Q&A: ON THE RISK OF ALTERING THE CONSTITUTION
—“A question about introducing any deviation that has to do with the Constitution or laws. Can the changes be distorted or used for so-called evil or watch what you ask for sometimes you get it. One example. A right to open carry firearms sounds good but what if all the criminals open carry firearms sometimes it’s a double-edged sword. Any thoughts.”—
There are about six deep holes in the constiutuion because it was concerned with government, not the use of common law within the government. That’s why the bill of rights were an afterthought. P-Law is ‘strictly constructed law”. It fixes those holes in the constitution. The changes harden the constitution’s so that it’s almost impossible to ‘interpret’ rather than ‘apply’ the law. You can see my post on those six problems here:
As for the ‘loss of rights and obligations, we handle that elsewhere. Solving that problem was changing our law from being concerned with the duration of punishment (infraction, misdemeanor, felony, treason, to disambiguate predatory crimes of violence from crimes of passion, from non-violent crimes. Only predatory crimes should cause the loss of right to bear arms. This prevents the ‘criminalization’ of non-crimes in order to deprive people of rights.
This ties into the protection of marriage.s students of the empirical revolution, the agrarian revolution, the commercial revolution, and the enlightenment, our American civilization was architected and designed upon the natural law and ru…