New Constitution

[redeye]

I know I've started countless threads on that topic in DU. I guess my defense this time is that I've never done so in DU2...

Anyway, just look for a moment here: www.voy.com/101333/57.html

I'd like to hear comments about my proposal as well as ideas and suggestions either for a new constitution or for amendments to the existing constitution.

A few notes, though:

1. This is an intellectual exercise. Claims that it is dangerous to change the constitution in the current climate, etc., will be dismissed as destructive.

2. If you find a loophole, please tell me about it, even if you don't have any other ideas. Moreover, assume that such loopholes are things I've overlooked rather than deliberate conspiracies to enslave the American people.

3. If all you can say is "DON'T TOUCH MY CONSTITUTION YOU FLAMIN' STATIST," then spare me that because I can't even Google phrases like "new US constitution proposal" without seeing these in the two-line excerpts from every site that appear on Google.

4. Comments and complaints about writing style, phrasing, ordering of articles, and so on will be respected just like all other constructive comments, so feel free to post them.

[bpilgrim]

1. we would need to restore the original before others would be even possible

"Happy for us that when we find our constitutions defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitutions." --Thomas Jefferson to C. W. F. Dumas, 1787. ME 6:295, Papers 12:113

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves were they to rise from the dead." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:40

which i think is more 'doable'

then we wouldn't need a 'new one' but modify our original 'IMPERFECT' one.

peace

[bpilgrim]

13. ain't we lucky

or should i say were...

no thoughts on that? how would you modify the existing one?

:hi:

peace

[redeye]

14. Okay...

First, "restore" isn't very clear a term. If you mean "restore it to what the Founders wanted it to be in 1787," then we'll have to reinstitute slavery, withdraw from international organizations, and give peopel the right to bear missile launchers and mortars. If you mean "restore to liberal values," then it can hardly be done with the current document, which is full of loopholes and ambiguities, intended and unintended. If you mean "restore to pre-Bush status," then the NSA and Echelon will still prohibit anyone who doesn't live in the USA from acquiring adequate encryption and spy on everyone and their dog.

Second, the third quote really nails it. I can think of at least one constitiutional principle that went obsolete in the USA's first forty years: the Electoral College. Since then, many more institutions/principles should've been scrapped or added: slavery (which was abolished more than 50 years too late), lack of universal suffrage even for males over 21, the Senate, states' rights (which were eliminated to a large degree in the Civil War), voting in federal elcetions by state, presidential appointment of judges, the limitation on taxation and government spending, the loophole allowing the president to start a war without a formal declaration or the approval of Congress, term limits (shouldn't've been in the constitution at all), lack of ban on conscription (that was in the 1960s, for clarification), presidential veto, impeacehment being required to kick out a president, the district system in the House, lack of constitutionally-sanctioned freedom of information...

[bpilgrim]

30. restore means to repeal the patriot act

and any others that infringe on our constitutional liberties.

then we could go back to amending the existing one where appropriate.

as you noticed, a lot of things changed since it was originally drafted becuase it was designed that way.

so i don't think we need a new one, maybe we could use some admendments and i would love to hear your suggestions but we really don't need a new one, imho.

:hi:

peace

[redeye]

31. Repealing the Patriot Act...

...is IMO more important than a rewrite, because it applies in the short-run whereas we shouldn't even think of having a new constitution before 2010. By then, either we'll be in a Fourth Reich or the Fascist Act will be a distant memory, so first things first.

Anyway, I think a rewrite is in order because while my constitution is not that radical, it still goes in some respects too much against the current constitution:

1. It uses modern English, not 18th century English (shall in the third person, overly complicated conditionals, etc.).
2. Its language is far more straightforward and unambiguous, so its length is comparable to the current constitution's even though it incorporates many more ideas.
3. Specialized Legislatures are distinctly a feature of a democracy in the Information Age, and require too many changes to Article I of the current document; in fact, even Article 31 is inadequate because it fails to define the exact roles of the various SLs.
4. It fundamentally alters federal-state relations: whereas under the current constitution the federal government is a union of states, under my constitution the states are divisions inside the federal nation. This might seem like mere semantics, but it's important in deciding what states' rights really are, to what extent the federal governemnt can dictate state law, and what the federal-confederal balance is.

[bpilgrim]

35. agreed

'Repealing the Patriot Act is IMO more important than a rewrite'

agreed 100%

cept not too clear on your revisions, other than modernizing the language, which would be an interesting exersize.

claryifying it is already done with admendments though.

as i said initially i really don't think we need a new one, just our old one restored since it was desgined to adapt to the peoples whishes.

would love to see some precise admendments you got for the existing one though :hi:

peace

[redeye]

40. Precise amendments...

...There are a few, from the least radical to the most radical, using more modern language:

XXVIII (or XXIIX, which is nonstandard but shorter ;)):

1. The President-elect is the candidate who receives the largest number of votes nationwide.

2. The elections for all Federal offices are conducted according to the guidelines of a Federal Committee for the Regulation of Elections. Each of the following bodies appoints the one third of the Committee's members for a term of four years: the President; the Hosue of Representatives; and the Supreme Court. The Committee must ensure that every vote counts exactly as the voter intended, that the ballots for any single office have uniform rules of appearance and counting throughout the United States, and that in elections, every person is equal under the law.

3. All Federal and State elections in which there is one winner are conducted by Approval Vote. In other words, every voter may approve as many as or as few candidates as he or she wishes to.

XXIX:

1. The House of Representatives is elected according to the principles of proportional representation.

2. Every political party or independent slate with the backing of the signautres of one percent of the voting age population may contest the election, by nominating a list of at least ten and at most seven hundred candidates. Then, each voter may vote for one list and one candidate on that list. No list that receives less than two percent of the total vote is represented in the House of Representatives; each list that receives at least two percent of the total vote receives seats in proportion to its vote, on the basis of Sainte-Lague's system. Within each list, the candidates who receive the highest numbers of vote enter the House of Representatives.

3. Every list must include candidates from at least two States that do not border each other. Every list with more than twenty candidates must also include candidates from at least one more State for every two candidates above the first twenty, rounded up.

4. The fifty Senate districts do not conform to State boundaries, but rather are drawn to match population figures as closely as possible by the Federal Committee for the Regulation of Elections. All other rules for the election of the Senate still apply.

XXX:

Every person in the United States has a right to government-paid health care in times of need and to just compensation in case of an accident he or she did not directly cause.

XXXI:

(basically a rewrite of my Article 18, the Environment)

XXXII:

(basically a rewrite of my Article 16, Ban on War)

XXXIII:

Every citizen of the United States aged eighteen or more may vote in all elections in his or her State or district.

XXXIV:

1. The people of the United States shall have the right to petition the government for initiative, referendum, or recall.

2. If at least five percent of the total eligible voters sign a petition supporting a specific initiative proposal, then within thirteen weeks of the certification of the signatures, a referendum on the proposal must be held. The referendum passes if more people vote for it than do against it.

3. Similarly to Section Two of this Amendment, the voters may also petition for a referendum on repealing an existing law.

4. Similarly to Section Two of this Amendment, the voters may also petition for the recall of the President, the Vice President, a Secretary, or a Senator. However, if a President is recalled, then ten percent of the eilgible voters must be signed, and if a Senator is recalled, then the petition may only be signed by, and has a minimum signature requirement based on, the residents of the Senator's district. Moreover, the recall referendum is also about who replaces the official if he or she is indeed recalled; the official is recalled if and only if his or her Approval rate is below fifty percent of the total number of voters, in which case the candidate with the highest Approval rate enters the office for the remainder of the term.

XXXV:

(basically a rewrte of my Article 31, Specialized Legislatures)

[zoidberg]

2. Question on 'The Environment'

The United States respects the environment, and may not hurt, deplete, or destroy it except in extreme circumstances; similarly, it prohibits others from deliberately doing the same.

A strict reading of that says that there would be no mining or drilling for oil unless something dramatic happens. Is that your intention?

[redeye]

3. No...

...although the case can be made that oil drilling is currently the only way to get energy - an "extreme circumstance" - until better technologies for renewable energy are dicoevered/invented.

[camero]

4. Have a problem with Articles 6 and 57

While noble in its cause, the articles as worded would lead to chaos.

Article 6 would lead to massive immigration and over-population of this country. Just think of the flood of Mexicans entering the country.

Article 57 would mean states would secede after clever marketing tactics by moneyed interests and reduce tax receipts and hinder the ability of the country to take care of its needs.

Just think of repubs seceding over the abortion articles as one possibility.

[deandem215]

11. That's a racist statement!

"Article 6 would lead to massive immigration and over-population of this country. Just think of the flood of Mexicans entering the country.

This isn't free republic.

[camero]

12. No it's not

Illegal immigration from mexico is becoming a big problem for states like California, Texas, NM, and AZ.

The article would open the floodgates.

Edit: and notices the Bushies are FOR Amnesty for mexican illegals.

[redeye]

15. Okay...

...You're kinda right about Article 57, even though the referendum requirement will give the federal government ample time to use all its resources on anti-secession propaganda.

As for Article 6, I frankly don't see anything wrong with Mexicans thinking that they deserve shares in the American dream too. Money is already fluid and can travel internationally with few hindrances; why not people?

[phishdag]

5. Article 10

The last sentence of Article 10 should probably be reworded to read "No detainee or prisoner may be subjected to physical or mental MIStreatment or torture." The way it reads at present could be interpreted to mean prisoners can not be treated for physical or mental ills. I would assume that your purpose is not to deprive prisoners of medical attention, so you may wish to make this change.

[redeye]

18. It already says "ill treatment"...

...so it's already been taken care of.

[goobergunch]

6. my thoughts

Article 6 – Personal Rights and Freedom of Movement
<snip> Freedom of movement into, inside, and out of the United States is guaranteed to citizens and non-citizens alike, except in case of epidemics; therefore, immigration restrictions are abolished

There could be serious overpopulation problems in the U.S. if this was adopted.

Article 8 – Elections
Every citizen of the United States whose age is eighteen or more may vote in all elections in his or her state, district, or location, including all nationwide elections.

Could this be lowered to 16?

<snip> Moreover, Congress or the relevant states must respect any petition demanding a referendum (including one on recalling an elected official) or a vote on a bill in Congress or in a State Legislature, if at least five percent of the eligible voters are signed.

Recalls should be limited to the last half of a term except in cases of gross malfeasance.

Article 16 – Ban on War
The United States may not declare war against any nation, and may not engage in acts of overt war, unless attacked or provoked. It may have a standing army only in order to guard its borders, and, with the approval of the United Nations, keep and promote peace and international cooperation in the world.

"Provoked" is too vague...* could argue that Iraq "provoked" the U.S. into invading by filing an (allegedly) fraudulent report.

Article 25 – The Sessions of Congress
Congress must convene for at least one hundred and forty days per year, at most two hundred and ten days per year, and at least once per six months.

Limiting Congress to 210 days could cause appropriations problems...what if Congress can't reach funding agreement by Leg. Day 210? Furthermore, under Art. 24 sessions would begin in November, which could cause problems.

When Congress is in session, neither house may adjourn without the consent of the other.

What about the routine daily adjournment? The current constitutional 3-day adjournment consent requirement makes more sense to me.

Article 26-Procedure Outline
<snip>
All bills must be debated for at least twenty-four net hours over at least three days and be passed in three readings in the house voting on them.
It's a good idea, but some bills (like postal names) would be hard to debate for 24 hours.

Other than those problems, I like it!

[redeye]

16. Okay...

Article 6 – Personal Rights and Freedom of Movement
<snip> Freedom of movement into, inside, and out of the United States is guaranteed to citizens and non-citizens alike, except in case of epidemics; therefore, immigration restrictions are abolished

There could be serious overpopulation problems in the U.S. if this was adopted.

Not necessarily; most Mexicans who can't get a visa already come illegally, so the main difference will be that those Mexicans will not be in the USA legally. Besides, I don't think it's the state's business to tell people where to live except in extreme cases, e.g. epidemics.

Article 8 – Elections
Every citizen of the United States whose age is eighteen or more may vote in all elections in his or her state, district, or location, including all nationwide elections.

Could this be lowered to 16?

I guess so. I don't think it's a good idea to do that immediately, though; I'd rather see a committee appointed by the first Congress of the new constitution that needs to report in, say, 5 years on whether it's a good idea. But in principle I agree.

Article 16 – Ban on War
The United States may not declare war against any nation, and may not engage in acts of overt war, unless attacked or provoked. It may have a standing army only in order to guard its borders, and, with the approval of the United Nations, keep and promote peace and international cooperation in the world.

"Provoked" is too vague...* could argue that Iraq "provoked" the U.S. into invading by filing an (allegedly) fraudulent report.

You're right. The question is, will the Supreme Court buy it? Besides, in many cases an attack may be too late to react (obviously freedom of information will compel the government to release evidence of why it wants to start a preemptive war).

Article 25 – The Sessions of Congress
Congress must convene for at least one hundred and forty days per year, at most two hundred and ten days per year, and at least once per six months.

Limiting Congress to 210 days could cause appropriations problems...what if Congress can't reach funding agreement by Leg. Day 210? Furthermore, under Art. 24 sessions would begin in November, which could cause problems.

My bad...

When Congress is in session, neither house may adjourn without the consent of the other.

What about the routine daily adjournment? The current constitutional 3-day adjournment consent requirement makes more sense to me.

Right...

Article 26-Procedure Outline
<snip>
All bills must be debated for at least twenty-four net hours over at least three days and be passed in three readings in the house voting on them.

It's a good idea, but some bills (like postal names) would be hard to debate for 24 hours.

Thanks to Article 31 and Specialized Legislatures, Congress won't need to pass those things. It will only need to set guidelines for the SLs, as in what their exact jurisdictions are.

Other than those problems, I like it!

Thanks... :)

[jody]

7. Consider this. Multinational corporations have exported jobs from

the U.S. and now hold jobs as hostages. The question is what ransom must the People pay to have those jobs returned to the U.S.?

As ransom, corporatists might want the Constitution amended to:
- allow multinational corporations to create corporate monopolies in each business sector,
- recognize the Senate as the only spokesperson for corporate monopolies,
- recognize the House of Representatives as the only spokesperson for labor, and
- acknowledge that all men are created equal but, corporate monopolies are created superior to men.

:shrug:

[redeye]

19. A few points about that...

1. The job exportation from the USA is just one part of the equation, the other being job importation into India, Mexico, China, etc.

2. I don't see any corporation holding jobs hostage, not deliberately (there's no political blackmail of the form, "give us XYZ and we won't outsource for the next 3 years," AFAIK).

3. Why did you say that the House would be the spokesperson for labor?

4. If corporate oppression grows too overt, then there might be a revolt. As long as everything's kept quiet, people will still support the corporations that oppress them.

[jody]

21. I used the House for labor and the Senate for business which is a

facade for the government organization Mussolini proposed, e.g the corporate state. Absolute power would rest in the executive office with inputs from a group representing business and a group representing labor.

My straw man was to provoke discussion. As to jobs being held hostage, are you sure they aren't? Just last year a multinational corporation negotiated a very favorable bribe/ransom/tax-exemption to locate a automotive factory in my city.

How much more leverage could multinational corporations exert if they were allowed to function as a monopoly in one business sector and negotiate with the executive branch under fast track trade authority?

In Japan, corporations are required to collaborate in planning production. In the U.S., corporations would face trials if they collaborated. All we need is to repeal portions of a few laws to permit monopolies in business sectors.

If you were one of the "one half percenters" that own 42% of our financial wealth, would you support repeal of laws that prevent you from creating a monopoly and increasing your financial wealth?

[redeye]

25. Okay...

...I don't know much about Fascist Italy, actually; the totalitarian state I know about is Nazi Germany, where Hitler didn't even try to mask the fact that he held sole power, and where labor was coordinated into a pro-employer union and business into several corporations that collaborated with the Fuehrer.

As for the jobs being held hostage, I said I didn't know of any such cases. I guess you do, though - do you know what city and corporation are involved, anyway? I think that the best counter to that is a provision banning any corporate taxes other than federal and mandating strict environmental and industrial regulations. This way, corporations will only be able to bribe/blackmail the Federal government, which is much more resistant.

Also, one of the ways to reduce corporate influence I used is the lack of a specialized legislature dealing with big business - rather, there is one deailng with industry and one dealing with commerce. If there were a big business SL, then we'd expect corporations to donate excessively for pro-corporate parties, something that would be considerably easier than lobbying in Congress. By splitting the SL, I can cut corporate influence by almost half (almost because the number of voters in those two SL's isn't exactly twice the number of voters in a big business SL).

[jody]

28. I understand and your intent is consistent with a true democracy.

I don't mean to hijack your thread, but events are rapidly taking place that could easily culminate in a corporate state.

When only 40%% of the eligible voters vote and many of them are single issue voters; e.g. abortion, right to keep and bear arms, gay/lesbian rights; it is easy for the corporatists to bribe via campaign funds enough votes from both parties to get laws passed that move toward a corporate state.

I see jobs as a crucial indicator because we are becoming more vulnerable every day as high paying jobs leave the US. I've seen in my state how easy it is to get the people to approve all types of concessions just to attract jobs.

That prompts me to ask whether there is a point at which so many high paying jobs will have left the US, that people become willing to give up some of their sovereignty to attract big business back into the US. I hope I am wrong.

Below is a letter published recently that attempts to speak to the working masses.


They kept taking

First they took our steel mill jobs, and the people ignored the cries of steel mill workers.

Then they took our textile jobs, and the people ignored the cries of textile workers.

Then they took our automotive jobs, and the people ignored the cries of automotive workers.

Then they took our high-tech jobs, and the people ignored the cries of high-tech workers.

Then they bribed the people's representatives in Washington and the people ignored their loss.

And the only jobs left were in the U.S. Foreign Legion, defending the worldwide assets of those who had taken the people's jobs and stolen the people's government.

The people shouted, "We the people are dead, long live the corporation."

And the high priests of Mammon laughed about how easy it was to destroy the world's longest running, most successful experiment in democracy.

And the thirsty and hungry and sick and imprisoned and naked prayed to Mammon to have mercy on their wretched. miserable bodies because the people had lost the very soul of democracy,

"And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." (Genesis 6:6)

[ButterflyBlood]

8. question about Article 20

Article 20 – Citizenship
Every person born or naturalized in the United States is a citizen. No person may be deprived of his citizenship against his will, and no person may be forced to keep an American citizenship. Every person persecuted for political or religious reasons in another country has the right to asylum, unless the reason for persecution involves a crime against humanity.

what exactly do you mean by crime against humanity? Do you just mean if the person in question has committed a crime (in which case I don't think persecution should be the correctly used word)?

[redeye]

20. The answer to the latter question is no...

...there are several crimes designated in international agreements such as the Geneva Convention as crimes against humanity - things like war crimes, atrocities, and so on.

[ButterflyBlood]

22. well then I doubt such a person would be persecuted

do you mean say a rebel leader being tried for massacres or terrorists or something of the sort?

[redeye]

23. No...

...because AFAIK, terrorism is against international law. Rather, I'm talking about draft dodgers in other countries, anti-communists in Cuba, secularists in the Middle East, etc.

[Yupster]

9. As an academic exercise, it's fine

I guess my suggestions would be two

1. I like the organization of the current Constitution better with Article I pertaining to Congress, Article II the president, Article III the courts, etc instead of your long list of articles. Basically I'd say you need chapters.

2. The limit on the number of days congress could meet would invite disruption of the process as the sde without the votes would do everything it could to stretch out the process until the term ran out. I'd see this as a weakness in the process.

Overall fine though. I could see this being given by a professor as a college level assignment. If the professor was a radical leftist, you'd get a good grade.

[bpilgrim]

10. the original constitution is consider radical and left by many today

let alone a new one.

"If the professor was a radical leftist, you'd get a good grade."

peace

[redeye]

17. Why radical left?

1. You're right abotu chapters... I'll add them ASAP.

2. See my reply to goobergunch. You two have good points.

[Yupster]

36. Why radical left?

Because the proposed constitution could very well be a platform document of the Democratic Party. As a Democrat I'm sure it all seems reasonable to you, and if a Republican wrote a similar one, it would seem reasonable to him too.

Just one example would be the Consttutionally protected right to an abortion up to the point of birth.

So, as silly as this sounds, a woman could be in labor seven hours, have the baby crowned and then tell the doctor, aw forget it, kill the sucker. And acording to your constitution, her action would not just be legal, it would be constitutionally protected. Yes, that seems quite radical to me.

[rman]

24. this is a solution to which problem?

in other words: why change the constituton?

[redeye]

26. There are many problems with the current one

1. The Electoral College
2. The concentration of legislative power in Congress, whose members often have to vote on matters they know very little about
3. The winner-take-all system
4. The problematic definitions of federal/state relations
5. The lack of universal suffrage, one of whose results is the constitutional disenfranchisement of black Floridans before the 2000 selection
6. The unclear phrasings in the bill of rights
7. The powers of Congress being limited to 18th-century situations
8. The overrepresentation of people living in large states in the Senate
9. The Judiciary's powers being very poorly defined, so that judicial review had to come from a court ruling, as ironic as it sounds
10. The Judiciary's being appointed solely by political bodies
11. The amendment process on the one hand requiring a very small majority of the people (about 60% can easily give you 2/3s in both houses) and on the other beign very lengthy due to ratification requirements
12. The lack of provisions regarding "the pursuit of happniess," education, and the environment
13. The lack of federal initiative/referendum/recall provisions
14. The lack of freedom of information

[bpilgrim]

37. why a new one when the orginal allows for modifications?

thats the point some of us are trying to make.

a whole 'new' constitution is way too radical, even for me :evilgrin:

i just want the 'old' one back :bounce:

peace

[Yentatelaventa]

27. It's missing the citizen right to bear arms

Intentional?

[redeye]

29. Yeah...

...you can know it is because Article 59 gives Congress the power to regulate possession of "firearms and explosives," as does Article 31 by listing a specialized legislature for that.

I am very supportive of gun control. Guns rarely save lives and mostly serve to kill people both by accident and by increased crime rates (and unfortunately, Dean's states' rights position won't help much because most of NYC's guns, for example, come from Georgia and South Carolina anyway). However, I realize that this can change and that constitutionally mandated gun control is a bit tyrannical, so I decided on letting Congress do whatever it wants to regarding that rather than say "The United States' Armed Forces, the various State, county, and municipal polcie departments, adn the National Guard are the sole bearers of arms."

[Yupster]

34. This seems very one-sided

"Guns rarely save lives and mostly serve to kill people"

I don't own a gun and never have, but second amendment advocates claim that guns are used 2.5 million times per year to protect lives and property. I don't know if that number is accurate or not. That's hardly rarely though.

The pro-gun-control side only lists times that a criminal is shot or killed as a time the gun has been used to prevent loss.

The second amendment side points out that shooting a criminal is a very small percentage of times guns save lives or property. They say the much more likely scenario is that some one trying to break into a house or looking in windows is showed a gun through the window, and that's more than enough for him to leave.

Or, a drunk teen comes over and starts threatening and slapping a girl. The sound of the girl's dad pumping the shotgun is more than enough to bring the teen to his senses and get him out of the house.

Since most law-abiding gun owners have no interest in killing anyone, even criminals, it's dishonest to only count times criminals get shot as times that guns protect people.

[redeye]

53. Listen, guys...

...I'm not saying that guns should be banned here. I support pretty strict gun control, but I'm not going to put this into any constitution. What I do is give Congress and by extension and initiative the people the right to decide whether there should be gun control. Gun rights are not so basic as the freedoms of speech, from religion, etc.; they don't protect people from the government any more than they make the government more vulnerable to attacks by extremist militias - Hitler could rise to power because he was backed by a militia 20 times the size of the German army, for instance. They have not only benefits but also hazards, and while hazards outweigh benefits, neither outweighs the other so much that the issue should be written into a constitution rather than given to researchers to shed light on and the people to decide about.

[Muddleoftheroad]

55. I've been good

And I've avoided this thread so far, though I consider any attempt at a new Constitution both ill-conceived and, in this case, downright ridiculous.

But your comment needs to be addressed. You say, "Gun rights are not so basic as the freedoms of speech, from religion, etc." You are entirely wrong. THAT'S why they are in the 2nd Amendment. They are essential to a free society.

Fortunately, not just the document but the whole concept is so radical that the American people would never entertain it. So I will relax about the things I see in your proposal.

[jody]

38. Under todays Constitution, citizens have an inalienable right to

defend self and property.

SCOTUS has ruled that government is not obligated to protect the individual.

Law enforcement officers and criiminals do not have an inalienable right to defend self and property however, handguns are the choice of criminals and law enforcement for self defense.

Why do you deny citizens the most efficient and effective tool, the gun, for exercising their inalienable right, but allow those without that inalienable right to use guns?

[redeye]

50. Inalienable rights a myth

In the 1930s, Germans were "alienated" from the right to free speech, for example.

Rights are not god-given, because not only does god not exist, no argument intended, but also we wouldn't know enough to know its relation to us if it did exist.

They are not natural, because that term is reserved for inviolable laws such as gravity (which can only be defied using other natural laws, e.g. air pressures, which allow planes to fly).

They are not self-evident, because philosophers and political scientists have debated them for millennia and still can't find a definitive answer (say what you want to say about Leo Strauss, but he's a respected philosopher, even if his politics is hideous and Machiavellian).

So obviously, self-defense is not an inalienable right. It is a tool required to defend rights that people should have but do not always have, namely the rights to life and from harm. When self-defense interferes with a person's right to life, it's completely fine to abridge it, because it's a means and not an end. For purposes of clarification, there are principles that should never be trampled in the name of anything, such as human life and the truth, but self-defense is only a way to achieve some of them and therefore may be sacrificed.

Moreover, you state that the Supreme Court has ruled that the government is not obligated to protect the individual. In other words, this problem solves itself if the constitution ensures that the government must protect the individual.

[jody]

57. Sorry, but state constitutions and SCOTUS rulings don't support

your opinions.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996 gives current legal definitions as:
Inalienable -- “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred”
Unalienable -- “not alienable: ‘inalienable’”

Your example of Hitler "taking" away person's "right to free speech" is one of "taking" not "surrendered or transferred".

Before the Constitution was written states acknowledged the following.

Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776, Ratified US Constitution December 12, 1787
I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Constitution of New Jersey; July 2, 1776, Ratified US Constitution December 18, 1787
ARTICLE I RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on June 15, 1780, Ratified US Constitution February 6, 1788
Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.

Constitution of New Hampshire - January 5, 1776, Ratified US Constitution June 21, 1788
2. All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin. June 2, 1784

The Constitution of Virginia; June 29, 1776, Ratified US Constitution June 26, 1788.
SECTION 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Constitution of North Carolina : December 18, 1776, Ratified US Constitution November 21, 1789
Section 1. The equality and rights of persons.
We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness.

CONCLUSION:

You might not recognize inalienable rights but our first citizens did. When they joined the United States by ratifying the Constitution and later the Bill of Rights, it is legally impossible for those citizens to have given up an inalienable right.

In the U.S., citizens have the "inalienable right to defend self and property". SCOTUS has ruled that government is not obligated to defend an individual.

Neither criminals nor law enforcement officers have an inalienable right to bear arms as a condition of their status, note a law enforcement officer’s right to bear arms is granted by government. Handguns are the tools of choice for criminals and law enforcement officers.

Because citizens as potential victims have the inalienable right to oppose crime, why should they be banned from using the same tools used by those who commit crimes and those who try to solve crimes?

[NickB79]

44. I used a gun to save my family's life

From my maniac of a father. I am just barely able to stop myself from breaking DU rules about personal attacks because of your remarks. When you've had to point a loaded rifle at your own father to protect your mother from him, then you can talk to me about gun control. Until then, goodbye.

[redeye]

45. Nice anecdote...

...but it is only one story. Statistics deal with tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, often millions of stories.

[Man_in_the_Moon]

49. And

From all the Statistics I have seen, NickB79's story is more typical than the murders/suicides/accidents.

[redeye]

52. It doesn't make the story representative of anything

If he cared, he should've given me the statistics, not an anecdote. Even if he's basically right, his argument can be false.

Think of god's existence for a moment. Either god exists, or it doesn't exist. However, there are false arguments for both sides ("god can't exist because it's not been proven to exist" and "god must exist because of the ontological argument"). Therefore, at least one proposition must be true even though there's a bad argument supporting it.

Therefore, the fact that NickB79's anecdote doesn't mean anything doesn't automatically say that gun control is good, and conversely even if gun control is a bad idea, it doesn't make NickB79's anecdote a good argument.

BTW, which statistics have you looked at? In Japan, there's strict gun control and lower crime rates than in the USA. I can link you to a pretty comprehensive essay in support of gun control, which has erased the last doubts I had.

[Xithras]

58. Here's another...

A man kicked in the back door of my house seven years ago and attempted to rape my wife in front of my 11 month old daughter, when that didn't work, he stabbed her with a 9" hunting knife. I was upstairs and heard her screaming, came down with my gun, and put two bullets in the guys back. He was MUCH larger than me, and we later found out that he was a mental patient strung out on meth, so it's unlikely that I'd have been able to simply pull him off (the guy DID survive the shooting, BTW).

To put it bluntly, I don't give a damn about the statistics, I give a damn about my wife. Those two bullets saved her life and took a paranoid psychotic attempted murderer off the streets for a few decades. Prior to that incident, my wife was like you and constantly reminded me of the statistics about gun use...she wanted it gone and out of the house. After the incident she learned to use it!

Oh, and to people who insist that only handguns should be banned: If I hadn't had my 9MM, I'd have used my shotgun. My handgun seriously wounded him, but I can gurantee that the shotgun would have done much worse. If you take away the smaller weapons, you only leave us the more lethal ones to defend ourselves with.

[ChemEng]

32. A few comments....

Article 6: So anyone who wants to come to the U.S. may do so? A simple question: If enough people from, say, Lilliput, decide to come to the U.S., and become a majority, do they have the right to form a dictatorship if they are the majority?

Article 16: The bit about the U.N. and war is over the top. What is the point of govt for and by the people, if an outside body can veto their wishes?

Article 18: How do we stop Lilliput from destroying the environment? Or more to the point, if China and India do not reduce greenhouse gas production, do we get to go in and make them (God forbid).

Article 24: What is the point of this? Proportional population sizes?

Article 35: I don't think having the senate approve of a replacement president is a good idea. There is too much incentive for horsetrading and intrigue for votes. I like a defined succession plan much better.

General comments: What about the District of Columbia as regards representation in the federal govt?

What would you say is your over-riding reason for changing the constitution?

[redeye]

33. Replies to comments

6. Yes, everyone who wants to come may do so except if he carries an infectious disease. Moreover, a majority won't be able to form a dictatorship because it takes a 3/4s majority to amend the constitution.

16. As long as the USA is the world's only superpower, it has authority in some spheres, includign foreign policy, over the all planet. Besides, when each government cares only about its own people, wars erupt, as we can see in the case of WW1.

18. Does "and prohibits others within its jurisdiction from doing the same" satisfy you?

24. Yes.

35. I'm willing to consider that...

General: DC has equal representation in the House and the Presidency becasue they're elected at large, and is part of a Senate district. Moreover, Article 47 implies DC Statehood (and even if DC is not a state, then it must either become one or merge with Maryland 5 years from the ratification of the constitution, according to Article 58).

Overriding reason: check replies 26 and 31.

[ChemEng]

39. You're ducking the issue on article 6....

Say Lilliput has 6 billion people, and half of them decide to come to the U.S.; they now outnumber U.S. citizens by more than 10 to 1. They would have a 3/4 majority, and could vote in a dictatorship.

On Article 16, I still don't see why we should devolve authority to other governments in the world. If the real issue is that you don't like the policies of our government, then a majority of the people should vote the politicians out of office!!! My problem is that the UN is still a work in progress, and as long as there are un-free nations in that body (Lybia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, Malaysia, Russia to an extent, and numerous others), why should they have power over me?

[Cronus Protagonist]

41. No trial by jury of my peers

Was that one of these involuntary "ommissions" you talked about? If not, why would you want to be tried by judges or a panel of judges who can be forced to impose minimum sentences, for example? Give me a jury of my peers any day over that tyranny.


Click Here For Hard Hitting Buttons — Visit The Cronus Connection

[redeye]

46. It's completely intentional

AFAIK, there are no juries in Europe (except in Britain, I think), but that doesn't make the Netherlands any less democratic than the US. As for judges, they can only be forced to impose minimum sentences if there's a Congressional law, which means a law supported by the people (if it's not, then there are referenda for that). Moreover, their experience qualifies them to consider the evidence submitted by both sides much more objectively than juries. A few months ago, the Plaid Adder commented on how Americans were interested not in hard facts but in stories to which the facts were woven, hence opening statements in jury trials.

Besides, there've been too many cases of all-white juries indicting an innocent black or acquitting a guilty white (e.g. the Rodney King beaters).

[Cronus Protagonist]

42. I think you need to define personhood

As a living, breathing human being, and you also need to specifically exclude fictional constructs like corporations - "The rights and responsibilities herein are conferred to or belong to living, breathing human beings. No legal construct may gain the rights of living, breathing persons under any circumstances."

And I also think you need to put the word "equal" in there when referring to all people. And all people should include not just citizens, but all who live in the US under its protection.

Ah, there are so many holes here I'm giving up. Not in the mood for mental masturbation at this time. Do carry on though.


Click Here For Hard Hitting Buttons — Visit The Cronus Connection

[redeye]

47. But doesn't the word people refer only to human beings?

Anyway, good catch.

[DemBones DemBones]

48. The courts have granted a "personhood" of sorts to

corporations, so you need to research that.

[redeye]

51. Yes, I know...

...but what are the ramifications of this? What does corporate personhood really mean, apart from a buzzword, and why is it so bad?

[jfkennedy]

43. I say rewrite it

I say we have a revolution and rewrite it. I know the drafters never intended it to be a document that frankly no one even reads.

All we get are interpretations of it from lawyer’s mostly Republican lawyers that make understanding what they said even more confusing.

Contrary to popular belief a revolution can be brief and painless with zero violence. We have the guides of Gandhi, King and JFK to guide us to a genuine democracy which is what they would of intended had they written it in 2003.

[redeye]

54. Update:

I listened to the suggestions of some of you guys, so here's a new proposal:

http://www.voy.com/101333/62.html

[The_Golden_Child]

56. Possible Omission?

Unless I missed it, I didn't see any article dealing with citizens' rights to bear/not bear personal firearms.