How about:
Amendemnt XXVIII:
The public service of all members of the House of Representatives and the Senate shall be limited to no more than two terms. At the end of this period, no one shall run for another office in the opposite position, i.e. becoming transient from the House to the Senate and Vice Versa. The offices such persons shall be limited too are the Office of President and State Governor. The age limit for these offices shall be 21 years of age.
Ilsa_Lund,
A House term is 2 years. It takes longer than four years to learn the ins and outs of Washington leaving your constantly freshfaced legislators as veritable babes in the woods. Knowledge is power and they would typically have little forcing them to rely on the experience of proffessional advisors. Power would pass from elected officials to unelected insiders. Yuck! What we need is more accountability to the people, not less. People should have the right to decide for themselves who is best qualified to lead. In fairness we should eliminate ALL limitations on that choice and not just the ones we are predisposed to believe aren’t necessary. Let the voters decide.
I see your point. My idea was to prevent fat-cat professional politicians from dominating Washington with personal interests as is done now.
The term of service of the President shall be six years. No person shall be elegible for election to a consecutive term.
This allow the President to focus on running the country, instead of being re-elected. It would also guarantee 6 years in which to bring programs to fruition. Presidents could be re-elected to non-consecutive terms.
Wow, I’m glad you guys aren’t legislators (just as I’m sure you’re glad I’m not, either).
The proposal in Gadarene’s OP amounts to ammending the 9th Amendment as follows : “Section 2: No, really.” If you can’t convince people to take the 9th seriously, this won’t have any effect, either.
Arcite:
Completely unworkable. Federally run social programs would be effectively elimintated. The military would be reduced to a skeleton, w/ no significant research & development. In order to carry out even its basic functions, the federal government would have to impose an exorbitant sales tax, which would be (monstrously) regressive. Without federal funding or services, state income taxes would skyrocket, which would go against the instent of the amendment and give so much power that to state capitols that the U.S. would be a de facto confederacy.
IzzyR:
Again, completely unworkable. Aside from the fact that much of what the judiciary does amounts to filling in the gaps left by the “letter of the law,” this amendment would be interpreted by the courts. Courts don’t make rulings that begin with, “This is reach, but. . .” Any disagreements would merely be phrased as disagreements as to the letter of the law.
BobLibDem:
In that it specifies “public or private” parties, this would effectively nullify the right to free association. Wonderful.
Milum:
Article I, section 9 already prohibits retroactive laws: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
How in the world would a court (or anyone else, for that matter) determine if a law serves to obfuscate it’s own intent?
How wonderfully convenient for all of us gringos. What an insult to first and second generation Americans. This would effectively (and needlessly) disenfranchise millions of Americans.
MrTuffPaws:
What standard would be used to determine if two provisions of a bill are sufficiently related to be conjoined? What about budgets, which necessarily combine many different subjects?
Ironically, Milum’s revision of this proposal adds a second subject: that all laws must be easily understanable by “the people.” Again, what possible standard could be used to determine if a law’s language is “understandable”?
Even if you had a standard, the question arises: “Understanable by whom?” By all adults? How are we going to draft meaningful legislation that is understandable to the mentally retarded, or those with, say, only a 3rd grade education? That the laws are understandable to patient, intelligent people is enough, I think. (I’m sure any reasonably intelligent and educated adult who was willing to sit down with a dictionary and give as much time as necessary could understand any law he cared to read. Laws are necessarily complex; it’s not that most people can’t understand every facet of law, it’s that they don’t care to – hence lawyers, judges, and politicians.)
I like RTFirefly’s gerrymandering idea.
I apologize if I seem overly critical. No doubt most people would find fault with my ideas, if I were to post them . . . which I won’t.
I think a better answer is a line item veto.
Even if such an amendment could be enforced, the Congress and Supreme Court would not do a very good job of it.
VarlosZ:
I think the standard will fall upon the SCoUS. As for the budget argument, is not a budget on subject?
Article I, section 9 already prohibits retroactive laws: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Nice law** VarlosZ**. Maybe they forgot…
Bush Tax Cut*** PASSED***
Individuals will benefit from other tax breaks included in the legislation. All of these take effect in 2003,** retroactive** to the beginning of the year…
Apparently, budgets frequently apply retroactively. As is my understanding, they’re never struck down by the courts because no one has standing to sue (that is, because no one is harmed).
I suspect Bush’s tax cut is safe on this ground, but I really don’t know enough about it. File suit and find out, I guess.
As a hobby I’m writing up a very libertarian constitution. Inspired a lot by Boston. T. Party I came up with this bulletproof “Second Amendment” :
"II. The right of the people, in either their individual or militia capacity, to own, carry, and use weapons in defense of life, liberty, property, and honor shall not be infringed, regulated, or taxed by any official, legislature, or agency of the Libertarian Commonwealth. Any act or order by any official, legislature, or agency that seeks to, by any guise or pretext, to infringe or deny this right shall be null and void at the moment of passage and may be lawfully ignored or resisted.
Sub article 1: The right does not entail a right to heedlessly threaten others; e.g. waving a firearm in public or keeping weapons or devices of mass and indiscriminate destruction in an uncontrolled and unsafe manner.
Sub article 2: This right may be curtailed for minors and those under arrest.
Sub article 3: Property owners or their agents may restrict this right excepting resident tenants. Any residency lease or contract that seeks to restrict this right is null and void.
Sub article 4: The right of the people to organize and assemble in private militias for defense of life, liberty, and property (but not personal honor) shall not be infringed. No militia can claim special privilege or diminished responsibility. No private militia can receive public funding.
Sub article 5: Individual honor may not be defended by force in cases of actual or perceived insult, libel, or slander excepting where the involved parties freely consent with mutually agreed terms and conditions. The intentional or unintentional use of force on uninvolved parties is criminal force, subject to penalty of law. No private association or individual is obligated to maintain a contract with a duelist for one year after a single duel. Otherwise, the right of the people to conduct private affairs of honor shall not be infringed."
mine is:
The 2nd amendment means what it says. The People have the right to keep and bear arms.
Ironically, Milum’s revision of this proposal adds a second subject: that all laws must be easily understanable by “the people.” Again, what possible standard could be used to determine if a law’s language is “understandable”? - ValosZ
Ironic? Maybe. Intentional? Yes. I thought it cute.
Understandable laws? Well for one thing english would be nice. Not legalesse nonsense, hidden and housed in latin terms because they sound so trite when spoken in plain english. You know, like the hoo-doo chant of the witch-doctor, designed to impress, not for content.
All laws should be written for the governed; not for the esoteric pedant dances of lawyers and judges.
I rather like the esoteric pedant dances of lawyers and judges.
Anyway, here. Find me a law that someone with a high school education, a dictionary, and the will to try couldn’t make sense of.
Bills (usually) aren’t written to be easy or fun to read for those who don’t do it professionally. They are most definitely written in English, however.
Laws, in the sense of “acts of Congress/state legislatures” use latin exceedingly rarely – the only example I can think of off the top of my head would be “de minimis,” which is a nice shorthand for “too damn small for anyone to worry about,” and, IMO, its use is not exactly obscuring anything from the layman. I’m really curious as to what you have in mind here.
There are more Latinisms in court, although not nearly so many as most folks think, and in most cases they again simply act as shorthand for certain legal concepts – “sua sponte” means the court acted on its own motion, without either party requesting it do so; “res ipsa loquitur” means the facts at hand are so obviously compelling that further proof of causation is unneeded; “habeas corpus” is an order requiring that the government explain why it’s holding someone; etc, etc, etc.
(And since you hate Latinisms so much, I take it you must despise those et ceteras at the end of my last sentence.)
At any rate, “I hate legalese” is just code for “I’m too damn lazy to read the law carefully.” That much-maligned “legalese” is the byproduct of precision – if you want to work with a scalpel rather than a broadsword, it’s going to take you more words to get the job done. Which is why the Constitution is short and the tax code is long.
I assure you, law school graduates are not issued secret decoder rings that allow only them to understand a statute. Anyone with a solid understanding of the English language can do it if they’re willing to read with discipline (i.e., following cross-references and the like).
So I could keep a hydrogen bomb in my basement as long as I was in control of it and kept it safely under lock and key? :eek:
I agree with the idea of a balanced budget amendment. I wouldn’t mind seeing another amendment which abolished the IRS and replaced the current tax system with a national sales tax.
I also won’t attempt the exact wording, but -
A balanced budget amendment, except by vote of three quarters of both the House and Senate. This would have to include bonds, retroactive budgets, and other accounting tricks.
Abolish the Electoral College.
Outlaw affirmative action.
The explicit declaration that the death penalty is constitutional.
Regards,
Shodan
So I could keep a hydrogen bomb in my basement as long as I was in control of it and kept it safely under lock and key?
-Probably the interpretation would be to keep such items in the same level of security that they are kept now; i.e., in heavily guarded installations
Besides, the private right to keep “hydrogen bombs” has always been a bit of a straw man arguement–after all, it is individuals who do maintain nuclear stockpiles and weapon systems, regardless they’re getting a government paycheck–but who can afford to get such things?–that’s right the same sort of institutions who have the ability to secure them.
Well no, morality is a code of conduct determining right and wrong ~arrived at~ through non-empirical processes.
In other words, if one has a code of conduct arrived at through trial and error/cause and effect (for instance if one doesnt jump into a lions cage and smack them on their asses because of the fear of retribution inflicted by the lions), that is not a code of conduct based on morality, it is a code of conduct based on rational thought.
If however one didnt jump into a lions cage and smack them on their asses because of a belief that all animals are equal and beautiful creatures and they shouldnt be harmed laa dee doo daa, that is a moral, not rational, reason.
As soon as practical consequences, cause and effect, empirical evidence etc etc etc is considered, a line of reasoning becomes rational, not moral.
Unless you’re making a (largely arbitrary) distinction between “ethics” and “morality,” this would come as big news to thousands of ethical philosophers around the world.
A line of reasoning is “rational” no matter what is being considered. I’m a utilitarian, basically. When I decide, for various reasons, that the most desirable thing is the greatest possible human happiness, that is both a rational, practical judgement, and a moral decision. Choosing to pursue happiness above all else is just as much a matter of morality as choosing to obey God’s will above all else. Hence, deciding that laws must be based on practicality instead of “morality” is itself a moral judgement.