U.S. Constitutional Amendment

[Karen Holmes]

To create the additional layer of government over what already exists, Americans must amend our Constitution. We propose that because it is a structural change to the Constitution, that we return to the convention path that our Founding Fathers used to write it. We are calling for an Article V amendment convention, and we are opening the idea to debate.

[MadisonCom]

Several years ago when the proposal to add an amendment to the ND constitution about a right to hunt I was against it as I was concerned that 1 Hunting is not a right and 2 then the NDFB would have an amendment to have a right to farm anyway they want. Well, here it is.

These are not rights that should be guaranteed by the constitution.  Constitutional rights are inalienable rights for all citizens, not a select few. Heck, I think I should have a constitutional right to forgoe any of my debts, a right to own a section of land, a right to shop at Walmart on Sunday mornings.  WTH?

What is the NDFB so concerned about that we need to litter the constitution with things like this? Last time I checked, farming is not under any threat from ending.

[Dashaveink]

Other than the Bill of Rights Amendments 1 - 10, what is your favorite amendment 11 - 27 and why?

[Karen Holmes]

Our organization is working to purify the US legal system so practices and laws that have caused chaos within our legal system to do spread the chaos onto the international level. The question is, then, what is causing the chaos?

One of the major misunderstandings is that our legal system has only two levels when there are actually three--the principles, the power and the project. The three related to our legal system are Universal Law, Constitutional Law and federal law. When the courts, including the Supreme Court, see only the Constitution, which can evolve or devolve based on power games, and federal law, which may or may not stand on the principles and is based on devolving power games, this is when people look at the letter of the law instead of the intent, and it creates chaos in the legal system.

The Supreme Court may decide a law is constitutional, and it becomes the law of the land. That law may take away the rights of the people, which is goes against Universal Law.

[Karen Holmes]

The plan for the international government requires a constitutional amendment that is structural, creating an additional layer of government over top of what exists. It doesn't really affect other nations. The existing constitution delineates the duties and privileges and responsibilities of the president of the United States, but under the international government, there will be two presidents, one that addresses the national and one the international levels. The constitution gives the president the authority to function, and the president swears and oath of office to uphold the constitution.

In terms of declaring the rights others have to do something, whether that is including in the language of the document is yet to be determined, and will be up to the delegates to the convention of states to decide. The debate will be similar to how our founding fathers functioned.

To get it passed by the states, it must be very pure and simple and clear about what it is saying and declaring. No one will agree to anything that includes perks for the special interests. 

[Саша Дробахо]

I was just wondering if anybody knows a specific reason why we had to have a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol in the twenties, but no such amendment exists in banning illegal drugs today.

Because the constitution is just a scrap of paper that the government only pays lip service to. It is essentially irrelevant in the modern United States of America.

[OksanaShikInemi]

If the First Amendment protects anything, it is political speech by individual Americans.  Flag burning has been protected by the courts because it is a non-violent political statement.

[REMONTmor]

Ok, so I checked the ndfb website. Aasmundstad stated this proposal is to insure an individual has a right to farm. Again, last time I checked, farming is an occupation and not a right. A right is more like, someone has a right to education, freedom of speech, etc. Please do not litter the constitution with frivolous things like this or every group imaginable will have a constitutional amendment for any and everything.

If ndfb feels that farming is being threatened, then why doesnt ndfb meet with those that it feels are threatening farming and have civil discussions to solve the issue that there may be instead of pollutting our constitution with items that should not be in there?

[Karen Holmes]

Our amendment is for an international government.