tötö© wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:43:31 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
wrote:

Thanks David. You have a lot of interesting ideas about this.


Follow up to address several points:

"The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms."

"The people" same usage as all other portions of the Constitution, an
individual right.


I agree about the non-ambiguous phrasing here.


A person, duly convicted in a court of law, may have any and all
rights restricted, but such restrictions are removed upon completion
of sentence.


Do you think this might lead to harsher and longer sentences for
crimes of violence though?


A definite possibility. Which would you rather see confined, a
violent sociopath, a generally useful and law abiding citizen who
would benefit from anger management therapy, or a shoplifter?


In many cases, as soon as a person completed their full sentence, they
would immediately be able to vote, run for elected office, keep and
bear arms, perform jury duties. After all, if they can't be trusted,
why have they been released?


There is a certain amount of recidivism for many crimes. And they
are released often because it costs so much to keep them in jail
that we cannot do so.

Release all the simple drug possession offenders, and we have plenty
of space and resources.



On a case by case basis, a court may impose extended restriction on
rights (someone with a history of violence may have the right to keep
and bear arms restricted, someone convicted of election fraud may have
their right to run for elected office or vote restricted, etc.), but
any individual, upon completing the regular terms of sentence, may
petition the court for release from these restrictions.


I like this. It would probably make sex-offender registry
unconstitutional too, though. How do you feel about that
issue?

Break it down into categories:
Violent, abusive sexual predators? Bury them under the jail, as far
as I'm concerned.

People who made some bad choices, and are unlikely to be repeat
offenders? Why mess up the rest of their lives?

Other? Take on a case by case basis.



Note that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't remove the
responsibility of the individual for public safety and personal
responsibility.

If you want to pack around a LAW rocket, be prepared to pay for any
damages you might cause with it.


On the Constitutionality question:
Between the time a bill is signed into law and it goes into effect,
the appropriate level of the judiciary must review it for
Constitutionality. (A city law goes to state and federal court, a
national law goes to the Supreme Court.)
Such review does not limit later challenges to the law on
Constitutional grounds.

Any elected official found to have violated the Constitutional rights
of any individual, including by passing or enforcing a law later found
to be unconstitutional, may be subject to a fine of up to $10,000 per
violation, and may be subject to up to one year of penal servitude.

And a new item:
"An individual owns and is sole responsible for their own person."

If someone wants to smoke tobacco, drink alcohol, get a tattoo,
indulge in recreational pharmaceuticals, commit suicide, etc., it is
their right. If they damage themselves, they get to pay for repairs
themselves. If they damage anyone else, they get to pay for the
damages first, before paying off their own problems.


I like that too. OTOH, would this preclude parents piercing their
children's ears or c*rcumscising them? Since the child also
would own and be responsible for his own person. Would you
limit this by age? (playing devil's advocate here a bit).


Yeah, that's a major point. Ideally, rights should go back to
conception, but that's impractical.
Could use a graduated maturity scale. Parents or guardians have
absolute rights up to roughly age seven, or when the child can
understand and explain what their rights are.
Limited control granted in steps, possibly after tests for maturity
and recognition of the consequences of choices.
Full rights granted only upon demonstrated financial and social
independence from parents.

Some kids might exercise full rights, including voting and holding
public office at 12, others might never make it.

Possibly allow for the child to sue for divorce from the family,
making themselves wards of the court.

Then again, sometimes I think the Roman Republic had the right idea.
Children were chattel property of the father, subject to retro active
abortion, until 19 for females, and 23 for males.


David Hughes