Now I have time to advance to the next sentence.
To this end, they are entitled to the full range of democratic freedoms and rights, consistent with human dignity, including, the right to an education, personal autonomy, freedom of expression, assembly, and the press, the right to dignified labor, and the right to health, safety, and community.
I’m not comfortable saying every person is entitled to the right to personal autonomy. Nor the right to dignified labor. Nor the right to health. Nor the right to safety. Nor the right to community.
For example, how could a government impose quarantines, mandatory vaccinations, or other police powers if each person has a constitutionally guaranteed right to personal autonomy? Imposing a quarantine or mandating vaccination is necessarily an infringement on personal autonomy. Drafting a person into military service is an infringement on personal autonomy and safety. Shipping a draftee overseas infringes on their right to safety, community, and possibly health too. But I think the government should have those powers.
The human rights and freedoms defined in Article 1 of this Constitution shall bind the United States and every governmental subdivision thereof. The rights enumerated in Sections 2 through 11 are subject only to reasonable limitations prescribed by such laws that are necessary in a democratic society and compelled by the public interest.
Yet these ‘human rights and freedoms’, not to be confused with those enumerated in Sections 2 through 11, are binding upon all levels of government. Reasonable construction implies that human rights and freedoms cannot be reasonably limited by law according to compelling public interests.
So, specifically, mandatory vaccinations and military drafts are prohibited under all circumstances.
Congress shall have the primary power and duty to secure the rights established in this Article by appropriate legislation. […] Congress shall have the power and duty to identify and protect additional rights that are necessary in a free society and consistent with the public interest.
This is all still Article 1. I have above quoted two sentences that effectively give Congress unlimited power. What, are we going to have the Supreme Court second guess Congress on what is or is not necessary for a free society, or consistent with the public interest?
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to its jurisdiction.
Penal labor is abolished by this provision. I’m not well informed about the topic of penal labor but I want to point out the implication.
Everyone has the right to equal protection of the laws and equal rights under the law. […] Reasonable governmental measures designed to protect or advance groups disadvantaged by past discrimination are permitted.
Naturally, I think this is a contradiction. If a law singles out one group for protection, that is by definition not equal protection of the laws.
Art and scholarship, research, and teaching shall be free.
As pointed out by RickJay, this is a significant provision. Contrast with the existing constitution’s copyright clause. (“The Congress shall have the Power […] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”)
I interpret it as binding upon the government only - an artist can refuse to give away his painting without payment, but the government isn’t allowed to punish people for merely copying his art. I am not dogmatically opposed to this provision but it is extremely radical and I would not support it without evidence that it would do good.
All persons shall have the right to freedom of association, autonomy in marriage, and reproductive freedom. Caregiving relationships between people shall be protected. Neither the federal nor the state governments shall unreasonably intrude upon the privacy of the home, personal relationships, or family life.
Yes, well personally I don’t think marriage should be intertwined with government at all. (I’m in the ‘civil unions for all, marriage is religious’ camp). And I would not interpret this guarantee of “reproductive freedom” so as to create a positive right to affordable contraception. If that was the goal, this provision needs revision. My interpretation of this is that if you have contraceptives and want to use them the government can’t stop you.
Barring exigency supported by probable cause, no government official may engage in a search or seizure except as specified in a warrant before a neutral magistrate. The warrant must be supported by an affidavit demonstrating probable cause to believe that the person seized is guilty of an offense or provides evidence of an offense, and is located in the place to be searched.
My read of this would make it impossible to authorize a search warrant unless the requesting officer shows probable cause to believe the perp is on-site. There is an exception for exigencies, but I don’t think that will cut it.
Imagine the perp murders someone then skips town. Officers have reason to believe there is a computer in a suspect’s house that will tell them where he fled. Officers cannot search the house because they would need a search warrant, which would require not only probable cause that the suspect committed some offense, but also probable cause that the suspect “is located in the place to be searched”.
No statement made by a suspect while in custody shall be admissible in the suspect’s trial or any subsequent proceedings unless the statement is made under oath in a public hearing contemporaneously recorded, before a magistrate, and with the advice of counsel; and unless the suspect is provided with access to all inculpatory and exculpatory material possessed by the government at the time of the statement.
This provision makes no exception for suspects in custody at the scene of the crime who volunteer information without their lawyer or a judge. If at least one suspect at the scene of the crime blurts “I killed him”, that little blurt is simultaneously inadmissible and exculpatory/inculpatory; it is impossible for a prosecutor to get any statement from any suspect admitted in any court for the rest of the investigation.
All criminal defendants shall have the right to effective assistance of competent counsel through all stages of a criminal proceeding, including at preliminary hearings, plea negotiations, trial, sentencing, appeal, and post-conviction review.
I do not interpret this as mandating the government to provide competent counsel, only as requiring the government to allow defendants to use their own counsel. This is reinforced by the following section which explicitly mandates the government to provide counsel at no cost for “indigent defendants”, and to provide counsel at reduced cost for defendants who cannot afford counsel. It does not follow that government provided counsel must be competent or effective, however. If that is the goal, these provisions need revision.
All persons shall have the right to work under equitable and safe conditions, and shall receive equal pay for equal work.
It is literally impossible to guarantee a right to work under equitable and safe conditions. Many essential jobs are inherently unsafe. Solid waste comes to mind. So do soldiers. Equal pay for equal work is likewise unenforcable without radical changes to how we track pay.
Workers shall be guaranteed freedom from unjustified dismissal
I cannot support this provision in a world where employees have the freedom to quit on their own accord. Historically speaking employment contracts were for a term of one or more fixed years, during which both employer and employee were bound by contract unless both agreed to sever the relationship.
And that’s as far as I am willing to entertain this incredibly radical thought experiment.
~Max, self-described conservative