CONSTITUTION RATIFIED
Why do we, the people of the United States, including our Congress and the President, allow the Supreme Court (6) to change wording in the Constitution when the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction both as to law or fact except under such regulations as the Congress shall make (Article III sec 2 para 2). Our founders never intended to allow any branch of government to use the Constitution as toilet paper, but it appears that the Supreme Court (6) thinks they can.
The Constitution (the supreme law of the land) was voted on and ratified September 17, 1787. The Constitution is the document by which our Democracy is guided not the Supreme Court (6 with bath robes). The Constitution is a written gift from the founders with direction from them and others life's experiences. A set of rules all Americans of the United States must follow if we want this our Democracy to work for all. The Constitution was ratified by the conventions of nine states (12 present). It's not perfect, but it was a bold first step forward.
Following the ratification of the Constitution (articles VI and VII), it was presented to the citizens of the United States so that they could all see what so many patriots died for, over the course of a 7 yr. period of war. They could proudly turn the pages while they read the words written there that would guide them down a democratic path for many years to come.
One of the delegates recorded in his journal a brief episode
Involving Benjamin Franklin who was asked by a woman when
The convention ended, "well, doctor, what have we got, a
Republic or a Monarchy?" The elder statesman answered,
"A republic, if you can keep it."
One of the Articles that was ratified at that convention was Article (V). Article (V) specifically stated, the congress by 2/3 of both houses if they deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or on the Application of the legislatures of 2/3 of the several states shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments. There is no other way, this means the Supreme Court has no Jurisdiction or authority in amending the constitution (the law of the land) they can submit their appellate decision to 2/3 of congress or 2/3 of states legislatures for an amendment change. However, if the congress or the states legislatures vote no, the appellate decision is null and void. The Supreme Court has no authority to change any wording (amend) any Article or Amendment in the Constitution without Article (V) authority. Even if the Supreme Court appellate decision is adopted by congress or the Legislatures the appellate decision must be ratified by 3/4 of the state's conventions before it becomes part of the law of the land. At that point changes that were ratified amendments to articles or new amendments, would have to be published to reflect the change and dates of ratification. In that way all members of the United States can read the words and know what the law of the land is. You simply cannot write decisions on lunch sacks or on old IRS forms put them in a drawer and pull them out when it's convenient and declare past notes, now supersede the constitution, this proves our Government works. Sorry, it don't work that way!!
For example (1), Citizens United Corporations are People
Dumb donkey nonsense decisions written by the Supreme Court such as citizens united, corporations are people and money is their speech implying bribery is legal. The very idea that the Supreme Court would entertain the Idea that corporations are people and their money is speech is utterly ridiculous and irresponsible. Nowhere in the Constitution do those words appear. Why would they? In 1787 the word Corporation did not appear anywhere and the word Corporation certainly was not considered a person. Amendment (XIV) mentions persons, however, there is no mention of Corporation anywhere. Moreover Article II sec. 4 of the Constitution states, Bribery is an impeachable offence. It was written in to the Constitution in1787 and it remains there today 238 years later. This is contrary to the idea that bribery is legal!
Article III Sec. 2 paragraph 2 reads the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. In other words the Supreme Court must petition congress for authorization per Article (V) to amend anything in the constitution. Reasoning and logic was used at the time of the constitution ratification but our supreme court in later years only have shown disrespect and contempt for we the People's Constitution (the law of the land) and the patriots who died not ever realizing it.
If the Supreme Court wants corporations to be people, and money to be speech and bribery legal they must follow Article (V) Guidelines. (1) Petition congress for a 2/3 vote or 2/3 of Legislatures of several states vote for their appellate decision. If the vote for corporations to be people passes, (2) then 3/4 of the several states legislatures must then ratify the yes vote. Only then will Citizens United be a law. Citizens United is not in the Constitution! We the people have been hood winked by the Supreme Court and others, into thinking they have the authority to amend the constitution at their whim. Well they don't! Congress or the president must reverse the Citizen's United scam immediately until Article (V) has been applied properly, if at all. Note: Article (XIV) sec 1 states what a United States Citizen/person is. There is no language in the constitution that states Corporations are persons. If it's not in the Constitution and ratified it's not a (law of the land).
EXAMPLE (2) Insurrection
Given, Donald Trump has committed insurrection per Amendment (XIV) Sec 3, he gave aid and comfort to the insurrectionists who broke in and damaged the capitol building on January 6, where 5 people died and some 170 plus were hospitalized. As a result, Donald Trump gave aid and comfort by telling the National Guard to stand down and not give assistance to the capitol police while they were beaten, kicked, pepper sprayed, and flag pole jabbed while the flags were still on the poles. This was allowed to go on for more than an hour before the National Guard was allowed to assist the Capitol police. The insurrectionists tried to locate Vice president Pence and speaker Pelosi with the intension of killing them while Donald Trump stood by and watched on the monitor. President Trump was found to be insurgent. Meaning he cannot hold a state or federal office again. However, the Supreme 6, desperate to give President Trump more time to run for office, hugged the word Hold and irresponsibly ruled that he does not "hold" the office of presidency he is only running for the office of presidency therefore he can run for office of Presidency. A higher order thinking group would reason if you cannot hold the office, then to run for the office would be redundant and lack reality. The majority of citizens in the United States know this and know Donald Trump should not have been able to run for the presidency if he cannot hold office, it's a simple concept. Amendment (XIV) sec. 3, simply stated no person shall hold any office having previously taken an oath of office who shall have engaged in insurrection or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).