Survey- Proposed Constitutional Amendments

You do realize how much of a risk it would then be to go into the book making business, right? More so, it creates economical barriers since you've got to produce your own books and then your own merchandise and hope nothing goes horribly wrong with your first book ever.

Seriously. Piracy isn't exactly a victimless crime. People try and make their living off their books and their music.

The people demand free entertainment, and they take it by force. It's fine on my book.

Social conquests always trample on someone's commercial interests.

Um... Guys. Constitutional amendments? hello?

I'm glad they demand it, because now I and no one else have sufficient reason to supply it. There's only so long you can go off of old entertainment before the next generation needs something new to record their beliefs, fantasies, and history.

If an industry requires protection from the public, screw that industry.

edited 23rd Mar '11 4:51:55 AM by SavageHeathen

Would you consider it fair if someone were to come and build a cupboard for you, and then when they asked to be paid for their work you said "Fuck you, I don't have to pay!"

If tradespeople have the right to be paid for their time and skill, why don't the makers of entertainment?

Because tradespeople have the ability to hand out their wares or not. The cultural industry does not have the means to prevent you copying and distributing their wares. Culture is not scarce, and using the State to introduce artificial scarcity is evil.

Guys Constitutional amendments!

edited 25th Mar '11 4:43:10 AM by tnu1138

So... it's fine for you to steal their hard work because they don't have any method to prevent you? What the hell sort of moral system is that?

edited 23rd Mar '11 4:54:06 AM by LoniJay

Line item veto.

ERA.

You don't *steal*. You *copy*. You deprive nobody of their copy, so no stealing happens.

Anyway, the cultural industry faces an uphill battle. Piracy will always win.

Music existed before copyrights and it will exist after them. Literature existed before copyrights and will exist after them.

Only film and video games could be in any danger at all. Perhaps film wouldn't survive without copyrights. Videogaming would, as evidenced by the large variety of modern 3D games made by four Russian guys in a basement. Overall, the only casualty would be cinema.

As for comics, there's a lot of people who like to draw and caption comics. There's no reason to think comics would survive without copyrights.

Screw film, anyway. The good narrative nowadays, is in TV series .

edited 23rd Mar '11 5:03:00 AM by SavageHeathen

I'd have to agree that film is an obsolete medium. But again this topic isn’t about copyrights or opinions on various mediums.

edited 25th Mar '11 4:42:48 AM by tnu1138

Well, I proposed neutering copyrights with one of the amendments.

edited 23rd Mar '11 5:06:39 AM by SavageHeathen

Yes my friend but that’s not what this topic is about if we want to discuss copyrights we should start a new topic. Focus on amendments.

edited 25th Mar '11 4:41:23 AM by tnu1138

Amendment XXXII - Child support payments shall no longer be applicable under the law until paternity of the child in question has been identified, or if the recipient's annual salary exceeds that of the donor's. Additionally, any donor of child support is automatically entitled to visitation rights of the child barring a criminal conviction that shows the parent could be a threat to their child.

Amendment XXXIII - Any member of congress or the senate convicted of a federal crime during office is no longer considered fit for office and shall be barred from serving in any office of the united states, elected or appointed.

Amendment XXXIV - The United States of America is a secular nation, which does not adhere to any religious organization or belief. The affiliation of the united states with any religious practice is prohibited, in addition, any law determined to be established as an extension of religious text or creed is to be deemed invalid and be removed.

edited 23rd Mar '11 5:21:06 AM by CommandoDude

Fourth Amendment says "hi". You're basically re-saying that Amendment almost verbatim.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof." First clause of the First Amendment. We do not need this. If there are laws violating the First Amendment in regards to religion, challenge them. Don't make a fucking redundant amendment.

Case law of the last 230 years is not in favor of religious laws or programs sponsored by the government.

My own proposals:

"No member of Congress shall have a tenure in office greater than twelve years combined between either the House of Representatives, the Senate or both."

"Excepting in times of declared war, Congress shall not pass a budget greater than twenty percent of the country's annual gross domestic product. This amendment is enforced by the judiciary and executive branches."

I think he attempting to make it more specific and less open to re-interpretation, rather than a totally redundant amendment. Would stop stuff like that bill proposing that "In God We Trust" being stuck on every federal building.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

You hear people wanting to convene another Constitutional Convention. Here's how that would work.

Every fringe group in the country would fight to get their delegates into that convention. You'd get a non-stop media circus, everyone trying to out-radicalize each other. These nut jobs would scream at each other about the basic nature of government, with no clues about how to make it work in the real world. Any thoughtful consideration would get left in the dust.

And here's the scary part. Read the article about conventions. Those people could throw out the entire Constitution and write a new one from scratch. Wouldn't it make more sense to fix the system we already have, let it work the way it was designed, than to let a pack of demagogues slap together something else? I hear it's a pretty good system.

Unless you happen to smoke weed, or gamble, or like whoring, or have any of the vices the Government doesn't like. Or unless you like your gun rights and don't want them feds taking your guns away. Or unless you're not mainstream and have political opinions that they've decided to monitor.

It's only a good system for the mainstream. Screw the mainstream.

edited 23rd Mar '11 8:14:34 AM by SavageHeathen

Umm, hello, democracy. Not "tyranny of the minority".

I'm kind of shooting blanks here for actual amendments, but I have a few things in mind that might make it to that level rather than as general laws and regulations...

• No person or business shall solicit another person or business, in a private place, for any purpose - commercial, religious, political, charitable, or otherwise - without the express consent of the person or business so solicited.
  • Note: the above is a restriction on individuals, not government, so it wouldn't actually work as part of the Constitution, but hey, I can dream.

• No law shall be passed restricting the freedom of an individual person to perform any activity that carries no demonstrable or likely risk of harm or loss to a person other than the individual so acting, or that infringes upon any right enumerated elsewhere in this Constitution.
  • Corollary: consequent harm would be included, such as a parent's obligations to his children, or getting in a car crash while drunk or high. But if an unencumbered twenty-something wants to off himself or smoke weed, so be it.

edited 23rd Mar '11 8:47:37 AM by Fighteer

Those both sound good. Does solicit include mass mailing campaigns? Hm, does it include commercials, or is that considered implicit.

Yeah saying Democracy is not an Oligarchy is a misleading notion. Majority rule means the minority is screwed over. Once again I also have to point out we are not a Democracy we are a Republic. There is a goddamn difference!

edited 25th Mar '11 4:40:03 AM by tnu1138

Oh noes.

Priorities, man. Most nations have a set of arbitrary prohibitions that makes absolutely no sense, but people forebear. And we're pretty lax when compared to the rest of the world, too. Okay, so you're concerned about gun rights even though 48 states have some variation on the conceal-carry law. Buying a gun is easier than getting a driving permit. What are you complaining about, again?