OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion

Scout wrote:

snip

Why execute judges but not legislators? At least make the penalties
the same in both cases.

Because as I explained. Judges are held to a higher standard because they
are the assigned watchdogs over the legislature. The legislature can try to
pull dirty tricks but can't unless the Judges fail. So ultimately the
enforcement of Unconstitutional law falls directly in the lap of the Judges.
They are the ones that ultimately failed their obligation and did so in a
manner that directly harmed others. As such, they are the ones that should
be subject to the harshest penalities. Not that I would protect execution in
Part I, but I feel that might be somewhat excessive given that until
enforced by a Judge, the law does no harm.

I disagree on two points.

One, nothing in either our legal tradition or the Constitution
anoints judges with any percale authority over the Constitution.
The Constitution was aa grant by the People to create a federal
government. The Constitution is not a license to judges to
create law as they alone see fit.

Two, the problem with judicial accountability is that their isn't
any. It not that judges are held to a higher standard, They
are not held to the lowest of standards. We need to start
impeaching judges for misconduct from the bench. Those judges,
hello Sandra Day O'Connor, who refuse to adhere to the
Constitution must be removed from the People's office.

David

Tom Boland wrote:
"Robert Frenchu" The-Rifleman-_at_-toughguy.net wrote in message
s.com...

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:58:04 -0500, tötö©
wrote:


I asked a MUCH broader question.

What should a modern constitution include and why?

I am not interested in debating what the current constitution means
at this point.

Despite the American tendency to believe that the Constitution is a
sacred document, the fact is that the life span of a democratic
republic tends to max out at about 200 years. If we want to keep
our country viable for longer, I think that we need to consider
what kinds of changes might be needed to our founding document.

I don't want to eliminate the bill of rights or to change individual
freedoms it guarantees, but we need to make the words much
clearer and we need to change some things for the modern
world and the changes that have come over time to the country
itself in terms of size, diverse population and other factors.

In that case, I would include something along the lines of

"Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful
purposes. This declaration in no way limits the reasons a citizen may
keep or bear arms."


So you have no problem with making hunting a constitutional right (CR)? What
about water skiing or nude volleyball or dwarf tossing or other forms of
recreation?

Well, he did specify "lawful" hunting, suggesting that hunting is NOT
an unrestricted right (the same would apply to "recreational use").


If hunting is a CR, would it then be legal to have guns to hunt pigeons in
the middle of a densely populated city?

Sure, why not? An intelligent hunter would chose an appropriate
firearm, caliber and round for the intended purpose, to eliminate as
much as possible any hazard to the public, since you would still be
responsible for any injuries or property damage you cause.
(Careless or unthinking hunters would quickly find themselves in
court, thereby becoming a self limiting problem.)

Think about it for a minute - if you
can only use your hunting guns in unpopulated areas, you are discriminating
against all city dwellers.

This is not as silly as it sounds. One of the problems with making changes
like this is that we will end up creating CR's that we did not intend.

I am not picking on the second amendment in particular here. It was just the
one under discussion at the moment.

Tom Boland


Just addressing your questions, I personally favor an absolute right
to keep and bear arms, with no weasely justifications or purposes.
"Sir, why are you lugging around a manpack mini gun?"
"Because I damn well feel like it, not that it's any of your damn
business, nosey!"

David Hughes

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 04:19:47 GMT, "Tom Boland"
wrote:


"Robert Frenchu" The-Rifleman-_at_-toughguy.net wrote in message
ws.com...
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:58:04 -0500, tötö©
wrote:

I asked a MUCH broader question.

What should a modern constitution include and why?

I am not interested in debating what the current constitution means
at this point.

Despite the American tendency to believe that the Constitution is a
sacred document, the fact is that the life span of a democratic
republic tends to max out at about 200 years. If we want to keep
our country viable for longer, I think that we need to consider
what kinds of changes might be needed to our founding document.

I don't want to eliminate the bill of rights or to change individual
freedoms it guarantees, but we need to make the words much
clearer and we need to change some things for the modern
world and the changes that have come over time to the country
itself in terms of size, diverse population and other factors.

In that case, I would include something along the lines of

"Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful
purposes. This declaration in no way limits the reasons a citizen may
keep or bear arms."

So you have no problem with making hunting a constitutional right (CR)? What
about water skiing or nude volleyball or dwarf tossing or other forms of
recreation?

I'm not "making" any rights. Rights aren't "made." They're simply
declared.

"Tom Boland" wrote in message
news

"Robert Frenchu" The-Rifleman-_at_-toughguy.net wrote in message
s.com...
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:58:04 -0500, tötö©
wrote:

I asked a MUCH broader question.

What should a modern constitution include and why?

I am not interested in debating what the current constitution means
at this point.

Despite the American tendency to believe that the Constitution is a
sacred document, the fact is that the life span of a democratic
republic tends to max out at about 200 years. If we want to keep
our country viable for longer, I think that we need to consider
what kinds of changes might be needed to our founding document.

I don't want to eliminate the bill of rights or to change individual
freedoms it guarantees, but we need to make the words much
clearer and we need to change some things for the modern
world and the changes that have come over time to the country
itself in terms of size, diverse population and other factors.

In that case, I would include something along the lines of

"Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful
purposes. This declaration in no way limits the reasons a citizen may
keep or bear arms."

So you have no problem with making hunting a constitutional right (CR)?
What
about water skiing or nude volleyball or dwarf tossing or other forms of
recreation?

If hunting is a CR, would it then be legal to have guns to hunt pigeons in
the middle of a densely populated city? Think about it for a minute - if
you
can only use your hunting guns in unpopulated areas, you are
discriminating
against all city dwellers.

This is not as silly as it sounds. One of the problems with making changes
like this is that we will end up creating CR's that we did not intend.

I am not picking on the second amendment in particular here. It was just
the
one under discussion at the moment.

Being silly about it is not the way to go. Why don't you suggest that it
would mean wildlife preserves would be uncoinstitutional and we could hunt
the animals in the zoo as well?

-*MORT*-

On 4 Jul 2003 13:08:18 GMT, Carl Nisarel
wrote:

Insisting that it was only a flesh wound, Robert Frenchu,
cried out --

I'm not "making" any rights. Rights aren't "made." They're
simply declared.

Heh. AnthroBob thinks that rights are 'things' that float
around in the ether.

Hey look! It's "Carl!" The attention defict poster boy! Are you
following me around, trying to get my attention, "Carl?"

Carl will now give us an example of how to manufacture a right, using
only common household ingredients.

_______
"Yet another gunnutter runs away spewing ad hominems."
-Catl, 10 June 2002

"Tom Boland" wrote in message
news

"Robert Frenchu" The-Rifleman-_at_-toughguy.net wrote in message
s.com...
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:58:04 -0500, tötö©
wrote:

I asked a MUCH broader question.

What should a modern constitution include and why?

I am not interested in debating what the current constitution means
at this point.

Despite the American tendency to believe that the Constitution is a
sacred document, the fact is that the life span of a democratic
republic tends to max out at about 200 years. If we want to keep
our country viable for longer, I think that we need to consider
what kinds of changes might be needed to our founding document.

I don't want to eliminate the bill of rights or to change individual
freedoms it guarantees, but we need to make the words much
clearer and we need to change some things for the modern
world and the changes that have come over time to the country
itself in terms of size, diverse population and other factors.

In that case, I would include something along the lines of

"Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful
purposes. This declaration in no way limits the reasons a citizen may
keep or bear arms."

So you have no problem with making hunting a constitutional right (CR)?
What
about water skiing or nude volleyball or dwarf tossing or other forms of
recreation?

If hunting is a CR, would it then be legal to have guns to hunt pigeons in
the middle of a densely populated city? Think about it for a minute - if
you
can only use your hunting guns in unpopulated areas, you are
discriminating
against all city dwellers.

This is not as silly as it sounds. One of the problems with making changes
like this is that we will end up creating CR's that we did not intend.

I am not picking on the second amendment in particular here. It was just
the
one under discussion at the moment.

As far as all the above go. I have absolutely NO problem with prohibited the
federal government from imposing such controls. It should be left up to the
State, County, or City to decide on these issues, if anyone should have the
power to address these.

"tötö©" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:57:01 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
wrote:

Just addressing your questions, I personally favor an absolute right
to keep and bear arms, with no weasely justifications or purposes.
"Sir, why are you lugging around a manpack mini gun?"
"Because I damn well feel like it, not that it's any of your damn
business, nosey!"

David Hughes

LOL Don't take this wrong (it's a quote from a friend who is
in Switzerland)

"Why would anybody in our civilized countries need to bear and keep
weapons for security?

Answer: Because civilized countries don't always remain civilized nor free
from attack by those less civilized whether on a national or individual
level.

Aren't we all cozily protected by our wonderful
governments?

Who protects you from your wonderful government?

And what would recreational mean? The idiots disturbing
my Sunday peace at the nearby shooting range? I pray to whoever is
responsible the ****s shoot there respective heads off, asap.
Yours must be one of very few countries cementing penis envy in the
constitution."

No offense, not this doesn't sound like anyone from Switzerland to me.
Sounds more like an American anti-gun troll.

"tötö©" wrote in message
...
On 3 Jul 2003 22:14:32 -0700, (Leif Rakur)
wrote:

There's a difference between voting on the one hand and chosing or
electing on the other. Voting is an individual act. Choosing or
electing a representative is an act of the electorate collectively. A
witty U.S. politician, after having lost his bid for re-election,
commented:

Something interesting here from Australia, btw.

The Australian have compulsory voting, but.... they allow you to
put in a blank ballot if you don't want to vote for any of the
candidates on the ballot. I assume though I don't know, that
they also would allow you to write in anyone you wished to
write in.

With this system, my Aussie friend contends that at least people
do think about the situation because it takes some effort to go
and get to the polling place.

Now, my own thought would be that if the number of blank ballots
exceeds the number of votes for any candidate, the candidates
would be deleted and the process would then have to begin with
new candidates entirely... Meanwhile the offices would go vacant
until a new election

Comments?

Absolutely......

Of course, the next step would be to prohibit blank ballots. Then fictitious
characters. Then.....

toto wrote in message . ..
If aps and asadd would like to participate, I invite people to
come over to aac to continue since this may be annoying to
regs in aps or asadd who are not interested. I wanted to invite
those who had participated in the What is Terrorism thread
that was xposted to misc.kids into the discussion and I don't
know which groups most of them post to by their nics.

Marcie, Jake, Chris, Kane, Mark Probert? Any of you up
for this kind of discussion? I really would like some ideas
about this. My own are only half-formed really.

US Constitution is hopelessly outdated according to some people
I speak to from various other countries of the world.

What a laugh! In other countries huh? Screw them and I don't like
their hats. They are not worth the words which prove them contemptuous
and jealous of the fact that some of us US citizens HAVE a
constitution WITH a Bill of Rights and were and are willing to fight
to get and keep them ~!!

There is some sentiment for this in the US as well. And there is
some sentiment that our present constitution is a problem mainly
because the powers that be have not really adhered to its original
tenets and protections for citizens.

Yep, and they should be in one of those "other countries"

So....

What kinds of things should a modern constitution contain?

None. It is fine the way it is. The controversy it causes is healthy,
reminding patriots to be ever vigilant.


Which provisions that are currently in the US Constitution
should be eliminated, if any? (No, I am not for eliminating
the BOR, though updated language might make a few things
more clear).

One of the beauties of the document is that those who are good for the
country understand it and those who are cancerous to the country try
to missinterpret it.

Any ideas would be appreciated. No legal language please.
Let's keep it on a level that those of us who are not lawyers,
can understand.

The first good thing you've said.

tötö© wrote:
On 3 Jul 2003 22:14:32 -0700, (Leif Rakur)
wrote:


There's a difference between voting on the one hand and chosing or
electing on the other. Voting is an individual act. Choosing or
electing a representative is an act of the electorate collectively. A
witty U.S. politician, after having lost his bid for re-election,
commented:


Something interesting here from Australia, btw.

The Australian have compulsory voting, but.... they allow you to
put in a blank ballot if you don't want to vote for any of the
candidates on the ballot. I assume though I don't know, that
they also would allow you to write in anyone you wished to
write in.

With this system, my Aussie friend contends that at least people
do think about the situation because it takes some effort to go
and get to the polling place.

Now, my own thought would be that if the number of blank ballots
exceeds the number of votes for any candidate, the candidates
would be deleted and the process would then have to begin with
new candidates entirely... Meanwhile the offices would go vacant
until a new election

Comments?


Rather than a blank ballot, which is merely an abstention, how about:

Candidate A
Candidate B
Candidate C
..
..
Candidate whatever
Write in candidate
Abstention
None of the above are acceptable

Vote for any of the listed candidates, write in a candidate, abstain,
which means your vote is listed specifically as an abstention, or vote
"NotA", which would specifically call for either a new slate of
candidates or a vacant position.

David Hughes