PART I: PERSONS

ARTICLE I: RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE

This Constitution is a limitation on government, not on private individuals; Individuals are free agents who are the rightful owners of their own lives and therefore have inherent rights and responsibilities which are bound together and that do not come from any government, among
them:

[1] The Right to do what he wants (as long as he does not use force or fraud to deprive others of the same right; (Liberty)
Government shall not deprive any Person of the enjoyment of successful choices nor shift the burden of unsuccessful choices onto other people.

[2] The Right to own, use for what he wants, maintain, protect, and trade with others, private property, whether corporal (his soul, life, health, body, labor, and ingenuity) or non-corporal (his invented, acquired, or external possessions);

(You own your life and you own your material possessions. Both are property: one is flesh that you are born with, one is acquired.)

[3] The Right to not be burdened with another’s responsibilities, or unburdened from one’s own;

(I think this is what many people think of when we talk about rights: the absence of responsibilities you didn’t take on. The vacuum that remains is what many liberties fall into.  Having to pay for others (deadbeats) who are milking the system is what many of the non-lazy people complain about, rightly. Politicians love them, though, because they use them to get elected and then shift Responsibilities [the things people don’t want to do, like work] onto other people, who resent being enslaved into spending their finite time on earth working as a tool for someone else’s benefit, aka as a slave. If no one were forced to do this, a lot of grumbling would go away. When government usurps responsibilities, you get ‘feral humans’ like those that rioted in Britain, incapable of fulfilling their potential, and just capable of looking for their next meal, next fix, next copulation, the same as an animal. This is intensely dehumanizing, and a direct consequence of the welfare state. Another way of putting it? Responsibilities are part of being a Free Person [and a Free Society], whereas having no responsibilities is a characteristic of a Slave [and Socialist/Totalitarian governments]. Which are YOU?)

[4] The Right to prevent violation of Rights;

[5] The Right to seek restitution for violations of Rights;

[6] The Responsibility to contribute money and labor to those organizations which collectively support one’s individual rights with functions which cannot effectively be done individually;

(This is the real reason why government should exist: to protect individuals in ways they can’t protect themselves. Think about it: I can protect my home from an intruder or two by having a gun, but not 24 hours a day. This requires a few patrol officers. I can’t protect myself against a
criminal gang, which requires a police force. Or a riot, which requires several police forces or the National Guard. Or a foreign invasion, which requires an Army. These collective organizations protect my individual rights in ways I can’t effectively do myself. How about my right to restitution? Hard to enforce this without courts. Or what if I sign a contract, and the other party just takes my money? That’s fraud. I need a civil court to force that person to either perform as agreed, or give me a refund. My Right to free movement? I can’t get around unless thousands of people build roads, seaports, and airports. You get the point: the collective supports my individuality. I should pay taxes for this, and provide some service sometimes to support MY receipt of this support of my rights, which could be jury duty, military service, a fact finding committee, etc.)

Each Person has the general Rights listed above, as well as the specific Rights enumerated hereafter. Simply because a Right is not enumerated does not mean that it does not exist, or is less important than those that are;

(This is the ninth amendment in modern language.)

The proper purpose of government is to protect these Rights and not to assume these Responsibilities. This Constitution gives the governments described herein their Powers to perform this purpose, which are to be strictly interpreted. In cases of doubt, the presumption is
not in favor of a Power. Unless a power is specifically enumerated, government does not have that power;

(Just in case anybody says “where in the Constitution does it say that Government can’t…” this reminds them that unless this Constitution gives government a Power, it doesn’t have that
Power. People’s Rights exist independently of any government. I enumerate a lot of rights here. I figure that doing that makes clear to people that they have them, and that having them, they will be aggrieved when an attempt is made to take them away. All else follows. As an example, people don’t get worked up about the commerce clause being trampled on, but when you say that they are losing their right, for example, to earn a living, trade voluntarily with others, contract with others, work for others without interference [or hire others in their business] ad infinitum, they will realize that they own those rights and that government is taking them away, and knowing this, they will prevent that. This is a big check on “creeping  incrementalism” where, one day, you realize all your rights have been legislated away.

Each Person has the Responsibility to respect these same Rights in others. Therefore, each Person has a Responsibility to not injure, defraud, threaten, alarm, coerce, disturb the peace, or damage another Person or his property, or create a very high likelihood of doing so, either passively or actively. Determining exactly where this responsibility starts shall be by poplar assent, but in any free society, there is a certain minimal boundary level of disrespect of
Rights (injustice) that every person needs to either tolerate or rectify on his own. A government that attempts to right every slight is a totalitarian one: the cure is worse than the disease. Each person shall be vigilant against force or fraud and independently handle minor instances of them.

(Caveat Emptor)

Above these boundary levels, government shall take steps to protect Rights and to enforce the Responsibilities to one Person from another, using both persuasion and force, with the former employed first. Should persuasion fail, a law may be created, whose purpose is to counter
injustice, not strictly to regulate behavior. A law shall restrict only those specific actions which infringe another Person’s Rights and only to the minimum extent necessary for reasonable prevention, punishment, or restitution of the transgression. In order to enact (or uphold) a
Law or Rule, Government must prove by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. The fact of or ‘very high likelihood’ of a condition existing that consistently causes the infringement of the Rights of a significant number of other Persons;
2. That the remedy (Law or Rule) will cure the defect;
3. That the remedy is reasonable;
4. That no other practical or non-coercive remedy exists;
5. That the remedy infringes a Right only to the barest extent necessary to limit the transgression. All remedies must:a. be as clear and simple as possible;b. not create undue hardship, delay, or expense;c. progress from minimal to maximal force, starting with corrective action (such as a class, reasonable fine, or community service) up the scale to severe punishment, which shall include death;

Government must have a disincentive to trouble people frivolously, and shall likewise be fined or suffer other sanction when it does. Subjects of a law, rule, or court decisions shall have no requirement to comply should it be unimplementable, complex, ambiguous, or have other
unreasonable, onerous, or impossible provisions. Any agent that acts in a quasi-governmental capacity shall be subject to the same rules as a government.

Rights are inherent, meaning they are inherent in humans even in the wild or a state of nature (Natural Rights), or can also be described as being inherent because they were given to humans by God (God-given Rights). They are not “given” or “granted” by a monarch, noble, sultan,
kaiser, emir, maharaja, czar, commissar, dictator, bureaucrat, politician, mullah, Pope, congressman, senator, president, or other elite person. It is for this reason that the only form of government that can truly protect Rights is a Republic. I’ll give a good contrast to illustrate what I mean: The United States vs. Canada. You barely recognize the difference between Yanks and Canucks, because we look the same, sound the same, have advanced societies, live in close proximity, treat each other politely, sell each other stuff, marry each other, like the same sports teams, and resemble each other in so many ways. Our legal systems are based on English common law. We were the same until George Washington led a revolution, and those that opposed him stayed loyal to the King George III [which was the logical route because those
who had previously opposed the most powerful man on the planet at the time always had had their necks stretched]. But George the Rebel and his friends thought they had inherent Rights that the King had trodden on, whereas George the King thought that rights were something that God had given only to he the King, and that he was merely being magnanimous in allowing others to exercise Rights that weren’t actually theirs.
So, you have a two-tier society like Canada, and most other countries, where elites [kings, dukes, rajas, sultans, commissars, archbishops, dictators, szlachta, bureaucrats, technocrats, and other “more worthies”] have “rights,” and they let the commoners exercise some of
those rights, but don’t believe those commoners actually “own” those rights. “Very well, you may have rights, now begone before I change my mind, commoner…”
In America, we have a one-tier society where no one is higher or lower than anyone else. We don’t believe that elites or the government is giving us a god-damned thing, because We the People OWN those Rights even in a state of nature.
So while Canadians and Americans both exercise many of the same Rights, and Canada is a pretty darn good place to live, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the U.S. Bill of Rights might as well be night and day, because in one, the origin of Rights is GOVERNMENT (which may change its mind about what it hath given), and in the other, the origin is GOD [or NATURE, if you prefer].
The point is: RIGHTS do not come from GOVERNMENT…or any other person…so they can’t be taken away by government or any other person.
They are YOURS. Even though they can’t be taken away, force can be used to stop you from exercising them. They must be guarded well!)

There are no Rights without Responsibilities, therefore: only individual Persons capable of fulfilling their Responsibilities (directly or by conscious delegation) have Rights. Inanimate objects and life forms not capable of fulfilling their Responsibilities therefore have no Rights under this Constitution and its Laws.

(Only humans can fulfill responsibilities, so therefore, they are the only ones with Rights. This
doesn’t mean that animals should or would be abused under this Constitution any more or less than under the current Constitution, just that they do not have the RIGHTS of a free agent/individual. They would still have the PRIVILEGE of being protected, but as the wards of free agents.
This also applies to shoes that deal drugs. Huh? Yes, criminal asset forfeiture laws have the OBJECT as the defendant. The shoes of a drug dealer that were seized have to prove that they were not obtained by the proceeds of a crime, otherwise they will be convicted and sold for
restitution. This applies to toasters, TVs, yachts, etc. I am not making this up.
How about ‘the environment?’ Can it sue? Great! What a guy ‘environment’ is! I’d like to sit down and have a beer with ‘environment.’ Would he tell me that his rights were violated? That he had hired lawyers to bring suits on his behalf? How about ‘society?’ He’s a great person, too! I’d love to shoot the bull with ‘society’ over a bourbon and coke! First round is on me! Oh,
he can’t meet me directly? He speaks through others? So, I would have to meet with someone who ‘speaks for society?’ That ought to be interesting, in a padded room sort of way.)

All Governments are required to respect, enforce, and protect all Rights enumerated in Part I, Article I. NO GOVERNMENT shall create a law, rule, license, tax [like a 500% tax on a tommy gun](including elimination of a deduction or rebate of taxes paid) [RomneyCare eliminates your state income tax personal deduction if you don’t buy health insurance.], fee, fine, intentional delay or inconvenience, or other method, that suppresses, interferes with, restricts, or prohibits (explicitly or effectively) these Rights (unless otherwise provided for).

No government shall create a payment or benefit for a government-supported behavior, except as otherwise provided for.

All Governments, when deciding WHETHER to create a law, and WHAT it should contain, shall employ the principle of ‘primum non nocere’.

The Power to create and enforce laws, rules, taxes, fees, fines, or other methods, within each State, is reserved to each State respectively, or to its People, except those Powers SPECIFICALLY
delegated to the Federal government or prohibited to the States;

The Federal government shall have no Power to create a law not specifically enumerated as a legitimate function in Part IV, Article I, Section I.

In cases of controversy as to which Government has Power, it shall be the one closest to the individual (the principle of subsidiarity).

(I define Rights in much more depth and breadth than the current Constitution. I also explicitly make them binding on ALL governments, not just the Federal. [They aren’t currently completely binding on all State governments, even with the “incorporation doctrine.”] I have a hybrid of Federal and State Bills of Rights: I say that laws shall be written around those Rights, and the
kicker is: those shall be STATE laws – the Feds aren’t involved except where there is a clear interstate/ international interest. I take the current Constitution at its word: “CONGRESS shall make no law”…but this doesn’t necessarily prevent the States from doing so. I see Rights as being much more secure when the standard is defined at the national level, but the States enforce it, vs the Federal government, which can deny your Right with one fell swoop. A State attempting to violate a Right will oppress far fewer people, and invite far more court challenges. It also allows people to move to another State to escape the oppression. As long as a State doesn’t violate these stipulations, it can define laws. The Federal government can also bring suits against the States for violations of these Rights, so you have only one level of government creating laws, and 3 levels (Fed, State, and Locality) which can oppose violations of Rights [as well as Private citizens bringing their own suits]. Two examples:
Gun laws – Congress couldn’t create any law, except for interstate commerce. So if you live in Colorado, the President could jump up and down all he wants, but he has little power to grab your guns. Only your State can set those laws, and it will have to fight through a few levels
of government and private citizens opposing the depriving you of your Civil Right to bear weapons to protect yourself. All the Feds could be involved in would be if you want to sell your gun to a person out-of-State.
Free speech laws – If you are an artist, and you want to create a provocative work of art involving a religious figure (Jesus, or Mohammed, or Buddha, or Karl Marx [he’s effectively a religious figure]), a State dominated by fundamentalists might try to prevent that, but at least it is limited to that State – you can always leave, plus you have other governments like the Feds and maybe Counties on your side, plus powerful private people and organizations who will
take this to court for you. If only the Feds are involved, you are much more constrained.
‘Nuff said – you get the point!
I put ‘law, rule, license, tax (including elimination of a deduction or rebate of taxes paid), fee, fine, intentional delay or inconvenience, or other method’ because those wily government agents will figure out inventive ways to do you out of your rights, like creating chilling effects that cause people to not exercise their rights.
‘Persons’ can be collective, such as voluntary organizations [National Rifle Association, Sierra Club, Salvation Army and other religious organizations/churches, or “Sunday Night Football Club”] or corporations.
Some people think “corporations” shouldn’t have rights. What is a corporation? It is a collective body of individuals coming together for a specific purpose, whether commercial, fun, charitable, political, or other. It allows for a continuous and consistent way to attain the
objectives of those who share the benefits and expenses [shareholders]. It is stronger than any individual. It spreads risk and limits liability. It allows you to have a small piece of it instead of risking everything on it. It can have a political voice for its shareholders. So, if you have a voluntary “corporation” of women entrepreneurs which pushes forward the goals of its shareholders, why SHOULDN’T it have a political voice? Or you own a hot dog stand and form a for-profit corporation to protect you from losing everything if one angry customer decides to sue you? Or anything else? So many people are like Pavlov’s dog when the word “corporation” is uttered: they start salivating and barking uncontrollably, and lose any ability to think rationally. They think that corporations are evil, and shareholders should have no protection and no voice. If that were the case, then no one would form a corporation, and the ‘little guy’ would be at the mercy of powerful interests. [You think a $100 billion corporation is powerful? They don’t
NEED a corporate structure to protect themselves anymore…they’re HUGE. “Joe’s Brake Shop” needs the corporate structure because he ISN’T big. Get it?] We would be back in the year 1400 as peasants at the mercy of nobles. You probably wouldn’t have a job. Think about it!
What I think many people who go bonkers when ‘corporation’ is uttered are REALLY objecting to is corruption, not corporations. I partially agree with this, which is why I have ‘blind trusts’ under the ‘elections’ section, so keep reading. Where I DON’T agree is that it is all the “corporation’s” [or other moneyed interest’s] fault: the government official who participates in the corruption is equally at fault. I figure it this way: the briber is like a prostitute who solicits the politician. Yes, the politician is tempted, but he can always say ‘no.’ If he gives in and his wife finds out, can he say “Well, honey, it’s not my fault, I had no power to resist the temptation…?” I don’t think his wife would accept that. So, both the briber and the bribee share
responsibility. What about the opposite: the Politician says he will harm the corporation if it doesn’t pay him a bribe? Maybe even put it out of business? Isn’t that extortion? Can the corporation be blamed for paying to stay alive? This isn’t an evil corporation, it’s an evil
politician. You didn’t think of that, did you? Are you still so certain that corporations are evil and politicians are the good guys? And if you think this is simplistic, shouldn’t you support a corporation [that is funded by donations from people like you] that can bribe the politician on your behalf aka democratizing corruption? If everyone gets to own their own politician, isn’t this fair? Wouldn’t more money in elections be a good thing if this is the case? [HA! And you thought the solution was LESS money, didn’t you!?])

Section 1: Rights to Life, Property, and Liberty

Subsection 1: Rights to Private Property (corporal)

All persons own themselves and therefore own sole title to themselves the same as for any other property, and shall be free to dispose of themselves as they see fit. Title restrictions may be imposed by law or by the courts on those under the age of majority or those adjudged incompetent to handle their own affairs by relevant authority, as well as for conviction of criminal acts.

(Isn’t your body your own? If not, who does it belong to? Aren’t the only people who don’t own their own bodies known as SLAVES? You answered your own question. Since you own it, don’t you have the right to use your property as you see fit?)

All Persons have the Right to:

[1] Cause their body to cease functioning: the right to suicide; Not be required to do or not do something strictly ‘for their own good’;

(“Suicide” would be taking sleeping pills, hiring Jack Kevorkian, or shooting your head off. It’s YOUR life. I certainly think there should be a legal procedure to ensure you are not crazy [You can want to kill yourself and still be rational…what if you have excruciating back pain and life isn’t worth continuing to live for you? Or maybe you have burns on 99% of your body?], and a procedure to try to talk you out of it, but if you are sane and still want to die, the law shouldn’t prevent you.
If government pays someone else to do something “for their own good” they are taxing you to get that money. If they pay you to do something “for your own good” they are taxing someone else to get the money to give to you. Neither is fair. This could apply to ObamaCare requiring you to buy something you don’t want, or putting on a seatbelt.
The point is: if you want to be stupid, or even kill yourself, and you aren’t directly harming anyone else in the process, you should be free to do so.)

[2] Sell (or buy from others) their body parts and organs;

[3] Change their appearance in any way, including but not limited to: plastic surgery, body art, mutilation, or change of gender;

[4] Decide how to provide (or not to provide) for their own medical treatment, except for epidemics, but government may require informed consent;

(You are into some kooky type of treatments? Isn’t that your business, unless it affects someone else? You want to provide for your medical well-being? Okay, why should you be barred from buying insurance or drugs from another State [or Canada], or on the other hand, to be forced to do so, like ObamaCare requires? The only possible exception I can see is if if you are dealing with a powerful drug and there is a chance of a drug interaction, in which case you need to be  informed (by a class or other learning method) in order to give informed consent, or get those drugs from a Doctor, Physician Assistant, or Nurse Practitioner who can figure those drugs out for you.
A way for a drugstore to ensure that you have learned enough to give informed consent, and buy your own prescription drugs could be a “responsibility card,” like a driver license. This could be used for lots of other things: drinking alcohol [making sure you’ve seen the scary accident movies], using marijuana or other drugs, etc, to show you can be responsible. It could have a surety bond or liability insurance attached to it, also, so if you cause damage to someone by beating them up while drunk, or drunk driving, or you overdose on prescription drugs and need an ambulance ride, the bill is paid by your bond or insurance. A surety bond or insurance means you have “money in the game” and will make you think about what you are doing before you become irresponsible. [It could be a $500 surety bond that you pay $50 for when you get your
“responsibility card.” Cheap.] Liberty and responsibility go together.)

[5] Ingest various intoxicants to change their mood or mental state;

(If you use tobacco, caffeine, alcohol, marijuana, or other drugs, that’s your business, as long as you don’t harm anyone else, or you have a high probability of doing so by driving a car, etc. Legalizing marijuana or other drugs is NOT the same as condoning it: it just means that you don’t think a person should be thrown in jail for something that does not harm another. Another way to put it is: If you support alcohol being legal, do you also condone getting falling-down drunk? Of course not. If you support marijuana being legal, do you also condone getting falling-down stoned? Of course not. Drug use [alcohol, marijuana, others] does not equal drug ABuse.
Many of those who support prohibition are very clever in how they have framed this debate: if you are anti-prohibition, you are a mind-numbed stoner who can be safely dismissed as a kook. Re-read what I wrote in this section: that isn’t the case at all.
That being said, I don’t agree with the pure-libertarian view that drugs should all be immediately legalized. They should be evaluated and those that cause users to have a high-probability of being dangerous to others should stay illegal, or be legal under limited conditions.
If I could be King for a Day, I would end the FEDERAL prohibition on marijuana, and leave it up to each individual State [and study what others could have their Federal prohibition ended]. I think a few States would opt for outright legalization, others for complete prohibition, and the remainder would either legalize the possession of 1-3 ounces for personal use, or decriminalize the possession of 1-3 ounces and make it a fineable offense, like a traffic ticket. Since marijuana is 92% of illegal drug use, this would free up billions of dollars wasted on the drug wars. It would also reverse the empowerment of government that erodes our Rights, especially the 4th Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.)

[6] Have consensual sexual relations with a anyone over the age of consent (or four years younger if one party is a minor), and in whatever manner;

(The “four years” younger applies to “Romeo and Juliet” cases where teenagers have sex with each other. Child molestation laws don’t apply for such cases.)

[7] Buy or sell consensual sex acts, but no one may intentionally spread a disease, either sexually or otherwise;

(If a woman can give it away free, why can’t she sell it? For diseases, this could be the “angry with the world” person spreading AIDS, or a flu epidemic, or refusing to be inoculated against an easily transmissible [airborne or contact] disease.)

[8] Terminate pregnancies, up to the point that the life is to be legally considered a person (which shall never be after the point of viability [18-20 weeks). Each State shall decide for itself at what point that is, but no person shall suffer any sanction for crossing State lines to have
an abortion, nor for aiding any person to do so, nor for advertising to do so;

(One cell isn’t a person, even if it is fertilized. A fetus at 4 1/2 months [i.e. able to live independently of the mother] is an independent life, and thus a person, even if it hasn’t yet drawn a breath. The whole abortion debate revolves around at what point in the pregnancy the life to be legally considered a person. I punted on this one, and left it up to each State to decide on the definition of “life” and how fully formed the embryo/fetus needs to be before it is considered a “person” – before this point, the embryo is “life” but not a “person” – so the mother can decide, but after the point of becoming a “person”, the mother can no more decide to end this person’s life as she can one already born. Majority evangelical States would likely say “life” and “personhood” occur at fertilization, and other States would likely say they occur separately. I provide an escape clause for residents who live in States where abortion is effectively banned: they can go to other States and not have their home State say they “murdered” their embryo.)

[9] Marry (or form a union with) whomever one desires that fits a State’s definition of what constitutes a marriage (or union), but no State shall restrict such so defined. No State shall be required to recognize the definition of another State;

(Why is the state involved in marriages, anyway? Are they telling me a guy can’t marry his girlfriend without a license? I say they can define a marriage [as being between a man and a
woman, or a man and two women, or a man and a microwave oven, etc] but not restrict anyone from entering into a marriage so defined. Each State can make this determination. Each State can also define a homosexual union, if it so desires, but since its purpose is limited (to the
couple, instead of the couple and children) and different (love vs childrearing) from than that of a heterosexual union, it should be less than equivalent to a marriage. I personally think that children should have the model of a married man and woman in order to be the most
psychologically healthy, but that if such a couple is not available, an unmarried heterosexual or stable gay couple should be able to adopt a child.)

[10] Not be forced to marry (or form a union with) someone not desired; (No forced marriages.)

[11] Divorce (or dissolve a union);

[12] Have as many children as one can afford to take care of on the income legally earned from their own efforts; No one may force others to pay for children not their own (except through school vouchers for primary and secondary education);

(Communist China had a one child policy, which is odious. The opposite extreme is when you see young women who get knocked up who can then turn around and enslave the Public into
paying for their child. Whatever money they get should come from the sperm donor or charity, and no money should come from taxpayers for their irresponsibility. Ever heard of condoms?)

Subsection 2: Rights to Private Property (non-corporal)

All Persons have the Right to:

[1] Acquire, privately own, hold in their possession, and modify, without unreasonable restrictions, private personal and real property, including land, a homestead, additional private residences, other edifices, and those things necessary to support them, which the owner may dispose of, and all others may be denied the use of, or excluded from, for any reason, as he pleases; No soldier shall ever be quartered in any house without the consent of the Owner;

(Communism and other totalitarian systems deny the right to private property, including possessions, land ownership, a home, and as many other homes as you can afford. You have
the right to use it as you please until you harm others. I actually heard about a woman who was short on money who wanted to rent out a room of her own house. She stated that the prospective tenant had to be a “Christian.” Some housing authority in a town in California told her she couldn’t “discriminate” and actually was looking for a way to charge her with a crime. This is beyond ridiculous. Your home is your castle and only YOU should decide who to allow into your castle, not some bureaucrat.
The third amendment is also incorporated here.
So, you want to put a garage in your backyard? Why do you need a permit to do something to
YOUR property? Or your local busybodies want to tell you that you need to do some crazy things to YOUR property, or they let your neighbor do something, but not you? Or they come up with harebrained, vexatious, or overly broad “environmental” rules? I say: they need to PROVE adverse effect before they can get you to do ANYTHING.)

[2] Be secure:

1. in their persons, homesteads, houses, vehicles, possessions, and businessplaces, regardless of whether on private or public land, in their documents, correspondence, speech, and communications, whether in physical, electronic, or any other form, held on site or off,
   transmitted by any means,

against general, non-specific, blanket, arbitrary, or unreasonable surveillance, intrusions, searches, and seizures, shall not be violated by any officer or agent of any government. No officer or agent of any government shall perform (or request permission from a suspect for) a
surveillance, intrusion, search, or seizure without a Warrant, and no Warrant shall be issued without probable cause to believe a crime was committed, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly and specifically describing the thing or place to be surveilled, intruded, or searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Such Warrant shall be issued only by a Judge and such issuance shall not be delegated to anyone else;

(This is an expanded fourth amendment. I’ve read about government agents walking around on your land, barging into your office, placing tracking devices on your car, and courts declaring that the fourth amendment doesn’t apply on public land. Riiiiight. This also prevents “John Doe” search warrants or “Officer/Agent” signed warrants. I also heard about some town in Georgia wanting to be able to invade your home to do “health and safety” inspections just because they felt like it.)

[3] Not have Private property taken for the use of another Private entity, ever, and not for a Public use without just compensation;

(The “Kelo vs. New London” Supreme Court decision made a joke of eminent domain. Legally owned private property should NEVER be taken by government to be transferred to another private person, company or industry, nor solely in order to aid a government in increasing the amount of taxes to be collected, but only to serve the interests of the People. Any questions?)

[4] Use Public areas, which must be open and available unless good cause given, and should a permit be required for use, there must be written Standards for issuance, which may not set unreasonable preconditions, conditions, or postconditions. Non-residents of a jurisdiction may have reasonable restrictions placed on them for political demonstrations regarding that jurisdiction;

(You want to have a political demonstration or some other type of assembly on the street, or in a
public park, or just want to use it for yourself? No problem…as long as you are a resident of that jurisdiction. Why can Occupy Wall Street come in and demonstrate at your county courthouse? They don’t live in your jurisdiction, and thus should not be able to influence your jurisdiction… and why do you have to pay taxes to clean up after them? Shouldn’t they pay?)

Subsection 3: Livelihood Rights

All Persons have the Right to:

[1] Own their own labor and be free to use it (or not use it) for what and with whom they individually choose, without preconditions, at the terms and compensation they agree to accept;

(Labor is property as well as a liberty: You own your sweat, but you also choose what to sweat for. Only a slave doesn’t own his own labor, or a socialist. It seems that this right is the crux of every totalitarian system out there: socialism, marxism, national socialism, fascism…all seek to steal the labor of free individuals in order to use it for those “they” deem worthy of it. “From
each according to his ability, to each of those ‘we’ deem to have the ‘need’ to receive the stolen labor of other people.” You have the right to bargain individually with your own labor.)

[2] Not be subjected to slavery or involuntary servitude (either directly for a master or indirectly for a government which transfers the work from one private person to another person who has done nothing to earn it) except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; Not be subject to an income tax or other tax on his labor, as a person taxed on a percentage of his labor is that percentage a slave; Exercise (or non-exercise) any Right or any behavior (or non-behavior or non-activity) not specifically prohibited in this Constitution;

The thirteenth amendment here. I believe that when the government attaches a yoke to you in order to pay [welfare to] another person who has not earned it, it is also a form of slavery.
There are two distinctions here: private slavery and public slavery. Private slavery is what went on in the Old South: One person was stripped of his rights and forced by law to work for another private person. Public slavery is where one person is stripped of some or all of his rights and forced to work for the collective/government, as in Statist/Totalitarian regimes, usually under the guise of benevolence- “Working for others is good…so good that if you are so selfish as to
expect to keep the fruits of your own labor and not have it willingly stolen, then we will take it from you.” I maintain that if you are taxed, say, 25% of your labor, you are 25% a slave. Thus, an income tax is percentage slavery, and just as evil.
What’s the difference between a 25% income tax and a 25% sales tax? Choice. You don’t have to buy the product, whereas you have to pay the tax on your labor no matter what. In this  constitution, you don’t even have to pay the sales tax, because it is only on retail goods, not all
goods. Clear?)

[3] Solicit and buy the labor of others for what and with whom they individually choose, without preconditions, at the terms and compensation they agree to offer. Government may require that labor procedures and the place where labor is performed be organized to reasonably minimize injuries, and attend medically to those injured during labor;

(If you want to run a business, you should be free to offer whatever compensation you want. No one is forced to work for you, so no one is forced to take your job if you offer a crappy deal. Those who offer a crappy work product also aren’t able to force you to hire them. Labor is a right, a possession, and a PRODUCT. You are selling your work product to your employer every day. If they can get your work product from someone else for cheaper, they will. You do it when you hire a plumber, don’t you, so don’t act like you are above this and your employer is just some penny-pinching SOB because YOU DO THE SAME THING. You do it at the store when you buy a product, too: you buy the product of sufficient quality for the cheapest price. Why don’t you pay more for an equal product? Because the cheaper product offers more VALUE aka MORE FOR LESS. You don’t feel under any obligation to buy the more expensive product and keep the people employed there employed for another day, do you? I didn’t think so. Let’s say for a
moment that you owned the company: you want to stay in business and make money. You have to keep your expenses low or the people in the stores won’t spend their money on your product: they’ll be like you and just buy the other guy’s product. The way to keep your expenses low? Get MORE labor for LESS money aka MORE VALUE. Yes, I am talking about your job: the more value an employee offers for the price (wage) the more VALUable he is. That’s why your employer is trying to buy your work product as cheaply as he can: value—the same as you try to do when you buy a product. Those with more skill (VALUE) will be able to get the employer to pay more for their work product. Those with less skill will have less value and an employer won’t and CAN’T pay more for it (why would he pay to LOSE money?) This is why a ‘minimum wage’ is so dumb: If you, as an employer, have to pay someone so much that you lose money, why would you hire that person? Answer: you wouldn’t, which means you don’t make money from an unfilled job and the person who would have done that job loses money from being unemployed. But the politician who caused the situation by creating the minimum wage gets an alienated worker and a demon company to blame it on which makes the worker vote to reelect the politician who caused the problem in the first place. Doncha love how politics works?)

[4] Enter into contracts, and thereby acquire contractual rights, enforceable by court action;

(Contracts are the basis of a market economy. Maybe I’m just being paranoid that many school districts don’t teach cursive writing anymore, which makes it difficult to sign a contract, and makes them more likely to turn to a lawyer or politician for help, making people dependent, empowering totalitarians and weakening liberty.)

[5] Create a business, or keep it functioning, without pointless, counterproductive, excessive, or unreasonable preconditions, conditions, postconditions, laws, rules, or restrictions;

(Entrepreneurs are not popular with those already in the business, so existing businesses get governments to come up with ridiculous, restrictive, and expensive licensing schemes. If
the daddy of an official also owns the local big factory and doesn’t like having the worker ants not being under his direct control, he will throw roadblocks in people’s way when they want to create a business that competes with him. Entrepreneurs are idea [wo]men and need to be nurtured. Those with existing businesses should also be protected and not crippled by rules or shut down willy nilly, either.)

1. Unless a profession or industry exists to use force or fraud to deprive another Person of life, property, or liberty, it is legal and shall not be prohibited. If government can prove, on a preponderance of the evidence, that indirect damages to life, liberty, or property result from the practice of a profession or industry, it shall create effective rules to reduce such damages.

   (You have a right to make a living. This would prevent a murder or con-man industry because they exist to cause injury to others, but not prevent gambling, drug, or prostitution industries, because they neither force nor defraud anyone into giving over their money. Can bad things happen from these ‘vice’ industries? Yes. How about, for example, the alcohol industry? Some people will get into fights and some will drive drunk and kill people. Those are indirect and incidental but not inherent to the industry, since most people do not drive drunk and kill others, wheras “Murder, Inc.” exists for the explicit purpose of depriving others of their lives. That
   doesn’t mean that the activity can’t have laws and rules placed on it, just that the industry can’t be banned. Limiting the definition to ‘force or fraud’ prevents kooky definitions that can mean almost anything from being used, such as some people arguing that ‘pollution producing’ industries should be banned because they “harm” others while other people would argue some other “stretched” definition. This is simple and 99% correct. Another caveat? The Commerce clause was designed to set the rules for how interstate trade was to be conducted *if* it was conducted but not allow government to prohibit it.)

2. No government or entity shall require a license or permit for the operation of a profession or business.

   (No Person should need to beg a commissar… err…bureaucrat to run a business in a free country. This also prevents the creation of monopolies or cartels [like NYC taxi medallions] that prevent competitors from entering the marketplace.)

3. Both a profession and a business is a possession. However, each person must file a document at a courthouse (conveniently indexed, searchable, and viewable by the public) stating what his profession or business entails and what his qualifications are and swear that his statements are true in the presence of a notary. False statements shall be subject to civil suit or prosecution for perjury or fraud, as applicable. No government or its agent shall restrict or deprive the owner of the use of his possession unless it can prove, in court, incapacity, malfeasance, or a danger to the public, within the area of practice, or business.

   (This means that a person with strange or even vile practices, beliefs, or associations can’t be deprived of his livelihood by a disapproving government official unless he engages in fraud or public danger. For example, a doctor who is a drunk but competent in his profession? Or an accountant who believes the world is flat? Or electrician who is a Communist Party member? Or the owner of a store who is a KKK member? Maybe YOU the reader have something that other people may disapprove of but that doesn’t affect your professional or business ability? Should all the time, effort, and expense you put into your profession or business be taken away from you because someone disapproves of your lifestyle but can’t prove you aren’t good at how you
   earn a living? If you are without sin, by all means cast the first stone.)

4. If a product or service is legal in one State, it shall be legal to buy and take delivery of that exact product or service in all other States. No jurisdiction “owns” any Person living within its borders. Therefore, no person shall suffer prosecution or other sanction for buying or selling a product or service while in one jurisdiction that which is illegal in another jurisdiction;

   (Buying insurance across State lines is a good example. If you go to one State to gamble, but it is illegal in your home State, you couldn’t be prosecuted for illegal activity, because the activity
   was legal where you did it.)

5. Each State (or Federal government, as applicable) may come up with minimum qualifications for a profession or industry, which the professional or business is under no obligation to meet, but which must be disclosed to the public in either case.

   (Many free market people think government has no rightful power to require a license for a profession, and I agree. I allow the government to certify a business, which should increase the confidence of the public that it is legit, but not allow the government to prevent its operation unless it can show fraud or danger. A person not having this certificate would likely be crippled in the marketplace, but not *technically* put out of business.)

[6] Own, lease, lease out, or use equipment, and own, lease, lease out, use, develop, exploit, or farm land or other real property in one’s business, and deny their use to others unless contractually obligated;

(You can’t be a plumber, electrician, chef, truck driver, computer programmer, surgeon, etc, if government restricts the tools/equipment you need. Many people need land for their business, whether a grocery store, restaurant, or office, as well as farmers, loggers, or oilmen. Oil drillers should be able to get their product out of the ground without eco-radicals who can’t prove any
damage or any reasonable likelihood of such throwing roadblocks in front of them at every turn [ANWR in Alaska]. I also remember how eco-radicals caused huge damage to farmers in the Klamath Basin in Oregon and California as well as, paradoxically, being the ones [not the
farmers] who damaged their precious snail darter.)

[7] Transport a finished product or service to where it can be sold, and sell it at the price a purchaser is willing to pay for it, without preconditions, but government may prescribe the manner for doing so, which must not create undue hardship, delay, or expense;

[8] Equal treatment for their private livelihood, company, or industry. No government may make special accommodations for competitors; No government shall provide any private person, organization, or company with any money for any of his or its operations, or any other
welfare or subsidy, nor collect or disburse money for such purpose, nor shall anyone suffer any sanction or hardship for refusing to pay such money; No law shall grant a private person, company, or organization an advantage not available to all others, nor a disadvantage or penalty not applicable to all others, but only the same treatment as all others;

(It drives me nuts when I see some [politically connected aka corrupt] company get some of my tax dollars [which is MY MONEY which they have no right to], when other companies get nothing, and actually have to pay their competitors. Politicians can always make a corrupt quid pro quo with these companies. Just check out some of the “green” companies that are [not] in the news today. I also don’t see any difference between subsidizing individual indolence and a company that won’t do what it needs to do to compete. Both plunder the rightfully earned and owned money of productive people to drop in the hands of the unproductive.)

[9] Form business or industry associations; Form labor associations or unions;

[10] Have Immunity from Nationalization of their livelihood, company, or industry, or be subject to any other economic Bill of Attainder;

(A government has no right to take anything without compensation just because it feels like it. This is also a form of Bill of Attainder, which is illegal.)

[11] Be unrestricted in producing as much income and assets as they can from legal means, to keep them, and to be unimpeded in using them for any legal purpose they desire. The purpose of a tax (or revenue device) shall be to raise revenue, not compel certain government-approved behavior, nor tax a non-behavior or inactivity; No Person or Government shall have a claim on their income, save by contracts willingly entered into; For any new or increased tax (or revenue device), the person proposing the tax (or revenue device) needs to explain to citizens (in writing) why it is more important to collect this particular tax (or revenue device) from them than for them to keep their money for their own purposes.

(Many governments think they have the right to all your income, and are being magnanimous by letting you [their slave] keep some. They also like to make you pay for “worthy projects” [aka those run by their friends]. This is also an impediment to an income tax. And you already own your own labor.) Some envious people actually think they should be able to cap your income, and seize your assets above a certain level, and tell you what you must spend your money on, such as a favored cause, like “support opera” or “the arts” or “save the whales”).

[12] Keep their affairs private, absent a compelling reason to the contrary; Secrecy and anonymity of finances and financial transactions;

(This covers a general Right to Privacy, and a specific Right to keep your financial affairs private. Isn’t your money your business? This wouldn’t prevent surveillance with a warrant
if someone is suspected of some sort of malfeasance, but it would prevent blanket snooping.)

[13] Be free from unfair, excessive, unequal, or complicated taxation. A person may not pay over twenty five percent of his income in total taxes, including all Federal, state, county, municipal, and any others. A person shall not be taxed on his assets (to include real property) whether owned personally, organizationally, commercially (used directly for the operation of the business or for inventory), or in any other manner;

(Just because you are a millionaire doesn’t mean you should pay taxes “just because you can.” Or some people should get one tax rate while others get a different one, or the tax code should have tens of thousands of pages like the current one, that no one can figure out. It’s also immoral for government to get a significant amount of your money. It’s YOUR money. Taxes on your home or other real property are asset taxes, and it is unfair that you can sit in your home [or businessplace] and bother no one, yet be charged a tax. Ad valorem taxes on vehicles or
other property are the same idea as real property taxes. This would also prohibit any government from putting you out of business by levying crushing taxes on your business assets, such as a truck for a truck driver, an oven for a restaurant, computers for an accounting firm,
pistols for a firearms instructor…or the taxing of inventory at a supermarket, retail store, auto parts distributorship, etc. If you think I am being paranoid in specifying it to this degree, just look at the news and you will reassess.)

[14] A stable means of preserving wealth, i.e. a stable currency; Not outlawing private currency;

(Governments always inflate their currencies and thereby steal from their people. A private currency, like Bitcoin or E-gold or Banknotes underwritten by a stable financial institution would also allow a competitive market in currency so people will have a stable store of wealth, instead of being at the mercy of governments, e.g. the Bank of Zimbabwe. This would be good for the people and also for commerce, both at home and overseas: think of all the American goods that could be bought by the people of Zimbabwe if they weren’t losing their shirts everyday.)

[15] Bequeath their estate to one’s heirs without interference or taxation;

(Karl Marx somehow thought that you have no right to leave your effects to whoever you damn well choose.)

Subsection 4: Rights to Liberty and the Right to the Time to enjoy it

All Persons have the Right to:

[1] Hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, opinion, or thought, independent of others’ viewpoints, nor may a thought be criminalized, only deeds, nor may a person’s thoughts ever be read by a device;

(Socrates is a good example of this. This also prevents ‘hate crimes’ legislation, which can easily include any George Orwell-style ‘thoughtcrime’ straight out of ‘1984.’ You think ‘hate crimes’ legislation is a good idea? Would it have been a good idea in 1860 used on black men who thought about bedding their master’s daughter, but never acted on it? Maybe an Italian-American in 1905 who had anarchist sympathies but never acted on them? Maybe a Japanese-American in 1943 who didn’t like being interned or ‘thought’ about aiding Hirohito but not seriously? Maybe a movie star in 1952 who might have had communist sympathies and thought about killing Joe McCarthy? Do you see how dangerous just a tiny change in context makes this? The technology is almost in place right now to use a functional MRI as a lie detector, so a ‘thoughtcrime’ is a very real possibility!)

[2] Express (or not express), and to receive others’ expressions of: facts, analysis, opinions, beliefs, feelings, humor, or anything else (that are not publicly slanderous, libelous, or defamatory), through handwriting, text, graphics, speech, movie, music, dance, skit, sound,
deed, ownership, or any other form, transmitted by sight, voice, newspaper, paper book, film, electronic means, radio, television, recording device, or any other medium of communication, at the transmission speed and clarity it was intended by the expressor, so as to be coherent, on any topic (not a national secret) regardless of whether anyone else likes or agrees with it, but shall not extend to incitement of violence or treason, and is subject to a court-issued gag order for cause for each specific case, subject to challenge by the public. However:

1. Stories about a criminal act shall not benefit the perpetrator, his relations, or associates, and all proceeds must be used for restitution to the victim; Perpetrators of infamous crimes shall be
   forever kept anonymous;
2. No government shall affect the independence of, or in any way support, financially or otherwise, the news media (except through bounties) nor have any licenses or restrictions on them or their personnel save libel, slander, or defamation, except when war is declared. Persons who take a professional oath as news Reporters shall hold all government parties accountable to the People and shall earn bounties from the Inspector General or Attorney General (of sufficient size to earn a living) for exposing government malfeasance.
3. During a declared war, reporting about that war (from all sources) must first be run through and approved by a federal government censor, and intentionally bypassing a censor is an act of espionage. The President shall appoint, and the Senate shall confirm, in the same manner of other exectutive Officers, the Chief Censor, who shall serve during the time of war and be an honorably discharged military officer with at least two years of service.
4. Bounties shall be paid by the federal government to producers of movies, books, music, news, websites, and other media who include and support themes of the civil society such as individual rights, individualism, self-reliance, private property rights, free and voluntary exchange of goods and services, capitalism, patriotism, military service, citizenship, solidarity, marriage and childbirth, and similar topics, but no one shall be compelled to do so. The President shall appoint, and the Senate shall confirm, in the same manner of other executive Officers, the Chief Civicist, who shall have at least two years of experience as an advertising executive.
5. Media outlets shall be compelled to permit political candidates and issue advocates to buy advertising, at normal market rate.

(This allows you to express anything you want as long as it does not cause specific injury due to falseness, violence, or abetting an enemy. You can certainly express yourself through ownership of a 1964 Corvette, which Ford fans may hate, or an 8th century crucifix, which atheists may hate, or an internet video making fun of the Iranian regime, which may not have its data speed
throttled so the speech or video is jerky.
During any war, it is important not to give away battlefield intelligence or results which would encourage the enemy, nor show weakness, doubt, or lack of steadfastness, which would result in
increased danger to our soldiers or could even result in us losing a battle [or the entire war]. I hate to give government the power to muzzle anybody, so I limit this to the most severe wars where war was actually DECLARED [like WWII]. This wouldn’t prevent the enemy from still gauging the mood of the nation, but it would make it much more difficult. I also don’t require a censor for other forms of expression that do not directly affect the battlefield. Instead of muzzling dissent, I would attempt to influence people’s mood by paying influencers through bounties. “Bounties” refers to a fee, or reward, for including and reinforcing virtues of the civil society in the media that people consume. This would entice producers to include them, but no one would be forced to do so. This would be used at a low level during peacetime, but could be
ramped up during wartime into a full-blown propaganda campaign as was done in WWII.
I included ‘marriage and childbirth’ for a very important reason: population. This Constitution is just words. The Constitution LIVES in PEOPLE. And the liberty and limited government in
this Constitution provide people with the best lives of any system. This system has to be defended and continually expand to provide other people with quality lives. That is impossible with a small population. How different would the US (and the world be) if we had only 30 million
people instead of 300 million? We would probably have been conquered by now, possibly by the Nazis or Soviets. Population made the difference in the Civil War: 22 million Northerners vs. 8 million Southerners. The outcome was near inevitable, despite the hard fighting by the
Confederates. In the French and Indian War: 1.5 million British vs. 75 thousand French, a 20:1 difference. The French fought hard, but they lost. This is repeated throughout history. Therefore, for self-preservation, an expanding population driven by childbirth (because
they will reflect the attitudes of their natural-born parents and ensure solidarity/commonality of values that form the basis of society) is indispensable and any country that does not do this is committing suicide. A book on this topic is ‘America Alone’, by Mark Steyn. I got it for 7 bucks at Amazon and it is an interesting, witty, and sobering read. “Marriage” ensures that a family unit comes about that teaches/reinforces self-reliance, respect for the opposite gender, and many other values/virtues to the children, which doesn’t happen in welfare states that subsidize irresponsible breeding like rabbits, like the pampered, purposeless, irresponsible [remember: liberty and irresponsibility are incompatible] ‘feral humans’ who rioted in Britain recently.
Only REPORTING would be censored during a declared war, so Jane Fonda would not be prevented from including anti-American themes in whatever she produces at any time under this clause. I disagree with people like Hanoi Jane, but I would only limit info that would DIRECTLY [not indirectly] affect the battlefield; I would NOT prevent other forms of expression. Janey Dimwit would probably call me a fascist for this, but I am going out of my way to allow people like her to express themselves, whereas her precious Communists would have just shot her in the back of the head if she had tried that shit with them. So, who is the more tolerant one, Janey? Them or me? )

[3] Express the same about one’s trade, livelihood, business, company, or industry; To factually advertise the same;

(This is just a subset of the previous subsection. It always bugged me that Joe’s cigarette shop can’t advertise on a billboard on private land because someone might be offended at the product or that the billboard is cluttering ‘their’ view.)

[4] Express the same about politics, but no person may be compelled to reveal his political views or associations;

(This would frustrate Joe McCarthy, or at the opposite extreme, where a political party holds power in government employment and wants to keep others [the “wrong people”] out.)

[5] Exercise freely the religion or belief (or unbelief) that one has freely chosen, including the freedom to change one’s religion or belief, and to express it, individually or with others, in public or private, through teaching, practice, worship and observance, and no government shall promote or establish a favored or official religion, or promote or establish a disfavored religion. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under
the United States; To create and use places of worship for services and any other uses related to worship, to seek converts, create schools, publications, health care institutions, charities, speak on behalf of members, and perform works of mercy. No person shall be compelled by government to violate his conscience or religious teachings, nor suffer any hardship for refusing to do so. No church shall be forced to take actions or to pay for actions that are antithetical to its core teachings, doctrine, dogma, or conscience.

(The decision about the disposition of your soul should be solely yours to make. )

[6] Give one’s money, time, or other valuable consideration to whatever (non-violent) person, cause, or charity desired. Each Person has the Right to choose his philanthropy (or charity), which includes: 1. whether (or not) to engage in it, 2. what to give, 3. who to give to, 4. how much to give; To lend one’s money to another Person (individual or collective);

([Charitable Liberty] You want to give YOUR money to a church or charity, or just the bum on the street corner? Have at it. Also, charity is only charity if it is given freely. When government takes money for philanthropy at the point of a gun, it is theft, not benevolence. Also, is it charity if the money is used for something you detest? And what makes the government supported charity
better (i.e. worthy of taking money from you by taxation) than the one you would have chosen (i.e. given to freely?) You want to lend your money to someone else, such as on a website like Prosper.com? If it’s legal for a bank, why not you? )

[7] Associate with whomever desired in private or public, including peaceful assembly; To do business, or not, with anyone; No government shall mandate that a Person (individually or through organizations) associate with other persons (especially those he finds disagreeable),
nor prevent him from associating with those he does want to associate with.

(So your friends are scruffy looking? So what? Also, if you don’t want to take someone’s money, you shouldn’t be forced to. Seems that Christians and gays, smokers and non-smokers, and
people who just don’t like each other should be under no legal obligation to do so. I also don’t see how someone can be forced to build a wheelchair ramp if they don’t intend to do business with a disabled person.)

[8] Dissociate from whomever desired in private or public, including barring from membership, or discriminating, and to ostracize, shun, rebuke, or ridicule them, either in public or private, and to assemble peacefully at a respectful distance within direct sight and sound of those they find unacceptable, which may not become harassment, but no one has the right to riot, nor to loot, under any circumstances; No government shall prevent a person from discriminating, nor shall it mandate him to do so;

(So men want to have a men’s club not open to women? That’s their business. One group wants to make fun of another? That’s their business. One group [like Democrats] wants to protest at a Republican Party convention? The point of demonstrating is so the other side can see you, and ‘free speech zones’ a mile away is the same thing as a ‘no speech zone’. That doesn’t mean protests can turn violent, or be used to steal. Extreme means are reasonable in order to prevent this.)

[9] Make and keep records of oneself including real-time recordings (stored on site or off) of conversations with private persons and government officials without informing the other parties, including traffic stops; To monitor, observe, collect, record, and store offsite the operation of any government anywhere at any time, except those reasonably excluded for secrecy or confidentiality;

(One party recordings are not snooping. Snooping is listening in on another’s conversation. One big way corrupt cops and government officials get away with their dirty deeds is by preventing people from collecting evidence on them. Keeping government honest is a right and duty of citizens.)

[10] Protect their True Reputation against libel, slander, or defamation: All being gross, public, non-conspicuously corrected falsehoods, malice not required; To their identity, and to be free from impersonation; To keep records of their reputation secret, until they authorize their release;

(People work very hard to build and maintain their reputation: men go to war to prove they are brave, and will die to take a hill so they are not seen as cowards. They will go to extremes to show they are honest, competent, and reliable in their profession. Women go out of their way to keep from getting a “reputation.” Fact is, people care what other people think of them, and
love being admired. People deal with those who have a good reputation [though a Brahmin’s idea of ‘good reputation’ would be different from a gangbanger’s], and avoid those who don’t. I daresay this is a requirement for a civil society. A person’s reputation is their property as much as their arm, home, or car. For this reason, it is their right to make sure it is correct, and to recover damages when it is besmirched. Identity is closely related to reputation. Privacy requires
secrecy. This may not conflict with free and truthful speech.)

[11] Be unpopular or vile; To be a Bigot;

(Just because you are hateful doesn’t mean you should be thrown in jail. The Westboro Baptist Church is a good example of the most vile group of people I know of. Racist/Bigot groups
like the KKK and Black Panthers are hateful but should be free to express themselves as long as they don’t deprive others of THEIR rights. This clause also prevents these clowns from turning the tables on you and putting YOU in jail.)

[12] Use their time during the finite time they are alive to engage in the those legal activities they choose, which government may infringe only to the barest extent through the imposition of absolutely necessary taxes, laws, and rules; To not be subjected to unreasonable delays in dealings with the government; The unborn and minors have the Right to not be burdened with excessive debt taken on before they could give consent to such, particularly in order to pay for the spending of others who forced debt upon them for whom they must now take their time
to earn enough to pay for

(Every time government taxes you, it takes away that portion of your life that you spent earning that money. Every time government forces you to go through delays in your dealings with it, it is stealing time from you that you could be using for something YOU want to do, such as spending time with a wife, earning money, watching a ball game, learning something, etc. People not yet born [or children] should not have to pay excessive future debts taken on before they were able to consent, because they will have to use that portion of their lives to work and earn money to pay for spending that wasn’t theirs. Another way to put it is: You party, and your kids have to pay for it. Stealing their lives in this way is just evil.)

[13] Free and easy movement locally, statewide, nationally, and into and out of the country, and no Person shall need to go through roadblocks except when known named suspects are in the area, and there shall be no such thing as an internal passport, either de jure or de facto. Travel to or take up residence in any State at will without suffering any prevention, restriction, entry or exit tax, or sanction from their new or previous jurisdiction; (Turning people into sheep to be checked by an officer of the law if they are drunk or have their insurance card or other blanket reason is a presumption of guilt, and also causes unreasonable disruptions to the innocent. New Jersey actually charges residents an exit tax when they move to another State. Were you aware that the State owned you or could charge you for manumission?) If a government has or is paying for a road or its maintenance, in whole or part, directly or indirectly, it must take pains to ensure traffic flows quickly and smoothly, with synchronized traffic lights, overpasses, enough lanes, and road work must greatly minimize disruptions for the largest number of vehicles. The same shall apply as best as possible to water and aerospace travel. However, no one has the right to spread an epidemic, and government may restrict movement during the period one is ongoing in order to minimize contagion;

[14] Use (including personally operating) vehicles for land, water, and aerospace travel, but government may prevent unsafe operation by testing operator knowledge and ability at reasonable time intervals, and inspecting vehicle condition, but neither may be unreasonable or
expensive.

(So many governments want to force us onto cattle cars…errr…I mean, trains, and will keep roads under construction for long periods of time or mis-synchronize traffic lights to create “traffic turbulence” in the quest to put us on mass transit. Why is mass transit such a great idea, anyway? Isn’t that what New York did in 1882 BEFORE cars were invented to get factory workers from one side of the city to the other? Why do we want to go back in time, anyway? Why is de-individualizing us so good?)

Subsection 5: Parental Rights (and Responsibilities)

Those below the age of majority, not being fully competent, have many of their rights of liberty and property disabled, as defined by law, and assigned to their parents, or other guardian. Parents (or Guardians) have the right to raise their children as they see fit, including:

(Children don’t have the experience, ability, or wisdom to live independently, so their parents have to help them get to that point, and be responsible for them until they get there. Children, and other people, can’t have rights until they can also exercise responsibilities. There are many ways to do that, and parents should be free to do it as they see fit. There has been, and there still
is, a totalitarian element [particularly in the U.N. under the Orwellian “rights of the child”] who is trying to make the State, not parents, responsible for the upbringing of children. It doesn’t get any more hateful that that.)

[1] The right to discipline their children, including corporal punishment, as long as it does not become beating.

[2] The right to educate their children as they see fit, including by themselves, subject to mandatory courses and minimum knowledge levels on a standardized test for the State in which they reside, the standards of which shall be same for schools and homeschools.

[3] The right to be free of any government usurping or attempting to usurp any right of a parent;

[4] The right to be free of any government usurping or attempting to usurp any responsibility of a parent;

[5] Other rights not enumerated as they law may recognize;

Subject to their responsibilities to their children:

[1] Responsibility to provide basic necessities, such as food, clothing, shelter, and guidance;

[2] Responsibility to provide for their medical well-being, education, future financial independence, and ability to legally interact with others;

[3] Other responsibilities not enumerated as the law may recognize;

Section 2: Right to prevent violation of Rights

Subsection 1: Good Government Rights

The People have the Right to prevent governments from violating the rights of Life, Property, and Liberty by enforcing on them the rights to:

[1] Laws, rules, and court decisions that are as simple as possible, concise, logical, clear, not impossible (or currently impossible) to obey, able to be followed without undue difficulty, and not vague, onerous, harassing, vexatious, or that effectively prevent a legal activity;

(Seems governments love to trip people up for stuff they can charge fines for, or create chilling effects and then say “hey, we never said you couldn’t do that” wink wink.)

[2] Convenient remedies, as a remedy that is too difficult for ordinary people to access has the same effect as denial of the remedy, or right;

[3] A presumption of nonauthority for government actions; government (and its officials) needs to prove it is authorized to do what it proposes;

(I think doing blood draws for DWI falls under this. We the People should not have to get government to stop, they should have to prove they can start.)

[4] Hold the government accountable for corruption, and in general;

(We should be able to film and record them. Hey, if they aren’t doing anything wrong, they have nothing to fear, right? [How often do they use that same phrase on us “little people?”])

[5] Self-government, which no treaty shall abridge. No treaty may usurp or abridge the rights or responsibilities of the people nor add to or subtract from the powers of the applicable federal, state, locality, or other government, but only compel a constitutionally legitimate function;

[6] Force the government to act in accordance with law; (Might doesn’t make right.)

[7] Not be deprived of their responsibilities and thus be made dependent on government;

[8] Enjoy equally the rights and privileges of personhood within any jurisdiction, and to the equal protection of the laws, applied with equal frequency, and not make him subject to selective enforcement where one person may receive a waiver or exemption and others do not, or a waiver becomes a privilege which the government may revoke and thus deny a right. Therefore, there shall be no such thing as a waiver; Each person, organization, livelihood, company, or industry has the Right to receive treatment under the law no different than that received by other persons, organizations, livelihoods, companies, or industries.
(This incorporates and expands the language of the fourteenth amendment. It also means that a company can’t get a subsidy [money plundered from you to give then an advantage] or a
special marketplace advatage, which is unfair to competing companies.)

[9] Uniform government, and therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of those within this Constitution, de jure or de facto, may be erected or established within the limits thereof.

(Many pusillanimous jurisdictions in England and France allow Sharia law in parallel with the Law of the Legislature. Italy, Russia, Mexico, and Chicago tolerate Mafia “law.”)

[10] Be able to exercise all their rights and privileges free from intimidation and threats of prosecution or revocation of privileges, nor suffer a criminal, civil, or any other penalty for their exercise;

Subsection 2: Right to equal treatment of Privileges

[1] Government may not effectively strip a person of a guaranteed right or immunity indirectly, by compelling the waiver or abridgement of one Constitutional right as a condition of a privilege which the government threatens otherwise to withhold;

[2] Government may not compel the acceptance of unreasonable conditions to exercise a privilege;

[3] The People must receive equal treatment for privileges that apply to them the same as Rights;

[4] A privilege may not be revoked without a stated legal reason and an impartial hearing to prove the fact of its occurrence, correct application, and its relevance, and for the person affected to plead his case and have a reasonable chance of retaining the privilege;

Subsection 3: Rights of Resistance to Tyranny

[1] Right of Scofflaw- A law, rule, or order must be obeyed if possible, unless it is unconstitutional or unjust beyond a reasonable doubt. In such cases, those affected may legally continue as if that law, rule, or order does not exist. Government transgressions of specifically enumerated rights are unenforceable and no Person shall suffer any sanction for asserting a Rights on government whenever it attempts to deprive them. The right of scofflaw shall likewise exist when government puts a person in legal limbo or attempts to hold a person responsible for an unknowable law, whether criminally or civilly.

(Some people ask “At what point should you disobey a law?” My answer? When it is unconstitutional or unjust beyond a reasonable doubt. This would apply to fugitive slave laws or
orders to intern people in a camp due to their race. While I disagree with many drug laws, they are unjust only on a preponderance of the evidence, and thus should be obeyed. That’s MY standard.)

[2] Right of Jus Resistendi- Right to resist orders to obey unconstitutional laws or dictates. Any official who knowingly attempts to enforce an unconstitutional law or rule is subject to the full
punishments of law himself.

[3] Right of Preemption- Collective Right of the People, acting through a State or the Federal government, or without a government if time will not permit or government is unwilling or unable, to militarily preempt a foreign nation or organization which appears to be readying
itself to attack the United States.

Subsection 4: Individual and Collective Right to the Power to prevent violation of the Rights of Life, Property, and Liberty

(Yes, Right to the POWER.
Power comes from the barrel of a gun, as the great totalitarian leader [and gun control advocate] Mao pointed out, so having rights without the power to protect them means nothing. I admit that a Constitution is supposed to lay out general concepts and principles, not give specifics like a statute does [as I have done here], and is certainly not supposed to give justifications like the Declaration of Independence or the Plakkaat Van Verlatinghe, but I feel that understanding the basis for the right to bear arms will ensure that they are borne. Citizens with guns ensure that government will be mindful of all OTHER rights.)

[1] Because each Person has the Right to, in both an active and passive manner:

1. Protect himself from being murdered, killed, injured, threatened, extorted, enslaved, harassed, or the focus of behavior that is unpredictable, disturbs the peace, or disruptive, from government or private entities, individual or collective,
2. Protect all his property, including his life, person, home, personal items, business property, and all other items owned, borrowed, leased, or that he is responsible for, from intrusion, trespassing, theft, damage, destruction, criminals, insurrections, secessions, and foreign invasions, by government or private entities, individual or collective,
3. Ensure his Liberty by Preventing or Overthrowing a government that has become tyrannical: that is, more injurious of individual rights than protective of them,
4. Sustain himself from hunting, and protect himself from dangerous animals,

…he thus has the Right to own, keep on his person (or proxy), home, vehicle, business, on public property, or everywhere else not specifically excluded by this Constitution, in immediately usable condition, free of any license or restriction, and to use, those weapons which can be carried or operated by one person, including:

1. less than lethal weapons such as pepper spray, stun guns, etc., and all other equivalents, past, present and future,
2. hand held weapons such as knives, clubs, hatchets, etc., and all other equivalents, past, present and future,
3. distance weapons such as Pistols, Rifles, Shotguns, Air Rifles, Bows, etc., and all other equivalents, past, present and future,
4. all of the exact same weapons and devices in use with the Infantry of the Federal and State military forces, in order to provide a reasonable chance of prevailing in a revolution;

The only conditions under which the Right to weapons may be infringed are: while under the influence of judgment-impairing substances, in a courthouse, or in the military service. It may not be prohibited or impeded by anyone on private property open to the public [like a department store]. Weapons on vessels [airplanes, trains, ships] may have rules imposed to weaken their power or lethality, if necessary. Only those persons under the age of majority, physically incapable of wielding arms, convicted of a felony (and not pardoned), or having been adjudged mentally ill or incompetent in court, may have this right disabled.

[2] This Right includes the manufacture of weapons, replacement or aftermarket parts, and those parts needed for their operation, including ammunition, nor making a weapons producer liable for the misuse, negligence, or illegal acts of users, nor require burdensome rules that
effectively prevent the Right to weapons, nor track weapons, components, ammunition, or their owners, carriers, or users in any way, nor infringe the Right of the People to peaceably organize with arms for recreation, training, community security, private security companies, or other purpose. (Such as shooting contests, organizations like the National Rifle Association, Ranchers
banding together against cattle rustlers, community watches, etc.)

[3] Each Person shall have Immunity from criminal prosecution, civil suit, or any other sanction, for defending his person or property against an actual or intended criminal act, by private persons, government agents, or anyone else.

[4] Attempting to disarm a law-abiding weapon bearer, by anyone without an arrest warrant with that person’s name on it for a specific criminal act or for a crime being committed in flagrante delicto, is itself a criminal act, and may be resisted with up to and including
using deadly force. (Law abiding gun owners were illegally disarmed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.)

(I know what you’re thinking: “WOW! That’s long-winded! I believe that while the current Constitution is a masterpiece of brevity and fuzzy enough to allow for interpretation, the
problem is that it is too brief and fuzzy, which has led to the necessity of court cases and judges trying to gaze into a crystal ball to “determine the original intent” which results in “interpreting” wrongly. If things were just a little clearer and less ambiguous, a lot of case law, time, and expense would be unnecessary. The 2nd amendment covers the most basic of basic Rights, the Right to protect one’s own life. That’s why I got long-winded.
This is a shorter version that could work almost as well:
[Each Person, having the Right to sustain himself from hunting and
protect his person, property, and liberty, from criminals, invaders, and
tyrants, thus has the individual Right to acquire without inconvenient
restrictions, keep in immediately usable condition, keep on one’s person
or proxy, on public property, one’s own private property, or private
property open to the public, and bear, weapons able to be carried and
operated by one person, whether less-than-lethal, hand-held, or distance
(or projectile), shall not be impeded to adults of sound mind who have
not been convicted of a felony. No person shall be charged with a crime,
subject to civil suit, or any other sanction, for defending (up to and
including using deadly force) his person, property, or liberty from an
actual or intended criminal act by anyone, including but not limited to
private parties and government agents.]
This is compact but detailed enough to prevent “interpretation” by a judge. “Sound Mind” I believe would be quickly adjudicated to include both the mentally unstable and those under the influence of intoxicating substances. You probably wonder what I mean by “proxy” – that could just mean a bodyguard, but it could also mean what you use in an infantry context, such as a remotely operated rifle, or machine, or robot like you see in the movies, which might be what it takes to overthrow a technically-advanced tyrannical government.)

I would like to keep this Constitution a bit fuzzy and open to interpretation the same as the current Constitution. Why? It has worked reasonably well, not just because of the words, ideas, and history, but because it allows people to invest their own ideas into it (buy in), have a stake in it (put their imprint on it and make it their own), take initiative (be proactive), and use the great American quality of improvisation (little tweaks and flexibility). You don’t get these qualities in specific, top-down rigid Constitutions like those of the Soviet Union, Communist China, and many other Constitutions that try to think of everything. This is a bottom-up Constitution with some breathing room.

Section 3: Right to seek restitution for violations of Rights

Subsection 1: Right to Redress of Grievances

Persons have the Right to petition all governments and officials for a redress of grievances without fear of retribution, but shall not include special privileges not available to others, including, but not limited to, benefitting a company or organization, or disadvantaging a
competitor. No person who was elected, appointed, or otherwise selected, nor his close family members, may work as a lobbyist until five years have passed since leaving all offices.

(Governments always make mistakes and use their power wrongly and unfairly. You have the right to request they make things right. However, as is often the case, some people think that
they can extend grievances to other private parties, who may be a competitor in business, and that they have a right to disadvantage that person through a law. That is obviously unfair, and prohibited in this Constitution. People who have “connections” should not be able to have any undue influence over lawmaking or other “redresses” of grievances.)

Subsection 2: Due Process and Legal Rights

No one shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, time, or be subject to administrative actions, without due process of law, which shall be as follows:

[1] All Cases:

Right to clearly know the law or rule beforehand. Ignorance (and the  Right of Scofflaw) is a valid defense if the law or official act had not been published, is obscure, was not explicitly defined, ambiguous, incomprehensible, unknown, unknowable, too vague to allow for easy
interpretation, an official statement reasonably made the defendant believe it was legal, so voluminous, or so confusing that reasonable people could draw differing interpretations; Any action not explicitly outlawed is legal; Right to a presumption of innocence; The courts, justice system, and executive and administrative Departments, shall provide a quick, convenient remedy for injustices; Right to petition and access a court for redress of grievances, and get a decision; Right to be free from harassing civil and criminal court actions, and administrative actions; To have process only upon legal natural or corporate persons (including governments) able to defend themselves. Inanimate and living objects not capable of conducting their own defense in a court of law may not be parties to an action at law; (Most of this section is self-explanatory, but I wanted to point out that for some reason, governments are able to steal…err…I mean, seize, property from people that they “suspect” was used in illegal activity. Somehow, the PROPERTY has legal standing. Huh? Yes, the stereo that is yours can somehow be a defendant in a claim that it was bought using “drug money” and if “it” can’t prove otherwise, “it” is guilty and will be seized.) Right to a fair process and trial; Right to truthful testimony in court (and arbitration); Right to not be ordered to give testimony or produce evidence beyond what is necessary to the proper conduct of the process; (The State can’t be vexatious.) Right to exculpatory evidence. The Prosecution shall provide this to the defense in not more than three days after it receives it; (the news abounds with stories of prosecutors who seem to think this is optional as with Anthony Gray) Right to a specific explanation of the reasoning of a court decision; Right to a court overseen by a trained judge, (some jurisdictions allow a person to be elected who isn’t even a lawyer, let alone a judge) an arbitration overseen by a trained arbitrator, and a mediation overseen by a trained by a trained mediator; Right to an impartial judge and jury, arbitrator, or mediator; The prosecutor (or State) may not discuss cases with those not involved; (like NY Attorney General Elliott Spitzer demonizing companies in advance of court actions) The Judge must be randomly selected unless impossible; Judges, prosecutors, arbitrators, mediators, law enforcement officers, and lawyers must swear (or affirm) in both sides’ presence that they have no conflicts of interest in discharging their duty faithfully,
objectively, and impartially, and will provide all exculpatory evidence to the defense, under pain of perjury. Congress, State Legislatures, and all other relevant lawmaking bodies shall create Penalties for improper and unethical practices by these officials, and when a new trial (or
proceedings) must be set;

[2] Criminal Cases:

For a crime to have occurred, there must be a victim (who may not also be the defendant) that has suffered a specific and quantifiable injury; Right to freedom from arbitrary detainment or imprisonment; The right to the writs of habeas corpus, quo warranto, prohibito, mandamus,
procedendo, and certiorari; No one may be apprehended without an arrest warrant, save where caught in flagrante delicto. A person arrested shall be brought before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours, and be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; No accused’s name
may be released to the media, nor may the media report it, before conviction; (your reputation shouldn’t suffer unless convicted) The Right to not be coerced to give testimony against oneself, to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense, or if unable to afford counsel, to have the opportunity to retain a pro bono attorney, or to have the State appoint and pay for a Public Defender for him; to be presented with a list of lawyers for contact; Excessive bail shall not
be required; No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the Armed Forces, or in the National Guard, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; (text from the Fifth Amendment) No one shall be indicted without at minimum a cursory consideration,
and affirmative finding, of the constitutionality, merit, and correct application of the law allegedly broken; (you should be correctly charged and the law should be applicable to you.
Many “Romeo and Juliet” cases have been prosecuted where a teenage boy is convicted of rape for having sex with his girlfriend–this law was intended to be applied to adult child molesters, not kids. These kids can also be charged with distributing child pornography when the girl
sends her boyfriend a text message with a naked picture of herself: she is guilty of distributing child porn, and he is guilty of receiving it. Is this the correct application of the law? I daresay not.) nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall any person be effectively tried more than once for essentially the same offense (hairsplitting),(there shouldn’t be a separate charge for aiming the gun, pulling the trigger,
shooting twice, etc., so that a person can be convicted of multiple sub-actions that are all part of the same crime) nor shall any person be tried for the same offense at both the Federal and State level; (the prosecution shouldn’t be able to charge you with State felony drug possession and Federal drug possession: both are the same crime) The prosecution must correctly charge the accused, cite the exact statute the accused is being charged with violating, and no Person shall
be convicted unless the violation is proven beyond a reasonable doubt; Courts shall be open 24 hours per day (unless impossible) so as to make it convenient for most citizens to serve on a jury and still maintain their employment; (Why can’t retired people be drafted to serve on a jury the same as a young person can be drafted into the military? They have lots of wisdom, time, and might be feeling useless now that they don’t have a job. Just a thought!…) Right to be free of malicious, biased, and specious prosecutions; Prosecutors must be randomly selected unless impossible (avoiding a grandstanding case) and victims may replace a prosecutor with a private Person acting as prosecutor; (if the defendant is somehow associated with the prosecutor, what is keeping him from throwing the prosecution?). No one may attempt to circumvent random selection of a Judge or Prosecutor; In all criminal prosecutions (excepting those which involve
espionage or national security secrets), (the defendant should not be able to threaten the public with release of secrets) the accused shall enjoy the right to a public trial in less than 90
days from indictment, by an impartial jury of his peers (which shall include at least one member of the same race, religion, or other group) (This would have made the railroading of innocent Black defendants difficult by not permitting all-White juries. How to prevent jury nullification of minorities murdered by majority defendants? See “loss of State sovereignty.”) of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously scertained by law; Nor shall he be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor may assets be seized as a penalty for a criminal offense in advance of a conviction, and the burden of proof shall be on the prosecution to show seizure to be a proper remedy after conviction, and the owner shall immediately own them free and clear of all encumbrances if not convicted; Victims and accused have the Right to an honest, fair prosecution; The right to see, confront, and cross examine the witnesses against him, who shall swear (or affirm) to tell the whole truth, on pain of perjury; to have compulsory process for
obtaining witnesses in his favor, who shall take the same oath as the hostile witnesses; No witness may give testimony in exchange for anything offered, given, or coerced by the prosecution, (prosecutors routinely promise to go easy on snitches who say what the prosecutor wants–how can their testimony be trusted?) nor may be coached by the prosecution, (snitches or other criminals who say what the prosecutor wants them to say–how is that testimony impartial?)  but must be free to give only honest testimony; To have the jury decide on both the facts of the case and the Constitutionality, jurisdiction, and applicability of the law. To have a verdict by a unanimous vote of the jury, which shall not be held to account for its verdict;  A
defendant may not be found guilty of a crime not charged; (Martha Stewart) A defendant may not be guilty of an enhancement of a crime if not guilty of the primary crime; (Branch Davidians found not guilty of a crime but guilty of using weapons in the commission of the non-crime) A person may not suffer any consequences from charges he is not convicted of; (This would apply to Kobe Bryant: “You might not have been convicted, but we know you did it, so we’re going to punish you anyway.”) Non-guilty defendants have the right to have all their legal expenses,
court costs, and other expenses paid for by the Prosecuting Authority when the case against them was malicious, biased, without merit, or otherwise inappropriate; (Duke Lacrosse players) Upon conviction, the sentence must state all disablements of rights separately (such as not being able to legally carry a firearm) and justified as necessary; No conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate; There shall be no grants and promises of fines or forfeitures before conviction; Excessive fines shall not be imposed (Texas and other States seem to like to have never-ending surcharges on traffic offenses) and defendants shall have the Right to remittance of unjust fines imposed; Inventively cruel or nonstandard punishments shall not be inflicted; (The English did things like “drawing and quartering” which were inventively cruel and not done strictly to punish. I say a punishment can be cruel as long as it fits the crime, but can’t just be invented on the spot.) Every opportunity must be given for exculpatory evidence to come to light, and every benefit of the doubt be given, and at least 10 years must elapse before an execution may be performed; (Howmany people have been saved from execution after either exculpatory evidence has come out or problems have been shown with the prosecution?) Cases may be reviewed for procedural correctness and protection of rights of the defendant, and may be adjusted for errors and omissions, up to and including a new trial. Prisoners shall have a complaint process for their treatment while incarcerated, but a review board must consider and approve their lawsuits; (California prisoners used to file “cruel and unusual punishment” lawsuits for being fed bologna sandwiches. They had plenty of time and no disincentive to not file such frivolous lawsuits. What are you going to do: put them in jail?) Procedures must be regularly reviewed to prevent a high rate of false convictions, and reported to the Congress,
the President, and the Supreme Court;

[3] Civil Cases:

Before a Civil suit may go forward, the Plaintiff must first seek Mediation, to which he may compel the defendant to appear. If a dispute still exists afterward, the Plaintiff may use Arbitration. Both disputants shall be under oath, with penalties for perjury. Arbitrations
are subject to review by courts for impartiality and correctness, and must list their findings publicly by names of Parties, and Plaintiff v. Defendant. (I heard about a credit card company that used arbitration a lot. The arbitrator found for them 99.95% of the time. How is that not biased? If they list how often the defendant and plaintiff win, then bias can be quickly detected.) Congress shall create rules for a Judge to move a Court case to Arbitration. (Some cases can be more effectively handled by arbitration, and kept from clogging courts.) An Arbitrator’s decision may be disputed in court when he is arguably biased. The Plaintiff may likewise opt for a Trial. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed Five Hundred Dollars (in 2011 dollars), (twenty 1787 dollars translates to $500 in 2011) the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law; A plaintiff may not attempt to circumvent random selection of a Judge by filing and dropping a materially similar suit until a favorable judge is obtained; (like a tobacco lawsuit, or against a “deep pockets” defendant, or against YOU) Right to be free of frivolous lawsuits. The Congress shall create laws preventing barratry, champerty, and maintenance. The plaintiff must show Cause to proceed with a lawsuit at a preliminary hearing; (and show the suit to be non-frivolous, with provable damages by a party with standing on another party who could have caused the damages) Right to be free of dogpile lawsuits. Only actual plaintiffs may file a suit: no class actions. Cases with different plaintiffs and the same cause may be combined if the defendant agrees to it; (plaintiffs should have to show some tangible tort instead of simply filing a suit because they smell blood in the water) Right to trial in less than 180 days; (how many huge companies get cases delayed for years? Not here.) Right to reasonable legal settlements. Plaintiffs may not receive more
than actual damages, legal expenses, and triple punitive damages if the defendant is proven to have committed an intentional tort; (a million and a half for a coffee burn is mega-unreasonable) Right to have the non-prevailing side automatically pay for all expenses related to a legal action within a short period of time side (except suits where a government is a party, unless the suit was frivolous); (This would put the maggot ambulance chasers out of business. Only the real lawyers would be left. Suits would drop by 2/3. One criticism of this has been that certain meritorious cases would not be brought for lack of funds by the plaintiff. There is some truth to this, so, in a subsequent section, I provide for legal insurance and charities that would address this. The biggest reason for “loser pays,” other than simple fairness, is its ability to prevent the “big guys” from oppressing the little. Here’s a good example: Let’s say a big rich family in Massachusetts wants to crush a small-fry competitor. They bring a frivolous suit using their million dollar lawyers and the small-fry has to answer the suit. Problem is, he is bankrupted either way, and the big guy wins. If the big guy had to pay if he lost, the little guy would get his bills paid for and get justice. It would also be expensive for the rich family with an
uncertain outcome, so they would be more careful.) Right to have the Lawyers in private practice (or the Department a government lawyer works for) be held as guarantor for the legal costs and all other expenses of the prevailing side in cases filed for frivolous reasons; Judgments must be paid, or Decisions of Equity must be complied with, within a reasonable period of time, or contempt of court, with the citation automatically served and enforced.

[4] Lawsuits Against Governments:

Private and other governmental parties have the right to sue governments for damages from abuses of authority, or from torts where if it were a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred. An
Official may be personally sued, but that person must have been criminally convicted first. Officials are privileged from civil court action while in their current office, but not a subsequent office; Government Departments and Officials are immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution for the performance of their Constitutional duties, and the faithful performance or nonperformance of a discretionary function or duty;

(I think governments should be liable for their heavy-handed abuses of power, and from accidents, but I don’t think they should be liable for actions that others merely disagree with, like the explosion of suits against George W. Bush and his officials.)

[5] Executive and Administrative Law and Procedures:

Right from unnecessary or unreasonable rules; Right from a Department taking on non-delegated tasks; (Can you say “EPA”?)

[6] Each person, in any case, shall not be deprived of the Right of Restitution against any Person or other Entity which has performed a tort against him;

[7] Trials Closed to the Public:

All trials shall be open to the public, except (1) those which predominantly involve espionage or national security secrets, which must be referred for military tribunal, with the defendant receiving a trial in less than 365 days. The records may be sealed for a certain period of time, but the defendant must be permitted access when appealing a case. (2) Administrative proceedings or trials (e.g. family or probate or others where the public has no compelling interest in private
matters) may also exclude the public;

Subsection 3: Rights to rectify Tyranny:

[1] Right of Intervention- Citizens have the right to use arms to intervene to force the government to act legally when they observe that illegal act in flagrante. Citizens may also issue notice that they shall use force to rectify an illegal situation, as long as they have requested aid from a relevant authority to rectify that situation, and were ignored, had ineffective means used, or were rebuffed.

(This Right was revealed by the WWII veterans of Athens, Tennessee. [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) )]

[2] Citizens have the Right to act through their State Governments to perform Nullifications on the Federal Government, and through the Federal Government to perform Revocations of Sovereignty on the States.

[3] Right of Revolution- No government is, or ever will be, perfect. When a government, on balance, governs with the consent of the governed, enforces Constitutional laws equally, and refuses to enforce Unconstitutional laws, then it is better for citizens to tolerate instances of maladministration. However, whenever any government shall be found indubitably inadequate or contrary to good governance, a majority of the community has an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner most conducive to the public weal.

(Most of this was lifted directly from the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights.)

[4] Right of War- The People have the collective Right to act through the Federal government to fight a War in order to gain restitution for lives, property, and liberties lost when a foreign nation or organization should attack the United States.

(This idea comes from John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government.”)

ARTICLE 2: RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PEOPLE

Section 1: All Persons

Subsection 1: Responsibilities of every Person

[1] Obey laws that are Constitutional and applied within their proper jurisdiction and according to their intent, and to resist those which are not;

[2] Not engage in treason or espionage against the nation, and oppose those who do;

[3] Pay his own expenses without government aid; There is no right to force another Person to work in order to pay for one’s expenses, including but not limited to: subsistence, shelter, or health care.

(I completely reject the odious idea of “Positive Rights.” “Negative Rights,” such as life, property, and liberty, all boil down to a Right to be left alone. Positive Rights all boil down to a “right” to force others to work for you to provide you with a lifestyle. There is a word for the “right” to force another to work for you and steal their labor: slavery. Slavery, by definition, is
when one person deprives another of his Rights. NO ONE has the Right to do that. For this reason, there is no such thing as “Positive Rights.”
But maybe you want to persist in your belief in positive rights, such as “right to a job” or “right to healthcare.” Why stop there? Why not just enumerate a whole bunch of other “rights” to force other people to do something for you? Well, today is your lucky day! There are
Constitutions that already exist that you would positively love! They go into extreme depth in enumerating these “rights”…for example, the 1936 Soviet Consitution! [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Soviet_Constitution] The problem is, in order to force people to do something for you, you have to use force. Profound, huh? So that requires a police state…a totalitarian police
state…that can violate the rights of others to provide your rights. Problem is, soon they need to violate YOUR rights in order to provide others with their “rights.” Which is why the Soviet Communists/Socialists had to kill/murder/starve to death 40+ million people through wars, gulags, and death camps. The Chinese Communists/Socialists murdered and intentionally starved to death…take a deep breath…60+ million people during the aptly named “Great Leap Forward.” And the German National SOCIALISTS murdered/killed off 25 million people through death camps and wars. “But that wasn’t TRUE Communism/Socialism” you retort. What IS “true” Communism, anyway? Can you define it? Marxism? Leninism? Trotskyism? Stalinism? Maoism? Pol pot ism? If you obey it 90% instead of 100%, can you still be a “true” Communist? How do you know? What if you forget one sentence of the Manifesto, does that make you an “untrue” Communist? The only place “true” Communism exists is in fantasies replete with the tooth fairy and unicorns and utopia, because it is counter to all human nature and experience. Capitalism, the “untrue” type which exists in the cold cruel messy real world, has managed to elevate billions more people through “greed” than socialism has ever been able to do through “benevolence” because it acknowledges human reality. Upshot? The only “true” thing positive rights accomplish is “true” misery. Are you too blind to see it?)

[4] Uphold oaths;

[5] Serve as a Witness in Court and legal proceedings;

[6] Comply with the terms of legal contracts to which one is a party;

[7] To prove identity to law enforcement and certain other agents with cause, especially for valid police searches or when requesting private documents, but no person shall be subject to cursory inspections without specific cause.

Subsection 2: Definition and Responsibilities of Citizens

(NO ONE seems to make a distinction between Citizens and non-citizens anymore! They are not the same thing AT ALL, which is why I explain the differences in this section. It’s like the difference between a homeowner (a citizen), and a guest (a legal alien). ILLEGAL aliens are like a person who breaks into your house (a trespasser who has no right to be there because they haven’t been invited). You feel completely justified in keeping your door locked in order to keep uninvited people out, and in kicking those who break into your house out. Why is there a difference with illegal aliens? The issue is confused by those who gain advantage from this situation: employers who get cheap labor [and put citizens out of work, or drive down their wages], and politicians who get a group of people who they can make feel aggrieved and turn into voters [and if you think illegal aliens don’t vote when no photo ID is required, please take another hit from your crack pipe because it must be some REALLY good stuff.] They further confuse it by saying those who come to this country are “good people” [and 95% of them are…and can’t be blamed for wanting to escape Mexico, or China, or Russia, or elsewhere] which is irrelevant: the relevant fact is that they BROKE THE LAW. As long as they follow the law, I am happy that they are here. Don’t laws need to be obeyed anymore? If that’s the case, I guess I don’t need to obey the law, either…I’d start by not paying my income tax…I’d save a lot of money! What about foreigners who become citizens the right way? Shouldn’t they be rewarded?
Continuing my rant, I now take aim at native-born Americans: I don’t believe in birthright citizenship. I would divide people living in the country into 3 groups: Citizens, Residents (aka Domestic Aliens), and Aliens (aka Foreign Aliens). The laws for citizens and residents would apply equally. Aliens would be treated the same with specific exceptions.
1. CITIZENS are people who know the history, government, and traditions of the United States, and have passed a test proving the same. They have taken an oath of Loyalty to the United States Constitution and the nation it represents, and to defend it from (a) domestic enemies [by
ensuring the Constitution is being followed by being involved in decisions affecting the community] and (b) foreign enemies [by doing military service when called]. By demonstrating that they are committed to the welfare of the country, they are then entrusted with making
decisions for it, particularly by voting.
2. RESIDENTS (or Domestic Aliens) are natural-born people who have demonstrated no knowledge of the US and no loyalty to either the US or a foreign nation. They are “just here”…but they aren’t proven qualified or trustworthy to vote or engage in other decision making for the community.
3. ALIENS (or Foreign Aliens) are people with loyalty to another nation. They are welcome here as long as they are invited and obey OUR laws. They have no ability to make decisions for Americans because they are not Americans.
Natural-born Persons should have to learn what naturalized citizens learn, and take the same oath. Natural-born Persons who refuse to become citizens would then become Residents (aka Domestic Aliens). A system like that would make citizens respect what they have, and take their responsibilities seriously. Alas, that being said, that isn’t going to happen, so the following section acknowledges reality.)

[1] A Person who makes a connection and commitment to an area (is “married” to it), becomes part of the community, and is not merely passing through;

[2] A Person who will enjoy or suffer the consequences of his decisions there, including his votes;

[3] A Person who has accepted the Responsibilities of living in an area, instead of merely enjoying its protection of his Rights, which are:

1. 1. To preserve, protect, and defend this Constitution; To defend against foreign invasion or attack, insurrection, criminal acts, natural or manmade disasters, or public ignorance or apathy; Ten percent of needed military personnel shall be drafted to ensure that citizens take their oath seriously;
   2. To serve on a Jury, and to render verdicts according to the Constitutionality, jurisdiction, and applicability of laws and rules, and the facts of the case;
   3. To enforce laws, either by being deputized by law enforcement officials and subject to their legal orders, or in the absence of that, to exercise general police powers to defend the community and enforce the laws;
   4. To ensure that the government is functioning properly, particularly: to fight Corruption, Abuse of Authority, and disrespect of Rights of the People;
   5. To be well-informed; An educated citizenry is necessary for the maintenance of a Free nation, thus, to be eligible for citizenship, a Person must:

A. Be educated in the following key areas: American, British, and Western History; American government; Civics; Ethics; Vocabulary; Logic; Economics; Leadership; Arithmetic;

(I first noticed that members of the Marine Corps are uniformly proud of their service, in large part because the Marines go out of their way to teach recruits the history and culture of the Corps. From then on, I saw that members of other organizations that were taught the history and culture of that organization were likewise proud and dedicated. This obviously isn’t being done in many schools, because many graduates are often ignorant and dismissive of the history and uniqueness of the United States, and therefore neither proud nor dedicated to keeping it
great, nor making it better. An ignorant Citizenry makes people easily manipulated and gives huge power to despots, demagogues, and power brokers…but of course, [mainly] government schools wouldn’t be doing that on purpose, would they? Naaaahhh. Oh, and many kids aren’t taught cursive writing any more, which makes signing a contract more difficult, and makes a government by contract less likely and a government by force [like Marxism] more likely, but that couldn’t be by design, either, could it?)

B. Schools must all be private, but each State Government shall set minimum standards for grades and knowledge, and test them, and create an objective rating system for schools. Parents may receive Vouchers from governments of the States or Localities, to be spent as they see fit on
schools or homeschooling.

(Teacher’s Unions HATE accountability like this. They seem to bellyache about standardized tests incessantly, and school ratings. Ignorant kids can’t be knowledgeable Citizens. Vouchers, assuming you believe people without kids should be forced to help pay for them, should be used to make a market for education, with all its benefits. Why can’t homeschooling parents also receive vouchers? This section also explicitly authorizes homeschooling as a valid way to
educate kids, so parents can’t be denied this very basic right to educate their kids as they see fit.)

[4] A person who accepts the duty to vote for candidates at the Federal, state, and locality level, and approve or disapprove referendums and initiatives after reading and understanding them first;

1. 1. All Citizens who are 18 years of age, and have not been convicted of a felony, nor are currently adjudged mentally incompetent by relevant authority, nor are currently indigent, may vote in the voting district where they have last resided for at least one year, based on their previous voter card, or government-issued identification, if less than 19 years of age. A person may not vote in the district they live in if they have not officially changed their residency to that district.

      (People who have recently moved and don’t know the local situation, and University students who will not suffer the consequences of their vote, may not vote in the new district until they have lived there for at least a year, and must also become residents of that district–they must change their identification and voter card to the new district. They may not be residents of another district, temporarily move to a new district, and be able to vote in that district. They have to vote in the district where they permanently reside.)

   2. Voter registration shall be handled by the States and all voters must show a government issued photo identification to register, (Sadly, this would disenfranchise most dead people and pets, particularly in Chicago and New Orleans [wink wink]) the deadline of which shall be 30 days before an election, and a voter card shall be sent to their permanent home of record. In order to vote, the voter must appear at a public polling place in the State and District in which they reside (requiring dead people and pets to actually appear [wink wink])(unless
      absent due to travel), and present the voter card and a government-issued photo ID to prove identity. Anyone who buys or sells a vote, for money or any other valuable consideration,
      shall be guilty of a Felony, and anyone who swaps a vote with a voter in another District, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
   3. Citizens may contribute any amount of money to aid the election of a political candidate they favor, either individually or through an organization, subject to the following restrictions:

A. No contribution may be given quid-pro-quo;

B. Criminals, foreigners, or foreign organizations may not give money to, spend money on, or influence a candidate’s election, nor engage in issue advocacy, nor influence any election in any way;

C. No candidate may receive money directly from a supporter, either individual or collective. All moneys must be given to a blind trust for his use or that of a political party and audited by the Master of Elections, which must be traceable back to the donor, but no donor or amount may ever be revealed either to the candidate or to the public;

(If a candidate doesn’t know who is contributing to him, it is difficult for him to “pay back” that person. Donations would be given because of a belief in the candidate, not because they have something specific to gain [my definition of special interest: someone who has something specific to gain from a law instead of a law being written for the broad welfare. There is no “specific welfare” clause in the current Constitution, only “general welfare.”] Not revealing donors also would prevent any retribution from members of the public or government agents against those who supported a particular, unpopular candidate or cause, such as militant Gays getting lists of Evangelicals to go harass or beat up [and vice-versa], or the FBI on Martin Luther King’s supporters, or pro-lifers against pro-choicers [and vice versa], or animal rights activists who want to set fire to the homes of those who support animal research, etc etc).

D. No one may be forced to give to a candidate (except through taxes for the base campaign funds given to all candidates), or money taken from them diverted, in whole or in part, from any source, directly or indirectly, to support a candidate they oppose;

(Unions would not be able to automatically deduct from a member’s paycheck, or use funds for candidates the employee opposes.)

E. Issue advocacy must be paid from a blind trust, audited by the Master of Elections, and the advocates may not ever reveal, to anyone, who they are, or who they support;

(Neither the Sierra Club nor the National Rifle Association would get any special “payback” for raising issues.)

[5] No Citizen shall be taxed without representation, and no Person shall have representation without taxation. Those Citizens currently indigent forfeit their vote until no longer indigent. “Those who ride in the cart, instead of pulling it, have no say in where the cart goes.” No voter shall have his vote diluted by such recipients.

(I can hear some screams about [honestly] disabled people. Disabled people can provide for themselves from private charity in this Constitution. Most can also usually work: even a
person in a wheelchair can work operating a computer. NO ONE should be able to make decisions for others if they can’t even rudimentarily fend for themselves. They also shouldn’t be able to vote themselves money from their neighbor’s pocket and their neighbor’s kids’ mouths. This is also a good incentive to not become indigent, which I describe as receiving “taxpayer assistance,” not ANY [aka private] assistance.)

[6] To delegate powers to agents who comprise any government; Non-citizens may not do this.

(Nations are built by, and accountable to, Citizens, not those who are “just there.”)

[7] To remain within the U.S.; To enter and leave the country at will, and reside outside the country and return;

[8] To eligibility and Equal Opportunity in matters of civilian government employment, its contractors, and vendors. Aliens may not work for any government. No civilian government may discriminate against any Citizen in hiring, advancement, or firing, on the basis of anything
other than the ability to best get the job done;

[9] To be eligible to hold Office. No noncitizen may hold Office;

(A Person who decides to put no “skin in the game” should have no power in the game.)

[10] All Citizens are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside, and shall be entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of Citizens of the United States; (Part of the fourteenth amendment here.)

Subsection 3: Naturalization and Foreigners

[1] Congress shall establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, which shall include acceptance of the responsibilities of a Citizen, undivided loyalty to this Constitution of the United States, and
acceptance of their duty to assimilate with the native population.

[2] Foreigners shall be allowed into the country based on their utility to the nation and ability to assimilate. Foreigners shall not force chain migration or otherwise force the government to allow them into country. Foreigners shall adapt to American ways, not the converse, and unadaptable foreigners shall be deported. For a foreign national to enter and freely more around the United States, Americans must have the same reciprocal ability (de jure and de facto) with his home nation, otherwise he shall be subject to the same restrictions as his home nation imposes on Americans.

[3]Those noncitizens within the confines of the United States without authorization shall be immediately deported, unless they did declare themselves at the earliest opportunity and did seek asylum, in which case they shall be held in comfortable detention until their cases are
speedily (within one year) heard and determined, and those with merit shall become Permanent Aliens, and those without shall be deported.

(Asylum seekers would be comfortably kept in secured hotels but not be allowed to leave to blend into the countryside.)

[4] Companies may import foreign guest workers on a contract basis at any time, but must do so through an Employment Agency chartered by the Department of State, which shall be their employer, pay them directly, and treat them in accordance with employment law the same as, and at the same pay rate as, domestic workers for that job, per the Bureau of Statistics, and assess the company a penalty, paid to the Department of State, to make that worker cost twice the median wage of a domestic worker, and anyone directly employing a guest worker shall be guilty of a felony. Guest workers shall be Temporary Aliens, treated equally to Permanent Aliens, except that their residency must be renewed every year, and they may work only for the company that imported them, unless it should release them from their contract.

(Companies that are honestly short-handed or have “jobs that Americans won’t do” can get employees, but can’t simply exploit them for low wages and also put an American out of work.
Under this system, they have every incentive to employ Americans where possible. Alien legal status is easy to figure out because they all work for a temporary Agency. If a company goes around the law, it is guilty of a felony. To ensure that a company that pays for their importation
can’t just lose the money it spent, the alien can only work for that company unless it decides otherwise. I am always amazed when Hispanic-Americans and Blacks support illegal immigration, because they are the ones that are primarily put out of work, or have their wages
driven down, by these foreigners. I would also figure that labor Unions, who “care about the Working Man”, would support this section in order to prevent low wages.
As an additional note, H-1B visas are the low form of crony capitalism, because they came about when businessmen paid off politicians to use the power of government to get labor at a rate
lower than the market would otherwise provide. [The high form of crony capitalism is when a businessman pays a politician to use the power of government to disadvantage a competitor, either through subsidies, like Solyndra, or by preventing the competitor from taking advantage of an opportunity, like stopping construction of an oil pipeline so the oil has to be transported on a railroad that the businessman owns. True capitalism is one company competing head to head with another.])

IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PEOPLE IN PART I, THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES HEREBY DELEGATE THE LIMITED FUNCTIONS AND POWERS IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS DOCUMENT TO THE APPLICABLE GOVERNMENTS.

(This Constitution’s purpose is to protect Rights. Also Responsibilities, which are the other edge of the sword of Liberty. Not having Responsibilities in the hands of the People means the government is responsible, and that reduces people to just quivering masses of goo, and then the government is “justified” in using any power to enforce its responsibilities, which leads to a
totalitarian government. Hmmm…Have we seen an erosion of Responsibilities lately? Citizens, not People, have the right to delegate Powers. Noncitizens can’t delegate any Powers. There is a
restatement that government has LIMITED Functions and Powers and powers are delegated to the APPLICABLE governments, not all governments (a limitation on who does what). It is also a division of powers between the federal and other governments.)

Keep Reading – Next is “Part II: Limitations and Requirements on Government”