IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: Defining the "next" constitution.
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
New on your post right to assemble and seek redress from the gov
in the old days you would be arrested and shot for getting together with your neighbors to discuss burdensome taxes. You would also be charged with sedition and hung for attending the meeting. I like Thomas Paine who paraphrased a true patrioy fights to keep government off of the backs of the people.
thanx,
bill
"You're just like me streak. You never left the free-fire zone.You think aspirins and meetings and cold showers are going to clean out your head. What you want is God's permission to paint the trees with the bad guys. That wont happen big mon." Clete
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Good food for thought.
I like the ideas you've given me, and I'll see if I can't find a way to rephrase what I've got so far to include the bill of rights. I actually did refer to it a few times when writing this up.

On the issue of privacy, I view any attempt to regulate privacy as ultimately doomed - the only way (I believe) that we can protect our privacy is to not have any at all, but to demand the same from all others. For a more in-depth discussion, I highly recommend [link|http://www.davidbrin.com/tschp1.html|The Transparent Society] by David Brin.
Nobody wins in a butter eating contest
     Defining the "next" constitution. - (inthane-chan) - (37)
         "is not a living, self-aware organism" ... coma? - (drewk) - (11)
             If you've got better verbiage, I'm all ears. - (inthane-chan) - (10)
                 How about - (jbrabeck) - (6)
                     Artificail life? Alien life? -NT - (Arkadiy) - (3)
                         Re: Artificail life? Alien life? - (jb4) - (2)
                             I think granting them the rights of citizens... - (inthane-chan)
                             But when they are made/found - (Arkadiy)
                     Re: How about.. don't forget my cats - (xtensive) - (1)
                         That's a long limb, alright. - (inthane-chan)
                 Current legal standard is "natural person" - (drewk) - (2)
                     Thanks, incorporated. -NT - (inthane-chan)
                     Needs clarification - (tuberculosis)
         I have problems with your use of "truth" - (Arkadiy) - (1)
             Freedom of religion. - (inthane-chan)
         Re: Defining the "next" constitution. - (JayMehaffey) - (2)
             on your post right to assemble and seek redress from the gov - (boxley)
             Good food for thought. - (inthane-chan)
         Re: Defining the "next" constitution. - (jb4) - (1)
             Re: Defining the "next" constitution. - (inthane-chan)
         Give it a shot - (boxley)
         Another thing to consider as a source - the UDHR. - (Another Scott) - (16)
             total disagreement on a few things - (boxley) - (15)
                 Re: total disagreement on a few things - (JayMehaffey) - (14)
                     that is not a basic function of states - (boxley) - (13)
                         The basic function of states . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
                         Re: that is not a basic function of states - (JayMehaffey) - (10)
                             what the state is better doing? - (boxley) - (1)
                                 US doesn't do it very well - (JayMehaffey)
                             Actually, it is... - (danreck) - (7)
                                 Confucius said it better - (Ashton)
                                 Not sure what your point is - (JayMehaffey) - (5)
                                     why should government cover health care? -NT - (boxley) - (4)
                                         Why should business 'cover' health care? - (Ashton) - (1)
                                             Lets start a new thread, free medical care for all or not (new thread) - (boxley)
                                         Things to consider - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                                             Have you visited a VA hospital or IHS clinic lately? -NT - (boxley)
                         Re: that is not a basic function of states - (Ashton)

Powered by blancmange.
101 ms