that the official does not > >> have the power, > >> > >> or conversely, that the person has the immunity. > > >> > >> *Access to grand jury, appointment of prosecutors* > > >> > >> No person shall be unreasonably impeded from access to > >> a randomly > >> > >> selected grand jury of 23, who, if they should return > >> an indictment > >> > >> or presentment, may appoint that person or any other to > >> prosecute > >> > >> the case, and shall decide which court, if any, has > >> jurisdiction, > >> > >> and whether any official shall have official immunity > >> from suit. > > >> > >> The above constructs come from Jon Roland of the > >> Constitution Society.http://constitution.org/reform/us/con_amend.htm > > >> > >> On 3/2/2011 9:18 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > > >> > >>> Dear Keith: Obviously, you are bright. Anyone agreeing > >> with me has > >> > >>> to be! But you are weak-spirited to suppose that things > >> can be left > >> > >>> going as they are... and the USA will somehow... survive. > >> There are > >> > >>> three approximately equal problem areas in the USA: (1.) > >> The horrible > >> > >>> and immensely wasteful school systems; (2.) The corrupt, > >> elitist and > >> > >>> controlling media; and (3.) our career-politician-dominated > >> > >>> governments, seldom deferential to the electorates. Number > >> (2.) is > >> > >>> responsible for number (3.). That's why FIXING the media > >> has to be a > >> > >>> top priority! Fixing our corrupt governments can happen > >> very quickly > >> > >>> following the ratification of my New Constitution. But > >> fixing the > >> > >>> media will require monitoring what gets said and done and > >> imprisoning > >> > >>> errant individuals, or shutting down any media not > >> conforming to the > >> > >>> very clear dictates of my New Constitution. To wit: > >> > >>> "Bill of Rights and Amendments: > >> > >>> 1st Amendment: No law shall be made regarding the > >> establishment of > >> > >>> peaceable religion or prohibiting the free exercise > >> thereof, but > >> > >>> government, its campaigns, processes, slogans, and > >> disbursements shall > >> > >>> be secular. No law nor private or civil action shall > >> abridge: the > >> > >>> freedom of speech; the freedom of a fair and pro-democracy > >> press or > >> > >>> other medium; the right of People to peaceably assemble; > >> and the right > >> > >>> of any Citizen or group to petition government or any of > >> its branches > >> > >>> or departments for redress of grievances. Citizens so > >> petitioning > >> > >>> government shall receive appropriate, relevant, timely, > >> comprehensive, > >> > >>> helpful and just responses from proper authorities who have > >> thoroughly > >> > >>> read, understood, and addressed each salient aspect of the > >> grievances > >> > >>> or requests for directions or clarifications. Failure to > >> so respond > >> > >>> to a rightful petition for redress of a grievance shall, on > >> a single > >> > >>> provable instance, terminate the apt one�s employment, > >> especially > >> > >>> those in management or public > > ... > > read more »
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
