OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:44:14 +1000, michelle downunder
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:57:35 -0500, toto
wrote:

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.

maybe clarify the part about the "right to bear arms", as far as this
os person is concerned, it pertains to the militia, not to the
ordinary citizen.

The ordinary citizen, that is the enfranchised, and that changes over
time since the founders wrote the document, ARE the militia.

It has been show that the attempt to portray the National Guard as
"the militia" is a bogus association. They NG did not exist at the
time.

The entire concept was that the ordinary citizen was the ultimate
arbiter of its own fate and could not prevail without arms.

You need to read the debate at the time and understand the concept.
The idea of an armed government and an unarmed citizenry was repugnant
to our founders as they understood history and did not wish to repeat
the blunder's of Europe.

maybe your voting could become compulsory ;-) and like the rest of
the
commonwealth

Not quite sure what that means, but that would be flying directly in
the face of the recognition of basic human rights, listed and not
listed in our constitution.

I've taken the liberty of xposting to the most appropriate ng for the
subject you brought up. If you'd care to google "the second amendment"
or "the 2nd" in that ng you'll see this has been debated endlessly and
resolved.

/snicker

Don't snicker, it's unbecoming. And the hallmark of the subject,
rather than the citizen.


Michelle

Kane

On 2 Jul 2003 05:50:13 -0700, (Kane)
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:44:14 +1000, michelle downunder
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:57:35 -0500, toto
wrote:

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.

maybe clarify the part about the "right to bear arms", as far as this
os person is concerned, it pertains to the militia, not to the
ordinary citizen.

The ordinary citizen, that is the enfranchised, and that changes over
time since the founders wrote the document, ARE the militia.

It makes no sense for the GOVERNMENT to give itself a RIGHT. IT just
doesn't work that way. Of course, the gun-grabbing monkeys see what
they want to see.

--

If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?

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."

tötö© wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:22:21 GMT, Robert Frenchu
The-Rifleman-_at_-toughguy.net wrote:


It makes no sense for the GOVERNMENT to give itself a RIGHT. IT just
doesn't work that way. Of course, the gun-grabbing monkeys see what
they want to see.


Michelle, btw, is from Australia not from the US and her perspective
is interesting, but not necessarily accurate.

This thread despite Kane's attempt to make it about gun rights is not
intended to be about any single issue. It's not about the first
amendment or any other parts of the BOR..

I asked a MUCH broader question.

What should a modern constitution include and why?



The primary organizational document for a government should cover
several things:
The form of government
The structure of the government
The operation of the government
The powers of the government
The balance and separation of powers within the government
The restrictions imposed on the government
A method of changing the document

There are many ways to govern, I have a certain fondness for a
Democratically Representative Federal Republic, but I can also make an
argument for a Confederation of Sates (Essentially where the EU is
heading, but with each of the 50 States being in the position of
independent countries. Yes, the EU is just now catching up to the
position the North American Colonies were 220 years ago :-).)

Currently the US use a system of three branches, the executive,
legislative and judicial, with the legislative branch consisting of
two houses. Not a bad system when it works properly, but showing
signs of creeping decay.

My biggest complaint is that the legislative branch both determines
how the funds that support the government shall be raised, and how
they shall be spent, with essentially no outside control.
Now, would you give your 13 year child a Platinum credit card, and not
bother looking at the statements for a year, just paying the balance
every month? You might have a responsible kid, and no problems, you
might have one that needs a little guidance, or you might find
yourself so deep in debt you'll never get out.

The often proposed Presidential line item veto would be similar to
saying to your kid "No, you can't have that" "You don't need it" or
"We can't afford it".
Of course, you would want to have a process to overrule this line
veto, but it should be item by item, with a higher level of
legislative concurrence required.

In addition, the legislature sets their own salaries and expense
account limits. How do I get a deal like that?

There's a start on answering your question.

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:50:55 -0500, tötö©
wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:34:22 GMT, Robert Frenchu
The-Rifleman-_at_-toughguy.net wrote:

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."

One comment here. I think the this declaration in no way limits the
reasons is redundant. I don't think citizens should have it as a
right to keep arms because they want to burglarize a bank for
example, but actually the reasons can't be addressed at all
because no one is going to give an unlawful reason if you ask
them and we don't want thought control.

I can't see any way to determine what a person's reason for wanting
a gun is anymore than I can read his mind.

Reasonable people might agree with you. However, I believe the
statement is necessary, as some will twist the examples given to mean
limits.

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:29:20 GMT, "Scout"
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."

I see an immediate problem. We understand what you are referring to when you
say citizen. However, what happens if a shift in language makes people
"subjects", "residents", "participants", etc?

I suppose anything can be redefined- "firearm," "kee," "bear," etc.
etc.

Suddenly since this only protects the rights of citizens, and there are no
citizens, we have no protections.

Sorry, but you guys are fighting a lost battle. The problem isn't that the
language isn't understood, or no one knows what it means, but rather it is
because those in power are not required to pay attention to it. THAT, is the
problem, and one which altering the language is NOT going to solve.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the present Constitution.

"tötö©" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:29:20 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Part I
"Any person in an elected office who introduces or votes for legislation
that is later found to be Unconstitutional, shall be removed from any
government position they currently hold, lose all benefits they may be
due
from any government service, position or office they have ever held. Such
person shall be prohibited from ever again being in government service or
holding any government position or office.

Part II
"Any Judge or Justice that rules a law is Constitutional which is later
found to be Unconstitutional, shall be subject to summary execution
without
the possibility of stay, suspension or pardon."

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.

Let's hold their feet to the fire, and make them accept consequences for
violating what is enacted within the Constitution.

Aside from that, this position will have a chilling effect on both
those who are voting for our laws and those who are judging them
in terms of interpreting their constitutionality, I fear. The way the
second one is worded, the judges would be best to rule every law
that comes before them Unconstitutional immediately.

And that is a problem because?

Seriously though, it would be a complication only if Judges either
accidentally or intentionally failed to apply the Constitution in their
decisions about the Constitutionality of the law. If it was accidental, then
they should have known better, and **** happens, if intentional then they
are better off dead. The only real fault would that could occur is where one
or more Judges rule a law is Constitutional, and other Judges work to
protect them from the consequences of their decision.

However, consider for the moment the pain, torment, suffering, etc that will
result from an Unconstitutional law which is being enforced. How many
hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of people will have their lives
disrupted and/or destroyed due to the enforcement of such a law. What of the
value of what they have lost, perhaps forever?

Nope, I can't consider any punishment too harsh when compared against such
loses. After all we execute criminals who have done far less, and they
aren't expected to uphold the Constitution and thus held to a higher
standard. Nope, I think a judge SHOULD give serious pause at every ruling
and consider whether the law in question truly is Constitutional. Don't you?

"David J. Hughes" wrote in message
...


tötö© wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:22:21 GMT, Robert Frenchu
The-Rifleman-_at_-toughguy.net wrote:


It makes no sense for the GOVERNMENT to give itself a RIGHT. IT just
doesn't work that way. Of course, the gun-grabbing monkeys see what
they want to see.


Michelle, btw, is from Australia not from the US and her perspective
is interesting, but not necessarily accurate.

This thread despite Kane's attempt to make it about gun rights is not
intended to be about any single issue. It's not about the first
amendment or any other parts of the BOR..

I asked a MUCH broader question.

What should a modern constitution include and why?



The primary organizational document for a government should cover
several things:

It's a troll question.

-*MORT*-

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.

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.
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?
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.

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.

David Hughes

"David J. Hughes" wrote in message ...
Follow up to address several points:

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

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."

It's a militia amendment. The language you cited is found in state
constitutions.

Point proven.

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

Well, your rightwing pal on the US Supreme Court says the word people
means the same all through the Constitution, like in the Preamble and
Article I, Section 2, and those are clearly collective contexts.

"U.S. Constitution: Preamble

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for
the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We the People of the United States..." means all the people together,
not just persons accused of crimes.

"U.S. Constitution: Article I

"Section 2.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen
every second Year by the People of the several States, and the
Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for
Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to
the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the
United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of
that State in which he shall be chosen."

That's pretty clear constitutional language. "... chosen every second
year by the people of the several states..." certainly doesn't mean by
just a few guys in the state capital, isn't that right Davey?

And in the next clause, "no Person shall be a Representative who shall
not have attained to the age of twenty five Years...", that certainly
refers to individuals, doesn't it? Because the whole body of the
people doesn't become a representative, right?

I'm glad you asked. Now you know better than the gunlobby would
allow, if you gave them a say so.

Judge Roberts said the same thing in Cockrum v State, 1859. It's not
a new concept that the people indicates a collective context and not
an individual one, as Chief Justice Rehnquist, one of the gunlobby's
most reliable friends, said in UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ (494
US 259)265:

"While this textual exegesis is
by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by
the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and
to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth
Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national
community..."

A class of persons is not an individual person. It is a collective of
persons, as is a community. When the Constitution means an individual
person it says so:

"FIFTH AMENDMENT

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..."

See how that works, Davey? And here's Judge Roberts just to show that
we knew the same thing in Texas way back in 1859 just like today:

_______________


The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it is
said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the amendments:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a
free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall
not be infringed." O. & W. Dig. 7. The clause in the
constitution of this state, which it is said to violate, is the
13th section of the bill of rights: "Every citizen shall have
the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defense of
himself or the state." O. & W. Dig. 14.

The object of the clause first cited, has reference to the
perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea, that
the people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are
not first disarmed. The clause cited in our bill of rights, has
the same broad object in relation to the government, and in
addition thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen. The
right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of
himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from
the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention
of the people that framed the state government.

The clause cited in our bill of rights, has the same broad
object in relation to the government, and in addition thereto,
secures a personal right to the citizen.


Cockrum v. State, 24 Texas 394 (1859)