I’ve been playing around with this for a couple of days. What do you think?
Section 1. No law shall be made or enforced by either the United States or the several States that has a substantial purpose of interfering with an adult’s right to behave in the way the adult sees fit, unless such behavior interferes with or has a demonstrable chance of interfering with another person’s right to life, liberty, property, privacy, and be free from physical harm.
Section 2. If an adult is harmed through the adult’s intentional commission of certain enumerated self-destructive acts, the United States and the several States shall have the ability to withhold any public assistance to that adult that would otherwise be used to ameliorate such harm. In order for the United States or the several States to avail themselves of this provision the self-destructive act and the consequences of harming oneself in the comission of such act must be identfied prior to the withholding of public assistance.
This isn’t specificly libertarian, but it’s the most important single change I’d like to make.
All bills and laws shall be about one subject each, and their title and summary shall accurately reflect that subject. The summary and title should not be chosen by the bill’s greatest proponent (or opponent for that matter). Whenever at all possible, all congressmen shall get copies of the bill BEFORE the day they vote on it.
If I only get one…I’d prefer either the repeal of the Amendment that made it possible to collect the income tax (since the repeal would require an Amendment), an Amendment eliminating eminent domain, or an Amendment outlawing property tax. The last two are what ensure that nobody in this nation really ever owns his/her property anymore, we’re all just holding it until the government wants to take it and meanwhile we’re paying “rent” of a sort via property tax.
I’d like an amendment that says an individual’s body is the property of that individual and that the government can make no laws violating the individual’s right to do with their body as they see fit.
Can I propose 2?
Amendment XXVIII: The clause “regulate interstate commerce” shall only be applicable to matters which DIRECTLY affect actual commercial trade crossing a state line or a national border.
(This is more aimed at restoring Amendment X than anything, but
Amendment XXIX: The right of the people to use their bodies as they wish shall not be infringe, except in cases in which direct harm to another person can be reasonably proven.
I’m generally libertarian in my domestic policy views, but I fail to see how property tax is rent. In theory, by property tax, you are paying for the protection of your property. The more property you have, the more resources needed to protect it. Property tax is not rent; it is a fee for a justly provided government service, other government services notwithstanding.
[hijack] IMHO, this thread is going to get pretty boring pretty quickly. I get the feeling that every amendment will be more or less a variation on “You can do anything you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone else.” [/hijack]
It’s protection money? Gee, I liked it better when it was rent.
What is rent, if not a fee for a service?
As for the OP, I’d like to see an overhaul of the way the constitution works; instead of enumerating the restrictions on the government, it should list the various “compelling government interests” and require that every law be based on one (or more) of them. Laws should be presumed unconstitutional until proven otherwise, not vice versa.
“Lobbying”, that is the giving of money or gifts in an attempt to influence legislative proceedings, shall be outlawed.
The “perpetration” of so-called victimless crimes, such as prostitiution and their like, shall be deemed legal, and regulated as each state sees fit where it does not countermand the legality of said practices.
The US government, shall annually submit a budget, item by item, with clear and valid reasoning behind every expense. At any point, congress may declare an audit, to be performed by a 3rd party, to determine that governmental waste and excess shall be, to the best of our ability, eliminated.
The role of Senator, Congressman, and Supreme Court justice, shall be limited to no more than 12 years. This to insure valid and fair representation, and to keep the SCOUS in step with the public temprament.
The SCOUS shall not deem illegal any law passed by public vote, as it is the will of the People, and hence inviolate.
The Presidency of the United States shall be limited to ONE (1) term in office that shall be 6 years in length. The President may only serve in that office once in a lifetime. The President may not lobby or campaign for a successor, as that office should keep him/her far to busy to do such tasks.
I can see issues with 3. I can see times and issues where saying exactly what an expense is for would compromise national security and put US operatives at grave risk. It could work, depending on just how much detail is required to justify an expense.
4 is half fine. The reason SCOTUS judges are appointed for life is to keep them free from politics. Ok admittedly this doesn’t work as well in practice, especially recently, but its still a goal that we should aim for. I’m not sure that adding in term limitations will remove the politics from it. On the contrary, I think it will add yet more politics to the process, which is a bad thing I think.
5 is completely insane, and is in fact against the spirit of many other parts of the Constitution. Ever heard the phrase tyranny of the majority? Thats what your amendment would bring about. At its heart, most of the Bill of Rights is put into place to prevent exactly that. Your proposed change would completely gut it and utterly and totally change this country, and not for the better.
I have to consider 6 some more to decide how it would work.
Even looking no further than the 6 provsions, provision 5 seems to get rid of the other ones. What if there’s a popular vote to allow lobbying, or declare illegal a “victimless” crime, or getting rid of third party budget audits, or expanding the term of the president or congress, or SCOTUS?
As far as 1 goes, that isn’t lobbying, that’s bribery, and is already illegal.
For 4, limiting the terms of members of SCOTUS seems like it would make the court even more political than it is. It’s generally a bad idea to make the branch of the government that guarantees our rights won’t be violated subject to public pressure. Although, since, under 5, SCOTUS can no longer rule on the constitutionality of laws, it might not matter as much.
Don’t go overboard on the rhetoric. Police are one of the few legitimate government services. They protect your property, as government is supposed to do. The more you have, the more resources it takes to protect, so a property tax is legitmate. Would you rather pay the police with income tax (yes, I’m aware you do have to pay income tax, but if you think that’s wrong, oppose it, not the property tax which is a separate issue)?
**
Um, rent is a fee for use of somebody else’s property. Not a service, at least not in the sense I was using.
But what if Giant Sentient Squids should arise from the ocean floor to reclaim their bras? How would your amendment guarantee that all the bras get burned?
