Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
School project: rewrite the Constitution
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Raw Cadet: [QB] Or tonight. 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 ] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3