Voodoo: You are confusing the generic tern “morality” with what you consider to be “religious morality”. Morality is simply a code of conduct by which one determines right and wrong. Using “self interest” as a guiding principle is one type of moral code. Anyway, your amendment would not allow any laws to be passed unless they were simply chosen at random*. Any law which is derived from a code of conduct (even self interest) would violate your amendment.
*And it probably wouldn’t take too clever a lawyer to convice a judge that “choosing at random” is also a moral code.
Does anything stop us stringing together several of these suggestions into one ammendment?
Anyway, I might consider formalizing some things that may or may not have been implied in the rest of the constitution:
You can have hand weapons and hunting rifles, but nothing more. Uh, and we’re not sure about a militia.
Right to privacy (possibly including the telemarketer opt-out.)
Gay marriage is allowed.
It’s a bit late now, but establishing the internet’s status explicitly - eg. is a msgboard ‘publishing’, is email enforcable, is caching a page ‘fair use’ etc
Any time - say eight and three quater months? Holy shit, that’s a scary ammendment.
The right of the people to be considered competent to be bound to signed contracts, to stand trial, and to otherwise handle their own affairs as a responsible adult shall not be abridged except through the application of a unified standard of competence determined as a legal matter wherein the standard of proof shall be a finding of no reasonable doubt as to the absence thereof.
The right of the people to due process, protection from false imprisonment, and general equal treatment under the law in all areas shall not be abridged by the federal government of the United States or the component states thereof or any legally sovereign subdivision thereof on the basis of psychiatric or other medical or mental condition not sufficient to exclude them from being considered competent.
The right and obligation of the United States and the various component states to hold individuals accountable through due process of law, including but not limited to the imposition of sanctions subsequent to a determination of guilt, shall not be abridged, modified, or affected by any law considering mental condition except as provided above.
It being fundamental to the actions of free men to understand the laws under which they are governed; Congress shall pass no law that is retroactive. Nor shall they pass any law that serves to obfuscate the law’s intent.
**Amendment Twenty Nine **
(a) The English language is to serve all citizens of the United States in the conduct of all law and all goverment functions; In this regard English is the Official State Language.
(b) An elementary understanding of the english language must be demostrated before the judiciary before full citizenship can be awarded to emigrants regardless of extenuating circumstances beyond soundness of mind and body.
Actually, a true balanced budget would be bad for the economy. The budget shoudl be ALMOST balanced, that is any deficit should be no more than the % increase in the GDP. To reword this, you shoudl not borrow more as a % than the Economy increases. if the GDP goes up by 5%, then the Federal budget should be 105% of the income. Thus, in real constant dollars, the budget IS balanced.
I will also point out that AFAIK California has a balanced budget requirement. Doesn’t stop bonds, and borrowing from future income. They just rename and use smaoke & mirrors to get around it.
Here’s what I’d have it say- All the Constitional rights apply to the States, not just the ones the Courts say do. For some reason, SCOTUS thinks that the 1st admendment (for example) applies to the States, but othe’s don’t. For instance, in order to be charged with a murder, you have to be arraigned by a Grand Jury for Fedeal cases. This protection does not apply to the States for some reason. In other words, if one admendment gives you rights on both a Federal AND State & local level, then they all should.
Deth: You’ll have to explain why a balanced budget, in and of itself, is bad for the economy. It’s how the money is spent more than how much.
Are you confusing GDP growth with inflation? You can have 5% GDP growth and 0% inflation just as easily as you can have 0% GDP growth and 5% inflation.
I agree, the 28th Amendment should basically say that judges have the power to make it up as they go along, without any guidance from the legislature.
If the judges feel like inventing a new right or overruling the Congress based on their conscience, or how they would have voted, then feel free. That includes making rulings on how things would be if we lived in a liberal utopia.
I remember a case near Philly. A bunch of people couldn’t afford to live in one of the well to do towns outside of Philly. So they sued, arguing that they had a constitutional right to affordable housing. The judge agreed and the town was forced to subsidize (meaning the rest of the people in town had to pay) housing for some “poor” people.
With logic like that, what isn’t a right? The right to two cars, a house, a vacation home, free medical care, free day-care, free just about everything.
Some liberal judges say that the gov’t owes everyone a decent standard of living. Um…OK, who exactly is supposed to pay for that? And what’s the impetus for people to work if they’re given everything by “right”?
Hmph. Well, contrary to what some people posted earlier, I think what we need is something like:
“By the way, when we said ‘the people’ back in the Second Amendment, we actually meant ‘the people.’ So, stop trying to ban guns, you well-intentioned but misguided persons!”
Any bill signed into law shall be of one, and only one, subject.
Very good MrTuffPaws, I like it. But considering the great force that is automatically carried by the wording of an amendment to the US Constitution the additional emphasizing phrase " and only one" seems unnecessary and redundant. And in addition, the use of the word " subject" is perhaps too casual and general when used in this exacting context, I like “a single specified concern”.
Furthermore the semantics of your amendment is too ambitious and intrusive in that it requires State and Local compliance of laws that they see fit to pass, so I think it best to direct your amendment only to laws made by the US Congress.
Consequently “Any bill” should become “all laws made by Congress” and this new wording renders the act of signing superfluous.
Let’s try…
Each and every law that is made by the United States Congress shall be directed and confined to a single and specified concern in such language that can be clearly understood by the people.
MyTuffyPaws: As for the language/people part, why bother? It is the people’s responsibility to know and follow the law.
Which follows…it is the people’s responsibility to engage and pay lawyers to protect them from the unhappy consequences of unnecessarily complicated laws.
This state of affairs allows money to determine justice - antithetical to the spirit of the Constitution.
Why not write all laws in pig latin and let Catholic pigs get rich instead of lawyer pigs?
Also, technically congress does not make laws. They are bills until signed into law by the president.
US Constitution, Amendment One: First sentence…
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religeon…
As to “subject” rather than “concern”: No law should be written unless there is a “concern”. Too many needless laws are written just because there is a popular “subject”.
**I took the wording form the California Department of Justice. **
