Basic Rights

I think you need to incorporate a lot of the current bill of right in your list. They may not seem as important today, but to a large extent that is because the bill of rights has made it hard to abuse them.

[link|http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html|Cornell Law] is where I grabbed all the current bill of rights from. I did edit this a bit though to make it shorter, no text removed though.

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I think this actually jumbles a couple of only partially related things into one amendment. I think religion, press (news agency) and right to assemble need to be included as seperate rights. I'm not sure about the last bit, in part because I'm not clear on what it actually covers.

Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This is a huge can of worms on it's own. I do think that the right to self defense should be added someplace. But the broad wording about militias is meaningless in the modern US.

Amendment III: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Needs to be illegal, but doesn't deserve an amendment anymore.

Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Needs rewording in light of changes in the law and technology. But has to be in there someplace. You only get a little part of this right now.

Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Like 4, the wording needs updated but the concept remains important. With the possible exception of the grand jury bit, grand juries are outdated now and serve no purpose but legal manuvering by prosecutors.

Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Same as 4, possibly with some additions and modifications.

Amendment VII: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Most of that is outdated now, but the right to trial for civil matters is important.

Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Needs to be said. In fact I would like to see the excessive fines section made stronger in light of some police seizure abuses.

Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It is worth saying, though use of it has been very limited.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Like IX, needs to be there even if it's widely ignored.

Most of the later amendments don't need to be included or are trivial changes (voting age for instance). But XV needs to be a basic entry.

Amendment XV Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 1 should be a right itself, and I would drop the part about race/color/servitude entirly. You might allow denial to felons, but even that would have to watched closely, as it is abused in several states.
Section 2 should be changed to being a comment on the bill of rights as a whole.

As for your overall wording, I think need to remove the word "truth" from a couple of places. Truth is far to subjective a concept to be included here. Even worse, in saying a person has freedom of speech only for truthful matters, you are opening the door for congress to legislate what is "truth".

The right to survival is rather questionable. In one sense it is too narrow, in saying only that the government may not tax such matters and at the same time too broad in that it could be easily twisted to cover other things. I think the words "within reason" are good warning sign that you need to reword that section.

There are two things I can think of that should be added. Right to privacy, which means that the government can not keep records about individuals or groups nor moniter them except as necissary for some legitimate purpose, and that the government must take all resonable measures to keep said information secret. Second, Right to personal information, which means that a person has a right to read whatever records the government is keeping about them and some resonable method of correcting errors.

Jay

You have no right to steal from me and give it to those you deem socially acceptable for state freebies.

That is the basic function of states. Everything else is simply a question of arguing over how much they can steal and what is important enough to hand out.

Jay

I'm not sure what your point is here, but I suspect you are forgetting the context of this conversation. It's not a question what our constitution says, but rather a question of what a constitution should say.

And just so it's clear, I certainly do agree that defense is matter for the government. It's just that I also think health care is a matter that our government should cover. And I don't see any absolute difference between them that says that one must be a government matter and the other shouldn't be.

Jay

These are some of the things I would consider when deciding if something should be run and/or managed by the government.

1. It is something that everybody needs.
For both defense and health care this is obvious.

2. It is something that need to be organized on a vast scale.
Obviously true in both cases.

3. It is not something that can be run well for profit.
More arguable, but experience shows in both cases that maximizing profit involves reducing quality of service. For mercenaries this means dragging out conflicts while minimizing actual combat. For medicine, it means forcing people to use cheaper medicine even if better ones are available and denying coverage as much as possible.

4. It is something that is better run by governments then others.
For military service this has been historical true, countries that depend too much on mercenaries end up in trouble. It's more arguable for medicine, but the experience of European countries says that at the least it can be run as well by the government as by buisness.

5. It's in the government's best interest that this be handled well.
Obvious for the military, more arguable for medicine. But I think it's in a countries long term interest to have healthy citizens.

Jay