Flare Sci-fi Forums
Flare Sci-Fi Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Flare Sci-Fi Forums » Community » The Flameboard » School project: rewrite the Constitution (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: School project: rewrite the Constitution
Omega
Some other beginning's end
Member # 91

 - posted      Profile for Omega     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's something of a class project I've taken upon myself. I'm going to come up with things that I think need to be changed about the Constitution, and then write up ammendments. Might even send 'em to my various congressmen, if I have a high fever one day. So far my list includes:

A list of definitions (so as to prevent anyone from changing the Constitution by redefining terms, ala "well-regulated", "human being", etc.)

Judicial Reform (so as to rein in the abuse of power by the Supreme Court and others)

Property Rights (really a reiteration of already-expressed rights, but an important one)

Military Reorganization (I just don't like the language used)

Replacement of Congressmen (all Congressmen elected with a pre-named replacement)

Federal Parks (not sure what I'm gonna do here, but I'm gonna do somethin')

Rights of Criminals (since the rights expressed for "the people" obviously don't apply to criminals, perhaps it needs to be stated explicitly that they have none other than those enumerated)

Rights of Children (again, these things obviously don't apply to kids, ala right to bear arms, so I need to come up with a good way to express the limitations of their rights until a certain age)

Reiteration (some things just need to be said again, such as the fact that the government can't do anything that the Constitution doesn't say it can)

Any suggestions? I'm looking for more ammendments, or ideas on how I might implement these. I've kinda been thinking, in the back of my head, about some sort of ammendment regarding the rights of non-human sentients (you know, just in case), but I'd have to come up with some objective way of determining sentience...

[ July 06, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]

--------------------
"This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!"
- God, "God, the Devil and Bob"


Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Wes
Over 20 years here? Holy cow.
Member # 212

 - posted      Profile for Wes     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
sounds good, actually. perhaps when one is sent to prison, they are no longer considered a person, and therefor loose the rights any other person would have.
Registered: Aug 1999  |  IP: Logged
Sol System
two dollar pistol
Member # 30

 - posted      Profile for Sol System     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This link might prove useful.
Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Siegfried
Fullmetal Pompatus
Member # 29

 - posted      Profile for Siegfried     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ahh, yes. I had to do this as a final project for my first political science class in college. Damn Honors College class forced this to be a third of my final grade. It was four years ago, but I still remember having to rush through it because I procrastinated to the weekend before it was due. Man, I drink enough Dr Pepper to give me hallucinations and a bad giggle attack. But, hey, I got a B+ on it.
Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Jay the Obscure
Liker Of Jazz
Member # 19

 - posted      Profile for Jay the Obscure     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You might want add the defining phrase "crafted by a right-wing loony. Junta tested, junta approved." in the preamble.

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.

It's a great and grand thing...certainly not something to be taken lightly if each generation participates in the duty layed out as it defines and interprets traditions.

Pre-named replacements? So the governor or legislator can't appoint someone I assume. Well, where do I get in line to vote for the replacement of the replacement's replacement. Have you looked at what various states do? Might not a special election be a better way to handle the situation?

Criminals...there is certainly nothing "obvious" about your antediluvian belief about human rights not extending to criminals?

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.
  • You have to right to get beaten by guards and have a broom stick shoved up your ass. See above section to about not really having the right to this.
  • You have the right to never see the sun. Heck, I might poke out your eyes...cause I can and since you are a "criminal." See above section to about not really having the right to this.
  • All human rights are taken from you and I might shoot you if I feel like it.

You might want to add that you are like repealing civilization in that little paragraph just to be truthful.

[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]



--------------------
Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war.
~ohn Adams

Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine.
~Brad DeLong

You're just babbling incoherently.
~C. Montgomery Burns

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
First of Two
Better than you
Member # 16

 - posted      Profile for First of Two     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whereas SOMEONE would clearly like to see that criminals have MORE rights than the average citizen OR the government in place to protect those citizens.

I can see where THAT thinking ends up... New Liberal Constitution Amendment #1 (of 784, because it's a 'LIVING' Document.)

"You have the right to rape, loot, pillage, murder, and commit grevious acts of child abuse without fear of losing your precious rights in the process, no matter how badly you destroy those of others."

I think Chris Rock said it best: "You want to avoid problems with the police? For starters, DON'T BREAK THE LAW!"

Please, please, PLEASE grow up, before it's too late.

--------------------
"The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword


Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Malnurtured Snay
Blogger
Member # 411

 - posted      Profile for Malnurtured Snay     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whereas SOMEONE would clearly like to see that criminals have MORE rights than the average citizen OR the government in place to protect those citizens.

No, where some would like to see "innocent until proven guilty" actually practiced.

Where some would like to see color-blind juries and judges.

Where some would like the death penalty to at least not execute the mentally-ill and become more fair in regard to minorities (if you kill a white dude, you're more likely to go to death row than if you kill a black dude).

Where the color of your skin shouldn't determine if a cop pulls you over.

--------------------
www.malnurturedsnay.net


Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
Omega
Some other beginning's end
Member # 91

 - posted      Profile for Omega     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jay:

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.

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.

Pre-named replacements? So the governor or legislator can't appoint someone I assume.

Right. It ensures that someone who has beliefs similar to the Congressman in question takes his place.

Well, where do I get in line to vote for the replacement of the replacement's replacement.

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.

Criminals...there is certainly nothing "obvious" about your antediluvian belief about human rights not extending to criminals?

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.

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.

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:

No, where some would like to see "innocent until proven guilty" actually practiced.

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".

Where some would like to see color-blind juries and judges.

Those of us that aren't blind DO see them.

Where some would like the death penalty to at least not execute the mentally-ill

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.

become more fair in regard to minorities

Oh, yes, gotta execute seven white guys for every black guy we execute, even though black people COMMIT MORE CRIMES.

if you kill a white dude, you're more likely to go to death row than if you kill a black dude

I'd love to see the statistical analysis on that.

Where the color of your skin shouldn't determine if a cop pulls you over.

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.

--------------------
"This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!"
- God, "God, the Devil and Bob"


Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Malnurtured Snay
Blogger
Member # 411

 - posted      Profile for Malnurtured Snay     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, yes, gotta execute seven white guys for every black guy we execute, even though black people COMMIT MORE CRIMES.

Omega, you bring up a lot of points. So, let me refute them. And since you never really answer a question, you just babble about how much liberals suck, it'd be nice to see you use some brain cells for a change. Now, to start:

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child prohibit a person who has committed a crime while a child (under the age of 18) from being executed. Only 6 countries are known to have violated these conventions since 1990: Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, United States (Texas and Virginia), and Yemen. Yemen has since abolished the practice.

According to Amnesty International USA, the state of Texas executes almost as many people per month as such bastions of enlightenment as Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia. Bush has presided over 135 executions.

There have been, in the entire nation, 16 people executed for crimes committed as juveniles. Texas executed 8 of them.

Now, while Governor of Texas, George W. Bush, you know, the moron you people elected (thanks a whole bunch), executed a lady named Karla Faye. Was she ? Well,mentally ill no, but quite a few Conservative Christians (including Pat Robertson) asked Bush to spare her life. He didn't, and then mocked her in an interview with Tucker Carlson, by twisting his face into a sneer, and saying, "please don't kill me!" Illegal? No. Insensitive, stupid, and wondering why the Republican Party wanted this guy aside for his family name? Yes.

Now, back to Bush, there's a disturbing trend of DEFENSE LAWYERS sleeping through their client's trials! (And their clients being sentenced to Death). Now, let's set up some background.

-In 1996, Texas executed Carl Johnson, despite that his original lawyer had SLEPT THROUGH HIS TRIAL, and had later been disciplined for incompetence in another d.p. trial.

-Also in '96, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, by a 7 to 2 decision, agreed that the lead lawyer's SLEEPING AND LOUD SNORING didn't violate defendant George McFarland's 6th Ammendment right to effective, competent counsel. Therefore, there was no reason to reopen the case. Which therefore reinforces my opinion that Texas breeds some of the dumbest motherfuckers in the world.

-In '83, Calvin Burdine was sentenced to death in Texas after -- guess what? -- his lawyer slept through the trial! Three jurors and a court clerk testified to that. Again, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (what do you have to do to get on that board? Down a kegger in an hour?) said the lawyer's sleeping didn't effect his verdict. Thankfully, U.S. District Judge David Hittner overruled the Texas court's decision and stayed the execution.

Now, why did I bring these up? On March 2, 00, at a GOP debate in LA, CNN's Jeff Greenfield asked Bush about the rash of sleeping lawyer cases, in which defendents in Texas had been sentenced to death despite their lawyers sleeping through the trial. Bush laughed. Let me repeat: laughed.

What's so funny about lawyers going to sleep when their clients are on trial for their lives? Explain this to me, especially since Dubya apparently was too busy to deal with D.P. cases at all, cutting his review time of them from half an hour to fifteen minutes.

You would also think our beloved President (42 months to go!) would have a soft spot for the mentally challenged ... (being one himself) ... but ... in 1999, he opposed a bill that would prohibit the execution of the mentally retarded.

Hell, even The Gipper was more enlightened then that. And Dubya's brother Jeb said, "People with clear mental retardation should not be executed."

So much for Dubya being a compassionate conservative.

Ooooh! But, Bush did decided to save Ricky McGinn's life! Why? On May 18, 2000, he signed a death warrant for Ricky. Two weeks later, he called for a reprieve. Considering no facts hafd changed, no new evidence had come to light, and no new arguements had been made ... could it be that the only reason Bush saved McGinn's life was because it was making headlines? Sure, you could argue he reexamined the facts ... but the fact is, he was attending a fund-raiser in Las Vegas. Hell, he didn't even call it in ... that task fell to State Senator Rodney Ellis.

More damning? Bush vetoed a bill to improve lawyers for impoverished defendents. The bill would have set a 20-day deadline for appointing a public defender, and instituted other improvements on how lawyers are assigned. Hell, it even got past the Texas Legislature!

Joe Sanches, of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund contrasted the veto with Bush's signing of emergency legislation to help the oil industry: "He is showing his conservatism to the poor and his compassion to the rich."

Omega, you apparently didn't read what I wrote. If you kill a white person, you're more likely to wind up on death row then if you kill a black person. Why is a white life worth more than a black life? ::shrug::

So, apparently, you're in favor of a system where the menatally ill can be killed, where people can be executed for crimes done while children, where those on trial don't need a competent lawyer, and where your only hope for a reprive is if your case makes headlines ...

What a wonderful system.

--------------------
www.malnurturedsnay.net


Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
Omega
Some other beginning's end
Member # 91

 - posted      Profile for Omega     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
since you never really answer a question, you just babble about how much liberals suck

As opposed to how YOU never answer a question, instead insulting the President? What, is your underestimate of W's intelligence the defining premise of ANY argument you make? 'Cause it certainly seems that way.

asked Bush to spare her life. He didn't

Perhaps because the Governer of Texas CAN'T? YA THINK? No, wait. You don't. My mistake.

As for the rest of your irrelevant tirade... who brought up Bush? This isn't about the President, nor did anyone mention him. Your life seems to become ever more defined by this all-consuming hatred of Bush, Jeff. Here's a clue: IT DOESN'T MATTER! Your opinions of Bush's intelligence, beliefs, and choices are TOTALLY irrelevant to this discussion. So's everything else about Bush, for that matter. Thus, your post is based upon nothing, doesn't belong in my thread, and will be ignored. Again, tell me when you have something productive to say.

As for everyone else here: suggest you also ignore this guy. He just wants attention. Which , IIRC, qualifies him as a troll.

As for the last two paragraphs of your post, Jeff (the two that DON'T involve our irrelevant President)...

If you kill a white person, you're more likely to wind up on death row then if you kill a black person. Why is a white life worth more than a black life?

The leap of logic here is astounding. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps most black people are killed in cases of second-degree murder, whereas more whites are killed in cases of first-degree murder? Your assumption is invalid, as there are other possible causes.

So, apparently, you're in favor of a system where the menatally ill can be killed, where people can be executed for crimes done while children, where those on trial don't need a competent lawyer, and where your only hope for a reprive is if your case makes headlines ...

How do you derrive this from anything I've said?

Jeff, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you're an idiot.

--------------------
"This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!"
- God, "God, the Devil and Bob"


Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Malnurtured Snay
Blogger
Member # 411

 - posted      Profile for Malnurtured Snay     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps because the Governer of Texas CAN'T? YA THINK? No, wait. You don't. My mistake.

Then how, prey tell, did he spare Ricky McGinn's?

You said that the executions of mentally ill people didn't happen. In fact, it does. There was a well publicized case: again, in Texas, where George W. Bush didn't pardon a mentally ill person on Death Row.

Jeff, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: you're an idiot.

This from a boy who thinks that a bunch of people who died over 200 years ago, and who couldn't agree, should be the deciding force in this country 225 years later. Yeah. That's like the kettle calling the pot black.

[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff The Card ]



--------------------
www.malnurturedsnay.net

Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
MIB
Ex-Member


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Although I love a good W roasting as much as any EVIL liberal, we should get back to the original topic. Rewriting or at least reviewing the constitution, I think, would be a good idea. I haven't put much thought into so far, but I have come up with one change.

Get rid of the 22 Amendment. Why? Why the hell should the public be FORCED to chose someone else to become president after 8 years if their current one is doing a good job and that the majority of the public approves of his/her work? They shouldn't be as far as I'm concerned. I know that back in '51 there was all this stuff about how a presidents power would grow if he/she serves for more than 10 years, but I haven't been able to figure out why this would be the case. It's not like the president gets more and more control over the rest of the government for every term he/she serves. Maybe I'm just an idiot though.

P.S. for the first time in a long while, I'm watching an episode of DS9!!

[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]


IP: Logged
Malnurtured Snay
Blogger
Member # 411

 - posted      Profile for Malnurtured Snay     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, the Republicans wouldn't like that because Bill would still be in office ... and for some reason, most Republicans don't care much for FDR. ::shrug:: Go figure.

--------------------
www.malnurturedsnay.net

Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged
Sol System
two dollar pistol
Member # 30

 - posted      Profile for Sol System     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Constitution, schomnstitution. I'm just REALLY impressed by ANY argument where CERTAIN words are EMPHASIZED for EMPHASIS. It makes EVERYTHING much more BELIEVABLE.
Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Omega
Some other beginning's end
Member # 91

 - posted      Profile for Omega     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since MIB has brought up the only valid point since my last post...

Get rid of the 22 Amendment.

I've heard good arguments either way on term limits. I have difficulty deciding. On one hand, people do tend to become more corrupt the longer they stay in the moral cesspool that is DC. On the other, the people should be smart enough not to elect scumbags. But conversely, many voted for Clinton, so a large number are obviously not all that smart.

At the mo, I'm leaning towards letting someone else propose repealing that ammendment.

--------------------
"This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!"
- God, "God, the Devil and Bob"


Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


© 1999-2008 Solareclipse Network.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3