Answering your rhetorical question: yes, she would be. I am not speaking in the abstract when I write of Lilly; she has repeated suicidal tendencies and sometimes dreams of killing herself.
I’m a fan of Jefferson’s writings myself, and I too value liberty highly, but “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” You can go too far either way.
Under what circumstances WOULD you limit the freedom of others, Crafter_Man?
I don’t have a problem with prohibiting a person from exercising their right to keep and bear arms if they’re in jail, in police custody, etc. Other than that, a person has an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Is this the “safest” policy? No. Will there be more murders with my policy vs. your policy? Probably. But in my opinion, it’s *worth * it… I would much rather have less safety and more freedom vs. more safety and less freedom.
The government doesn’t have the right to regulate the USE of weapons??? So, if I decide to drive around Washinigton, DC, shooting my gun in the air like a basketball player, “freedom” demands that I have that right protected?
There are plenty of places where people can exercise such behavior without penalty. Somalia, for example. However, is a a misnomer to apply the word “free” to the most heavily armed, violent societies. “Fearing for one’s life on the street” is pretty much the antithesis of liberty.
I think voting for “None of the Above” is a flat-out dumb thing to write into the Constitution. You can always write someone’s name in. Or not vote at all. Voting but not choosing among less-than-perfect candidates is like going to a restaurant and whining that you can make all the food better: you may be right, but either do something about it or shut the fuck up with the complaining already.
The only change I’d make to the Constitution is to clarify a right to privacy. I’d have to think a lot about how to phrase it, but it ought to be spelled out.
Of course not. You are infringing on the rights of others… you are engaging in an activity that puts others in great risk.
Simply having weapons (even full-auto) does not infringe on anyone else’s rights.
Can you clarify the “other”? For instance, does a person who’s been convicted of a violent crime retain such this right?
As I said above, I’m not generally a gun-control proponent, but your position strikes me as reckless. I’d say more but I don’t wish to hijack the thread.
Of course. If you think he’s a danger to society, keep him in prison.
Your constitutional amendment specifically prohibits any government regulation of the use of guns. How does shooting a gun not qualify as a use? As Rush Limbaugh used to like to say, words mean things. If you don’t want to give people the constitutional right to use guns in reckless ways, don’t write it into the constitution.
GD thread from last year.
I will but repeat what I said [url=]there.
There are millions in Iraq who have, quite recently, exchanged peaceful slavery for dangerous freedom. They might have a different view.
:smack: Fixed link.
Not sure I’d put it in the Bill of Rights. I’d like to keep that intact for historical value. I’d work the “an it harm none” bit into Article 1, as a limit on both State and Federal legislative authority.
Your (or rather, Boston T. Party’s) proposed amendment doesn’t limit the right of prisoners to keep, bear and use weapons. As written, your proposed amendment would prohibit murder prosecutions if any weapon (gun or otherwise) is used, would invalidate laws against armed assault, etc. (no restriction on the “use” of weapons). Terrible, terrible amendment.
As for me I’d like to tag on a requirement for the office of the presidency that the candidate have spent some specified amount of time traveling putside the United States. And yes, that is aimed directly at the ridiculousness of someone like a George W Bush who wants to hold the office having never set foot outside the US before assuming the office.
I agree with the several other posters who would require people to earn the right to vote by voluneering for and successfully completing a term of government service. Which, as noted, covers all government positions (civilian and military) which require a volunteer spirit and willingness to serve society.
The second sentence in Boston T. Party’s proposed right to private weaponry, as quoted by Crafter_Man, is a restatement of “That order violates the Constitution – our supreme law of the land – and is void ex genesis.” For a good treatment on the subject, see Marbury v. Madison. For myself, I’d strengthen the right to bear arms, and strengthen its tie to service in civilian defense groups (a.k.a. “militias,” but that term has gotten a bad reputation in recent years.)
I would also massively strengthen investigations of government officials, elected and appointed, on questions of ethics, promoting that to a part of the Constitution. The minimum penalty for misuse of office would be being barred from all government service for 10 years, plus a lifetime prohibition on profiting from their government service. But this entire thought forces the question: Who investigates the investigators?
On the procedural side, though, the current US Constitution establishes a robust and flexible structure. I wouldn’t tinker with the procedural elements.
I think highly of the BoR, but in the circumstance I’m positing–a new nation named the US but with a 20+year discontinuity in its existence–I’d rather start fresh: in part because it would let me reorder things to make my priorities clear, in part because I’d like to be the new James Madison. (If I’m not God-King of Rhymeria, of course.)
I’d put your “an it harm none…” bit first in an article defining the limits of the government’s power, the “privacy article.” Something like…
Article I: The government of the United States exists to secure the liberty, privacy, and access to justice of its citizens no less than their safety. Therefore, no legislative, executive, judicial, military, or administrative arm of the government of the United States, nor of any state, nor any subordinate political entity, shall have the power to prohibit any act of any citizen or national of the United States, except as to prevent positive harm to an identifiable person or persons, or as to secure the safety of the people of the United States from invasion or insurrection; and in cases of conflict between the nation’s security and the liberty, privacy, and access to justice of its citizens and nationals, every effort shall be made to secure the former as much as the latter.
I’d add “stable” to the robust & flexible remark, but I agree; leave the procedural elements alone. I woudn’t do much to change the working of the Congress either, and all I’d do about the Supreme Court is to put in the new constitution that it has the powers currently granted it by statute.
First, abolish the electoral college, and redesign the system to avoid our current two-party (e.g., majority leader/minority leader) design. BrainGlutton’s instant runoff system would make viable third (and fourth…) party candidates realistic.
Second, give the president and the Congress line-item veto rights, with a sub-majority of Congress having the ability to strike any clause from any bill if the clause is demonstrably unrelated to the primary focus of the bill. Yeah, I know it would require judicial intervention to determine what constitutes “demonstrably unrelated,” but it would be well worth it to keep lawmakers from sneaking things into bills where they don’t belong.
I definitely agree with Heinlein’s public service requirement, and it should include options for everything from active military service to cleaning the streets or cutting government red tape. In fact, if service at state, county, and city level were included, it would be an immense help to less-wealthy districts.
I like none-of-the-above as an option, but I’d vehemently oppose mandatory voting. We have too many people voting about things they don’t understand as it is. If someone doesn’t care enough to go to the polls, then I don’t think we’re missing much.
The idea of a “poll test” is frightening and easily-abused, but it just irks the heck out of me when people vote on a proposition they haven’t even read, or for a bond when they don’t know what the money will be spent on.
I would absolutely love to see a right to privacy, but I think that barn door’s been left open, the cows are out, and they burned the barn behind them. How would one go about creating a right to privacy now? Just for kicks, think about how you’d phrase it.
Oh, yeah. And replace filibustering with something more dignified and less time-wasting. It’s demeaning to watch politicians read a phone book, and Congress has much better things to do than listen to such nonsense.
Rather than the line item veto, I’d limit federal legislation to one subject, to be identified in the title of the bill. No more bridges to nowhere, unless the congress votes on it by itself.
That would work for me.