What Amiee, Declan, Scalia, and the rest of the fascist/socialist , scum forgot

[Jim Choate]

     We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
     perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
     provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and
     secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
     ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
     America.

The Supreme Court is NOT a representative of the people. Only the people
may decide what the Constitution means. That means there are two and ONLY
two ways to INTERPRET the Constitution,

1.	Congress passes a law they believe is constitutional.

	IF a state or person disagree THEN it goes to the Supreme Court,
	not to decide what the Supreme Court believes the Constitution
	says, but rather to determine if the law as worded and carried
	out is commiserate with the Constitution and the spirit of
	AMERICAN democracy it is intended to embody. 

	Let's take the first one, wording. Let's say a state passes a
	law that says "A person may go to their doctor for aid in
	ending their life. The doctor is under no legal obligation
	to help. However, if the doctor should decide to help then
	no legal ramifications may be taken upon the doctor."

	Clearly, per the 9th and 10th, there is no section of the
	Constitution that can be interpreted to give the federal
	level any authority over individual lifestyle decisions.
	So clearly the question becomes one of states rights versus
	individual rights. The Constitution places NO LIMITS on
	personal rights. Now what if a state passed a law prohbiting
	assisted suicide? These would fall under the prohibited acts of
	the 1st. Is the law prohibitory in nature? If so then it clearly
	violates the 1st, 9th, and 10th and is therefore unconstitutional.
	Would any/every instance of the act itself cause harm without
	consent? For example; murder, rape, theft. If so then it clearly
	is in violation of the 1st. We may not force people to commit acts
	that are against their beliefs. That would be in violation of the	
	1st., sanctioning one particular point of view over all points of
	view. So, what section of the Constitution does the assissted
	suicide question violate? None.

	So, somebody want to explain why the answer to the question,
	"Why is assisted suicide illegal", isn't because a bunch of
	Christian assholes have decided that we all gotta believe in
	their fucking god.

	It is clear that the thesis upon which the Supreme Court is based
	are flawed. One thing that clearly needs to be addressed is how
	to replace them with something that might work better (only time
	will tell). Perhaps instead of odd, it should be even. That would
	at least hold hope for them doing nothing (which is always
	preferable to making an error).

	Now, onward through the fog (I stole that ...)

	Where is that spirit explained? The Declaration of Independance.

     When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
     people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them
     with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the
     separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of
     Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of
     mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
     them to the separation.

     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.

	(Go read Lincoln's 1st Inaugural Address while this is in your
	mind - Lincoln was scum. He intentionaly started the Civil War.)

	An AMERICAN bends their knee to no man, and asks no man to bend
	theirs. Ultimately that is the challenge we are faced with. An
	American has the right to resist any and all coercion. There
	is as a consequence of these two simple paragraphs no question
	as to the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. There is no question
	as to what 'seperation of church and state' mean. There is no
	question as to who has the ultimate right to decide when and
	how they will die. There is no question that the fantasy of
	'executive privilige' is just that. Etc. etc. etc.

2.	The people amend the constitution.

	The feds don't have shit to say about this one. If 3/4 of the
	states got together tomorrow and voted to nulify the tax
	amendment there would be nothing Congress, POTUS, or the
	Supreme Court could do about it. Just about every federal
	tax agent would be out of a job the next day. They are not given
	the power of review for state initiated amendments. This is why no
	(not one) of the Amendments ever went through that process. In
	every (yes, every one) case the Congress has taken the issue upon
	themselves to forstall any popular action.

	I proposed a long time ago that the best way for people to get
	control of their government back is to begin to organize local
	voting with the express goal of electing officials who will
	submit 'sanctioned amendments' from the body at the state level.
	Then through a national forum each of the state groups would work
	to develop amendments that were agreeable to all (or some large
	percentage). These 'sanctioned amendments' would be identical and
	submitted to state legislatures as nearly concurrent as possible.

Let me quote from one of those founding fathers Scalia is so keen we
follow strictly,

"The earth belongs to the living, not the dead."

                            Thomas Jefferson

They gave us a challenge to live up to, one they had not and could not
have reached, they knew they were only starting the first few steps of a
long(!) winding road.

Are we in the weeds yet?

    ____________________________________________________________________

         If the law is based on precedence, why is the Constitution
         not the final precedence since it's the primary authority?

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------