Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mictlantecuhtli]

It's reasons like this that I'm amazed the founders did the not-awful job they did when first writing the constitution, to be entirely honest.

[kaijyuu]

I'd still say they did an awful job Just not nearly as bad as they could've.

Such happens when you have like 80 armchair philosophers bickering over it.

[Bohandas]

22. There are no victimless crimes. Thus if a victim cannot be readily demonstrated, there has been no crime. A victim must be directly harmed or disadvantaged by the act to qualify as a victim.

This would fuck with environmental laws more than anything else.  I'm aware you could say a group of people are being affected but there may be cases where it's extremely hard to demonstrate who exactly was victimized by habitat destruction or pollution.

Also things like attempted murder.  If you find out someone intends to kill another person then you'd either have to wait until they kill them or stop them and let them try again.

If somebody is attacked they have been victimized even if the attacker misses. You've still  scared them and ruined their day. Alternately, the wording could be changed to also include deliberate intent to harm

As for environmental laws, nowhere does the law specify that the victim must be human (which brings me to the related concern that it should be explicitly stated that the supposed victim may not be "God" or "the moral fabric of society")

So you're going to imprison 2 thirds of the country for the mass murder on flies/ mosquitos or some other small animal?

No. A regular and specific law would still need to be passed first for that to be a crime. What is illegal is beyond the scope of the proposed amendment, which exists only to restrict what may be made illegal.

[Bohandas]

I'd still say they did an awful job Just not nearly as bad as they could've.

Such happens when you have like 80 armchair philosophers bickering over it.

I believe that one of them described it as "The worst system save for all those others that people have tried" (or something to that effect)

(or was it Winston Churchill who said that? I can never remember; he said a lot of the same kinds of things that Franklin and Jefferson did)

[GlyphGryph]

So, I have to say - I'm actually a huge fan of the electoral college system. I would not like to see it abolished. I would like to see it expanded, and used as intended, instead of almost completely ignored and neglected and misunderstood. It is perhaps our best chance at making legitimate change to the system, since we can do it at a state level and demonstrate it's superiority.

A single state, right now, can switch to an alternate voting system, divide their electoral votes proportionally, or any of a variety of things. It gives them the opportunity to switch to far superior methodologies than any of the ones currently proposed, perhaps less obviously democratic ones but with better outcomes. That they choose to use the system the way they do is the problem. The electoral system gives the people the power to say "You can decide amongst yourselves how you're going to handle this", and the fact that they, without fail, choose the worst possible option doesn't seem to be a promising reason to require 51% support, at minimum, to even ever try something different.

In my mind, one of the main purposes of the states system is thus : to allow government to experiment, improve, and share those improvements in a way where the risks they take will not bring down the system as a whole. They are laboratories - legislative and procedural test beds, if you will. I'd like to see a constitution expound upon that in some way, and more clearly define when and how states can trump federal law (and thus allow current and future progress towards more optimal solutions), and under which circumstances federal law should have the final say (which by definition stifles legislative and procedural innovation, since you need broad compromise to enact a chance).

And then, of course, there's secondary fact that states can more precisely match the preferences of their electorates, something I think is important, though many people seem to disagree. Sure, there are racist states, and states that treat immigrants like shit, but there are also states that allow medical marijuana and gay marriage and have state-based medical systems.

Those who say the federal government should always be able to overwhelm the will of the states are saying that they are willing to sacrifice those good things, and likely any chance of those good things EVER happening, to prevent the bad. I'm not sure it's worth it. Restrictions should be clear.

I think the federal government should not be able to directly tax the people, but only the states, with the tax based equally across states as a percentage of the states wealth or GDP or income or something. Then let the states decide how best to raise those funds.

[Leafsnail]

I find it difficult to imagine someone who would do that that's not mentally unhinged in some fashion. So... rehabilitation rather than jail.

Do note we're not talking about crimes of passion here.

There have been quite a lot of conspiracy to murder cases so this is a really weird thing to say.

[kaijyuu]

There are quite a lot of nutballs in the world.

[Leafsnail]

They haven't all been nutballs.  Some have been murders for monetary gain and the like.

[kaijyuu]

Ah, that would require debating whether stuff like sadistic sociopathy is a mental issue or not. I'm willing to concede a difference of opinion there if you don't think it is.

[10ebbor10]

medical marijuana

While I do agree with the notion of using drugs in a medical way, I don't like the way it's used in the U.S. It's to uncontrolled, using an oil solution instead of just smoking allows for a better effect, better dosage, and less side effects.

[Leafsnail]

It's not sadism.  It's deciding that your personal wealth is more important than the lives of others.

[kaijyuu]

Yes, I'd personally file such a person under "nutball" myself. Either they're delusional and really good at rationalizing their monetary wants to be more important than someone's life, or a rather inhuman monster without empathy.

[GlyphGryph]

While I do agree with the notion of using drugs in a medical way, I don't like the way it's used in the U.S. It's to uncontrolled, using an oil solution instead of just smoking allows for a better effect, better dosage, and less side effects.

This honestly kind of supports my point - optimally, different states would enact different ways of handling it, and the most effective variant would propogate, rather than one (likely wrong) way being enshrined at the start, and pretty much cemented in place because no one wants to risk changing it.

[Bohandas]

In my mind, one of the main purposes of the states system is thus : to allow government to experiment, improve, and share those improvements in a way where the risks they take will not bring down the system as a whole.

I was under the impression that they were simply a vestige of an earlier system that the Founding Fathers had set up during the country's first few years.

[Eagleon]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I considered that, but I couldn't find any better answer, wait a minute. I've got something! And a couple others I missed.

Zrk2's Bill of Rights, Draft Two

1. All persons residing in the USA shall have the right to freely express their opinions without constraint or limitation, except in such cases where they have previously agreed in writing not to do so. I'd change this thing. They have the freedom of speech, as long as it won't infringe on the rights of others, or they have previously agreed in writing not to do so.

2. All persons residing within the USA shall have the right to freely travel between the states without any restrictions, unless said restrictions are terms of bail or probation.Quarantine? Evacuation? And where/how? Can we hop the border directly onto a military installation, or someone else's property for that matter?

3. All persons residing in the USA shall have the right to own property, provided they pay taxes and do not use it to exert undue influence upon the lives of others. I can imagine situations where this could go wrong. No one doesn't pay taxes. Limit it to Property specific.Who gets to decide what's undue and why? I think this is better handled by regular old laws for specific problems.

4. Any citizen of the USA may hold any office once they have attained their age of majority. I don't like the idea that I can be president at age 18. I reccomend either aging the age of majority or at least moving it to 25.I think anyone should be able to hold office, regardless of age. Let the people decide who is capable and trustworthy. You can't predict whether age of majority will even be a legal concept we use, in the future.

5. No branch of government may force a person to either undertake, or not undertake a medical procedure. Abortion is a medical procedure.Change this thing to allow governement to enforce quarantine in case of epidemics, and prevent dangerous procedures.(dangerous procedure is when it hurts others as well as yourself) Also right here. Remember, your rights end where others begin.Medical consent is already tricky without a constitutional amendment. You have to take into account that a person may not be conscious to give their consent. In that case this would immediately constitute a violation since the government currently gets to decide who can be given it.

6. All persons residing in the USA shall have the right to possess firearms provided they do not have a felony conviction and do not have a history of mental illness.I'd place some limitations on which kind of firearms, but then again I'm from Europe. We don't have the same gun culture as America. I'm seconding types. What about miniguns? Those are fire-arms. There shoudl probably be a ban on military style weapons.As someone with a mental illness, I think this is crap, no offense. There are all kinds of mental illnesses that would not constitute a danger to a person or others if they had a firearm. Instead it might be better as "provided they have not been judged a danger to themselves or others by an entity authorized by the people." It's potentially fishy but not nearly as blanketing.

7. All citizens of the USA may vote in all elections, provided their primary residence is within the jurisdiction of said election, and they are not currently in prison. Why can't prisoners vote? What about residents of Puerto rico? And other US held lands.I'll point out this includes minors to whoever's reading. Not that I don't agree with that.

8. The president of the USA shall be elected by a simple majority of the popular vote. A majority as in the most, or as in at least x% required. I'd go for at least x% required, with succeeding rounds in which the worst candidates fall off. As soon as a candidate has 66%, he wins.
First past the post is a terrible systemAgree with the other dude.

9. Political ads shall be banned during election season. Instead, all persons running for the position, with a petition for them to run bearing at least 100 signatures, shall take part in a series of publicly televised, radio broadcasted, and published in all other possible forms of media. Personally, I think if political ads were funded solely by personal contributions, it would count as a expression of support.There are places where gathering 100 signatures for an election is next to impossible. What happens if there aren't any debates, do we just guess? What constitutes an advertisement, and how do you prevent a form of media (which could include a specific magazine or blog, for instance) saying that they don't have room or time to publish all the candidates in a balanced manner? It's still possible for them to publish some of them.

10. The press shall have the right to publish all news as it occurs, unless a judge has specifically forbidden it, and provided in writing a detailed explanation of why it may not be published at the time of the first printing. These explanations are only valid if they provide a reasonable expectation of gross bodily harm to a person residing in the USA or endanger citizens of the USA currently abroad.See the same thing as with freedom of speech Woah, are you removing permenant free speech? Holy crap. The current laws already provide for slander in the case of a none-public figure.And non citizens are just screwed I guess. There are cases where the military may be protecting a political figure or informant, for instance.

11. All persons residing in the USA shall have the right to a fair and speedy trial, either by a judge or jury of their peers, as the law dictates.

12. All persons residing in the USA shall have the right to absolute privacy of thought, possessions, beliefs, and everything else unless a warrant is granted for the search of a specific item. The warrant must cite a reasonable cause to believe that said item is involved in, or supporting a, crime. All warrants must be issued by a judge. What of cases of emergency, such as if a life was on the line? Such things must be accounted for.

13. All persons residing in the USA shall have the freedom to practice whatever religion they choose, or none at all.

14. "Marriage" is no longer a recognized state of being by the state. Instead a civil union is available to persons who desire it, regardless of age, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or any other similar factors.If you're doing this why immediately rebrand it? It's already questionable that people that follow a specific lifestyle get extra protection and benefits not available to people with no spouse, or two.

15. Congressional terms shall be limited to three terms as a congressman, three terms as a senator, and two terms as President.Term limits always kind of bugged me. With a ban on political advertisements, do we really need this? What if someone's just really, really knowledgeable and fair-minded? We suddenly have to elect someone else?

16. All persons shall have the freedom to assemble and discuss any and all issues.

17. Church and state shall remain absolutely separate. Churches shall not receives exemptions for anything which is not immediately and specifically, and directly linked to their charitable activities.Maybe expand this to other things too, companies shouldn't be interfering in governement.Maybe more specifically, their own charitable activities. As in they have to do it themselves, no shaving a bit off top just for gathering money for a different charity.

18. All state laws shall be directly subordinate to federal law in the case that said laws overlap.

19. Congress shall have the power to take measures necessary, including, but not limited to, taxation and legislation, to enforce these rights.

20. Money is not speech. Money is property. Technically it's it's neither. It's a currency. Saying it's property so bluntly could have far reaching effects. Do you have to pay taxes on money? Can I not own money if I don't pay taxes?

21. All persons shall have the right to be free from discrimination based on age, gender, sexual orientation, religion ( or lack thereof) or other irrelevant factors. Irrelevant to what? This vagueness could be abused.

22. There are no victimless crimes. Thus if a victim cannot be readily demonstrated, there has been no crime. A victim must be directly harmed or disadvantaged by the act to qualify as a victim.Yeah, I'd change this thing. There are such things as victims against abstract things, or against groups of people. What about littering?