Bill Sullivan     Bill Sullivan Amendment Proposals
                              For The Convention Of States Movement Presented and Explained


1. The Declaration of independence puts forth the founding law of all government; that our rights come from God, are seen in the natural laws (demonstrable science) of nature; are thus inalienable, immutable and cannot be created or destroyed by man. As such no legislature or court can force, because of unproven consensus, compliance, forfeiture, fines, imprisonment or any punishment upon Americans which would cause them to violate demonstrable laws of nature as it relates to human beings: Neither can any new rights be declared that are not demonstrable in natural law (science). All legislative law or court decisions that violate this amendment; and any law enforcement actions which coerce Americans against natural law or to violate natural law will officially become invalid the day this amendment is approved. Administrations may take 6 months to assure a smooth transition in society to this restored understanding.


2. All legislatures and courts must take in effect the difference between rights which are inalienable; and Freedom. They must understand that Freedom as a whole is a matter of free will and could be good or bad; which courts and legislatures must not declare to be rights. They must best served freedom by allowing logic, religion and other social pressures and interplay of ideas; to get people to police themselves, as long as they do not impede significantly the natural rights  and freedom of others. No individual freedom is allowed to take away the natural rights of others. The protection of natural rights is the whole objective of our government.


HERE IS AN EXPLANATION of why I am working to get 1 and maybe 2 amendments similarly worded as the above. It is logical that there must be an ultimate standard beyond which men via Kings, legislatures or courts can go. That was the assumption of the Founders. Indeed their revolution was not one of simply might makes right. Great Britain was mightier. They literally declared in the Declaration of independence what they concluded is the foundation of all human government. That is that rights are created only by God and are seen in the laws of nature. According to them, any government that violates those rights should be dissolved and one set up that protects those rights; which they said are inalienable as well as self evident. These rights were that for which they would pledge their life, fortune and sacred honor. So it is could only be that this founding principle is also the foundation of the country and the Constitution. Yet many educated men have sought to separate this principle of natural law from the Constitution, which is built upon it and thus no laws made which is outside of natural law are Constitutional in our system; so that they are allowed to do anything at their whim to their fellow man.
  The effect of these amendments could be summarized as government should not be in the business of using force to promote the causes of the beliefs of one group to advance their conscience choices against the consciences of others, when those choices violate natural law. Properly looked at, it has never been legal nor have courts had Constitutional jurisdiction, to create, or destroy natural law rights, which the founders said comes from God; thus making rights inalienable. Otherwise there are no inalienable rights. They would be man givable and take able; which is the root of tyranny.  Thomas Jefferson understood this.

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." (Thomas Jefferson)

People are afraid of you, if they think you hate them. Or if they think you want to force them to live like you do. Now, realize it is always ok for them to force themselves on you. The Founders had a natural way to dispel this notion. You can do it by painting a picture that all can clearly see is as much in stone as anything can be; and that it protects all, equally. That natural way is R=N=S; Revelation = Nature = Science. It works like this: The founders said all rights come from nature’s God. This puts rights outside of the whim and desires of men. That is a right MUST already be there and cannot be just thought up because of ideas or personal desires which please some. But then how do we discern a right? If the majority of the people decide that they have a right to marry their beloved pets, how could you tell if they have that right or not? Well, do all sides have to get out there and disparage each other or their pets? If you said as was once said, blacks and whites have no right to marry, does might and or the majority make right? No. Every problem of this type was solved in that formula above. The formula works for any world view that values reality; from the strongest believer in God to the person that believes the least in the concept of an almighty. Their beliefs and actions should not be a concern for a government such as ours; unless they unduly abridge the rights and freedom of others.  Since any real God will have shown himself in his creation, which would also be the same things shown in provable science; all you have to do is ask yourself any one of 3 questions. Can any particular mentally perceived right be shown in either or all of these: revelation, natural law or science? All three equals each other. If a theist, non-theist or anyone who could not care less wants to come from only one perspective, it will not matter to our government as long as his beliefs and acts do not unduly harm the rights and freedoms of others and violate natural law. Only if he made it up, will it disagree with nature and science. Because those things that can be known of God, by everyone, is clearly seen by the things that are made. Neither can anyone else following that Constitutional rule, impose a personal preference on others. The secularist is protected from false religion and the believer in God is protected from false secularism running wild.

It is only when we get away from this principle that we allow various politicians on both sides of the isle to pit us against each other. Yes we will still be free to make any argument publically or privately that we personally think good. Yet we all should see that what the founders did is the way for all to agree in peace.  What would happen if 70%% of the people wanted to marry their pets? Well you could not make it a right in law, because it cannot be shown to make sense in any portion of r=n=s. If you make it a right, government will begin to force others against their will to participate in things they will never accept. It would produce a conflict that would not end; like abortion law, which violates r=n=s. If  the majority elected enough people to pass a marry your pet law, all they could do that really fit the constitutional formula would be for government to stop defining marriages at all. All marriages would then be equal under law. This would allow each group to do what they wanted but not empowering them via law. It would not claim they have any such right but it could under natural law ban it, if it chooses.. Law is used as a teacher and a way to normalize society into whatever is approved of by law.  Secular humanism according to logic and the 1962 Supreme Court is a religion as well as the beliefs of the various groups that believe in God. This is because both world views deal with God one way or another and have profound implications. The State has no business helping to establish either one of these. In fact to use the force of government to promote or harm the ability of proponents to personally espouse any of these world views in society is an act that tend to establish religion; which is a violation of the Constitution. Let the people alone.

Atheist, Theists and agnostics, can all understand how this put them all on equal footing. Then the debate about what makes the most sense can move on without the fear that you will be force to do something against your conscience; nor fear that you are helping perversion to prevail in society. That is a real concern and society should mediate this peacefully via logic and common sense.  Once you understand what is presented here, there is no argument that can be sustained against it without the other person looking more or less tyrannical.

 Join the movement.  Protect your freedom


Looking for a great deal  .. check out Sprint


Audio Drama
The Perils Of Dana

Audio Drama
Story Of  Job