Amendment 28
It being necessary for the health and well-being of the citizenry, the right to competent medical treatment of life-threatening illnesses or injuries shall not be infringed.
The last amendment:
“Just kidding.”
Seconded.
How the heck does that work?? The Constitution tells the federal government what it can and can’t do, and how it relates to the states. Health care, on the other hand, is provided by doctors and hospitals, real live autonomous people. You could never, ever, ever, possibly guarantee a positive right to health care by putting it in the Constitution.
Say you did pass that amendment. I suppose the feds would have to set up some sort of program that compensated hospitals/doctors for any medical care they gave to people in life-threatening illness/injury. I’m sure they could construct such an agency much as they do present ones. But the existence of such a program does not itself guarantee that A) doctors will be willing to do that work, nor that B) there will be enough doctors around to do it, nor that C) there will be enough medical resources to do it.
The Bill of Rights establishes negative rights, ones that can be satisfied by the gov’t not acting. My right to free speech in the Constitutional context means ONLY that Congress cannot (and by incorporation doctrine, the state legislatures cannot) act to interfere with my speech. If the government wants to respect those rights, it cannot possibly fail. All it has to do is sit back and not interfere. If you establish positive ones, then it possible for the government to act un-Constitutionally through no fault of its own, simply by lacking the resources to satisfy the obligation.
As such, positive rights such as this one merely serve to erode the notion of “rights”. A positive right cannot possibly be guaranteed, because someone has to act to provide it, or be compelled to do so. Health care does not come out of some magic bottomless well.
I should add that I am not silly enough to believe there is any way to word a Constitutional amendment such that it cannot be interpreted away by justices who don’t care for it. Otherwise, the tenth Amendment would still be meaningful.
Regards,
Shodan
You’ll need to provide a cite for that defintion to prove that it is not unique to your understanding. The dictionary definition is:
Judging by your proposed amendment, I suspect you are a Utilitarian in your moral thinking, just like VarlosZ.
“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.” * -thus spake Dewey*
Oh my! Dewey, did I hit a sensitive spot of your defensive armor?
It becomes-you-not to wail away at reality and pretend that the greedy green monster that is the *lawyer/judge/politician combine * has not made the american system of justice a joke.
Franklin and Jefferson would faint cold dead away if they knew that in the United States…
(1) Justice is dispensed by-in-large by the amount of money that can be paid to attorneys. A citizen on his on account cannot address any grievances of wrong-doing without a large measure of money to pay for the high filing fees and legal representation.
(2) This sad state of misjustice has been established largely by the passing of unnecessarily convoluted laws which were made either by design or by the convergence of the mutually shared interests of lawmakers who are by-in-large lawyers.
And so now** Dewey**, for the record, and without a so much as a single hem or haw, will you state categorically that (1) and (2) are untrue?
This would hardly have surprised Jefferson or Franklin, much less caused them to “faint dead away”. They were well aware of the abuses, complexities, and delays found within British law, which Dickens would satirize in the next century in Bleak House. Dependence on expensive lawyers is as old as the rule of law. It still beats the alternatives.
*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
And regards to you too** Shodan**. Out of the fifty or so contributors to this thread, if you were running against them in the California free-for-all election today I would vote for you.
But first I’d have to ask “Why are you mad at the Electoral College?” The logic of this simple method of voting is fundamental to any Republic,* id est* 
, territorial separation breeds social and cultual distinctions that must be recognised and given weight by the larger political body. You know…like States Rights.
Will you reconsider?
So murder is okay with you as long as the victim consents beforehand? Wonderful! What we really need is a law allowing insults to paid for in blood. :rolleyes:
That sounds less Libertarian than libertine.
This would hardly have surprised Jefferson or Franklin, much less caused them to “faint dead away”. They were well aware of the abuses, complexities, and delays found within British law, which Dickens would satirize in the next century in Bleak House. Dependence on expensive lawyers is as old as the rule of law. It still beats the alternatives. - jklann
Really, Mr jklann? One would think that the good people who had the vision to establish this wonderful nation would not have envisioned a nation held hostage by its own laws. Hell, those were smart guys, probably smarter than me, but even I know how to get these quick buck charlatans off our backs… outlaw them.
And you outlaw them by making all legal citizens eligible to practice law before the courts.
Drop legal exams. Allow those who wish to hire out their legal skills to advertize in the free market. De-nut the bar associations. Flood the market.
Then pretty soon we will be able to retain a lawyer at about one third the price we currently pay a plumber, and then we can afford to sue our own lawyer if he charges us for more case time than he actually took.
I like it.___________________________
Jeez, Milum. Why are jumping down Dewey’s throat? What he said was accurate: the law, in order to be precise, is necessarily complex.
My understanding is that legal representation is not absolutely necessary for small claims. For suits involving piles and piles of cash, on the other hand, is it really such a bad thing that experts (i.e. lawyers and judges) pour over every last detail?
I’ve already given you a source. Please give an example of an act of Congress that an average person with the will to try couldn’t understand. Otherwise, stop saying that the law is too complex.
There are certainly valid complaints to be made about the legal system, and I have the same ingrained prejudice against lawyers as the next guy. I think you’re taking it a bit far, though.
Now that we’ve undone and/or twisted everything our founding fathers intended, it’s time to pass an Amendment saying “Last one out, turn off the lights and lock the door” before my kids start buying their better-made cars from the Iraqis. - Jinx
Okay, I admit to using a bit of hyperbole in talking about “basements” and “lock and key”. Obviously any remotely reasonable person would interpret your amendment to mean that the government could require a level of control and safety commensurate with the destructive ability of the device. But are you really saying that any private individual or organization that is able to provide this level of control should be allowed to keep a nuclear device? I respectfully, and STRONGLY, disagree.
“Jeez, Milum. Why are jumping down Dewey’s throat? What he said was accurate: the law, in order to be precise, is necessarily complex.” - VarlosZ
Don't waste words defending** Dewey**,** VarlosZ**. **Dewey** can defend himself. But who, I wonder, defends the poor, the ignorant, or the citizen who by choice or circumstance has not become wealthy, when they become aggrieved by the wealthy *cum* powerful or by the state.
Sure *Taxpayer*, sell your house, sell your car, subject your family to hardships and transfer your money to the lawyers and the courts. Don't you get it, **VarlosZ**, the law is stacked heavily in their favor of the legalians and that is **WRONG!**
Yeah,** VarlosZ**, listen to the oily talk about the need for complexities in the law so as to be exacting in designation and intent. This is bullshit **VarlosZ**. Any two-bit lawyer worth his shingle can argue that a bick is a dick and collect damages for slander.
Well I care **VarlosZ**. I cringe when I see justice sold to the higest bidder. And I intend to speak my piece.
As you wanted I will now go look up a convoluted congressional law and improve it and then post it here for **Dewey**. I like **Dewey**. He is bright and articulate and seems well focused but not dogmatic. Wash my mouth out with soap but I think that he has high principles. :)First, jklann is right; jokes about lawyers and their fees were common in Franklins time and long before, as evidenced by Franklin’s poem The Benefit of Going to Law. Second, you do know that a good proportion of those “smart guys” were lawyers themselves, right?
Why stop there? Allow anyone to adverstise plumbing skills as well as legal skills, regardless of whether they actually know anything about plumbing or the law. Either way you’re standing knee deep in shit when it’s over.
Ack! Can’t . . . respond. Too . . . much . . . . . rhetoric.
If I understand your complaint, it’s not that the law is stacked in the favor of the “legalians,” but that it’s stacked in favor of the rich (i.e., those who can afford excellent legal counsel). This is certainly true, but it’s not a peculiarity of the law – everything is stacked in favor of the rich. So what, then, are you complaining about? Unequal distribution of wealth?
I didn’t want you to improve upon a law, but to find one that is impenetrable to the average adult. I’m sure you could find one that’s a grammatic and stylistic nightmare.
Thank you pravnik for the Franklin poem. Great poem! What a guy!
Yes I know, pravnik, slippery lawyers, good-hearted whores, and obedient fools have been with us since First man’s sowing and will likely be with us until Last man’s reap. What I can’t understand is why the posters here on Straight Dope are not railing and gnashing their teeth against this arrogrant violation of our fundamental right to blind justice. A violation that is evenso written into the very laws of our nation. Are we sheep?
[Example chosen at random]
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 314
To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to exempt mortgage servicers from certain requirements of the Act with respect to federally related mortgage loans secured by a first lien, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES January 8, 2003
A BILL
To amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to exempt mortgage servicers from certain requirements of the Act with respect to federally related mortgage loans secured by a first lien, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the
`Mortgage Servicing Clarification Act’.
SEC. 2.** MORTGAGE SERVICING CLARIFICATION**.
(a) IN GENERAL- The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.) is amended–
(1) by redesignating section 818 as section 819; and
(2) by inserting after section 817 the following new section:
Sec. 818. Mortgage servicer exemption (a) EXEMPTION- A covered mortgage servicer who, whether by assignment, sale or transfer, becomes the person responsible for servicing federally related mortgage loans secured by first liens that include loans that were in default at the time such person became responsible for the servicing of such federally related mortgage loans shall be exempt from the requirements of section 807(11) in connection with the collection of any debt arising from such defaulted federally related mortgage loans. (b) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply: (1) COVERED MORTGAGE SERVICER- The term covered mortgage servicer’ means any servicer of federally related mortgage loans -secured by first liens–
(A) who is also debt collector; and
(B) for whom the collection of delinquent debts is incidental to -the servicer’s primary function of servicing current federally related -mortgage loans.
(2) FEDERALLY RELATED MORTGAGE LOAN- The term federally related mortgage loan’ has the meaning given to such term in section 3(1) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, except that, for purposes of this section, such term includes only loans secured by first liens.
(3) PERSON- The term person’ has the meaning given to such term in section 3(5) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974.
(4) SERVICER; SERVICING- The terms servicer' and servicing’ have the meanings given to such terms in section 6(i) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974.’.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections for the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq.) is amended–
(1) by redesignating the item relating to section 818 as section 819; and
(2) by inserting after the item relating to section 817 the following new item:
818. Mortgage servicer exemption.
*__________________ * END _________________
** Thank you Congress for the clarification.
I understand that you redesigned Section 818 as Section 819 and inserted after the item relating to Section 817 a new item called Section 818 “Mortgage servicer exemption”. Good.
But what I don’t understand is what did you do and why did you do it.** . :smack:
The Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) protects people from unfair debt collection practices, like third party debt collectors who call you on the phone at unreasonable hours, harrass you, threaten you with jail, or use other unreasonable debt collection practices. If people do this you can sue them and get money. This encourages third party debt collectors to not do this.
Under the FDCPA you can sue either the debt collector or the entity to whom you owe the original debt. Certain home mortgages may be insured, guaranteed, supplemented, or assisted by the federal government, meaning you owe your mortgage debt in some part to the federal government, or to somebody the feds have assigned the debt to. Prior to the passage of this bill there was probably some disagreement in federal courts (probably a very specific line of divergent cases that also probably tied up the federal courts and cost you money as a taxpayer) as to whether the federal government or a federally funded entity had consented to be sued under the FDCPA for a federally funded mortgage. The passage of this bill clarified the matter, and the answer is “no.”
Ta da!
Hell, you won’t get an argument from me on that. But I don’t see how that would make the law less complicated.
As evidence on this point, consider the rules we draft to govern recreational activities–namely, college and professional sports. These rules are drafted by non-lawyers, and nobody has any interest in making them more complicated than they need to be. And yet, read the rule book of any major sport. Grind your teeth at the polysyllabic obfuscation, the proliferation of jargon, the exceptions, definitions, and “approved rulings”. It’s a function of trying to pound square language pegs into the round hole of real world complexity.