EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT: NOT JUST FOR CONSERVATIVES

[EWACampaign]

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "...all men are created equal." As you know, the equality of "all men," as formally approved in the Declaration by the Congress on July 4, 1776, extended only to white males who owned property. To this day, the statement--"...all men are created equal"--remains ambiguous. As conservatives, you know as well as I, if the Constitution doesn't say it, it doesn't exist. The equality of ALL citizens of the United States was not approved by the Congress in 1776 and has yet to be declared in the Constitution of the United States of America. This is the purpose of the EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT. We, as citizens of the United States, will not have equal rights extended to ALL of us until each and every citizen of the United States is recognized, Constitutionally, as an equal worth and value in self, solely on the basis of being members of the human race. Again, equal rights for ALL citizens of the United States will not occur until each and every citizen is recognized as an equal worth and value in self within the Constitution of the United States of America. This will require a Constitutional Amendment, which also includes the basic human right and basic human responsibility that follows from an explicit declaration of equality extending to each and every citizen of the United States. Perhaps one of the reasons why the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), first proposed in 1923, has yet to be adopted into the U.S. Constitution is because, mistakenly, women have not been related to as being of equal worth and value compared to men. This is one of the reasons why we need the EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT.

----------------
EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT (EWA; Revised March 12, 2005)

Section 1. It is the most irrevocable doctrine of this Constitution that each and every citizen of the United States is fundamentally of equal worth and value in self, solely on the basis of being a member of the human race, unconditionally and unexceptionally.

Section 2. Each and every citizen of the United States has the inherent and inalienable basic right to be related to as an equal worth and value in self by all other citizens.

Section 3. Each and every citizen of the United States has the inherent and inalienable basic responsibility to relate to all other citizens as of equal worth and value in themselves.

Section 4. No laws of the United States shall be considered valid if they create or perpetuate a condition in violation of the principles set forth in this article.

Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


----------------

EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT (EWA) Website: www.equalworthamendment.org

EWACampaign

[EWACampaign]

EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT (EWA): THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION

What you and I have in common is that we are both human beings--and that is why, at the very least, we are equal. In this respect, fundamentally, neither you nor I are superior or inferior to one another--we are each of equal worth and value in self; that is, solely on the basis of you and I being members of the human race. Is this fundamental stance regarding equality wrong? Yes or No? If it is wrong, please provide an alternative stance upon which our fundamental equality is based.
----------------
EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT (EWA; Revised March 12, 2005)

Section 1. It is the most irrevocable doctrine of this Constitution that each and every citizen of the United States is fundamentally of equal worth and value in self, solely on the basis of being a member of the human race, unconditionally and unexceptionally.

Section 2. Each and every citizen of the United States has the inherent and inalienable basic right to be related to as an equal worth and value in self by all other citizens.

Section 3. Each and every citizen of the United States has the inherent and inalienable basic responsibility to relate to all other citizens as of equal worth and value in themselves.

Section 4. No laws of the United States shall be considered valid if they create or perpetuate a condition in violation of the principles set forth in this article.

Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
----------------

EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT Website: www.equalworthamendment.org

EWACampaign

[Patriot]

EWA:


Well, I must admit to being impressed with your revisions. The term "American citizenry" certainly does stand a much better chance of allowing your bill to be passed than the vague phrase, "all persons".


^{What you and I have in common is that we are both human beings--and that is why, at the very least, we are equal. In this respect, fundamentally, neither you nor I are superior or inferior to one another--we are each of equal worth and value in self; that is, solely on the basis of you and I being members of the human race.}


Well, yes and no. Theoretically, all human beings are entitled to equal respect on the basis of their humanity. However, they are not all "equal" in terms of ability, endowment, accomplishment, etc. Therein lies the conundrum. A bill like this could easily be used to lay a foundation for further enhancements of affirmative action, inducing truly unqualified applicants on the basis of race or gender. Assuming that such a thing would not occur as a result of this bill, would be grossly myopic.


^{Is this fundamental stance regarding equality wrong? Yes or No? If it is wrong, please provide an alternative stance upon which our fundamental equality is based.}


I think there's room for discussion on a topic like this. Your concern that the Declaration's statement, "all men are created equal", would be invalid in today's world, seems off tilt to me. Regardless of the original audience for which Jefferson wrote, it goes without saying that America is the beacon of hope for any immigrant who comes to our shores with the true desire to contribute and work hard. The Statue of Liberty embodies that principle. If you're tough enough, you'll be able to make it. But along with that comes the responsibility to assimilate, which many of them refuse to do. Hence a gradual weakening of our American solidarity. It's a myth, really, that diversity is a strength. It's not a strength at all. Diversity of opinion leads to violence, not cooperation. It's really time to start thinking clearly, outside the context of what's "politically correct".

Having said that, I'll comment on your revisions thus far:


^{Section 1. It is the most irrevocable doctrine of this Constitution that each and every citizen of the United States is fundamentally of equal worth and value in self, solely on the basis of being a member of the human race, unconditionally and unexceptionally.}


No, that isn't going to fly in the House of Reps. The first sentence is first of all false. It is not the "most irrevocable" doctrine of the Constitution that all persons are of equal worth. The most irrevocable doctrine of the Constitution is checks and balances.

What you're trying to do isn't to pass a bill per se, but rather, to embark into the realm of Constitutional revisionism.


^{Section 2. Each and every citizen of the United States has the inherent and inalienable basic right to be related to as an equal worth and value in self by all other citizens.}


That Section looks good.


^{Section 3. Each and every citizen of the United States has the inherent and inalienable basic responsibility to relate to all other citizens as of equal worth and value in themselves.}


This section is redundant of the previous section. If section 2 passes, there will be no need for Section 3. So, you'll have to cut this one.


^{Section 4. No laws of the United States shall be considered valid if they create or perpetuate a condition in violation of the principles set forth in this article.}


Absolutely not. Section 4 will not pass. Security laws and/or policies currently allow for racial profiling by law enforcement on a legitimate basis. For instance, we wouldn't expect a Mexican of being an Al Quaeda member, whereas we have an obligation to keep suspicious Arabs under our watch. Those Arabs could easily cite Section 4 of your bill to eliminate this racial profiling, which would, in turn, expose this nation to greater threats from the outside.


^{Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.}

That would go without saying, if the bill ultimately passes (which it will not, I assure you). Therefore, you'd have to cut Section 5.

So far, the only real substance which stands a chance of serious perusal by legislators is Section 2. But in and of itself, Section 2 is material for a civic act, not a Constitutional amendment per se.

I'll be looking forward to your next post.

[midcan5]

Suppose we all considered the worth of the other equally? Would it possible that was not always a good thing. A contractor wants to do a job who do they select if they are forced to consider all equally. The girl wants to go to the dance, several guys ask her but she views them all equally. But the amendment author will argue they can still select. Are there situations in which it is merit and not equal worth that is desirable. We are flying over the Pacific and an engine goes out. As I look at our constitution I wonder if this has not all been said before, at least the good parts.

the devil's advocate

[TNRighty]

I agree Medican.

Only the law is constitutionally obligated to treat you equally and fairly. Outside of the law, no legislation can guarantee you equal treatment by others. Some people will respect you and treat you fairly. Others will not. However, your own actions and behavior will largely dictate the way people treat you.

A person's judgement is his own and not subject to the law. The law however is above the personal opinion of the people. Thats why we live in a country ruled by law, not the majority. The law will treat you fairly regardless of how repugnant you are. I didn't say the law will be kind to you, only that it will be fair.

Our laws cannot tell people how to treat you, rather they exist to protect you legally from the opinions others have toward you. That is why man cannot be above the law.

[Patriot]

EWA:


Just for novelty and my own edification, I'm going to revise your amendment toward what I feel would fall within the constitutional framework.

First, though, I take issue with this paragraph on your website:


^{In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "...all men are created equal." As you know, the equality of "all men," as formally approved in the Declaration by the Congress on July 4, 1776, extended only to white males who owned property. To this day, the statement--"...all men are created equal"--remains ambiguous.}


Not so. In context, Jefferson's quote reads, "we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Yes, Jefferson owned slaves, but slavery was a human (not divine) invention. Jefferson was therefore careful to keep his wording relevant to the divine sphere.

Furthermore, if you really want to take that statement apart, let's look at the following terms used by Jefferson:


1. Self Evident: this term was actually submitted by Benjamin Franklin to replace Jefferson's original wording, "sacred and undeniable" in that phrase. Note, however, that what manifests itself via self-evidence, doesn't add up to "equality" per se. Men are "created" equal, as in, born equal. They do not, however, live or die equal.

2. All men: This hearkens back to John Locke's philosophy, and connotes all participative citizens. True, only white landowners were participative citizens in Jefferson's day, but that doesn't override the fact that participative citizenry is the underlying motif of "all men".

3. Created Equal: Again, take note of the word "created". This reflects the Divine, as is evidenced by the following phrase, "endowed by their Creator". "Created" indicates a beginning. Tying all this together, therefore, we have something along the following lines: all participative citizens are born equal. That doesn't mean, though, that all citizens remain equal.

4. Endowed by their Creator: Not endowed by any government! It is God which fore-ordains the "inalienable rights" which each man deserves, according to Jefferson. These divine rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

5. Certain Inalienable Rights: not "limitless" inalienable rights. Despite being an anti-federalist, Jefferson is careful to keep a cap on freedom so that it doesn't run amok and implode the experiment in democracy.


The job of the government, continues Jefferson, is to secure these rights, but not instill them. Because the government secures, and does not instill, it becomes clear that Jefferson's primary concern was for the citizens of the United States. Thus, the USA is but a single government which secures/protects divine rights for a select group of people, namely, its own citizens! And, the denial of God is a denial of these rights-- provided, in Jefferson's own words, by the Creator! That summons a whole new perspective on the matter.

Now, in concert with a true Constitutional understanding, allow me to revise your proposed amendment along the lines espoused by the Founders:


^{EWA's Original Section 1. It is the most irrevocable doctrine of this Constitution that each and every citizen of the United States is fundamentally of equal worth and value in self, solely on the basis of being a member of the human race, unconditionally and unexceptionally} .


Patriot's Revision Section 1: All citizens of the United States, whether born or naturalized, are entitled to the rights afforded by the Constitution on the basis of their citizenship.


^{EWA's Original Section 2. Each and every citizen of the United States has the inherent and inalienable basic right to be related to as an equal worth and value in self by all other citizens.}


Patriot's Revision Section 2. All citizens of the United States have the inherent right to be treated with dignity, undiscriminated against on the basis of race, religion, or gender.


^{EWA's Original Section 3. Each and every citizen of the United States has the inherent and inalienable basic responsibility to relate to all other citizens as of equal worth and value in themselves.}


Patriot's Revision Section 3. Cut this section as it is redundant of Section 2.


^{EWA's Original Section 4. No laws of the United States shall be considered valid if they create or perpetuate a condition in violation of the principles set forth in this article.}


Patriot's Revision Section 4: Cut this section as it brings into play too many loopholes.

[EWACampaign]

EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT: “The Fundamental Human Rights Amendment”<br>
Many have questioned, “What is their agenda?”<br>
We believe our agenda to be the same one that every intelligent, honest, and thinking American could consider as a goal for our country:

1. Admit that "…all men are created equal" is an ambiguous statement—in need of clarification. (Always has been and still is. As such, it has been and remains subject to prejudiced and unjust interpretations.).

2. The Equal Worth Amendment (EWA) is a clarification.

3. Persons may agree with the EWA clarification or else have—and share—an alternative clarification.

Equal Worth Amendment (EWA) Website: www.equalworthamendment.org
EWA E-Mail Address: [e-mail]

EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT (EWA; Revised: March 23, 2005)

Section 1. Every person is fundamentally of equal worth and value in self, solely on the basis of being a member of the human race, unconditionally and unexceptionally.

Section 2. Every person has the inherent and inalienable basic right to be related to as an equal worth and value in self by all other persons.

Section 3. Every person has the complimentary inherent and inalienable basic responsibility to relate to all other persons as of equal worth and value in themselves.

Section 4. Those realities that are not persons (i.e., not human beings) are not entitled to the same rights as persons.

Section 5. No laws of the United States shall be considered valid if they create or perpetuate a condition in violation of the principles set forth in this article.

[groucho]

EWACampaign said:

EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT: “The Fundamental Human Rights Amendment”<br>
Many have questioned, “What is their agenda?”<br>
We believe our agenda to be the same one that every intelligent, honest, and thinking American could consider as a goal for our country:

1. Admit that "…all men are created equal" is an ambiguous statement—in need of clarification. (Always has been and still is. As such, it has been and remains subject to prejudiced and unjust interpretations.).

2. The Equal Worth Amendment (EWA) is a clarification.

3. Persons may agree with the EWA clarification or else have—and share—an alternative clarification.

Equal Worth Amendment (EWA) Website: www.equalworthamendment.org
EWA E-Mail Address: [e-mail]

EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT (EWA; Revised: March 23, 2005)

Section 1. Every person is fundamentally of equal worth and value in self, solely on the basis of being a member of the human race, unconditionally and unexceptionally.

Section 2. Every person has the inherent and inalienable basic right to be related to as an equal worth and value in self by all other persons.

Section 3. Every person has the complimentary inherent and inalienable basic responsibility to relate to all other persons as of equal worth and value in themselves.

Section 4. Those realities that are not persons (i.e., not human beings) are not entitled to the same rights as persons.

Section 5. No laws of the United States shall be considered valid if they create or perpetuate a condition in violation of the principles set forth in this article.

;D ;D ;D

[Patriot]

rofl!

Groucho, you adorable little kitten of the Third Reich, those revolving spam-burgers add an inexpressible touch to your overall mystique.

[groucho]

Patriot said:

rofl!

Groucho, you adorable little kitten of the Third Reich, those revolving spam-burgers add an inexpressible touch to your overall mystique.

Just doing my bit for "the cause," whatever that is.......

BTW - I'll wager my Spamburgers will last EONS longer than EWA's "meat by-products!" ;D

[groucho]

EWACampaign said:

EQUAL WORTH AMENDMENT (EWA): THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION

we are each of equal worth and value in self; that is, solely on the basis of you and I being members of the human race. Is this fundamental stance regarding equality wrong? Yes or No? If it is wrong, please provide an alternative stance upon which our fundamental equality is based.

Why don't you go ask Terri Schaivo that question, you stupid a s s hole!!!!

[TNRighty]

EWA,

I don't doubt that your little project is done with only good in mind, but nontheless it borders on assinity.

First of all. How do you suppose to enforce your little ammendment. Laws mean nothing if you can't enforce them. Whats the penalty of calling my coworker a horse's ass? If I call my uncle an immature idiot what are you going to do about it? Will my boss go to jail if he fires the least productive employee. If my work is unequal to that of my coworker, under your law will I receive the same bonus?

Back to your law.

Section 1. Every person is fundamentally of equal worth and value in self, solely on the basis of being a member of the human race, unconditionally and unexceptionally.

Under God every person is fundamentally of equal worth, but government is not God and cannot legislate that you be treated equally by other people. Besides, our constitution, which is rooted in the belief that our rights and freedom come from a higher power, has already protected your right to be treated equally by the law. By people, NO.

Section 2. Every person has the inherent and inalienable basic right to be related to as an equal worth and value in self by all other persons.

You have no right to be treated equally by others nor are you obligated to treat everyone the same, and no law can force it. On earth, if you make $1,000,000 a year, people will treat you differently than if you live in a box on Main St, but the law will treat you the same. The law will also put a millionaire in jail if he cooks the books.

Section 3. Every person has the complimentary inherent and inalienable basic responsibility to relate to all other persons as of equal worth and value in themselves.

See previous responses.

Section 4. Those realities that are not persons (i.e., not human beings) are not entitled to the same rights as persons.

Thanks for clarifying that. For a minute there I thought killing a snake was the same as killing a person.

Section 5. No laws of the United States shall be considered valid if they create or perpetuate a condition in violation of the principles set forth in this article.

AWESOME! So, if I pay 21% of my income in taxes and the bum down the street pays 3%, do I have a case under your equal treatment ammendment? If you interpret Section 5 by the letter of the law I do. I am not being treated equally by the laws of our income tax code and it is thus invalid. I think I support you now.

Thanks EWA, I'm gonna call my congressman and ask him to support your utterly rediculous, completely assinine, constitutionally devoid, unbelieveably ignorant pipe dream of impossibly enforceable legislation.

And people thing conservatives legislate morality!