"E PLURIBUS UNUM"

Group Discussions

February 14, 2013

Obviously, no one of us was alive to witness the Revolutionary War or the Civil War. Both were bloody and prolonged and both pitted Americans against each other. I hear far to much talk today about a "New Revolution" aimed at taking back our Government by force. Does anyone really want to use their Second Amendment Right as an excuse to go to war against our own military? Do you really want our soldiers to have to choose sides? If you think Obama's tactics are divisive now, just imagine the total destruction of order that would cause!

The Founding Fathers did recognize that our Second Amendment was a necessary last resort, but fortunately they also were wise enough to include a more thoughtful and civilized alternative. Our founding Documents (The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution) contain a solution to just this situation.

Many people are familiar with these lines from the Declaration of Independence: "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 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." No mention is made of war or violence.

Our Founding Fathers were quite aware of the human trait of selfishness and took great pains to protect us from it. They wrote volumes of essays and articles explaining their thought process and persuading their fellow Americans that the proposed new Constitution was as well thought-out as possible. Having learned from their mistakes (in the Articles of Confederation), they knew that the new Constitution could not possibly deal with the uncertainties of the future, so Article V was included to provide an orderly process for future Amendments.

Most people do not realize that there are TWO methods provided for amending the Constitution. The commonly known method is for Congress to propose an amendment and then three-fourths of the states must ratify it for it to become law, as a part of our Constitution. The Founders realized, as most of us now do, that Selfish people in Government would never propose a law that put too many controls on their own greed and corruption. That is why that "out-dated antique of a Constitution" provided the second method, which Congress hopes you never notice.

"OR on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Convention in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress."

Congress does NOT have the sole power to amend the Constitution. The States can also initiate the process, although, you may ask, why would State politicians be any more compliant to the will of the people? We, the People have long established the Right to use Petitions to place Initiatives on State ballots, for voter approval. There is no reason we can't place an initiative on State ballots for desired Constitutional Amendments and requiring the State Legislatures to propose those Amendments to a Constitutional Convention.

Before we resort to war and tear this Nation apart, I submit that we should all thank God that our Founding Fathers were smarter than what our public schools are turning out today.

If you believe a "Bloodless Revolution " is the way to save our Country, what Amendments would you propose to the Constitution and why?

1 year 7 months ago

RELIGION - I would like there to be something clear about religion. I believe if someone doesn't believe the bible then they cannot believe or uphold the Constitution. W/o that we will have the jails full to capacity all the time and some group always trying to overthrow the Constitution.

 … More
1 year 7 months ago

Good point, Tweety Pie. I have thought for a long time that all candidates should be sworn to tell the truth (just like in court) when they file to run for office and be liable for perjury until they either drop out of the race or leave office, if elected. Wouldn't elections and debates be more fun to watch if they all had to tell the truth or go to jail!

1 year 7 months ago

Being under oath during speeches and debates, and whenever serving as a civil servant, is a very interesting idea. I worry about it being used for abuse, however. It is easy to misspeak. What if I am a great candidate, but I accidentally say, "The debt is 16 billion" when I really meant 16 trillion?

An honest mistake brands me as a liar. Such an amendment must be written with great care. I agree with it in principal, but in practice I worry about the consequences.

 … More
1 year 7 months ago

Thanks for your contribution, Jonathan. These are all suggestions worthy of more thought and discussion. May I add these for consideration, as well?

i - Congress shall make no law while exempting themselves or any others from its full effect. All laws must apply equally to all citizens.

 … More
1 year 7 months ago

@Johnathan - If I am speaking and I am not sure then I would say "I was told" or "I am not sure but think it is" before I say something I am not sure of.
ALSO - Retirement shall only be half of salary and only for the time period served. If a congressman serves 4 years then he gets 4 years at half salary. This should also apply to teachers.

1 year 7 months ago

I understand Tweety, but people still do sometimes make honest mistakes. I think that instead of an absolute, it may be better to have something added about "telling the truth in good faith". This allows for honest mistakes (everyone has said "left" when they meant "right"), yet still provides enough rope to hang the people who spout gross, indisputable lies.

Such a law would drastically affect government today. That could be a lot of fun... (o:

 … More
1 year 7 months ago

Common sense must prevail in perjury cases, as with any lawsuit. Frivolous charges against unintentional mistakes should also face penalties. In any case, it would sure be refreshing to watch the politicians actually try to think before they speak!

1 year 7 months ago

Do you ever think of the content of our US Constitution if written today, by our liberal college graduates? I am pretty sure that zero would love it. We need to only elect those that believe it is a document that is absolute, not made of rubber, and can't be bent to their many whims, and finally, we are endowed by our Creator!

1 year 7 months ago

Trish is correct in her statement here. I agree. I beleive our Constituion was wrtten for the following:

 … More
1 year 7 months ago

don't all officials swear an oath on the BIBLE? Even the POTUS?

I think when you see any official swear an oath on any other Religious book.... we are no longer a Christian nation. I hope I'm outta here by then.

1 year 7 months ago
Log in or Register to start a discussion.