Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

387

28th Amendment: Repeal 1. All prior amendments to the Constitution of The Untied States of America, save the ratified version of amendments 1-10 known as the Bill Of Rights, are hereby repealed. 2. All federal law, statute, regulation, and guidance based upon dispute, consideration, or adjudication of repealed amendments is hereby voided. 3. This amendment explicitly does not exclude any repealed amendment from being re-proposed pursuant to article V of the Constitution of The United States of America. 3a. Re-Ratification of a repealed amendment will in no circumstance re-institute any federal law, statute, regulation or guidance without proper procedure and oversight. 4. Pursuant to the 10th amendment, this amendment explicitly takes no action in regard to any state law, statute, regulation, or guidance resulting from dispute, consideration, or adjudication of repealed amendments.

29th Amendment: Citizenship 1. A citizen of the United States of America is hereby defined as a person born within the borders of the United States of America, its provinces or territories, to two native born or naturalized citizens of the United States of America. 2. All non citizens residing within the borders of the United States of America, its provinces or territories, without legal abeyance shall be forthwith returned to the their land of heritage or the nearest foreign sovereign locality not sharing more than a single border with the United States of America.

30th Amendment: Voting 1. Each household shall submit a single citizen elector of the age of majority to participate in person in federal elections. 1a. (define a household. If your dad/brother/friend moves in because he got laid off/hurt/whatever does he lose his vote? I don’t quite have the language for this one.) 1b. Each household elector shall present photo identification certified by either state or federal authorities of the state in which the citizen resides. 2. No person holding dual citizenship shall be permitted to submit a vote in a federal election or hold federal office.

31st Amendment: Economy 1. The currency of the United States of America shall be backed, without exception, by physical holdings of precious metals. 1a. A recorded audit of the physical holdings shall be made every five (5) years and such recordings shall be made available to citizens by simple petition. 2. The federal government shall collect no tax, levy, or fee of any kind upon the income, property, or assets of an individual citizen of the United States of America. 3. The federal government shall issue an annual budget report that extends no further than the end of the current term of the current administration.

28th Amendment: Repeal 1. All prior amendments to the Constitution of The Untied States of America, save the ratified version of amendments 1-10 known as the Bill Of Rights, are hereby repealed. 2. All federal law, statute, regulation, and guidance based upon dispute, consideration, or adjudication of repealed amendments is hereby voided. 3. This amendment explicitly does not exclude any repealed amendment from being re-proposed pursuant to article V of the Constitution of The United States of America. 3a. Re-Ratification of a repealed amendment will in no circumstance re-institute any federal law, statute, regulation or guidance without proper procedure and oversight. 4. Pursuant to the 10th amendment, this amendment explicitly takes no action in regard to any state law, statute, regulation, or guidance resulting from dispute, consideration, or adjudication of repealed amendments. 29th Amendment: Citizenship 1. A citizen of the United States of America is hereby defined as a person born within the borders of the United States of America, its provinces or territories, to two native born or naturalized citizens of the United States of America. 2. All non citizens residing within the borders of the United States of America, its provinces or territories, without legal abeyance shall be forthwith returned to ~~the~~ their land of heritage or the nearest ~~foreign~~ sovereign locality not sharing more than a single border with the United States of America. 30th Amendment: Voting 1. Each household shall submit a single citizen elector of the age of majority to participate in person in federal elections. 1a. (define a household. If your dad/brother/friend moves in because he got laid off/hurt/whatever does he lose his vote? I don’t quite have the language for this one.) 1b. Each household elector shall present photo identification certified by ~~either state or federal~~ authorities of the state in which the citizen resides. 2. No person holding dual citizenship shall be permitted to submit a vote in a federal election or hold federal office. 31st Amendment: Economy 1. The currency of the United States of America shall be backed, without exception, by physical holdings of precious metals. 1a. A recorded audit of the physical holdings shall be made every five (5) years and such recordings shall be made available to citizens by simple petition. 2. The federal government shall collect no tax, levy, or fee of any kind upon the income, property, or assets of an individual citizen of the United States of America. 3. The federal government shall issue an annual budget report that extends no further than the end of the current term of the current administration.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (32).
[–] • 0 pt

Voting is NOT a right. Get out of the United States if you think it is, i it isn't.

No democracy...

Okay then voting isn't a right. A right is something which is not discernible among differences in people. If X group has this citizen ability but Y group does not, it's not a right. Then it's a privilege. The reason being is obvious as fuck but... I dunno man, go back to school: voting isn't a right. The moment you treat voting as a right it starts morphing into a (((right))) by way of subverting the definition of those who are allowed such right. The moment you restrict the "right" you've already admitted that it's not a right (White, Male, property owner). You can see this now and for the last century with the 2nd (and to a lesser extent but more rapidly apparent the 1st) in how it's slowly restricted more, and more, and more. While the 2nd is a God-given right, it isn't seen as such by the jews in power and it's not treated as such. The second amendment ceased being a right (in effect, not actuality) 1939 with Miller V US.

[–] • 1 pt

I follow you. I try to base my political thinking in Natural Law Theory; what I can do takes nothing away from others. My owning a gun has no impact on your owning or not owning a gun. My speaking, believing, or associating has no impact upon your speaking, believing, or associating. Voting is a construct of government and is therefore not a right but a privilege that should be reserved to citizens as defined in my original thought. Where I was falling short was in the discrimination. You say White land owners. I wonder about situations like my own. I own my house, not the land it's built on. My sister and brother-in-law live with me because we like each other and the easing of living expense. He's reasonably educated and thinks for himself. We don't always agree but, as you and I have here, we can articulate our differences and appreciate the others point of view even if neither of us is swayed. Who votes?

Your argument is that I vote because I own the house. I have trouble with that because he's a rational individual with a mind of his own. He may be swayed by input from my sister but so might I be by a wife (we're none of us perfect). It seems to me that there should be some way of sorting out what a "household" is when selecting an elector that might probe deeper than a residential address.

That last sentence is retarded. You can't probe deeper without granting intrusive powers to either the state or federal government. I'm just not sure how else to look at it.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Voting is a construct of government and is therefore not a right but a privilege that should be reserved to citizens as defined in my original thought.

Make up your fucking mind. You just said "Voting is indeed a right. Without that right..." Now you agree and say it's not a right but a privilege?

Where I was falling short was in the discrimination. You say White land owners. I wonder about situations like my own. I own my house, not the land it's built on.

So you aren't a property owner but are in some weird agreement from which you need to resolve a parcel of property as yours in whichever method they're agreeable to.

My sister and brother-in-law live with me because we like each other and the easing of living expense.

So they own the property, you own a building on it - the residence - there's still a deed and depending on how you've said it up there could be or are two deeds and a type of lease contract. (I'm not familiar with property law so that's as far as I can go) The person with whom the lease is named is the property owner. Done. Your situation is invalid for the theoretical which has been presented. We're working in a world where things are far past bting "fixed" and damage is now being repaired. Corner cases, extreme, will abound in all things and they must not be taken into account as that creates many gray areas of potential abuse by those with ulterior motives.

Your argument is that I vote because I own the house.

No. I've said "house" a single time many comments ago with reference to predditors outward and vocal frustrations but I made sure to clarify that it was "" so as to differentiate between (((HOA))) type planned housing groups etc.

He may be swayed by input from my sister but so might I be by a wife (we're none of us perfect).

Eh good... ish. That's the intent of the male voting and the wife being subservient to the man but who still has a marital dialogue with.

It seems to me that there should be some way of sorting out what a "household" is when selecting an elector that might probe deeper than a residential address.

Why? We are in a theoretical reality presented by you in which the entirety of Federal law and the constitution itself is upended. In such a circumstance one can only base their dialogue from social, familial, cultural etc. are all also upended. With the nature of the context being one of "fix" and "positive" it also must be assume that the additional contexts (prior listed) are also moving in a similar direction. Under such viewings it can only be further assumed that these corner case, lesser situations you outline are not only ignorable, but fixed so as they just don't happen. When they do, if they do then these cases are populated by individuals who understand that their situations don't dicated and shouldn't dictate the whole.

White Property-owning Male

That last sentence is retarded. You can't probe deeper without granting intrusive powers to either the state or federal government. I'm just not sure how else to look at it.

While the 2nd is a God-given right, it isn't seen as such by the jews in power and it's not treated as such. The second amendment ceased being a right (in effect, not actuality) 1939 with Miller V US.

??? How? I never asserted that probing deeper was either necessary or good. I don't understand what's retarded about a statement of fact. US V Miller happened in 1939 (fact) was the first 2nd amendment case ever (fact) and was an infringement on the 2nd (fact).

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Make up your fucking mind. You just said "Voting is indeed a right. Without that right..." Now you agree and say it's not a right but a privilege?

You made an argument that made me give further thought and I tried to explain why my mind was changed. Fuck off.

Where I was falling short was in the discrimination. You say White land owners. I wonder about situations like my own. I own my house, not the land it's built on.

So you aren't a property owner but are in some weird agreement from which you need to resolve a parcel of property as yours in whichever method they're agreeable to.

I don't know your situation but last I checked here in the wonderful land of US-rent-to-never-own if you don't front a large amount of money to purchase mineral and water rights for the property you "bought" you're shit out of luck; you don't own that land. Just the privilege of building on it. In a city or town you may not even have the option to make that purchase as the ground under your buildings is reserved for municipal use. My name is on the title to the house but, like everyone else, the city and state own the land.

Your argument is that I vote because I own the house.

No. I've said house a single time many comments ago with reference to predditors outward and vocal frustrations but I made sure to clarify...

Noted. I personally believe that the answer to an HOA is to not move into the neighborhood. At a minimum refuse to sign any covenant.

Why?

Because it's my case and I was thinking about it so took an opportunity to get some input. I thought I might gain some insight from this wonderful place that could help me see better the issue at hand. Your input is clear.

White Property-owning Male

I'm glad you took the time to delve into this with me.

e; My last sentence was retarded. I was taking the piss out of myself on that one.