MORE TAKE OUTS

It seems that in the last 300, and maybe even earlier, there has come into the psyche of those who often end up in government or positions of authority, to stray and wander from what our charters allow them to do. They also seem to begin "gaming" their acts, words, and even the charter itself. Many say this requires us to go back to "the founding Fathers intent". I tried that and could not find a consensus description of this other than the words written in the four documents in the first "post". So, starting from there and what I personally have observed or derived from my reading of the documents themselves, and my observations on governmental practices generally, I get more non-constitutionality for our joint consideration as "take outs" from the list of acceptable practices. Some are:

1. No time limit on the state's time for approval of amendments or referendums is given to any of the the governmental branches established by the Constitution. Therefore said time limits, if any, can only be established by "the states" or "the people". Therefore all past proposed "Amendments et al" remain as active candidates for approval by the states regardless of wordings implying time limits, and will remain so in perpetuity". And all such statements, such as those found at the end of several Amendments to the effect that "this article shall be inoperative unless ratified...within (some time limit)" are non-constitutional. Then if follows that all such past forms and the ERA remain ratifiable candidates, as do all other such time governmental "time limits" that are states and the peoples rights to determine, if the elect to do so at all.

2. Since Article II, Section 8, para 8 gives Congress a power "in order to promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts..." it seems that that is a purpose of the Constitution that is fully equal to the first six at the beginning of the Constitution. It follows then that no office holder can hold any office if he does not in any way believe in and/or fully support "Science, the useful Arts, and Progress of Science an Progress in the useful Arts". A good many present office holders and candidates are thereby full disqualified from holding or pursuing any office of our Constitutional government. Televised statements by many current office holders and candidates is proof enough for their immediate resignation and/or withdrawal from candidacy now. So "let it be so!"

3. It being hundreds of years since the writing of the constitution, and that science, math, engineering, and technology have changed our capabilities to function "jointly" in ways unbelievable, even 10 years ago many would say, there seems to no longer be a need for many operations that are now way better, faster, and more completely and accurately done with the many "new technologies." Voice votes "counted auditorially" being one for sure, and full total video/audio recording of all actions of Congress being another, to be no longer allowable. (Seems identical in "actionable content" to #2 immediately above.) And if no other data would suffice to convince, the fact that "government" lost the XXVII-th Amendment for over 100 years, what else have they misplaced, and what possible "general welfare, etc." reason would we need to not do so immediately. So, "let it be so!"

4. And now redundancy. It bothers me as needless and confusable rhetoric. The several Amendment statements, and their cousins less easily identified elsewhere, to the effect that:

"The Congress shall have the power to enforce this...by appropriate legislation" is needless so long as it stays within its granted powers. Moreover, why just the Congress? Should not all branches, departments, etc., have the power, within their each separately granted elsewhere powers, "...to enforce by appropriate..."?

5. Secrecy! This is a thorny one. I see more abuse in it's use:

• Every secret weapon of mass destruction "development" was classified secret, yet each was know to "enemies" who got them, before we could even know of them.
• There is a gaming strategy "within the beltway" and perhaps everywhere, to "leak secrets"with no fear, when it is politically in the interest of some special interest, either within or without (yes I mean both meanings) government.
• It has gone so far as to limit the actionable information that our "representatives" have at hand to make decisions as our representatives, by the artifice of selecting only a few of Congress to have these types of information. That's not full representation of We the people!
• Many a dirty deed has been fully and nefariously done, and effectively "buried from public knowledge" by this "secrecy mantle". How does anyone do anything for us without having full open knowledge of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? They simply cannot! So in these regimes, we have only non-Constitutionality!