Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
School project: rewrite the Constitution
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [QB] Jay: [i]Seriously, one of the beauties of the Constitution of the United States...and one that you fail to grasp...is that on many issues, the language in the documnet is such that succeeding generations interpret meaning, hash it out in public discourse and form public policy.[/i] Um... no? The Constitution means exactly what it meant when it was written. If the Constitution changes on the whim of some renegade judge somewhere (NOT the "forum of public policy," as you so euphamisticly put it), then it's no Constitution at all, because it wasn't created by the people. [i]Pre-named replacements? So the governor or legislator can't appoint someone I assume.[/i] Right. It ensures that someone who has beliefs similar to the Congressman in question takes his place. [i]Well, where do I get in line to vote for the replacement of the replacement's replacement.[/i] If I understand your question correctly, then there's no such position. The odds of both dying simultaneously are extremely slim. Let me post the entire ammendment as it is now: ------------------------------- Section 1: In the process of the election of Congressmen, each Representative and Senator shall nominate an Understudy, who shall, in the event that the Representative or Senator dies, resigns, or is removed from their post, assume the full duties and titles of said post, and serve for the remainder of the term in question. Section 2: The individual states shall have the right to approve or deny any nominee for the position of Understudy, in a manner to be decided by the state legislatures. Section 3: If an Understudy assumes the position of their Congressman, for whatever reason, they shall, with all due haste, nominate a person to assume the position of Understudy, and submit them for approval to the appropriate state body, as determined by state law. Section 4: In the event that a Understudy deems their Congressman to be unfit for duty for any reason, they shall transmit this belief to the appropriate state body, as determined by state law. The Understudy will then act as Congressman until such time as their Congressman transmits to the appropriate body that they are capable of resuming their duties, at which time the Congressman will do so. However, if the Understudy objects to this, then the state legislature shall hold a hearing as to the fitness of the Congressman. ------------------------------- I still don't have sections regarding the replacement of Understudies, or what the legislature does if they DO both die or resign, but it's a work in progress. [i]Criminals...there is certainly nothing "obvious" about your antediluvian belief about human rights not extending to criminals?[/i] Oh, so you don't think it's OK to imprison criminals? 'Cause that's a violation of their rights, isn't it? In fact, ANY punishment is, be it fines or execution. Thus, criminals must have their rights revoked as part of their punishment for anything to make any sense. So, yes, it is "obvious", to anyone with two braincells to rub together. (Sorry, Rob. :) ) Of course, we do give them CERTAIN rights, so as to ensure that they are, in fact, criminals. Trial by jury, right to council, etc. [i]You have stolen an apple... You have the right to live in a 3x3 cage. Actually you don't have the right to that...you worm-like criminal bastard...but I have to store you someplace till I shoot you.[/i] Only if that's the law where the apple is stolen. Find me a place in this country that this IS the law, and you might have a point. Maybe. Jeff: [i]No, where some would like to see "innocent until proven guilty" actually practiced.[/i] It is. Well, except in cases where the government is trying to take someone's kids away, or where someone's suing the EVIL "big business". [i]Where some would like to see color-blind juries and judges.[/i] Those of us that aren't blind DO see them. [i]Where some would like the death penalty to at least not execute the mentally-ill[/i] When was the last time THAT happened? Also, define "mentally ill", because you could call Charles Manson mentally ill. Oh, and BTW, I'm planning something in this regard, so don't get your panties in a wad. [i]become more fair in regard to minorities[/i] Oh, yes, gotta execute seven white guys for every black guy we execute, even though black people COMMIT MORE CRIMES. [i]if you kill a white dude, you're more likely to go to death row than if you kill a black dude[/i] I'd love to see the statistical analysis on that. [i]Where the color of your skin shouldn't determine if a cop pulls you over.[/i] Again, got that, for the uber-massive majority of the country. Yeah, there is a very occasional racist cop out there, but how do you propose that I prevent THAT with a Constitutional ammendment? Outlaw racist thoughts? Tell us when you have something to contribute, Jeff, 'cause this is all your standard, parroted, baseless liberal garbage, and is totally irrelevant to the conversation at hand. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3