In other words, “Anybody may carry, anywhere, any weapon of any type, no matter how strong the evidence is that either that specific weapon or that specific person poses an extreme hazard to the general public or to specific innocents who the person has threatened”?
Nope. Nope, nope, nope. And why on earth would you want to require that?
I’d add to that, that licenses may be denied upon conviction or during indictment for violent crimes, and from people under legal restraining orders, or who are physically unable to use such weapons safely.
Huh? Not to the Presidency, she wasn’t.
And her chances in practice of being elected to that office were nonexistent.
Quite a lot of them ought to apply to anybody who’s in the country. Do you want tourists to have no rights whatsoever? Temporary workers? Grandma from country X who may or may not decide to stay but doesn’t want to change her citizenship?
Voting I think should in at least most cases be restricted to citizens; possibly with some exceptions for long term residents in local elections.
So are my chances and yours as well. The constitution isn’t going to guarantee your choice in the election, just your right to vote.
I didn’t say non-citizens had no rights. Those have to be clearly specified elsewhere because IMO non-citizens shouldn’t automatically have all the rights of citizens.
Republican justices could say that respect for bodily autonomy of the fetus means no abortion nationwide.
And they could also say that respect for bodily autonomy forbids any hospital accepting federal funds, including Medicare, from requiring staff to be immunize, and any school district from requiring children to vaccinated.
This could be solved by actually putting the word abortion in the proposed new/modified constitution while keeping away from broad statements of principle the meaning of which can be twisted. But doing that would reduce chances of ratification.
I believe this was asked about a proposed strengthening of the second amendment allowing citizens to “forcibly” resist just about any gun control law “without risk of prosecution.”
While I am totally against that provision, it makes sense in the context of this thread. In order to get progressive provisions out of the constitutional convention, and for it to have any chance of ratification, there have to be balancing liberal/progressive and conservative/reactionary changes. If the left cares more about a right to abortion, and the right cares more about turning their AR-15’s fully automatic, you’ve got a deal.
Perhaps every poster who asks for something they want should also be suggesting a change to the Constitution they dislike but would take in exchange. Any real constitutional convention is guaranteed to include just that kind of horse-trading.
I don’t see why gun rights have anything to do with a constitution. I don’t see anyone proposing the right to own and drive cars being a fundamental right. This proposed amendment is even worse than the current one. It sounds like it guarantees criminals, psychos, and children to own and use guns without restriction.
Why are you talking past me? I’m not objecting to protecting women’s rights. I’m objecting to a proposed amendment that as originally worded is bad law. If you want specific protections for rights that pertain only to women fine, but do so with an amendment that doesn’t turn the Supreme Court into micromanagers of all gender-relevant social issues.
Which is rather at odds with the original Framers, who saw keeping and bearing arms- personally held arms- as a political issue; as Jim Cavanagh put it:
“The question of gun rights is a political question, in the broad sense that it touches on the distribution of power in a polity. Thus, although it incorporates all these perfectly legitimate “sub-political” activities, it is not fundamentally about hunting, or collecting, or target practice; it is about empowering the citizen relative to the state.”
That would apply to an endless number of subjects that weren’t addressed in the original version and have no need to be in a new one. The constitution should establish laws that allows the creation of all further necessary law by legislation, fairly and equitably applied to all citizens. Excluding the subject of guns from legislation makes no sense.
OK. And in the sense of having the right to vote for someone who obviously won’t be taking the office, we’ve all got that right now, even with term limits.
The advantages of already holding the office – especially in cases in which one party holds all three branches, and is therefore in a position to set some of the rules – are large enough for it to make sense to require some form of offset.
I don’t see why they shouldn’t be specified in the Constitution. But this discussion brings up a good point: the Constitution should be clear on when it refers to citizens and when it refers to everyone in the country.
While we’re at it, if we’re going to keep up that “natural born citizen” restriction, we ought to clarify what that means. Or else we ought to get rid of it. Requiring some length of time spent residing in the country makes sense; I don’t think we should be electing as President somebody who’s only spent a year or two here. But I don’t see why, say, a 55 year old who came here at the age of six months, or for that matter at 16, and has lived here ever since should be ineligible.
Yeah, it would be necessary to clarify what “bodily autonomy” means.
I don’t see any way we’d be able to get whatever we come up with ratified, even without it. This is a wish list.
I’m mildly interested to see whether we can come up with something that at least 3/4 of the people in this thread would, overall, vote for. I’m quite interested in clarifying what I myself think, whether others here can think of improvements I haven’t thought of, and whether people can come up with problems that I haven’t thought of with my suggestions, and if the latter whether I or others here have a way to deal with such problems.
If and only if we can write a complete coherent consensus constitution (hey, CCCC! – wait a minute, doesn’t that have something to do with the USSR?) on this board, then I might, only might, be interested in someone doing things to try to actually bring it about. It couldn’t be me, however, except maybe in an extremely minor role: I’m old, ill, and broke.
But until and unless we’re at that point (which I don’t see happening), I don’t see much sense in trying to make it currently ratifiable in the country as a whole. You don’t go into negotiations with your concessions already made; you start with what you really want, and make concessions later as you have to.
No offset is needed if the laws are fair. They aren’t now, and these problems have nothing to do with people’s right to vote for any eligible person of their choice. And eligibility shouldn’t be have term limits. I’d say any citizen. Possibly becoming a naturalized citizen should require a period of time that would be sufficient for eligibility to hold office.
Why would we keep that nonsense. If there’s a valid reason someone has to be born a citizen to be president then the constitution should say just that, ‘born a US citizen’, none of this ‘natural’ crap. As stated above, there may be requirements on becoming citizen that could apply. Personally I don’t care how old anyone is to hold office. If the majority of people vote for an 18 year old to be president in a free and fair election (something we don’t have now since none of us gets to vote directly for president) then that’s what we should have. The reasonable limitations based on age for any rights have to be clearly explained in the constitution also.
I don’t see what wording would prevent that (it’s really vague) or at least setting patent limits based on general classifications - for instance, limiting the length or extent of patents on pharmaceutical products or products related to the amelioration of human health.
So few people are or would ever be convicted of treason or sedition that this is effectively meaningless. Voter fraud is actually very rare, too.
Anyone running for president has to be able to pass requirements for a Top Secret security clearance. It’s ridiculous that as a contractor requiring clearance I need to pass a bunch of requirements/restrictions and continually pass them, but political candidates who couldn’t pass them can be elected to the highest offices. Actually I think this rule should apply to anyone running for Congress as well.
How often should people be denied the right to vote? We have a whole bunch of insurrectionists who should lose their right to vote now but currently it’s up to the states and they have inconsistent and unfair application of the law.
Districts are required only by the United States Code, which can be changed the way most other laws can.
Also, my counterpoint also holds - you couldn’t get away with having all of the “urban delegates” from Califoirnia come from Los Angeles without everybody in the northern part of the state throwing fits when, all of a sudden, there’s federal funding for a water project that just happens to divert most of the state’s water to the south.
I think there should be rare exceptions that I pointed out. I respect your opinion on the matter, I tend towards that as well because that’s the point of democracy.
In 1954 a Senator won as a write in candidate. It happens. Sure mostly for small local elections, but you have that option.
I admit, that due to a compromise between the people who wanted free ownership of guns and the people who wanted the right to have a militia, the 2nd is badly worded. But as the Supremes stated in Heller, Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’ s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56 So, yeah, like most rights, the 2nd needs to have reasonable limitations.
You know, about 8 US congressman served before they were old enough. The rules are only rules if they are enforced.