In 2003, a group of parents presented an amendment to the constitution that would allow authorities to incarcerate for life any individual found guilty of sexual crimes. Under certain conditions, e.g. murder in conjunction with a sexual crime, high probability of a repeat offence, or refusal to admit guilt, courts may hand out life sentences. These life sentences are not open to later reviews, revisions, or acts of mercy.

After presenting it, the group of parents had nine months to collect 100,000 signatures from voters who approved to vote on it. They managed this easily, and therefore the amendment went on popular vote in 2004. Government and parliament spent months talking against it, but still the voters passed it into effect with a comfortable 58 per cent majority of votes.

In 2006, a group of parents presented an amendment which would allow prosecuting paedophile crimes irrespectively of lapsed time. The 100,000 signatures were duly collected within the limitation of nine months, and government and parliament started talking against this new amendment at the same time. But unlike any other country, voters in Switzerland cannot be ignored.

Yesterday, the tally showed 52 per cent of Swiss voters for the tough approach. This will mean that all offenders into paedophile crimes face a lifetime of uncertainty as they could be apprehended any time in the future and have no way to evade prosecution. One should hope that more countries will adopt stringent legislation against all paedophile crimes and their committers.

As Switzerland is prosecuting crimes worldwide, this will mean that paedophiles of all nationalities accused anywhere in the world can be prosecuted the moment they touch Swiss ground.

The amendment encompasses all crimes against children, not only sexual abuse but any kind of abuse.

Hon. Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State 13 November 2008
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Rice,

I respectfully request that you do not certify the votes of the electors from Maryland in the Electoral College unless and until you are satisfied, that Barack Obama is a lawful and eligible candidate to be President of the United States.

You may wish to obtain answers to following four questions:

1. Did Barack Obama travel to Pakistan in 1981?

2. If so, did he use an Indonesian passport to enter Pakistan?

3. If Obama entered Pakistan on an Indonesian passport at age 20, did he subsequently take the oath of allegiance to regain his U.S. citizenship before a diplomatic or consular officer or the Attorney General, or the Judge or Clerk of a U.S. Court?

4. If Obama did reclaim his U.S. citizenship after his visit to Pakistan in 1981, are there records of that fact at any embassy, legation, consulate, or Court, or in the Offices of the Attorney General to verify that occurrence?

I am a citizen of the United States, a voter in the state of {your state} I would be directly harmed if the Presidential election was inconsistent with Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, and I seek redress of this grievance under Amendment I of the U.S. Constitution. There is no special harm to me separate from or beyond the injury to any other American voter by having a corrupted and fraudulent nomination, election, and inauguration process. I do not have any special direct personal injury such as might give me standing to pursue these questions in a Federal Court. I only have my faith and reliance on you, as an honest person, who wants to do her duty as the official that certifies the results of the Electoral College process. I'm not asking that all the electors be disqualified if the above questions can't be answered, just the ones from my own state of {your state}.

Very Sincerely,

{your name}

We kidnap foreign nationals and transport them to an American holding facility. We imprison them without charges, torture them into self-incrimination, and subject them to trial without representation. We justify this breach of contract with the Constitution by declaring them potential terrorists and prisoners of war.

We hold these people responsible for actions that may or may not be crimes in the United States, but are not crimes in their own countries. We break into their homes and hold their children hostage at gunpoint against their willing surrender. We never tell them why. We simply terrorize and torture them into confessing some imagined event.

Are you seeing the Shadow of the Holocaust in this vision or maybe the nightmare of Hussein’s prisons or the rampage of the Khmer Rouge?

This is Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, America’s own Bastille. We are so ashamed of its presence that we cannot bring ourselves to allow it within the borders of our nation. We hide it away in a Naval Base leased from a foreign nation. We deny these prisoners the basic human rights we agreed to in the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War.

As Americans, I ask, how can we allow this to continue? As free people, why are we not protesting this? As families, why are we not outraged?

Since the election, I have heard people raising their voices either for or against Mr. Obama as president. I call on the American People to raise those voices against the continued existence of the Concentration Camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Be accountable for it and request, no demand, its closing. Return the prisoners to their homes with just compensation. If you can shout out against an elected official then you can scream out against this travesty. Do it.

‘Safety First’ is another way of saying ‘Freedom Second’. We have the chance now to say ‘Freedom First’, and we can prove we mean it by freeing the illegally held prisoners of Gitmo.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Fifty two words, two hundred and seventy six letters and it has been the byline for two centuries. Let's look at it.

We the people of the United States,

This phrase defines who this law applies to, the people of the United States. This means every natural born or naturalized American. I personally believe that it conditionally applies to those who have petitioned for residency here and have been granted that status. The one exception here is the right to vote or hold elective office as they are clearly defined for citizens. Although I have serious doubts about the legality of many of our restrictive immigration laws I am not as free with the guarantees and protections of the constitution to those who are not covered under this umbrella. The Mexican that wishes to immigrate should be allowed to do so as much as some of the peoples from the "oppressive" countries and at the point he gains the right to that residency he has those protections. But if he slips across the border illegally he has no legal protection and can be shipped back or jailed. Likewise we should be able to refuse entry to those who are problems. I am very sensitive to allowing sanctuary for the oppressed. I think it is refused all too often. But that sanctuary was abused by some. Many who came here with the Cuban boat lift were good people who were seeking a better life. More than a few were hardened common criminals fresh from the Cuban jails, people who had killed and stolen and would have been in jail here had the acts been done here. These were turned loose on our society because we extended habeas corpus to the illegal alien for the purpose of entering. This is not saying the illegal alien could not be redeemed and thus allowed to stay but the illegal immigrant should be detained until we have time to check them out. There should be no time limit on this checking but they should be free to leave detention to return to their own country at any time - under escort of course. And this process, although it must be thorough, must be done with reasonable dispatch.

in order to form a more perfect union,

The founding fathers were trying to bring these states together as a nation. They recognized the foreign forces that would have been able to overwhelm the states individually. They saw the patchwork of Europe and the fragmentation that led to continual wars. This must be avoided in the New World. If there were ever an attempt at a new world order it was then. As one we are strong. One in spirit, not necessarily always agreeing, but always together in basic goals. And if we doubt their wisdom in the matter or the validity of their acts, look to the past. The bloodiest war ever fought on this continent was not fought against outsiders but when we were divided. But today there are forces that would divide us. It is not along lines like the Mason Dixon but along lines of race, color, national origin and the like. There are those who want to be a part of America but they want to be a separate part. They are what I call the hyphenated Americans. There is nothing in the constitution that provides for a -American, only an American. And a -American is a minus American which is less than an American by their own choice. There is an old saying, "America, get your heart in it or get out." I say this to those who would divide. There are worse, the politicians who would divide for personal gain. These are despicable.

establish justice,

Since time began tyrants and petty despots have heaped injustice on peoples. And the government this document created is not perfect. Slavery was part of the original charter. Women were not permitted to participate in the political process. Participation for males depended on land ownership. But over the years it has evolved. The road has not been smooth. The journey has been slow and difficult. It took nearly a century and four years of bloody warfare to emancipate the slaves. It took another century to begin to loose many other bonds. But the path is there and we are on it. I believe we will never reach it but I just want us to be closer every day, striving for that better life for every citizen.

insure domestic tranquility,

Our forefathers had a view of the feudal system and the states in Europe. Without internal peace, we would have continual boarder disputes. But for 4 terrible years of our two hundred and forty we have generally had peace internally. We learned a lesson in those years that Europe has not learned in 800 years. Even with a working model to follow the new world order of Europe, the European Union is struggling. Our founding fathers saw this through a glass darkly and went for it.

provide for the common defense,

What if an outside power decided to invade Pennsylvania or Florida? The central government was charged with providing for the defense of all because an invasion of Pennsylvania or Florida was an invasion of the United States. Today we have some that would strip the power of the president to defend our nation for political gain. We have those who know little of history pressing ideas that will cause us to repeat the mistakes of the past. Their statements sound good. "Let's not interfere in the affairs of other nations." "We can't be the policeman." But they are just veiled statements of the past that brought us two world wars. And worse, some of those who want to make us a third rate nation are in the halls of government and evens some are seeking the highest office of the land.

promote the general welfare,

The government is not committed to the good of a few, but to all. It is not committed to the good of a few at the expense of many. General welfare means all of us benefit. It is not passing laws so that some profit at the expense of others.

and insure the blessings of liberty

Liberty is a right, insured by the constitution. But it is considered by the framers as also as a blessing. And it is. But with liberty comes responsibility. When freedom becomes anarchy it is false.

to ourselves and to our posterity

The framers were not selfish. This blessing, although for them, was for those to come. They were creating it but they also saw the need to nurture it and pass it on.

do ordain and establish this constitution of the United States of America.

What have liberal politicians done with this? Used it as bathroom tissue…

The strongest argument that supporters of proposition 8 have is that Prop. 8 does not take away any rights or benefits of gay or lesbian domestic partnerships. I will admit that reading it the first time through, it made perfect sense. That is, until I read in the argument against Prop. 8 that domestic partnerships are not marriage. This forced me to re-evaluate the supporters' argument. They are correct, Prop. 8 does not interfere with domestic partnerships, but it DOES interfere with marriages of gays and lesbians, a tricky downplayer, but is easily picked apart. All of this placed me in a neutral stance toward proposition 8, considering where I stood before.

The red herring in the supporters' argument that state law may require teachers to instruct children as young as kindergarteners about marriage is what pushed me to decide that Prop. 8 was improper. The fact that Prop. 8 has anything to do with children is not even in the proposal. It is a way to scare people into voting yes on Prop. 8, not to mention the many attacks made against “Activist” Judges.

The people against Prop. 8 rely on the most concrete definition of our law. The United States Constitution. They refer to the bill of rights and argue their case from there. Although they try to use guilt when they involve healthcare, they aren't too off-topic, even straight people have trouble making decisions in the Emergency Room if they are only a domestic partner.

The rebuttals simply re-stated what was said in the arguments, only they were written more effectively as they knew exactly what to defend against. A defensive statement is much easier to make because all of the points have already been thrown on the table. This makes the argument more focused. Also, the authors should be taken into account as well. The people who fight for Prop. 8 are priests and pastors, the boy scouts, and traditional family councilors, they have always been against the gay community. The people who say no on Prop. 8 are professionals at the interpretation of law, members of the school board, as well as gay and lesbian groups and families. When it comes to who we should believe, we must see reason. We must see that if school boards are against Prop. 8, then schools obviously won't be forcing children to do anything. They are only clearing up the misconceptions brought forth by supporters of Prop. 8. Proffesionals at law even see Prop. 8 as a bad idea.

While both sides clearly used a lot of rhetoric to support their conclusions, we need to see through it and decide logically. I thought that being proved wrong would hurt. It hasn't. Making the logical decision will work for the best of the people, which is why I'm voting NO on Prop. 8.

But now in 1787 with more than ten years of experience it was needful to have a more permanent document. Men met and the dialog was not always cordial. They wanted to do it right and there were good men there with diverse ideas and some good men who refused to go because they were concerned about the outcome. This was in effect another revolution, one of words on paper. The very meeting elicited the comment from Patrick Henry that he "smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy" and he refused to attend. Rhode Island refused to send a delegation.

They finished the constitution that established the government but did not elicit enough support to be ratified. The principal reason for this failure was the inattention to individual rights. All had seen the abuses of power in Europe, repression of speech and press. Violation of the rights to bear arms, to assemble, to practice ones faith, to not be forced into self incrimination, protection from unreasonable search were rampant. They wanted these protections and they wanted them to be ingrained into the fabric of the nation's fundamental law. Hence the first ten amendments are appropriately called, "The Bill of Rights". .

But allow me to digress and show you how this may have played out behind the closed doors of the convention. On that day Norman Pelosi, the fifty sixth delegate stood and addressed Adams, Franklin and the others.

"This idea of freedom of speech and the press is way over rated. What will happen to us if people are just allowed to go out and set up a soap box on the corner of the street and criticize the government? We could be found in a place of loosing power. We need to regulate this."

"But Norman, this freedom is foundational. Without the right of free self expression there can be no freedom."

"Look Ben, this right of free self expression is way over rated. The people need to learn that we are the ones who know what is best for them and we will tell them what they should think. Without this the government may fall."

"Norman, this is what the crown and other tyrants did with us when we were colonies. How are we better than them if we do this?"

"Tom, this isn't the point. We are in power. What right do they have to tell us we should do things their way?"

"Norman, were you not here with us when we framed the preamble, "that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Don"t you see that?"

"John. Be realistic. That is good rhetoric for the masses. We have to protect themselves from their own stupidity. What if they got up and advocated you were not fit to hold your seat in government?"

"Actually some of my constituents did that last month. I was there for the meeting. After I listened to their speeches, I left somewhat humbled that I had supported a bill without reading and considering it more carefully. Before I left I asked for permission to speak and they granted it."

"You asked for permission to speak? Do these people think they have a right to criticize you publicly?"

"I felt I should ask. It was his meeting. They came to hear him, not me."

"Don't they know we are the leaders?"

"I serve. I told the leader to run against me in the next election."

"You what?"

"I told him that he should run against me in the next election. If he wins I will gladly turn my seat to him and support him in any way I can. If they do not have confidence in me, I can no longer serve them. I should step down. And I asked that till the election if they thought I was supporting something bad for them, send a rider down to tell me."

”Do you want to be unemployed?"

"Norman. I am not a professional politician. I am a landowner. I would be happy to turn my seat over to another who will properly use it so I can go home and just take care of my long neglected business. The man I told that is a good man. He would be great in government."

"John, have you lost your senses? Enough of this! We need to gain control. I want to propose some additions to Amendment 1. I have had my slaves prepare copies for each of you."

Exceptions to freedom of speech. A person can express ideas in a public place or attach handbills to public areas but if there are dissenters, his place of exposition being public property or in the public way he must relinquish that spot and allow each of them equal and comparable time to present their rebuttal. This time must not be such time as there will be less exposure for the rebuttals. If he has used any podium or platform to make himself better heard or seen it too must be relinquished to those who wish to express dissent. They must be afforded equal time and equal access and it is his responsibility to see that this right is not abridged. He must also announce clearly at the beginning and end of his speech that others have this right. These limitations do not apply to elected officials, government employees, or those who work with and for them as long as they do such in the discharge of their duties. Those expressing dissent against government policies will be subject to investigation to determine if they have committed some other infraction or treason so as to protect the government from them.

After the changes were distributed Norman looked around the room. "Can we have a vote on these changes?"

Ben looked over his glasses at Norman. "This is a joke, please tell me you jest."

"Actually it is necessary for me to be re-elected. There are those in my district that are actually asking for my recall. They are out nightly on street corners stirring up the people."

"And how will that be so bad? You could go home and run your farm."

"I have no desire to farm. I am doing well here. In fact I sold the farm several months ago and bought a home in Richmond. They claim that I did that to be away from the people I represent. Actually they are bores who want to talk of nothing but running farms, shops, businesses and hotels. They think that is more important than running government."

John looked over in amazement, his shock had temporarily taken his voice. "If we make this a part of the constitution we will be no better than the Crowns of Europe. I ask for a speedy vote. I make a motion that this addition be disallowed. Tom, what do you think?"

"I second that request."

The chair looked out, "It has been moved and seconded. As this is significant may I see a show of hands? Aye's. No's."

"The aye's have it. The motion made by the delegate from Virginia is defeated."

With that Norman Pelosi got up and stormed out. It would take tyrannical leadership nearly two hundred years to implement the "Fairness Doctrine" on the airways in the 1960's and then have it withdrawn as it had a chilling effect on freedom. At this time another N. Pelosi wants to reinitiate it to bring about a state that cannot be criticized.

Now you know why when you read the Constitution of the United States there are 55 signers, not 56 and Norman Pelosi is not among the names.

Both of these people are wrong however, not so much about the slavery issue, but about the interpretation of the US constitution. I am by no means a Constitutional lawyer, all I know is all of graduate history research and my pocket constitution guide.

Slavery was never in the US Constitution. It was the absence of any law stating for or against slavery that caused the confusion and made the addition of the 13th and 14th admenment. The US Constituin (minus the admenments) is just a document that states how the government is to be arranged and the requirements for each branch. It is the admenments attached to the Constitution that dictates federal law.

For instance in the issue of slavery the argument was that the slave owning states declared that human beings were PROPERTY. Therefore right to own properity is protected by the US Constitution. It took the 13th admenment added after the Civil War to establish owning another human being as illegal. Then the argument was when slave owners demanded reperations for properity (slaves) that were confiscated by the US Government. This in turn took the 14th admenment.

The states then tried to stop blacks from voting, this is turn took the addition of the 15th amendment.
No one, the United States founding fathers included could have forseen the interpretation of the US Constitution this way. Now I know that people such as Washington and Jefferson owned slaves. Jefferson released his slaves after he died.
This is the problem when people say they want strick constitutional lawyers or liberal court judges. None are right.

This is another argument with the Roe VS. Wade aportion argument.

Affirmative action was meant to correct past oppressions of minorities and women, but the way this is accomplished is not fair. Our country is about equal opportunity, but affirmative action forces equality of outcome (“Affirmative” New). The policy creates an unfair advantage for minorities and women. Affirmative action is “turnabout” it oppresses whites, especially males, to correct past mistakes, mistakes that were made before our generation (Yates). So I ask, is it right to force people who had no control over the situation to give up jobs and admittance to colleges? Is it right to punish people for their ancestors’ wrong doings (Yates)? This is what affirmative action does.

Affirmative action is most prevalent in college admissions. College applications contradict themselves; they start by saying that race, sex, and religion will not be considered in the admissions process, but then later say that if you are black or Hispanic it may help you get into the university. For instance, the University of Michigan rewards 20 extra points out of a perfect score of 150 to black and Hispanic students just for being a minority. This is judgment based on race, the same thing the program claims to be fighting and protecting against (“Affirmative” New).

The Constitution gives rights to individuals, not to groups. This is because America has the concept that “we are all a minority of one,” but affirmative action takes the American way of individualism and places people into stereotypical groups (“Affirmative” Hoover). These groups, however, do not make sense because not everyone is the same just because their skin color or sex is the same (Yates). We are all equals, and as equals shouldn’t white males have the same “civil rights” and “equal treatment” as women and minorities (“Affirmative” Hoover)?

Martin Luther King Jr. once spoke the words “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” (Vaughn). Affirmative action does just the opposite. Minorities are given an advantage because of their skin color. Affirmative action furthers prejudices by creating an inferior view of minorities; it implies that certain people can not succeed without help (Vaughn). This implication allows for more prejudices; it makes whites and Asians believe that all minorities are where they are solely because of help (“Affirmative” New). Affirmative action takes the competitive edge away from minorities. Stripping this “competitive instinct” from minorities and women ruins the “self-confidence in one’s ability” to succeed (“Affirmative” Hoover). Defenders of affirmative action argue that there is still a high need for the policy because of the discrimination against minorities and women in “upper management positions,” but the truth is that the companies often hold the prejudices against these minorities because of affirmative action (“Affirmative” Hoover). They believe that these individuals “have limited capacity and cannot succeed without” the benefits of the program (“Affirmative” Hoover). The result of affirmative action is “cynicism” and “resentment” (“Affirmative” New).

Discriminations of all kinds need to be eliminated, but affirmative action is not the way to do it. The program is “both insulting and reverse discrimination in its purest form” (Vaughn). Affirmative action is a ‘direct threat” to the equality that defines America as a nation (“Affirmative” Hoover). Affirmative action ruins our founding fathers hope of a nation with equality for all (“Affirmative” Hoover). Affirmative action “directly contradicts Dr. King’s dream” of a nation that does not judge by color (Vaughn). Affirmative action is an unfair system in which some people must work hard and have talent and some succeed because of their race or sex (“Affirmative” New). This policy needs to be eliminated so our nation can truly be a nation that sees past color and gender. We need to stop race and sex bases preferences, we need to ensure equal opportunity for everyone, but we do not need to ensure equal outcome.

For those ancient, tenured bench potatoes who have nothing better to do in their lives than to sit and pour over the semantics of words and the intentions of the builders of our Constitution, these nearly-senile old men have cornered every citizen of the United States of America into living by a Constitution that does not grow with the times and is stuck back in the age when we pulled out the big guns when someone we didn't like crossed our path.

We can now thank them for our paranoia as we eyeball everyone around us in fear that a gun-weilding freak may be stalking us or a trigger-happy nut on the highway slammers a battery of bullets into us with a 22-caliber. Thank you very much, old men with the Texas ranger fetish, for declaring the possession of firearms to be legal and the "right" of every citizen and for making us all feel so safe. Exactly what kind of insanity is running rampant through our justice system? And, why are we tolerating it?

America is getting lost in semantics over a Constitution that is being interpreted by men as old as it is. It's time for more than just a change of men running the White House. It's time for us to bid the justices of the Supreme Court farewell after a short, sweet tenure where they cannot hold this country back from civilized progress just because they have outlived their sanity and interpret ancient words so very literally without regard to the passing of time.

We need new blood in our justice system - people who are unafraid to kick ass and say "no" to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and to stand up for the real rights of the people! It's time to really evaluate the Constitutional words so that those words have meaning for today's citizens. It's time we put the justices in their place - out to pasture - when they get too old to have the proper vision for progress. And, it's time we give the lobbying NRA factions their just due: a boot in the ass!

Our government has shown that it believes murder is cruel and unusual by making it a capital crime, and worthy of the highest punishments our country can give. If we feel so strongly that murder is inhumane, utterly barbaric, and wrong in every sense of the word, why do we sanction it? Many would argue that the people who receive the death penalty have committed such terrible crimes that they deserve it. This type of thinking is extremely immature and significantly holds us back from making a more humane government. Revenge is a terrible thing, and should not be the motive of government actions. If someone is sent to jail for the rest of their lives it doesn't put the public at any more risk because they will be in their for life and will never have the chance to kill again. This being true the only reason we would give someone the death penalty is to satisfy our own primitive desire to see a person we hate die.

Others would argue that using the death penalty will make people refrain from committing crimes, however this logic is also flawed. Life in prison is one of the worst fates that could be given to someone. If the daunting prospect of spending the rest of your life in a cage doesn't prevent you from committing a crime nothing will. Killing capital crime offenders will not scare people into obedience, rather it will create a circle of violence between the American government and its people. For these reasons I strongly believe that we should not kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong.