)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 ]
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 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 ]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ]
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 ]
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.
Article I. Locally-elected municipal governments will hold all power.
Done!
This could make a lot of dictator-wannabees happy
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.)
Bullshit.
Criminals have the same access to the system that any other citizen has.
Simple isn't it.
quote:
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
Bullshit.
The Constitution contains phrases and clauses that are supposed to be interpreted and some that are letter for letter.
Hell, that why there was a Supreme Court put forth in the Constitution. So that interpretations could be decided.
Simple isn't it.
As far as the 'rights of criminals.' if I had the time, I'd go back through all the posts and pull out previous statements made by our two favorite fascists. Alas, time restricts my class projects.
[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
I can just imagine the political mess caused by making every federal office a "ticket."
Excuse me, but its a waste of time. Either call an immediate special election so one can listen to policies presented by new candidates and votes can be cast accordingly or fill the vacancy via appointment till for the term until the next election.
This understudy idea is silly. Clearly, voting for two people (which is essentially what you call for) entails more than is needed save for POTUS. The POTUS is more important than the Representative from Yakima, Washington.
Duh. But they DON'T have all the rights that everyone else has, which is a totally different concept, and the one we've been talking about. Otherwise, you couldn't punish them at all.
The Constitution contains phrases and clauses that are supposed to be interpreted and some that are letter for letter. Hell, that why there was a Supreme Court put forth in the Constitution. So that interpretations could be decided.
Upon what do you base this belief? 'Cause it ain't in the Federalist Papers no where, and they're the defining authority on the intent of the Constitution.
our two favorite fascists
As I understand facism, it's the system under which the government controls industry, while it nominally is still in private hands. This is opposed to socialism, where the government actually OWNS the industry, in addition to operating it. Facism sounds far more like something you'd support, Jay. Of course, it's become the catch-all political term for anything that someone doesn't like, as communism used to be. So since you're accusing us of being facists with no basis, can we accuse you of McCarthyism?
Excuse me, but its a waste of time.
How can it waste time? The Understudy doesn't even have to be seen. They have no duties.
quote:
The Constitution contains phrases and clauses that are supposed to be interpreted and some that are letter for letter. Hell, that why there was a Supreme Court put forth in the Constitution. So that interpretations could be decided.Upon what do you base this belief? 'Cause it ain't in the Federalist Papers no where, and they're the defining authority on the intent of the Constitution.
Since some people need help, a brief example of an interpretative phrases...
Article I Section 8:
quote:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Ah, heck, you need more...
5th Amendment
quote:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time
of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
One wonders how much of US Code is set out defining what all that means. The due process clause all by itself is the cause of how many Supreme Court decisions? Miranda anyone?
Or how about the "cruel and unusual punishments" clause of the 8th Amendment?
And this from the 14th Amendemnt:
quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Privileges or immunities...
Due process of law...
Equal protection...
All these things are open to interpretation and definition by the Court.
The Court gets its authority from Article III. Section 1 of which reads:
quote:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court...
Section 2 says:
quote:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
The Constitution is the defining authority and makes it quite clear that the Supreme Court is the Constitutional arbiter.
So, if one wants to look the fool and go on saying that there is no interpretation of the United States Constitution, be my guest.
[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
And if Simon got a warm glowing feeling when he read Jay's message.
quote:
Upon what do you base this belief? 'Cause it ain't in the Federalist Papers no where, and they're the defining authority on the intent of the Constitution.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
haha ...
That's the most ignorant statement I've ... well, actually, coming from Omega, it's not that bad..
How many of the Founding Fathers wrote the Federalist Papers, Omega? Besides James Madison. Because, the Founding Father's didn't all agree. They got in quite a few arguements about the Constitution. So holding the opinions of a few of the Founding Fathers above the opinions of the rest is a pretty silly effort. And, why the Federalist Papers? Why not the anti-Federalist Papers? C'mon, dude, use those two-brain cells ...
[ July 07, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff The Card ]
How about a simple one. Evidence illegally obtained cannot be used in a trial?
I like that whole "some of the Constitution is literal, and some is meant to be interpreted" tack... makes you sound like a Fundie with the Bible. Excuse me while I snicker.
Jeff: I wonder, of all those 'lawyers asleep during my trial' appeals, in how many instances was that actually found to have HAPPENED? I mean, I assume you've never heard of such a thing as a convict filing a SPURIOUS appeal/lawsuit (like the guy who sued the prison for a million dollars because they changed brands of peanut butter)?
Because according to my sources, the truth is that it didn't EVER actually happen. Oh, people filed appeals based upon it... but they were thrown out, not because of any court bias, but because the incidents DIDN'T HAPPEN.
This is what happens when you take an activist's WORD for something, while forgetting that they can distort the truth just as much, or more, as their enemies.
Diverging from topic a bit ... the primary evidence in Bill Clinton's impeachment was a recording Linda Tripp made of a conversation between her and Monica Lewinsky. Tripp, a Maryland resident (she lived about a mile from my parent's home, and I went to middle school with both her kids, BTW), never informed Lewinsky she was being tape recorded. Recording a conversation without the other person's knowledge is against Maryland law (a fact Tripp was informed of when she bought the recording device from Radio Shack).
So, essentially, the Republican Party doesn't mind too much using illegally gained evidence to try someone.
Because according to my sources
Which are ... ? Mine are:
Shapiro, The Nation 4/7/97
Elliot and Ballard, Texas Lawyer 2/26/96
O'Brien, op-ed, The Washington Post, 5/28/97
Good Morning America, ABC, 5/4/97
Aron, USA Today, 12/7/98
CNN, 6/25/95 & 3/31/96
Bendavid, Texas Lawyer, 8/14/95
Ballard, Texas Lawyer, 4/17/95
US News & World Report, 8/10/99
This is what happens when you take an activist's WORD for something, while forgetting that they can distort the truth just as much, or more, as their enemies.
Fo2: regarding sleeping lawyers. While some of them might be a result of an excuse for an appeal, the fact that you've got jurors and court officers testifying to sleeping lawyers in some of the cases says to me that, while some might be lies, some are in fact, fact.
I like that whole "some of the Constitution is literal, and some is meant to be interpreted" tack... makes you sound like a Fundie with the Bible. Excuse me while I snicker.
I don't remember saying that. Did I? Where? Why did you attribute this statement to me? Explain.
Yes, the Constitution is flexible with time. It changes to suit the times, that was the Fouding Fathers' intentions. I doubt this country will ever get fucked up enough to revoke the basic precept, "innocent until proven guilty", however, although you seem like you'd like to do away with it. That, however, is you. Not me.
[ July 09, 2001: Message edited by: Jeff The Card ]
quote:
I don't remember saying that. Did I? Where? Why did you attribute this statement to me? Explain.
ERROR. I should have been more clear. That should have been directed towards Jay.
quote:
Yes, the Constitution is flexible with time. It changes to suit the times, that was the Fouding Fathers' intentions.
I disagree. The basic principles were never intended to be altered. Giving the government power to enact laws to enforce the principles is NOT the same as giving it the power to abrogate or change them.
quote:
I doubt this country will ever get fucked up enough to revoke the basic precept, "innocent until proven guilty", however, although you seem like you'd like to do away with it. That, however, is you. Not me.
Really? In your previous statements you indicted this country's justice system based on largely (if not entirely... I'd like to be shown these citations of court officers testifying about sleeping lawyers, please) false claims. If that isn't doing away with it, I don't know what is.
Well, you could've looked at the references I posted ...
Or, you could take a look at:
CNN, 6/25/95 & 3/31/96
Elliott and Ballard, Texas Lawyer, 2/26/96
Bendavid, Texas Lawyer, 8/14/95
Ballard, Texas Lawyer, 4/17/95
Now, hows about you post your references or sources for your claims that it didn't happen, okay?
I admit, At first glance there may be some validity to the argument, but apparently the vastly more experienced appeals court disagrees, and I'm prepared to concede that they probably know more about the case than you, I, or any of the citation-writers, which is why the appeal was denied.
Still, overciting ONE case does not generally signify an epidemic... at least, not a non-manufactured one.
Yes, that's why they created an ammendment process. That's the ONLY way the Constitution changes. If the FF's had intended for the Constitution to be changed by JUDGES, instead of by the people, then why would there be an ammendment process at all?
Your logic is flawed.
I doubt this country will ever get fucked up enough to revoke the basic precept, "innocent until proven guilty",
In your philosophy, all it'd take would be one judge, now wouldn't it? Sounds like an awfully unstable way to run a country, when it's basic precepts can be overturned by some guy wearing a black robe. Tell me: in your model, what's to prevent some appeals court judge from delcaring himself to be dictator, and that the Consitution is null and void?
although you seem like you'd like to do away with it.
Upon what do you base this?
Back with more later.....need food.
[ July 09, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Oh, well.
I've just gotten back from a Constitutional Symposium held by the president of Patrick Henry College in Virginia. He's also in charge of the National Home School Defense Fund, and a big-wheel lawyer. He was quite informative on the numerous ways that the Supreme Court has screwed up over the years, among many other things. But the reason I'm posting this here is that he's undertaken the same project that I have: he wrote ten new ammendments to the Constitution. He's gonna e-mail them to me at some point, but I wanted to post what I finally came up with for the new Supreme Court.
--------------------
Section 1: The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of nine Primary Justices, each appointed for a single, nine year term.
Section 2: The Primary Justices of the Supreme Court are to be appointed in groups of three every three years, with each member of the group being appointed in a given year being chosen in a different method from any other in the group.
Section 3: The Primary Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States shall be appointed in the following manners:
a) Three are to be selected by the President of the United States and submitted to the Senate thereof for approval; such approval will take the form of a simple majority vote.
b) Three are to be selected by congress, and submitted to the president for approval once agreed upon by simple majority vote of both houses; if approval is not given, congress may override the necessity for presidential approval by a two-thirds majority vote of both houses.
c) Three are to be selected by the People, in the same manner as the selection of the President of the United States is to take place.
Section 4: When a person becomes a Primary Justice of the Supreme Court, they shall, with all due haste, submit to the Congress their nominee for a Secondary Justice. The nominee for the position of Secondary Justice shall be installed as such unless blocked by either a simple majority in either house combined with an objection by the president, or a simple majority of both houses. In the event that the Primary Justice dies, retires, or is otherwise removed before the end of their nine year term, the Secondary Justice shall become a Primary Justice for the remainder of the term, and appoint their own Secondary in the same manner as they would had they been appointed as Primary. In the event of any vacancy in the position of Secondary Justice, the Primary shall appoint another in the same manner.
Section 5: Neither a Primary or Secondary Justice of the Supreme Court may hold another position in the government of the United States. Nor shall anyone who has previously served as a Primary Justice of the Supreme Court be appointed to either position.
Section 6: In the event that a Secondary Justice deems their Primary to be unfit for duty for any reason, they shall transmit this belief to the other Primary Justices of the Supreme Court. The Secondary will then act as a Primary Justice until such time as their Primary Justice transmits to the Court that they are capable of resuming their duties, at which time the Primary will do so. However, if the Secondary Justice objects to this, then the Court shall hold a hearing as to the fitness of the Primary Justice.
Section 7: A Primary Justice of the Supreme Court may be removed by a vote of no confidence on the part of the Congress, either by a 2/3 majority in both houses combined with the approval of the President of the United States, or by a 3/4 majority in both houses without said approval.
Section 8: A Secondary Justice of the Supreme Court may be removed by a vote of no confidence on the part of the Congress, either by a simple majority in both houses combined with the approval of the President of the United States, or by a 2/3 majority in both houses without said approval.
Section 9: Upon the request of either House of Congress by simple majority vote, or of the President of the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States may be compelled to review any previous ruling requested of it.
Section 10: If a vacancy occurs in the position of Primary Justice, and no Secondary Justice has been appointed for that position, a new Primary Justice shall be appointed by the President of the United States to fill out the remainder of the term, in the manner outlined in Section 3a of this article of amendment.
Section 11: In the first year whose designation is divisible by three after this article is ratified, the three Supreme Court Justices of longest term shall step down, to be replaced by three selected in compliance with sections two and three of this article. After three years, the same shall occur, and again, after six.
--------------------
Now, ignoring all the preceeding garbage in this thread... opinions?
I think some form of due process is needed for section 6. And it should be the justices that decide, not the secondary justice alone.
But quite satisfactory if you ask me.
Also, I am quite certain that requiring Supreme Court Justices to stand for election would flush the justice system, if not the whole government, down the crapper.
As for the rights of women, constitutionally, all persons born in the US are citizens, and no citizen can be deprived of priviledges and immunities except by due process. I see no need for extra protection.
In my original cursory reading of your Supreme Court changes, I did not realize that you limit justices to one term. Thus, as you said, elections are not involved, but experience, or lack of it, is an issue. I believe that, ideally, a lifetime term seasons the Supreme Court Justices. Thus, both radical and reactionary appointees who go in there with the intent to change everything eventually "chill out" and find a reasonable middle road. Creating a finite term for justices, and limiting a justice to one term would, I think, encourage them to be far more polarized and political; they have less time to make their mark.
As for the rights of women, the equal protection you cite comes from the 14th Amendment, methinks. Since a number of your statements indicate that you would prefer the Constitution be administered in its "original" intent and spirit, I am surprise you would cite an amendment that so clearly contraditcs the multi-class patriarchy our "founding fathers" intended. As the original document stands, women do not (neccessarily) have rights. Thus, the clarification I called for is not additional or special, but equal, protection.
On the whole, and you can correct me if I am wrong, I find your suggestions somewhat reactionary. Calling for all representatives to be elected with a replacement seems to stem from the fact that right now, if a congressman vacates his seat, a change in the political party balance of power is a strong possibility. Constitutions should be based on generalizations, not the political climate of 2001. Also, and you can again correct me if I am wrong, but some of your "reforms" strike me as dressed up political idealogy. Let me guess: unborn children have a right to life, but children, in general, have no rights, especially if they are delinquent, and to hell with economic disparity among children. You may firmly believe in all of that (or not), but such idealogy has no place in a general governing document, especially when it appears illogical to so many others.
(By illogical I mean internally inconsistent. If I say that everyone has a right to life--unborn children, children (more specifically, a right to a life free of abuse), criminals, old folks, terminally ill, etc., I am being internally consistent; my beliefs all stem from, and do not contradict, the statement that everyone has a right to life. If I say that everyone has a right to life, but that the life of children can be abused, and that this right of criminals can be removed with "due process," even if the criminal is a child, and that old/terminally ill people's right is so strong they themselves cannot refuse it, I might appear contradictory; after all, the original statement was that everyone has a right to life.)
[ November 09, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
[ November 09, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
[ November 09, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
[ November 09, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
I disagree. I don't like the idea of lifetime appointments for ANY position, especially when you're talking about people who can overwrite the will of the people, and don't answer to ANYONE.
Thus, both radical and reactionary appointees who go in there with the intent to change everything eventually "chill out" and find a reasonable middle road.
Except that they don't.
Since a number of your statements indicate that you would prefer the Constitution be administered in its "original" intent and spirit, I am surprise you would cite an amendment that so clearly contraditcs the multi-class patriarchy our "founding fathers" intended.
A) No, they didn't.
B) That being irrelevant to this discussion, the original Constitution wasn't perfect. ALL the amendments, minus prohibition and the income tax, have made it better. (You could argue about the popular election of Senators.) But it still needs work. I don't mean the Constitution as it stood in 1790; I mean each part of the Constitution as it was meant to be read.
I find your suggestions somewhat reactionary.
ALL amendments are reactionary. There is almost nothing in the entire Constitution that was not designed to solve a specific problem that was occuring at the time it was created. There's nothing wrong with reactionary changes, in and of themselves, so long as they're well thought-out. "'A' is a problem, always has been, and will continute to be. An amendment is the only way to fix this problem. Therefore, pass an amendment."
If it turns out to be THAT bad an idea, it can be repealed, ala 18, but I have yet to see why that would be with this one.
Let me guess: unborn children have a right to life, but children, in general, have no rights, especially if they are delinquent, and to hell with economic disparity among children.
Ignoring the irrelevancies about economic disparity...
Unborn children have the same rights as, say, aliens: they are persons under the jurisdiction of the US, and may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Of course, the born children qualify as citizens, unlike the unborn ones, and thus can not have their priveleges and immunities revoked, without same due process, but the unborn children have no use for those priveleges and immunities, so...
You may firmly believe in all of that (or not), but such idealogy has no place in a general governing document, especially when it appears illogical to so many others.
How it APPEARS is irrelevant. What it IS is relevant. The only debate can be over whether the unborn are human. There is no logical or medical reason to say that they aren't. Heck, the reason abortion laws were passed in the first place was because the AMA said that ALL unborn children were alive!
If I say that everyone has a right to life, but that the life of children can be abused, and that this right of criminals can be removed with "due process," even if the criminal is a child, and that old/terminally ill people's right is so strong they themselves cannot refuse it, I might appear contradictory; after all, the original statement was that everyone has a right to life.
Children can't be abused. That's illegal. Obviously. So... why did you bring it up here?
Of course criminals have their rights removed by due process. Otherwise you can't punish them in ANY way. You want to debate the death penalty, deal with it on a state level, not in the Constitution.
As for assisted suicide, I'll deal with that in another amendment. I haven't gotten into it just yet, but what I'm thinking is that if you want to die, you have to sign papers and file them with the court, authorizing a specific person to terminate you. You have to be VERY careful with things like that, or an unscrupulous lawyer could kill his client, or family member their relative. Under any circumstances, if someone wants to die, fine. I'd do everything I could to talk them out of it, but ultimately, it's their life.
While the original statement WAS that everyone has a right to life, it was qualified by the fact that that right can not be infringed upon except by due process of law. I'm being perfectly consistant: you can't kill someone unless
a) they've committed a crime, and the law to which he must answer for that says so;
b) they're threatening you, in which case anything goes; or
c) they sign and file a legal document saying that you can.
The first is the already-existing due process clause; the second is common sense (but will be iterated in a later amendment); and the third is also common sense, with a little procedure tossed in.
Jeff:
Or we could just get rid of the 22nd Ammendment. But then, a large number of people voted for Dubya, which means we could keep getting him in office ... again ... and again ... and again ... (maybe even without the Supreme Court's help) which proves the stupidity of repealing the 22nd Ammendment.
As with when he won the 2000 election, he'll only need the Supreme Court's help if some other court violates the law again in order to get his opponent elected.
But to take what little is worth talking about out of your post, I've got a possible solution for the term limit problem: what if someone could THEORETICALLY be elected as many times as he wanted, but every time he got elected, the criteria became a little tougher? Election A & B, you need the most electoral votes. Election C, you need 52%. Election D, 54%, and so forth. That way, someone could remain in office if the people REALLY liked him, but ONLY if they really liked him. Of course, the percentages are for example only.
--------------------
Here's my refined amendment judicial reform amendment:
--------------------
Section 1: The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of nine Primary Justices, each appointed for a single, nine year term.
Section 2: The Primary Justices of the Supreme Court are to be appointed in groups of three every three years, with each member of the group being appointed in a given year being chosen in a different method from any other in the group.
Section 3: The Primary Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States shall be appointed in the following manners:
a) Three Nominees are to be selected by the President of the United States and submitted to the Congress thereof for confirmation. Such approval will take the form of a simple majority vote in either house.
b) Three Nominees are to be selected by the House of Representatives by a 2/3 majority vote, and submitted to the Senate and the President for confirmation. Upon confirmation by either party, the Nominee will become a Primary Justice. Confirmation by the Senate shall take the form of a simple majority vote.
c) Three Nominees are to be selected by the Senate by a 2/3 majority vote, and submitted to the House of Representatives and the President for confirmation. Upon confirmation by either party, the Nominee will become a Primary Justice. Confirmation in the House shall take the form of a simple majority vote.
Section 4: When a person becomes a Primary Justice of the Supreme Court, they shall, with all due haste, submit to the Congress their nominee for a Secondary Justice. The nominee for the position of Secondary Justice shall be installed as such unless blocked by either a simple majority in either house combined with an objection by the president, or a simple majority of both houses. In the event that the Primary Justice dies, retires, or is otherwise removed before the end of their nine year term, the Secondary Justice shall become a Primary Justice for the remainder of the term, and appoint their own Secondary in the same manner as they would had they been appointed as Primary. In the event of any vacancy in the position of Secondary Justice, the Primary shall appoint another in the same manner.
Section 5: Neither a Primary or Secondary Justice of the Supreme Court may hold another position in the government of the United States. Nor shall anyone who has previously served as a Primary Justice of the Supreme Court be appointed to either position.
Section 6: If any two Primary justices believe that another Primary is unable to fulfill their duties as a Primary Justice of the Supreme Court, they shall transmit that belief to the rest of the court, and a hearing on the matter will be convened within the court. The court, if necessary, will submit a recommendation to Congress regarding an appropriate resolution to the situation.
Section 7: A Primary Justice of the Supreme Court may be removed by a vote of no confidence on the part of the Congress, either by a 2/3 majority in both houses combined with the approval of the President of the United States, or by a 3/4 majority in both houses without said approval.
Section 8: A Secondary Justice of the Supreme Court may be removed by a vote of no confidence on the part of the Congress, either by a simple majority in both houses combined with the approval of the President of the United States, or by a 2/3 majority in both houses without said approval.
Section 9: Upon the request of either House of Congress by simple majority vote, or of the President of the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States may be compelled to review any previous ruling requested of it.
Section 10: If a vacancy occurs in the position of Primary Justice, and no Secondary Justice has been appointed for that position, a new Primary Justice shall be appointed by the President of the United States to fill out the remainder of the term, in the manner outlined in Section 3a of this article of amendment.
Section 11: In the first year whose designation is divisible by three after this article is ratified, the three Supreme Court Justices of longest term shall step down, to be replaced by three selected in compliance with sections two and three of this article. After three years, the same shall occur, and again, after six.
--------------------
Sound better?
I've got an ammendment on the rights of children, too. Basically, it says, "People under 18 years have no federal Constitutional rights beyond protection of their lives. See your state government for more information." I figure there's so much detail involved, the states can handle it. All appropriate state laws regarding children and guns, property, and punishment are likely already in place.
Any comments on that one?
My current list of needed amendments that I haven't written yet are as follows:
Rights of those incapable to make decisions
Right to die
Status of Federal Parks (possible)
Rights of Criminals
Reiteration of Rights (self-defense, property, etc.)
Definitions
Any others y'all can think of?
[ November 10, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]
You do realize that the Founding Fathers were originally creating a republic and not a democracy, though, right?
Your amendment on Federal Parks should be very enlightening!
[ November 10, 2001: Message edited by: Ace ]
Why do you ask?
As for the federal parks bit, I'm not sure what I'm going to do there yet. I may abolish the concept of a federal park entirely, eliminating the federal park service and making all those lands revert to the states. That's just an off-hand thought, but I don't see anything wrong with it at cursory glance.
[ November 11, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
"The President shall be the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and have the power to kick it up a notch when deemed necessary. Bam!"
quote:
Section 3: The Primary Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States shall be appointed in the following manners:a) Three Nominees are to be selected by the President of the United States and submitted to the Congress thereof for confirmation. Such approval will take the form of a simple majority vote in either house.
Surely in both houses, yes? Otherwise one could approve and the other strongly dispprove, nd the guy would still get in.
First of Two for Dictator.
And add to that:
"You do not have the right to stand idly by while your child rampages through a public place like a psychotic midget."
and
"You do not have the right to remain in a movie theater with a screaming infant."
Something tells me that if a state passed a "Child Protection Act" under your "Un-equal (Children's) "Rights" Amendment," stating that parents may not physically abuse/harm their child in any way, suddenly the Constitution would need another revision, an Amendment trumping that state's Omega-given right to pass laws in this area.
those words conjure up images of a loving family
Yes. They do. A parent that doesn't control their child either doesn't care about said child's development into a functioning member of society, or is so dumb that they should have had kids in the first place.
Any parent who must resort to beating a child is probably the cause of the child's misbehavior in the first place.
Do the species a favor and don't breed until you actually learn something about children. Some children are difficult by nature. My parents raised three kids in more or less the exact same manner. One was (and is) difficult, refused to do what he was told, and totally screwed up his life. Another (me) was similar, but turned out quite well-behaved, thanks in no small part to a few good spankings at appropriate times. (The third was brain-damaged by meningitis at an early age, and isn't really apropriate for comparison.) Physical punishment works.
Really, if you think my amendment is so bad, why don't you propose a better one? It'd work far better than your current tack.
I will not propose an ammendment, because an ammendment is unneccessary. I believe that children have the same rights to life, liberty, and happiness as adults. And if an adult grounds a child, for good reason, "depriving" her/him of liberty, a "reasonable" child will realize why he/she was grounded. If he/she pursues the "violation" of his/her rights in court, a "reasonable" court will rule in favor of the parents, who were acting in the child's best interest. Why should adults be entitled to more rights than children?
The "family unit" of this nation has functioned for over 200 years without clarification from the government. Frankly, the less "clarification" from the government on the most personal insitution in our lives, the better.
P.S. You do not have to worry about me "breeding" any time soon; I will not do so until I am married, and marriage is probably 10+ years down the road for me, if ever.
[ November 14, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
"...you know, Omega, there's a phrase you might want to look up. It goes something like "paranoid arrogant fuckwit who has more chance of ejaculating to the moon than he has of ever convincing a girl that he's a viable prospect for marriage." -- September 16, 2000 10:23 PM.
[ November 15, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
quote:
The fourteenth ammendment says that NO ONE in the United States can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Take away candy? Unconstitutional. Make 'em sit in the corner? Unconstitutional.
Talk about interpreting the Constitution.
And wrongly too.
Just for your referemnce, the appropriate section of the 14th Amendment reads:
quote:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Everyone's got a base personality. It's like their OS: the software that comes pre-installed. But most, if not all, of it can be changed, either by environment or by purposeful effort. You start as one thing, and may or may not change to something else. All depends.
Well, if your parents raised both of you the same way, then even in your own family your "(don't) spare the rod . . . " method only has a 50% success rate, and that is if we discount your younger sibling.
Um... why are all of you assuming that the third is the youngest? Just because I MENTIONED him third...
As for the success rate, he could have been punished more and it would likely have helped. Remember, I was a much easier child.
You conveniently forgot to quote my statement regarding my obedience to non-violent parents.
Part of your ingrained personality. More difficult children can require different approaches.
Any "reasonable" child would do the same, without violence.
Find me a reasonable child, and I'll find you five that aren't.
In that case, the nature of that difficulty should be addressed, be it biological, chemical, or emotional, by professionals.
Oh, OK. So we should just drug kids instead of diciplining them. Just so we're clear on that.
a "reasonable" court will rule in favor of the parents, who were acting in the child's best interest
It's still a violation of rights. By your standard, the government can take away everyone's guns, and keep them from going to church, and claim that it's in their best interest. It would be absurd to claim that as a legal standard.
Why should adults be entitled to more rights than children?
Because children are not mentally capable of handling the responsibilities of adults. If children had the same rights as adults, children could own and carry guns. Children could also not be punished by their parents. These are obviously undesirable.
Frankly, the less "clarification" from the government on the most personal insitution in our lives, the better.
Hang on. I'm telling the federal government that it CAN'T interfere with family issues. That seems to be exactly what you want. And yet you're complaining? You're not making any sense. Heck, you're the one advocating that kids should be drugged or sent to therapists instead of diciplined.
I fail to see how degrading the physical act of love, a process by which another human being may created, by derogatorily referring to it as "breeding," could make one feel intelligent.
So do I. And considering it was practically quoted from the Doc on Voyager...
Still, the point about guns remains.
Because that's exactly what I want to avoid. I don't want the federal government involved in ANY way. Say Congress passes legislation making the minimal allowable enforcement the maximum reasonable enforcement. What then? They'd just have eusurped the power of the states again, and it would have defeated the entire purpose of the ammendment. I don't want Congress to even THINK about things not in its mandate, because it's a waste of their time.
Story: we could have killed or captured Osama bin Laden seven years ago, shortly after the first WTC bombing. We knew exactly where he was, and I mean exactly, for almost a month. But because Congress was too busy with garbage and not paying enough attention to its one real job of national defense, he got away.
We have a division of powers among the different levels of government for a reason.
Smacking still legal in this country, I believe. But only to children over 3, and only on the bottom, or something strange like that.
Oh, and I made a hilarious quote about breeding? When?
Was it better than the time you thought that energy was created when babies were conceived Jeff?
[ November 15, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
The states.
Citizens of all ages have and should continue to have redress in cases where due process in cases involving federal and state governments. Which is what the 14 Amendment is about. It is not about interpersonal relationships. Again, as I see it you are misreading the Amendment.
quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This was written to prevent slavery and to insure that African Americans were citizens with the same right as the whites that had enslaved them.
Slavery might be viewed as a personal and private relationship between a master and a slave, but it could not exist without state sanction and law allowing it. As a result, the amendment was worded to:
Your only real option is to enumerate, as you see them, the rights of children.
[ November 16, 2001: Message edited by: Mojo Jojo ]
Children have rights.
Those rights should be protected on a state level ONLY, because the states can handle it better than the federal government.
Simple.
As for Jeff's question, which is really the only intelligent one there amazingly enough, yes, strictly speaking it would be legal, BUT no state would ever pass such a law. The people wouldn't stand for it, and why would they want to in the first place?
I must now bow out of the "Children's 'Rights'" portion of this debate (though I suppose I should answer any direct response to this post). I have tried to argue my point politely and objectively, but I feel so strongly about this subject I fear I will degrade into a rude and polarized debater. Life is a precious gift from God. I do my best to not knowlingly harm other lives, and I cannot fathom wanting to harm a life I created. This being my position, I am too enraged and exasperated to continue to debate this point in a polite manner.
Oh yes. Because society has also functioned for all that time, that means we never need to pass any new laws ever! Yay!
The argument that children should have less rights than adults is a non-issue. Children already have less rights than adults. And unless you want 10 year olds voting, then they will continue to have less rights. In a society which divides it's people up into "adults" and "children", there will always be an age where a child takes responsibility for him or herself, and therefore gets more rights.
And there's also a clear example of the American tendancy to go way overboard here (such as with drink and drugs). Saying a parent can smack a child on the bottom is no-where near the same as saying that a parent can beat their child with a large hammer every single night.
That was the point of the part of my post that you quoted. Ask almost any American if children have the same rights as adults, or if they are equal to adults, and he/she will respond in the negative, even though some (Omega, at least) interpret the 14th Amendment as technically putting adults and children on equal footing. Perhaps such an interpretation is possible, but culture, society, and state law operate on the notion that adults and children are not equal. The notion may not be technically "constitutional," but it certainly is "common law," if you will, and precedent setting. Thus, my point was, and you said, children have less rights than adults. That is why I find a new amendment that says as much unneccessary and probably just a tool to trump states that wish to give children more rights.
Lastly, I would appreciate not being patronized. I posted that the family unit has survived nearly 150 years even though some believe the 14th Amendment does not allow parents to choose what rights and responsibilities their children have, though they have been doing so during that time. Thus, my comments that a law is not needed obviously pertained to that statement, and were not an assertation that no new laws are ever needed as long as society survives.
[ November 16, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
See, that's just the thing: we're not England. We HAVE a Constitution, and aren't just ruled by tradition. If common law could override the Constitution, then why have a Consitution at all? See, we did that on purpose.
Thus, my point was, and you said, children have less rights than adults. That is why I find a new amendment that says as much unneccessary and probably just a tool to trump states that wish to give children more rights.
It's two things:
a) Legal nitpicking; solving a small loophole that hasn't posed a problem AS YET, but could in the future
b) Decentralization; it gets the federal government out of something it doesn't need to worry about
It does two things of acceptable, if relatively minor, uselessness, and it has no negative side effects. Sounds good to me.
Still, Britain is just ruled by tradition? Huh?
quote:
what's preventing your Parliment from declaring, say, Meg Thatcher to be dictator?
Common sense. A quality you seem to lack.
WRONG. Common sense does not have any legal force. NEXT!
quote:
Decentralization; it gets the federal government out of something it doesn't need to worry about
That's just wrong. The government of the United States of America needs to and has a Constitutional duty to worry about every single one of its citizens be they 8 months or 108.
So again, (as if it really matters to your ideology) you have to eliminate whole or part of sections of the Constitution that would conflict with your elimination of rights guaranteed to every citizen of the United States.
[ November 18, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
It has the duties specifically laid out for it in the Constitution, and no more. The rest is up to the states.
These are Constitutional guarantees, along with others, extend to every single American citizen. Even considering that people under certain ages already have Constitutional limitations.
Your reason for even writing this sort of amendment is flawed.
quote:
Because as it is, children can't legally be punished, or controlled in ANY way, by their parents....
The federal government doesn't have to deal with EVERYTHING, and it's far better if it doesn't.
Your first observation is wrong. Nothing more need to be said about it.
Your second assertion in conjunction with your proposed amendment is also has shortcomings. While I'm not entirely certain where you made the leap in logic that all such things child related fall under the perview of federal jurisdiction, I think you will find, were you to do the research, that such matters are already taken care of by the several states.
[ November 18, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Aside from the fact that our whole social, economic, and cheese making system isn't set up to support a dictator, and the fact that if it happened, everyone would simply move?
It's also hard to take someone's arguments seriously when they know so little about a country that they think that one of it's longest serving (and most famous and evil) leaders is called "Meg".
[ November 19, 2001: Message edited by: PsyLiam ]
quote:
It's still legal for a three-year-old to own a gun. This is bad.
Certainly not that you've done any research on age restrictions on gun ownership, but I'd bet that's a position the NRA supports...lest we go down that slippery slope of limiting gun ownership.
Other than that the assertion is silly and in no way defends your other silly positions I called you on.
We again have the old diversion tactic. We've grown to expect no less.
quote:
I'd bet that's a position the NRA supports
How much would you like to bet? I could use some spending cash.
Such blathering of spurious attacks is beneath you.
(I can say, after going to see 'Harry Potter' this weekend, that whether or not the government or parents have any right to 'control' children, they do very lousy jobs of doing it. Ratty munchkins kicked my seat for 2 1/2 hours straight!)
Hey, if the govt. regulates kid behaviours, can I get a law passed that makes taking toddlers and infants to movie theatres, and then refusing to leave when the child becomes loud and/or unmanageable, a felony? Hm? That would be GREAT!
[ November 20, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
1. They will generally be GONE in half an hour.
2. They aren't MINE, and therefore aren't my responsibility. I am not a babysitter.
And it's not the children's behaviour I'm really complaining about here... it's the parents'.
I mean, if I'd behaved the way these kids behaved, (and I couldn't have, because my parents kept me out of movie theatres until I was 5 and had learned to keep still), moments later you could have fried an egg on my butt from the spanking I got.
It's DISCIPLINE, people!!!
I know it's not condonable, but going to see a kids film at a time when the cinema will be swarming with kids and then complaining that they acted like children is a bit, well, daft.
The Problems of Jurisprudence by Richard Posner
Overcoming Law by Richard Posner
An Affair of State by Richard Posner
The People's Welfare (published by UNC Press)
The Guardian of Every Other Right by Garratt Epps
The Problematics of Moral & Legal Theory by Richard Posner
Responding to Imperfection edited by Sanford Levinson
Some of these are real monsters to read, but a lot of what I've read in these posts would be answered by some the works of the above theoritician-practitioners. Sorry I can't write more (there IS a lot I would love to say) but I have to start studying for law school exams. Hope to be back during Christmas Break. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone!
But I also expect that the parents will make them stop when it reaches the point that they become an irritant to other people. That's one of the prime responsibilities to being a parent... discipline. It doesn't mean whacking them... just teaching them the tifference between 'run-around-time' and 'sit-down-and-hush-time.'
And don't tell me it's impossible for kids that young to be quiet. I know that's a lie, because _I_ did it.
[ November 21, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
quote:
"what's preventing your Parliment from declaring, say, Meg Thatcher to be dictator?"
One gets the feeling that Omega believes that if the Republic had had a Constitution, Senator Palpatine could never have overthrown it.