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?

[ November 11, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]

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.

---