In my understanding of a Constitution, each clause represents a law, which
once established is a truth. Much like a Law of Nature, it cannot be false, nor
can an amendment be contrary to it. If an amendment were to conflict with an
already established truth, then it is Unconstitutional, and becomes Null and
Void. Since a Constitution by it's very definition must be the truth and cannot
be contrary to itself, any legislative act contrary to it is Unconstitutional.
An established body is required to follow all of the Rules in order to
act as that body, and as it is with our Constitution, Article I. establishes
Congress. The only way for Congress to act, is by legislation, in all decisions
whatsoever. Congess may only propose amendments as long as it compliments the
Constitution, and is necessary and proper. (I believe that since a requirement
of "necessary and proper" is mandatory, the proposed amendment (or law) is
required to explain the purpose for the amendment, and why such is necessary (as
opposed alternative solution not requiring amendment).
The
Constitutional Amendments XIV+ would be Unconstitutional because none of them
obtained a signature by the President once passed by Congress. (Required by all
Acts that require a vote, except adjournment.) Also, the Direct Taxation power
is a direct tax that is applied to the State, not the people, therefore people
should not be getting taxed in any other way, but through excise, duties, sales
tax, etc, which require that such a tax is applied equally, and in consequence
of a transaction upon the purchaser. (Wages cannot be taxed, but the purchase of
labor could be.) In the case of a direct tax, it was to be left to the state
Governments to determine the best mode in which to collect the tax, keeping the
federal spending in check.
![:write:]( "memo")
What is justice ?
Justice has
regard to the acts, which are done by one person to another; also to the words
and representations of the character and conduct of another; and it is mostly
exhibited in the dealings of one man with another; paying debts; performing
promises; in buying, selling, and exchanging articles of purchase or growth or
manufacture. It is the exhibition of faith, most generally denominated good
faith, in stating what is true of the article sold, as to defects as well as
good qualities, and in giving what is of equal value for what is purchased of
another.
I know it is stated in Cicero, that what is said is not always to
be taken for granted; that the buyer buys what he wants, and the seller sells
what he don't want; that it is foolish to cry down an article in the market.
This is rather slippery morality. Simulation and dissimulation are to be
avoided. Every violation of good faith, either in obtaining more than the thing
is worth, or obtaining property for less than its worth, is a violation of
justice. What is secret, sinister, and deceptive, is fraudulent, and is
unjust.
Is honesty always to be regarded
as the only true utility?
What is dishonest, either in word, deed, or
in heart, is, in a compact or agreement, a violation of justice.
What is a lie?
It is the violation of truth:
a want of veracity : a want of conformity to facts. A lie implies a knowledge of
the falsity of the relation. Falsehood is the want of accuracy or want of truth,
but is destitute of the great guilt of the offence of a lie, which is a wilful
and corrupt falsehood.
Is falsehood ever
justifiable?
It is never justifiable; it may, perhaps, be excusable in
many instances. To save life, to prevent crime, or to deter from the commission
of offences, it may be excusable. Moral offences, as a general rule, are not to
be compared or set off one against another, nor can a recoupment take place.
Evil is not to be done to produce good. The falsehood to the robber to save
life, may excuse the guilt; it is done to deceive, and deception is a violation
of faith, without which society cannot exist.
Are secret reservations proper or
justifiable?
They are not. They are deceptive. What is unknown to the
promissee cannot excuse the promissor. He promises not to expose the offender,
but secretly says, I will, or I will cause it to be done. He then requests a
magistrate to issue a warrant or summons, requiring his attendance to give
evidence of the offence which has been committed. The exception to any rule
should never be substituted for the rule itself. To admit the necessity of it,
or take away the guilt, makes the exception greater than the rule.
Which are the cardinal virtues?
Justice,
prudence, temperance, and fortitude, are those named by the ancients. Justice is
the highest virtue in its exercise, and supports the highest honor of civil
society. A band of robbers between themselves must exercise this virtue, or they
would not be kept together. The division of the plunder taken from others must
be-according to the principles of justice, or death or expulsion would be the
consequence of a violation of it.
The more complete the power of
justice, the more refined the state of society. Justice is the opposite of
extortion. It prevents the powerful from trampling on the feeble: the cunning
from defrauding the weak. It punishes those who violate the law; protects all in
their rights of person, property, and liberty.
![:stop:]( "stop")
I don't believe i am
so far off course, and the corruption that was supposed to be prevented cannot
continue to be given a legal opinion by someone whose entire purpose is to find creative ways to drill a whole through the very principles this nation was founded upon. Advise, whether bad or good, can be accepted or
not accepted. Chances are, if you have to ask, there's a good chance you
can't.
As far as taxation goes, the bigger the tax break to big
corporations, the more money they have to pay for lobbyists, campaign
contributions, etc. etc. This Conflict of Interest is obviously the cause of the
economic troubles we're experiencing. No doubt whatsoever. Yet it seems people
have little interest in the matter. Do we wait until Iran and Israel come in
conflict?
What Constitutes a chemical reaction?
Constitution of a chemical
reaction:
a process in which one or more substances are changed into
others;
---
A process in which atoms of the same or different elements
rearrange themselves to form a new substance. While they do so, they either
absorb heat or give it off.
---
Okay, so if you were to amend what I
wrote, you could not amend by saying, "a process in which no interactions of
atoms or substances take place." Why not? If you wish to change what is already
established, you must establish a whole new Constitution, which is why the
Articles of Confederation had to be changed into a new document, because the New
Constitution contained provisions that were contrary to the Articles of
Confederation.
The Science of Law. In a Government established to protect Liberty, Law is equal to fact. Liberty (though
non-existant in the U.S.) requires that all laws are in consequence of an act
that causes harm or loss to another. Rather than laws restricting liberty, laws should be written to establish Justice and in consequence, require retribution to be paid to the victims of the crime. Drugs could not be illegal,
however crimes committed while intoxicated or high, could provide for additional consequences like a rehab program. "Theft - What was stolen
must be returned, or equal compensation made in retribution." As such, rather than useless jails and prisons systems, I believe that all sentences should require retribution to the victimes, and upon paying such, after costs for food, living arrangements, etc the sentence is served. Accelerated Release? 10 hour days. Relief from the budget, and return to a true and fairly simple system of Justice. It would be nice if in my lifetime, to experience true liberty.
As another example, Madhoff would be required to work in a labor camp until he could pay
back all of the people he ripped off. Anything he earns above meals and rent for
jail cell, would go to a trust for the victims. As soon as he's done paying back
the $$ he lost, he is released. (Family & Friends could contribute to get
him out sooner.)
Not only has Congress stripped us of Justice, but
they're like a nurse doing a blood infusion before fixing the leak. Either way,
we're probably screwed, but fix the problem, then think about how to clean
house.
But then the question becomes, Is Congress at fault? Or are we,
for sitting around thinkin'... "gee, this stinks."?
James Madison was discussing the power to coin money, there was a want to
completely forbid the use of paper money, due to some bad experience years
before that coined the slogan, "Not worth a Continental." Madison, in response
to forbidding the use of paper money, said it was better to make no mention of
it, then to forbid it, as you never know when paper money might be necessary. It
is much easier to add and repeal amendments, then it is to change a
constitution.
Each amendment not signed by the President at the time of proposal
is Unconstitutional. An Amendment, though part of the Constitution cannot be
contrary to the principles of the Constitution, therefore the 18th Amendment,
being that it restricts liberty of an individual could not be a part of the
Constitution. An amendment that restricts liberty cannot be considered part of
the same document established to protect it.
Just like in the case of
science, the Constitution can only be amended by what is necessary and proper,
and such cannot be necessary and proper without experience (aka wisdom) and
first hand knowledge. When science advances, it can add truths to the objects
constitution, which should be proved prior to making such a proposal. Until
then, it's a theory, and theoretical laws are an entirely seperate from
Constitutional Laws.