Survey- Proposed Constitutional Amendments

You shouldn't require a conceal-carry permit because keeping firearms is a right not a privilege but a right. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that anyone has the power to infringe on that right in any way.

edited 25th Mar '11 4:38:22 AM by tnu1138

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

Explain what you mean by this? If anything, a republic is closer to an oligarchy than a democracy is. Had to check dictionary.com to make sure I remembered my civics right and wasn't talking out of my ass.

• Democracy
  • government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

• Republic
  • a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.

• Oligarchy
  • a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.

One could argue that "the majority" is a dominant class or clique, but a republic has the exact same "problem", and generally speaking when the phrase "a dominant class" is used, they mean "by the rich" or "by the religious", not "by the majority". If anything, a republic is worse, as the majority picks who'll rule in their oligarchy.

More importantly, Amendments-

• The Electoral College is hereby disbanded; the president is instead to be elected by the popular vote
  • Tricky bordering on impossible, as I believe the Constitution proper demands that the electoral college be used.

• Any earmarks added or revisions made to any bill brought to the Senate or House of Representatives must be related to the original bill.

edited 23rd Mar '11 9:53:28 AM by Wulf

They lost me. Forgot me. Made you from parts of me. If you're the One, my father's son, what am I supposed to be?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPwnFt_m-RE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C_YBhY11yA

Three seperet unrelated analysis of the four basic forms of government all coming to the same basic conclusions.

Anyway sorry for this derail Heathen. Just really hate this misunderstanding.

edited 23rd Mar '11 10:13:10 AM by tnu1138

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

Keep your republic. I'll be here in my constitutional monarchy with it's representational democracy.

Indeed I am.

edited 23rd Mar '11 10:22:32 AM by GreatLich

I'm presuming your Dutch Great Lich?

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

"Something something you can't discriminate against gay people"

"Something something you can't discriminate against transgendered people"

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Here's one. No one is to pass an ammendment requiring anyone to "respect" the flag or strictily defining marrige.

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

Yes, and no. For mass-mailing, it would be opt-in on a per solicitor basis. Commercials are required to support television and radio broadcasting, so tuning in would imply consent*

^{Unless you paid to have commercials removed, which is an interesting idea for a separate topic.}

. That is, you are seeking out the medium rather than having it passively delivered to you.

Those are a bit specific but I could stand by them. Maybe change to this:

• No law shall be passed compelling a person to display homage or feasance to any symbol, icon, or institution, save those serving a military or law enforcement function.
• No law shall be passed defining or restricting a social contract between consenting adult individuals including, but not limited to, marriage, domestic partnership, cohabitation, or sexual unions; where such contract does not represent a threat to the well-being of persons not party to the contract. Any law respecting such contracts may not discriminate against them on the basis of gender or number of persons involved or any other attribute prohibited by discrimination law.

edited 23rd Mar '11 12:16:17 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

My proposals:

1) The ERA 2) "Sec. 1: Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as granting the right to an abortion. Sec. 2: This Amendment shall not be construed as mandating the prohibition of abortion".

"Barkey is now the God Emperor of the American Empire. FOR THE EMPEROR! EVEN IN DEATH WE STILL SERVE!"

...

If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

Isn't this already one of the cornerstones of the American government? I distinctly remember my social studies teachers in elementary telling me that, "Your rights stop where another's begins" or something along those lines.

Anyways, I would make the following ammendment to the US Constitution:

In principle, yes. In practice, the above is an attempt to get the Constitution to exclusively enshrine negative freedoms — in short, Libertarianism.

Regarding the 22nd, why?

Edit: oops, got my terminology messed up.

edited 23rd Mar '11 12:50:09 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Actually isn't it to enshrine negetive freedoms?

We must survive, all of us. The blood of a human for me, a cooked bird for you. Where is the difference?

^^ Ah, I see.

I feel the 22nd Amendment places an arbitrary limit on the people's right to decide who should be president. Although I can understand the reasons behind it, I still find the amendment somewhat undemocratic.

If the public want to elect someone for more than two terms, why should we stand in the way?

Some of the other amendments proposed here, although well-meaning are already covered under existing amendments.

edited 23rd Mar '11 12:52:45 PM by Pentadragon

Yeah, my goof. Also I should point out that my earlier proposal, that you can't make a law telling people what to do if it doesn't hurt anyone else does not apply to taxation and other government interests.

To prevent someone from controlling the government through a cult of personality, becoming a de facto if not literal king?

edited 23rd Mar '11 12:52:23 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I'm somewhat conflicted about such provisions. I can agree that "to prevent someone from controlling the government through a cult of personality, becoming a de facto if not literal king" would be a good thing. On the other hand, I feel that any safeguards a constitution/state/government implements to ensure it's own continuation is setting those dangerous first steps on a slippery slope towards (some form of) totalitarianism. That is to say, when the system starts to protect itself from the citizens the system is supposed to serve; or even protecting the citizens from themselves (more likely to come first) it can only end badly.

"citizenship through (military) service" and "right to vote is retained only by obedience to the law" are extreme examples of such self-perpetuating policies. Only allowing those that will submit to the system/are already convinced it is good influence over it? What could possibly go wrong?!

Of course there need to exist some checks and balances. But any system would preferably be in place because it works, not because it keeps itself there.

edited 23rd Mar '11 1:27:28 PM by GreatLich

You're talking about Starship Troopers and its ilk. This is a case of research failure, as Heinlein's point is to restrict voting to people who have served their country in some direct way. Being city dogcatcher counts, as long as it is government service. Military service is only one path you can take. The point being that a person who cannot appreciate the value of serving their country has no business telling the country what to do.

The term limits actually serves to prevent the self-perpetuation of which you speak, by forcing a new person to come to office every few terms. Otherwise there's nothing inherently preventing a sufficiently popular President from serving for life, something that is more, not less likely to make the government autocratic.

edited 23rd Mar '11 1:34:36 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Ah, well, we've got 2 or 3 threads going about governance. You'll find such suggestions in the "ideal society" thread.

The point is that the system could thereby go against the wishes of the people it supposedly serves on the grounds of "serving their interests". Once one is a that point, the slippery slope is not very far.

If it were merely a case of respecting the people's democratically expressed wishes in all cases, then we wouldn't need or want a judicial review system. But we have one to prevent laws from conflicting with our Constitution. Checks and balances — the founders realized that you can't just let people vote themselves any random shit they feel like.

At the risk of sounding snarky, that's one of California's problems.

edited 23rd Mar '11 1:54:23 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

"Senators shall not serve in office more than 12 years, nor representatives more than 8 years."

ERA, extended past sex to all categories of people.

Abolishment of the electoral college, and requiring that all federal officials need a majority and not just a plurality to be elected.

Moving election day to Sunday.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Find a legal way to word "corporations are not people and do not have rights" and I'm all for it.

Better yet, ban lobbying, utterly, completely, and severely.

edited 23rd Mar '11 3:28:42 PM by annebeeche

Banned entirely for telling FE that he was being rude and not contributing to the discussion. I shall watch down from the goon heavens.

That can be done without changing the Constitution, however good luck getting it to pass. (Just stating the reality, I oppose lobbying more than you can possibly imagine)

So far Barkey's looks the most reasonable.

^You mean...amend it?

edited 23rd Mar '11 3:45:06 PM by HungryJoe

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Which is why an Amendment would need to be used. Because the only way it'll happen is if the states do it and cut congress out.

My other signature is a Gundam.