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
http://www.conventionofstates.com
#NeverEvil
Looking for a great deal .. check out Sprint
Audio Drama
The Perils Of Dana
HERE
Audio Drama
Story Of Job
HERE