What Liberatian Amendment would you like to see in the Constitution?

Great Debates
41

Whoosh?

I can see how maybe, in theory, we were still opposed to each other ideologically, but that didn’t stop us from sending them material…

But, other than a few isolated skirmishes that were quickly stopped that were more accidents than anything else, the Soviet Union and the rest of the allies were all good buddies.

42
  1. Every law related to law enforcement or sentencing, or which restricts the actions of private citizens, must include a description of the problem it intends to solve and an explanation of the Constitutional powers that allow the government to pass and enforce it, as well as a means to objectively test whether the law has fulfilled its purpose, and a time period (not to exceed three years) after which to apply the test. If the law alters an existing law in a quantitative way (e.g. changing minimum sentences or possession limits), it must specifically describe how the new law will be more effective than the old law.
  2. Each such law shall be re-examined after the time stated in the law’s test, and subsequently at ten year intervals. If the law has failed to fulfill its purpose, it shall be immediately repealed.
  3. The people may petition the government to re-examine a law before the pre-determined time, at least once in the first five years after the law goes into effect, and once within any subsequent ten-year period. If the law is not re-examined to determine its effectiveness within six months after the petition, the law shall not be enforced until it has been re-examined, except in cases involving bodily harm or loss or damage of physical property.
  4. The people may petition the government to re-examine laws passed prior to this amendment, at least once per law within any five-year period. If the law has not yet had a test established to objectively measure its effectiveness, the Supreme Court (or a panel delegated by the Supreme Court) shall assess the law’s intended purpose and compose such a test. If the law has not been re-examined within nine months after receiving the petition, it shall not be enforced until it has been re-examined, except in cases involving bodily harm or loss or damage of physical property.

And a couple riders, why not…

  1. No civil or criminal charges may be brought against an inanimate object. No person shall be deprived of his property without due process.
  2. Copyright terms shall be restricted to twenty-five years. No person or entity shall be granted a monopoly on the sale, distribution, duplication, or other use of any idea, artistic work, design, invention, technique, or other intellectual property for longer than twenty-five years, even if the intellectual property is translated to other languages, formats, or media.
43

I don’t think that rocking chairs are criminally liable as things stand today…I assume that I am wildly misinterpreting your point?

44

I was referring to asset forfeiture (see www.fear.org, specifically this page).

Suppose you are accused of manufacturing drugs but your trial hasn’t finished. The government can seize your car and claim it was involved in drug trafficking, even though you haven’t been convicted. They do it by accusing the car of a crime, and since due process is only guaranteed to living people, the car doesn’t get a trial. By the time your trial is over, the police may have already sold your car at auction, and good luck getting any of the car’s value back.

Since a libertarian state depends heavily on property rights, the government must not be allowed to seize property without a trial.

45

Well, what justification can there be for having laws that forbid activities that do no harm to anyone but the person doing them? And in some cases, that do no harm to anyone at all, including the person doing them?

46

So what does the government do to someone who attempts to coerce someone else, given that the government is not permitted to coerce anyone itself?

A government disabled from exercising coercion is not a government. You propose an anarchy.

47

The problem here comes in defining “harm”. Just what do you mean by “harm”?

Suppose I want to build a stupendously ugly house. This house is perfectly safe – nobody walking by it will be hurt by pieces of it falling on them, or whatever. But it’s just plain ugly. The sight of it is offensive to nearly everyone in town. Nobody wants to live near it. Building it will cause the value of my neighbor’s property to plummet because nobody will want to live next to it. Should I be allowed to build it? Why or why not?

48

By government.

49

Absolutely you should be allowed to build it, because “ugly” is so subjective. Phoenix became an ocean of off-white stucco topped with red-tile roofs because such “good taste” design restrictions were put in place by the developers of the subdivisions. Instead of tasteful, what we wound up with was a hideous, soulless monotony.

50

Yes, because it’s your land.

Libertarian

Government is “what”. Who must guarentee freedom from coercion?

51

So I am allowed to do things to my land that will harm the value of my neighbor’s assets?

52

If you are not directly harming your neighbor’s assets then you are doing nothing wrong. The fact that something goes down in value by being in your presence is not your fault. Loud people can bring down the value of their neighbor’s home simply because no one wants to live next to such loud people. That doesn’t mean the loud people need to be quiet.

53

  1. The direct election of member of the Senate is repealed.

  2. No enumeration of the votes of the members of the Senate (that is who voted for what) shall be published except as a total.

The idea here is to return election of senators to the states (now they are just super congressmen) and to make lobbying of the Senate more difficult. (Gee, I voted for you bill, trust me.)

54

So I can create a shrine to used feminine hygiene products on my front lawn, without any problems? Cool. I’ll start doing that right now. I bet my neighbors will love that.

Am I correct, Procacious, in concluding that you would abolish the law of nuisance?

Paul in Saudi, your proposal would make it easier to buy off Senators, not harder. I don’t understand how you can call that a “Libertarian” amendment, either; it has nothing to do with “libertarian” ideals.

55

Yes, you are correct. Not only do I see nothing wrong with your shrine, I see know reason why you should not be allowed to apply those feminine hygiene products on yourself while you lay on your front lawn. If someone takes offense at something I see the problem as laying with the offendee not the offender.

56

KellyM

To me, the advantage of having the States appoint the Senators is that it strengthens the States. When you have the Sneators directly responsible to the State government, then the Senator is going to be pushing for stronger State’s rights, and not voting for issues that increase the Federal Government’s scope.

When you have stronger States, it becomes easier to protect individual rights.

The system is made up of tons of checks and balances. The appointment of Senators and the election of members of the HoR was one of those checks and balances in the original system. We have effectively removed one of our safety features from the Constitution.

57

Neurotik

If the answer to that question were “no”, I would find the descriptor “my” to be misleading, as “your” land would have to managed according to your neighbor’s interests, making it in many ways theirs.

Ignoring your apparent inability to distinguish between what should be and what is (an affectation done for rhetorical purposes, no doubt), there is still the question of whether this would present a legitimate harm to your neighbors. I would consider unpleasent odors, for instance, to be legitimate harm.

I also find myself wondering, given your original biology, whether you have any such items to supply, but that is an issue for another thread.

58

[Moderator Hat ON]

The Ryan, unless there is a legitimate debate purpose, I think disparaging comments about other poster’s genitalia belong in the BBQ pit. So that is definitely an issue for another thread, and most likely another forum.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

59

Would senators have to report back to their state legislators on what they voted on? State legislatures would need such information when deciding whether or not to reappoint the canidate.

60

SenorBeef, under current law all Senate votes are a matter of public record.