If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion
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." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion
"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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion
"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*- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion
"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) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Breastfeeding discussion | aml | Pregnancy | 1 | March 26th 04 10:19 AM |
infant first aid box (xposted) | ted | Kids Health | 13 | February 18th 04 12:57 AM |
'Africa is hopeless'? (also: The tiniest citizens) (also: 'I pledge allegiance to the US CONSTITUTION" (?!) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | October 27th 03 11:03 PM |
Child and Adolescent Mental Health - New website for discussion and information resource, for parents, young people and professionals | Mike | Kids Health | 0 | September 12th 03 02:18 AM |
Us at 3 months! (Xposted) | Laurie | Pregnancy | 11 | July 18th 03 08:46 PM |