The Zig Forumsonstitution

I'd start off by making ironclad definitions of every word being used and provide context for the contents in the preface to make pilpul harder.

Companies should be more concerned with delivering good products instead of suing the competition for daring to innovate, information cannot and should not be treated as physical property.
Companies could still implement DRM and such but they wouldn't be able to sue people for piracy and fangames/bump stock CAD unless the original creators weren't credited.

How would you define the term "citizen" and "government" then?

But if you change a detail and then sell the product, would you still need to give credit to the original creator?
Where would you draw the line between copyright infringement and a new creation?

Citizen is an adult male belonging to the national ethnic group.

But who is an adult, and what defines the national ethnic group?
And why is Zig Forums always leaking?

What are you trying to slide? Anyway, these are the only ten points you deserve.

It'd be the US Constitution from 1789, with every term updated to fit today's standards and with every right written as explicitly as possible. I'd also add in that only WHITES (Europeans or European descendant) of good moral character can be citizens, miscegenation is a crime worthy of death, Jews cannot become citizens. Then add that these rules are unchangeable under any circumstance. I'd change Article 2 to fit a fascist model more than a liberal democracy. I'd also rework Article 1 for Senators to be approved by my version of Il Duce/Der Fuhrer, Representatives can still be elected by white tax-paying men or white veteran men. I'd also add the 11th, 13th, 14th (removing Jus Solis part of the Amendment), and a version of the 25th Amendment that would cover the new "election" of "The Leader" rather than the VP becoming President. Everything else is for the individual state's constitution.

There is no defeating pilpul.

Although to that end, I might hire some artists to make comic books to be added to the sacred texts, showing stories of some edge-cases where the laws were rightly applied, and where they were wrongly applied.

There's a reason Jesus used parables. Its harder to twist them. Although even then, if you twist hard enough … or more likely only look at one tiny fraction of the story.

the U.S constitution is mostly perfect.
the only thing that needs to be changed are a conversion into print writing on all copies and the original so it can be read by children and the uneducated easily, explainations of exactly what each amendment means in the most simple language possible written in ironclad gov speak and an amendment limiting the amount able to be taxed on the federal, state and county level.

Attached: Iunderstoodthatreferenceblyat _d2ec0777435df1cea00ea5175b549c5c.jpg (900x508, 86.49K)

There is no copyright, only a credit-right.
You can distribute just about anything as long as you credit that which your work is derived from/inspired by.
You could make your own Star Wars movie and put it into Theaters with no legal repercussion as long as you credit George Lucas somewhere even if he doesn't "own" the franchise anymore as creditright cannot be removed from its original creator, that way proper free market competition can be had without big-nosed lawyers running a Copyright racket.
If you don't want to credit George Lucas then the usual laws apply, just make something that isn't Star Wars though you can still put "inspired by Star Wars" in the credits as a shield against lawsuits.
Public domain still applies, so you don't need to credit Rudolf Diesel when posting your custom common rail diesel engine CAD on the Internet.

Attached: MEMES ARE GONE.webm (500x500, 386.85K)

Attached: 4d596e3510460082942e962438f0f20d07f97ed172bae6d80308856de6df2683.jpg (620x372, 49.27K)

...

Every grown-ass man in this country used to walk around with a pocket bible and a pocket constitution. These days I swear half the population can't even read.

My constitution would have at least one obligation and responsibility for every freedom enumerated.

I would switch the second and first amendment, and make it legal to kill anyone who publicly suggests people shouldnt have weapons. And outright mandatory (obligation) to kill anyone who acts against public gun ownership.

Two of the rights are the same, the way you said "right to property" is also weak, it can be interpreted as to support welfare. Having a right to own possessions and be secure in them is different.

Post puberty is easily detectable in the body. What kind of kike are you?

Clearly, there are some amendments that ought to be clarified. For example, "Right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" should be changed to "Rights of citizens to keep any and all weaponry and to use that weaponry in the defense of their lives, their families, and their properties shall not be limited or revoked in any way shape or form."

I like that idea user.

Mandatory gun ownership

I thought people here learned that kebab must be removed because they stop at nothing for 72 virgins for the whole world

You activated my autism. Fuck with that Masonic-Protestant idea of a All-Mighty Constitution. Fuck with Liberalism.

Hierarchies should be respected. Constitutions are just means for temporal organization. They should be discardable should the situation call for it.

Examples of hierarchy:
God > The Church > The Emperor > The Nations > The Kings > The Constitution > The Aristocracy > The Politicians > Local Councils
The Truth > Divine Inspiration > The Family > Virtues (until here, God-tier) > Blood and Tradition (semi-temporal tier) > pure temporal and discardable affairs.

And each of the temporal entities should have their own competences and duties. The individual and family's will and possessions should be respected, otherwise it deviates from God's will. Each nation would organize themselves in the way it'd fit them better.

My constitution would be below the King's [actually the Emperor's] power, God and the Church. The King would be able to remake it as long as his people accepts the new one and as long as it doesn't go contrary to God. My constitution would explicitly say it serves "Christ, The Family and Brazilians", it should be short and used to affirm the sovereignty of each of the three entities over whatever threats it. The State shouldn't been seen as a separate entity from whom the Constitution should defend its people; the State should be seen as the union of everything under one's country and the Constitution should be breaks to a state's bureaucracy and high authorities (so we don't get the evil dichotomy state vs its people; the people will be part of the state by definition).

The Federal Constitution will be able to point to competences to each power division under it. Deciding over hierarchies of other regional constitutions, courts and laws. The most straight to the point it is, the better. It should only be "totalitarian" as a prohibition to totalitarianism over regional constitutions.

The right to own arms should be granted. Better yet: it should prohibit (as a duty) anyone to prohibit arms' ownership and its keeping inside one's property (it extends to cars). The right of regulation of commerce could be allowed regionally, so the constitution wouldn't touch over this subject. The same to the carrying. The Federal Constitution would only forbid the prohibition of a citizen to carry arms inside their own lands. In other words, the citizen would have the absolute "right" (I hate this word) to carry guns inside his own property or anywhere else it's not forbidden (some cities would allow it, others would forbid it).

Another important thing to be decided is citizenship. If it's me to dictate it, only the third consecutive generation of Brazilian borns by paternal lineage who had carried their duties as such would earn a full citizenship. Partial citizenship could be given to people who lived orderly for 30 years in my country (as it's now).

The Family would be strictly defined so it can be defended by any laws. A man and a woman, both married under the Church and with kids. The mother and father should be sovereign over their home and kids, except if they fail to their duties (feed, protect, educate and christianize their kids, and prepare them to be able to form families themselves as they grow up). The duties should be decided by the King under God's laws and inspirations and under the Church's approval, or to whoever he commends such powers. Politicians shouldn't legislate over these duties and shouldn't "give" any "rights" to families outside the constitutional definition. Atemporal matters, like the defense of the Family, are to be decided by the ones more competent over atemporal matters, and those are not politicians, but the Clergy and the very high aristocrats.

Brazil in first place. Any international agreements or pressures can't be above our own sovereignty. Any law or judgment that ignores it will be unconstitutional automatically.

Property shall be protected. Duties may be imposed and must be allowed by the King.

Anyone or any group who threats Roman Catholicism (can be extended to other Catholics) loses their protection from the state and their citizenship. Except rare exceptions decided by the King, other Christian denominations are to be allowed by default. Other religions aren't protected by the Constitution by default, the King must raise exceptions (ie. traditional native religions).
Anyone or any group who threats the Family Institution (…)
Anyone or any group who threats Brazilian blood, territories, language or traditions (…)

Also, the Constitution would include some war exceptions and give more autonomy to the Army. The King [actually the Emperor] will be able to clean the Armed Forces as he sees fit. We have a big problem with Masonry in Brazil's Military, and it would be a problem to even clean our throne heirs from masonic influence.

>the Constitution should be brakes
Typo. Fix'd. Forgive me any other mistakes.

Jesus disapproves, and he's the captain of this ship of state.

Attached: jesus-christ-0202.jpg (1024x768, 210.87K)

One important lesson my history teacher in our equivalent of a high school taught me is this: every law is only as strong as the power that enforces it. And she was not a fascist Übermensch. Therefore if that peace of paper really has some worth, then you don't even need it. Otherwise it really is just a piece of paper. Remember, blood and soil, not bureaucracy and legalism.

Attached: 792624186.jpg (1000x994, 425.17K)

So you want doctors to jerk off little boys to see if they are already capable of producing cum?
What kind of gay faggot are you?
Also: just because a 14 year old can procreate doesn't mean that his opinion is worth a shit. Teens have the worst ideas.

So the eleven commandments, but written as a constitution?

Fuck you, I don't want some gay ass pope/emperor/king deciding over my ass just because some old faggot a hundred years ago fucked a fourteen year old and ended up producing an inbreed sonofabitch who got crowned king or whatever.
Institutionalized religion sucks gorilla dick.

This is why a constitution is important though. The piece of paper provides guidelines for everyone to follow to prevent anyone from gaining so much power that they can ignore the piece of paper.

1. Freedom to remove kebab.
2. Freedom to gas the kikes.
3. Freedom to throw commies and pinkos out of helicopters.
4. Freedom to shoot hippies and junkies.
5. Freedom to not allow any foreign ethnicity in your clay, only people of White Indoeuropean and Finno-Ugric language with no muslim or judaic ancestry are allowed as visitors.
6. Freedom of press to get shot the moment they start to intentionally misreport facts.
7. Freedom of science to supersede feefees.
8. Freedom of pornography as long as it does not involve real White women; artistic representations of White women in interracial context is also strictly verbotten.
9. Freedom of women to stay in the kitchen.
10. Freedom of women to not get brain-washed by academic pozzery and freedom to only pursuit Academic courses in hard STEM fields.
11. Freedom to get dubs and check them.
12. Freedom to escalate the violence.
13. Freedom to own non-White slaves as long as they are all properly and irreversibly sterilized and safely contained and are not acquired by jewish or islamic sources good luck with that slavefags. White women are also allowed to the extent the owner can provide convincing evidence that they tried to stray out of the kitchen.
14. Obligation to not take side in brother killing wars between White nations of common lingual affinities (phylogenetic tree provided for details), unless one side is overrepresented by muslims (bosnian, albanian) or jews (Yiddish), same applies to a lesser extent to conflicts of non-White nations.

Fixed it for you. The only place in the World Masonry worked was, maybe, in the USA. And not for much time it seems. Liberalism killed the "West".

Brazilian true identity is Roman Catholic and Monarchic, where whites and a few high-functioning pardos rule over the monkeys, guiding them with higher moral standards. Other than that in Brazil, with all of our dysgenics at work, degeneracy takes over and monkeys alongside the kikes rule the land themselves.

And as you don't seem to be Brazilian, so have things your own way. But don't expect everyone to embrace democracy and some worthless piece of paper as the ultimate leash to their lives. Don't expect people to worship bureaucracy over a virtuous good men's rule (hence, "aristocracy").

and get it about the bureaucratic and legalistic problem.

Here is the hierarchy according to princes:

Gods>The prince>The family of the prince>the aristocracy>the church>the serfs

634142 here again. I forgot something, between the church> (being the enforcers of the princes will on earth and making sure everyone stays in line) and the serfs, you have the princes horses>>hunting falcons>swans>deer>dogs> and then the people.

Why do you instantly think of jerking off little boys? Sick fuck.

Volk>Familie>Vaterland, all other hierarchies shall be defined and maintained by the people as they see fit in their respective local communities.

Attached: eyes of hate.jpeg (2145x3056, 3.38M)