USC Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
NAC Article II, Section 2.4
(4) no person or thing shall be quartered or installed in any house without the consent of the owner, nor shall any device or technology be used to spy, eavesdrop or intrude the senses remotely upon the people;
USC Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
NAC Article II, Section 2.5-2.8
(5) there shall be no law against a man’s belief, nor any law which shall bring men on to unequal grounds, but a man shall be judged and punished only for the crimes which he has done, even for his infringement upon the rights and liberties of others;
(6) no law respecting an establishment of religion shall be made, nor any prohibiting or regulating the free practice thereof;
(7) that censorship by government and its officials upon the private sector be abolished forever, no law abridging or regulating the freedom of speech, or of the press, shall be made;
(8) the rights of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and for redemption, shall not be abridged or regulated, and all such importunities shall be heard and investigated for merit speedily, and if found to have merit, shall be addressed according to the amount of damages which have been sustained, both of character and personal injuries, as well as real property;
NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.4 vs. USC’s 3rd Amendment
The 3rd Amendment was to stop the government from putting eyes and ears via soldiers in the people’s houses, to learn who was pro-government and who was anti-government. It performed its function when it was first written, but technology has outpaced its words. The government no longer needs to put soldiers in a person’s house to find out what people are saying and doing in their homes. They’ve got remote devices that can do this. So, the 3d Amendment is, essentially, useless as it is currently written. Nevertheless, the principle or reason for its existence is still very important.
Section 2.4 of the NAC Article II re-words the principle given in the 3rd Amendment, so that it actually has power to stop the government from snooping in people’s houses. The government must, at all times, be completely in the dark as to what the heck people are saying and doing in their own homes, or how they feel or think about the government. Remember the Zoramites?
And it came to pass that after the more popular part of the Zoramites had consulted together concerning the words which had been preached unto them, they were angry because of the word, for it did destroy their craft; therefore they would not hearken unto the words.
And they sent and gathered together throughout all the land all the people, and consulted with them concerning the words which had been spoken.
Now their rulers and their priests and their teachers did not let the people know concerning their desires; therefore they found out privily the minds of all the people.
And it came to pass that after they had found out the minds of all the people, those who were in favor of the words which had been spoken by Alma and his brethren were cast out of the land; and they were many; and they came over also into the land of Jershon. (Alma 35:3-6)
Technology has emasculated the power of the 3rd Amendment, but Section 2.4 is fully empowered to deal with technology. The government is shackled by it. The Constitution fully fails on this one and the NAC comes out the clear winner.
NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.5 vs. USC’s nothing
Under the Constitution we get hate crimes: people punished not only for their crimes, but also because they held certain beliefs while they did their crimes. Under the NAC, we just get crimes. The criminal can believe what he wants. The NAC only cares about the crime. (As should all the other laws.) Under the NAC, there could be no such thing as a hate crime, only crime.
NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.6 vs. USC’s 1st Amendment
There is not much difference between Section 2.6 and the 1st Amendment. Except that the word “exercise” is replaced with the word “practice” and the word “regulated” is inserted. And also except that those minor word changes fully stop the government from prohibiting a person from practicing their religion, or regulating that practice in any way. You know, like the current regulation that the government does today, such as stopping Mormons from practicing their religion in taking plural wives? So, Section 2.6 would actually allow Mormons to fully practice D&C 132, and any and all other revelatory practices that may come, such as animal sacrifice. (Remember, that practice is supposed to be coming back as a part of the Restoration.) Just a few minor word changes that do nothing much, except to allow God’s people to obey His commandments.
So, the Constitution fails on this one, too.
NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.7 vs. USC’s 1st Amendment
Again, there is not much difference between Section 2.7 and the 1st Amendment, except for the addition of the words, “that censorship by government and its officials upon the private sector be abolished forever.” Why would those additional words be so important? Because they explain who is being prohibited. The prohibition is not to stop the private sector from speaking their minds, nor from censoring their own privately published publications; no, it is solely to stop GOVERNMENT from censoring the private sector. That changes everything, doesn’t it?
But, under the Constitution, and under the 1st Amendment, since the entity being prohibited is not stated there, we get all sorts of governmental powers being employed to stop people and private organizations from speaking their minds and writing what they want, or from censoring or not censoring their own publications. So, the NAC wins again. Under the NAC, government can’t censor the private sector in any way. No regulation, whatsoever. That is the NAC standard. It shackles the government and frees the people. People then, are free to censor their own publications, and also to speak their minds, even if it is against the government. Now, that is true freedom. The Constitution fails and the NAC wins. Again.
NAC’s Art.II.Sec.2.8 vs. USC’s 1st Amendment
Section 2.8 adds a whole bunch of words that basically expand the right to petition into a right to get the government to actually do something, if the petition has merit. Under the 1st Amendment, sure, you can petition all you want, but the government doesn’t have to do a darn thing. Not even do an investigation. Which would you prefer? A right to merely petition, or a right to petition and get an investigation started, and if there is merit, get something done? The Constitution fails, yet again.
The list of rights given in Section 2.4-2.8 covers government snooping, government attaching additional penalties to crimes because of a criminal’s belief, government stopping people from practicing their religion, government censorship, and government not correcting grievances. This NAC section takes these issues and fully deals with them. The Constitution does not.
Both this post and the previous one prove that the U.S. Constitution is insufficient to deal with the tyrants currently ruling over America today. And what does the Lord say about when the wicked rule?
I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. (D&C 98:8-9)
The NAC, on the other hand, both empowers the people with their full rights, and also shackles the government, much more fully than the Bill of Rights does. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution as an after thought. The nationalists that wrote the Constitution were against the Bill of Rights. They didn’t think one was needed. But the federalists won the day and got these governmental restrictions added. Thank the Lord that they did. But the Bill of Rights, as good as they are, are still not good enough. They are mere abridgments of the full rights of man. The NAC corrects this deficiency and lists the full rights. This allows the government to be fully shackled, so that tyranny cannot even get a toe in. The NAC is one of those laws that the Lord referred to, which makes the people free. It is superior to the Constitution because, under the NAC, there can be no rulers, only servants. Thus, there can be no wicked ruling under the NAC.
I will go over other NAC sections in future posts. Feel free to disagree on any point mentioned in this post. Bring your strongest reasons against the NAC and let’s have an open debate. And for those who like the NAC and want to install it as the Supreme Law of the land, here is my advice and prediction (and also see this comment, and this comment and this comment) :
A continual strategy of debate will install the NAC in this country and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I say that Americans will jump at the chance to debate the NAC and to show that the Constitution is better, but, according to the rules of the debate, they will have to read the NAC first, and once read, they will be hard pressed to defend the Constitution. Thus, everyone who hears, or watches, or reads, or participates in, a NAC debate, will become convinced that the NAC is what this country needs.
To read the other parts of this series, click any of these links: