The 28th Amendment to the US Constitution

[Gunfingers]

I bet we could fix a lot of problems if we got rid of that whole "being allowed to say bad things about the government" bit, too.

[Philwelch]

This is a horrible amendment. Congress is not supposed to know what is constitutional or unconstitutional. Sure, they may be able to look back on previous precedent, but that's not their job. Their job is only to legislate. A court has to make decisions regarding constitutionality.

You may say that "the court found this unconstitutional before" but we have a living constitution. Its meaning and interpretations change over time. Just because the court found something illegal 150 years ago doesn't mean it's still unconstitutional. And if you accept that, it's a slippery slope to try to define when the oldest things that are still relevant are. For instance, would you say that Buck v. Bell is still considered relevant precedent? What about the much older Marbury v. Madison?

I bolded everything that's either highly questionable or just plain wrong with your post. It's quite ironic that you cite Marbury vs. Madison as an example—Marbury vs. Madison is extremely relevant, because it explicitly establishes the very principle of judicial review that you're talking about.

28th: Make racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, etc a crime punishable by law.

Yeah, it amends the first amendment. But goddamn that would fix half of our problems. Obviously the punishment would be a series of escalating fines (perhaps short-term prison for the 5th or so violation). And it has to be balanced (shit i'm talking in video game terms) in such a way that you can't just say that your neighbor said 'nigger/bint/faggot/kike/etc'... needs to be some kind of proof for that. But I don't know. lawyers could figure out the nifty details.

They've tried that in Europe and it doesn't seem to have done much except legitimize the persecution complexes of their neo-Nazis. You can't change people's hearts and minds through censorship.

[Lumpy]

I think that a line of succession, beyond vice president, should be codified constitutionally, if only because I once read Dick Cheney didn't like that it went to the Speaker of the House after the VP and had his own plan written, and disagreement among the public would be scandalous.

I heard that Reagan's Secretary of State lost a presidency chance when he said he was in charge after he arrived on the scene while George H.W. Bush was absent. The Democratic Speaker of the House once said he'd resign if both the President had to resign from Watergate while the VP slot was open, during Watergate days, on grounds it wouldn't be right for someone of the opposite party to take office after the presidential election.

[Falmarri]

28th: Make racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, etc a crime punishable by law.

Agreed, only if I alone get to determine what's racist, sexist, homophobic, and anti-semetic though.

[TheStranger]

This is a horrible amendment. Congress is not supposed to know what is constitutional or unconstitutional. Sure, they may be able to look back on previous precedent, but that's not their job. Their job is only to legislate. A court has to make decisions regarding constitutionality.

You may say that "the court found this unconstitutional before" but we have a living constitution. Its meaning and interpretations change over time. Just because the court found something illegal 150 years ago doesn't mean it's still unconstitutional. And if you accept that, it's a slippery slope to try to define when the oldest things that are still relevant are. For instance, would you say that Buck v. Bell is still considered relevant precedent? What about the much older Marbury v. Madison?

I bolded everything that's either highly questionable or just plain wrong with your post. It's quite ironic that you cite Marbury vs. Madison as an example—Marbury vs. Madison is extremely relevant, because it explicitly establishes the very principle of judicial review that you're talking about.

I think the point was that baring a few extreme cases (a law that every left handed person must live in Delaware) that a member of Congress may not know ahead of time IF a bill will be declared unconstitutional.

Indeed the SC can overturn it's own rulings... declaring that something once constitutional is unconstitutional years later.

28th: Make racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, etc a crime punishable by law.

Yeah, it amends the first amendment. But goddamn that would fix half of our problems. Obviously the punishment would be a series of escalating fines (perhaps short-term prison for the 5th or so violation). And it has to be balanced (shit i'm talking in video game terms) in such a way that you can't just say that your neighbor said 'nigger/bint/faggot/kike/etc'... needs to be some kind of proof for that. But I don't know. lawyers could figure out the nifty details.

That's wrong on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin. Just because some ideas are unpopular does not make them illegal.

[Indon]

I'm strongly against a "living constitution" in terms of letting the constitution say things it clearly doesn't.

Then you'd hate the US constitution, because it doesn't say very much in the first place. In many places it's quite vague, and this was probably intentional. Vague wording allows for interpretation in accordance with a general political environment, and allows for something to be written as a compromise (as opposing groups will be pushing for alternative interpretations).

It also allows our government to be more dynamic without needing to invoke the difficult process of amending it.

[Gunfingers]

Alternate reading: it allows our government to do virtually nothing.

[SJ Zero]

The US federal government as envisioned by the framers of the constitution isn't SUPPOSED to be able to do a lot. A strong federal government and weak state governments sets us up for the sort of insanity we see today, where entire geographic swaths of the population want to control the entire country in this respect or that. In the original constitution, the federal government was just supposed to regulate things that happen between the states, who would otherwise be capable of legislating on their own.

[Indon]

Well, according to some. This is where the compromise factor comes in.

Over the years, it just turned out that the Federalists won (hard).

[SJ Zero]

Yeah, turning the constitution into a "living document" means that "you can only regulate inter-state commerce" suddenly means "We can send DEA agents into your house for buying the wrong drug from a pharmacist who bought from a supplier in your state"

[Indon]

Yeah, turning the constitution into a "living document" means that "you can only regulate inter-state commerce" suddenly means "We can send DEA agents into your house for buying the wrong drug from a pharmacist who bought from a supplier in your state"

That's really more of the Necessary and Proper clause (which basically says, "The Government can do anything it needs to in order to enforce the following powers:"), which basically means that if you can link an activity to inhibiting interstate trade to some degree (such as drug use), you can make a federal law against it (because it's 'necessary and proper' to promote interstate trade), which means it can be enforced by a federal agency.

[SJ Zero]

If that's not an incredible stretch, I don't know what is.

[Indon]

Well, only something that's really elastic can stretch that well.

I'm personally a fan of that elasticity, though I can definitely understand a desire for a stricter-typed constitution, as well.

[Gunfingers]

This is an argument that's been going on since 1789. Strict Constructionalism vs Broad Constructionalism. I fall in the "strict" category, myself. Not because i necessarily believe it's what the framers intended, but because i believe it better protects my rights.

[qinwamascot]

28th: Make racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, etc a crime punishable by law.

I think this is a really bad idea. Even if people oppose freedom, if we oppose their freedoms as well, we're no better than them. Sure, they may say and believe things that are wrong and bad, but being better people than they are, we should respect their right to be idiotic and just ignore them. It's what we do with the neo-Nazis in the US.

That being said, it should be criminal for employers and the government to discriminate on these bases. But a broader law seems against the nature of freedom.

[Philwelch]

That being said, it should be criminal for employers and the government to discriminate on these bases. But a broader law seems against the nature of freedom.

I don't know about criminal but it's definitely illegal.

[qinwamascot]

That being said, it should be criminal for employers and the government to discriminate on these bases. But a broader law seems against the nature of freedom.

I don't know about criminal but it's definitely illegal.

Yeah, I mistyped. Sorry. It should be illegal.

[Poochy]

Amendment: In any copyright infringement case, the plaintiff may only ask for damages totaling no more than the total losses they can prove they suffered as a direct result of the copyright infringement.

(For example, if a person is sued for pirating a $20 CD and copying it for three friends, the damages may not account to more than $80. It might take a couple lawyers to get rid of the loopholes here, though.)

Amendment: No enforcement of copyright law shall infringe the rights of any person, not even those who do not hold the copyright(s) involved.


Of course, these have no chance of actually being passed, seeing as how the Movie and Film Industries of America (M.A.F.I.A.) would immediately send their squadrons of about 4,620 lawyer goons each to break the knees of anyone who votes for the amendment.

[qinwamascot]

Amendment: In any copyright infringement case, the plaintiff may only ask for damages totaling no more than the total losses they can prove they suffered as a direct result of the copyright infringement.

Copyright law isn't codified into the constitution at all; it's one of those things that got added later via the elastic clause. Which I'm sure some here oppose. But it used to be a state-regulated thing. So if you want this, your amendment would also need to define copyrights and things. This could always be written as a regular law. Perhaps a better amendment is something like:

No suit may exceed the value that the plaintiff can prove was lost by the behavior of the defendant

except we already basically have that anyways, so I'd claim the current laws are unconstitutional.

As for the other one, again, I don't see the need for it to be an amendment.

[Malice]

Amendment: In any copyright infringement case, the plaintiff may only ask for damages totaling no more than the total losses they can prove they suffered as a direct result of the copyright infringement.

(For example, if a person is sued for pirating a $20 CD and copying it for three friends, the damages may not account to more than $80. It might take a couple lawyers to get rid of the loopholes here, though.)

The problem is is that strict proof is hard to come by.

Example: I write a book about alligators who walk among us as stand-up comedians. Some jackass at a publishing company reads my unpublished manuscript, quits his job, and slaps together a book about crocodiles who walk among us as sitcom stars. His book comes out a week before mine is and is wildly successful, while mine languishes, largely unknown. Can I sue him for the amount of money he made? Can I prove the amount of money I would have made had he not written his?

If you want to make a law that says "I hate the MPAA and the RIAA, they are no longer allowed to be dicks", fine, but the solution to them is not rewriting the rules of infringement cases.

(The solution, by the way, is rewriting the rules of copyright to include a healthy public domain; waiting until they come up with good, comprehensive online alternatives to theft, ie., digital distribution; making piracy socially unacceptable; and probably, stepping up the government response.)

[Philwelch]

Amendment: In any copyright infringement case, the plaintiff may only ask for damages totaling no more than the total losses they can prove they suffered as a direct result of the copyright infringement.

Copyright law isn't codified into the constitution at all; it's one of those things that got added later via the elastic clause.

The Congress shall have power…To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

[Midnight]

28th: Make racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, etc a crime punishable by law.

I think this is a really bad idea. Even if people oppose freedom, if we oppose their freedoms as well, we're no better than them. Sure, they may say and believe things that are wrong and bad, but being better people than they are, we should respect their right to be idiotic and just ignore them. It's what we do with the neo-Nazis in the US.

I feel the difference between freedom of speech against government and the above is.. well.. a huge difference.

To argue against our government, against regulations, and such has led us to wonderful movements--women's suffrage, the rights of many a minority, the end of HUAC, etc. One could even go far enough to the progressives era with Roosevelt, the muckrakers fighting meatpacking industry and Rockefeller and whatnot.
All of those have helped people, in some form of another.

Who is helped by hate speech? How is burning a cross in front of 'one of them negro houses' helping anyone? It's making psychotic idiots feel good about themselves, and be able to brag how pure they are (eg incest). That doesn't actually help anyone. It just hurts.
And yes, I realize there's such a fine line between limiting some things, and limiting more and more and more into a nazi escalation... But consider this. The constitution has right to free speech, but you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater because that messes with people, and could hurt them. Simultaneously, hate speech messes with and hurts people.

And I do understand all that and leaving idiots to be idiots, BUT those people can impact the other, good and sane people. As an example that's relevant today: those people, people in the White Aryan Resistance or whatever... they are registered voters. And I bet if you go to their (really really scary) website, there's probably a million reasons why Barack Obama is the antichrist or some shit. And so that just changed the course of an election. So I'm stuck wondering... I'm not really going with an eye for an eye here, but if they mess with us for no other reason than that they are hating idiots, why shouldn't we stop them from messing with us?


And yes, we'd need some kind of huge committee and about 20 years to figure out exactly what words, what sayings, in what contexts, etc etc ad infinitum... but hey, it's a dream.

[Philwelch]

Who is helped by hate speech? How is burning a cross in front of 'one of them negro houses' helping anyone? It's making psychotic idiots feel good about themselves, and be able to brag how pure they are (eg incest). That doesn't actually help anyone. It just hurts.

So does advocating censorship. I propose we amend the Constitution to allow your execution.

[qinwamascot]

And yes, I realize there's such a fine line between limiting some things, and limiting more and more and more into a nazi escalation... But consider this. The constitution has right to free speech, but you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater because that messes with people, and could hurt them. Simultaneously, hate speech messes with and hurts people.

There is a fundamental difference. Any speech is composed of two parts: the actual speech, and the action of the speech. The actual speech is always allowed, but the action of saying it can be not allowed if it is dangerous. Yelling fire causes panic and thus is dangerous. However, speaking about how you hate Jews or Blacks or whatever is not dangerous. It's insulting, but unless you threaten them or incite others to violent action, the speech itself is not dangerous.

We restrict speech which is a danger to the rights of others. However, you don't have the right to not be hated. You have the right to not be discriminated against in some cases, but speech is not one of those. Personally I like it this way; otherwise me saying I hate Murdoch could get me in jail for hating Australians.

[iPunchRaptors]

Hey all, I'm an Australian, and quite frankly, the constitution we have is a bit rubbish. It essentially states how the government should work, and seems to be okay in that regard, but does NOT contain a Bill of Rights, and only a handful of rights are mentioned in the Constitution's body text (as well as some "inferred rights" that took High Court rulings to tease out). There were reasons for this at the time, because everyone back then thought that rights could and would be ensured by the logical application of laws and their enforcement by fair courts and the like (or at least that's my interpretation of the situation). I think otherwise, so I'm looking to write a Bill of Rights for the Australian Constitution over the coming days or weeks as something to do between exams. The input of other Aussies out there would be especially appreciated, but any assistance you can give will be appreciated.

The primary rights (as I see them) are as follows, and need detailing, which I'll continue later:
1) The right of all Australians to be treated fairly, equally and without consideration of that person's beliefs, sexuality, racial background, economic standing, etc. (need full list? Should age be included?)
1.1) The right to exist and in general seek happiness.
2) The right to express one's beliefs (except where it infringes on another's rights).
3) The right to access (or to apply to access) any information or record. (that is not sealed due to military or privacy matters?)
4) The right to privacy, (except in public places and when under criminal investigation?)
5) The right to vote to allow or deny the government (or part thereof) the ability to perform an action
6) The right to medical care, minimum wage, to seek profit and employment?
8) Other rights? We don't need a right to bear arms. After reading A Matter for Men and Starship Troopers, I feel the urge to put in the right to remove the government from power by any means if it is no longer acting in the best interest of the people, but that's a very tricky thing to define legally without allowing terrorism.

Comments, queries and theories welcome.

[_Pi]

Tax and Payment Reform Amendment

1. The Sixteenth amendment to this Constitution is hereby repealed.

2.1 Any income within a year, including salaries, gifts, and other monetary payments, above five times the median wage for this country, shall be taxed at 100%.

2.2 Any person who is not subject to this restriction may not work in the United States.

3. Any citizen or permanent resident of the United States, who works over 35 hours a week, and earns less than two-thirds of the median yearly wage for this country, will recieve direct compensation from the government up to two-thirds of the median yearly wage for the country.

4.1 Any citizen or permanent resident of the United States, must be paid the equivalent of 14 U.S. dollars at the time of the enactment of this amendment per hour of work.

4.2 Any corporation which does business in the United States, regardless of official base of operations, must pay all of their workers in any country this amount.

5. No worker may be required by contract or other obligation, to work more than eight hours a day, or thirty-five hours per week.

6. This amendment will take effect three years from the date of enactment.

[Gunfingers]

How does this work with corporate taxes? I imagine the average company will have a hard time paying everyone $14/hour (by the way, you shouldn't use magic numbers in the constitution. $14/hr might be a very small amount some time in the future) if they're only making 100k/year. And what's the government going to do with the quadrillions of dollars it'd be sitting on by taxing everything beyond 100k/year? I'm not sure there's enough social programs to spend that on. Maybe just a big-assed refund?

[Bubbles McCoy]

There wouldn't be any income past $100,000, there's no reason anyone would bother trying to recieve income in a bracket where the government keeps everything for themselves. Those reforms would probably result in the prompt collapse of the American economy and gov't on many levels, such arbitrary heavy-handed restrictions will not end well.

[Gunfingers]

While i agree that this amendment could probably be re-named the "How to turn the US into a third world country in six easy steps" amendment, i'd like to think we could focus on constructive criticism. Who knows, maybe we can find a way to make it work!

[Bubbles McCoy]

While flawed on every level, I can see how you could at least modify it into a somewhat usable form except that the means of revenue the amendment specifies are rather outrageous. Trying to get significant amounts of revenue through simplistic means isn't really possible, even tax proposals that tout their simplicity exceed well over 100 pages. However, props for not resorting to snide assholery immediately like myself.

[_Pi]

How does this work with corporate taxes? I imagine the average company will have a hard time paying everyone $14/hour (by the way, you shouldn't use magic numbers in the constitution. $14/hr might be a very small amount some time in the future) if they're only making 100k/year. And what's the government going to do with the quadrillions of dollars it'd be sitting on by taxing everything beyond 100k/year? I'm not sure there's enough social programs to spend that on. Maybe just a big-assed refund?

It would spend it on making sure everyone has a living wage. Anything beyond that would be redistributed evenly.

$14/hr might be a small amount some time in the future, which is why I said "the equivalent of 14/hr at the time of enactment". I would do it in international dollars but I couldn't find a currency converter that could tell me how much it's worth. I would assume that by expanding the number of people who had enough money to have disposable income, businesses could have more customers and therefore more money to pay their workers. The government could subsidize companies which don't.

It might be a bit heavy-handed, but as far as I'm concerned, the upper class needs to be gutted in some serious way. One percent of people control over 15% of the wealth.

[Philwelch]

It might be a bit heavy-handed, but as far as I'm concerned, the upper class needs to be gutted in some serious way. One percent of people control over 15% of the wealth.

One percent of people probably generate well over 15% of the value in the economy, which is the main problem with egalitarianism. Likewise, 20% of the people probably generate 80% of the value. The fact is, economic disparity (even a LOT of economic disparity) is in the best interest of everyone, including the poorest, since there's more wealth to go around.

[paragon12321]

Section 1: Article II, Section 1, Clauses 2-4, as well as the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, are hereby repealed.
Section 2: The President and Vice-President of the United States shall be chosen by a direct, popular vote of all eligible citizens that takes place on the first Tuesday in November. If no candidate receives over one-half of the total vote, a runoff shall take place two weeks later between the two candidates with the most votes.

Pretty much, an abolition of the Electoral College, replacing it with a two-round runoff. It makes "pulling a Nader" much less likely, as well as prevent the electoral winner being a popular loser. I guess that it would be more likely that it would be more likely that it would be replaced with a simple first-past-the-post format, but I prefer this.

I guess this leaves out a tie scenario, but the thought of that happening scares me. I suppose we can require everyone to vote, and just make sure we have an odd number of people at all times .

[Philwelch]

I guess this leaves out a tie scenario, but the thought of that happening scares me. I suppose we can require everyone to vote, and just make sure we have an odd number of people at all times .

1. The probability of a tie is remarkably low, and any tie will probably be resolved by a recount anyway. Counting error is real and in the event of a tie the vote will be close enough to ensure there will be recounts. So really, if a tie actually happens, it'll be resolved randomly by counting error anyway.
2. If we require everyone to vote, I will abstain. If I'm not allowed to abstain, then your proposal is evil and instead of voting I will burn down the polling booth.

[Ixtellor]

I guess this leaves out a tie scenario, but the thought of that happening scares me. I suppose we can require everyone to vote, and just make sure we have an odd number of people at all times .

1. The probability of a tie is remarkably low, and any tie will probably be resolved by a recount anyway. Counting error is real and in the event of a tie the vote will be close enough to ensure there will be recounts. So really, if a tie actually happens, it'll be resolved randomly by counting error anyway.
2. If we require everyone to vote, I will abstain. If I'm not allowed to abstain, then your proposal is evil and instead of voting I will burn down the polling booth.

How would you feel about a fine for not voting? (as exists in some other nations)

You can choose to not vote but you get fined $100.


Ixtellor

[Bubbles McCoy]

Um, why do we care if people vote? Rights are freedoms retained by the people, not mandates on them.

Anyway, I think the whole forcing people to vote thing was a joke by paragon, seeing as making sure we always have an odd sized voting population might prove to be a bit of a challenge...

[Philwelch]

I guess this leaves out a tie scenario, but the thought of that happening scares me. I suppose we can require everyone to vote, and just make sure we have an odd number of people at all times .

1. The probability of a tie is remarkably low, and any tie will probably be resolved by a recount anyway. Counting error is real and in the event of a tie the vote will be close enough to ensure there will be recounts. So really, if a tie actually happens, it'll be resolved randomly by counting error anyway.
2. If we require everyone to vote, I will abstain. If I'm not allowed to abstain, then your proposal is evil and instead of voting I will burn down the polling booth.

How would you feel about a fine for not voting? (as exists in some other nations)

You can choose to not vote but you get fined $100.

It would be a lot more clear if you said, "What if the penalty for not voting is relatively low?"--in which case I'll respond that I'm arguing on principle that unless there is a legitimate reason to increase voter turnout, it doesn't really matter how low the penalty is. And, in principle, penalizing someone for not voting without giving them the option to simply register an abstention seems to undermine the very idea of democratic choice.

As for ensuring the voting populace is always an odd number, it's more than possible to do so by registering all births and deaths (already done), keeping track of when voters turn 18, and then managing the naturalization queue. It would be uselessly difficult to implement but not really as impossible as it sounds.

[Ixtellor]

I guess this leaves out a tie scenario, but the thought of that happening scares me. I suppose we can require everyone to vote, and just make sure we have an odd number of people at all times .

1. The probability of a tie is remarkably low, and any tie will probably be resolved by a recount anyway. Counting error is real and in the event of a tie the vote will be close enough to ensure there will be recounts. So really, if a tie actually happens, it'll be resolved randomly by counting error anyway.
2. If we require everyone to vote, I will abstain. If I'm not allowed to abstain, then your proposal is evil and instead of voting I will burn down the polling booth.

How would you feel about a fine for not voting? (as exists in some other nations)

You can choose to not vote but you get fined $100.

It would be a lot more clear if you said, "What if the penalty for not voting is relatively low?"--in which case I'll respond that I'm arguing on principle that unless there is a legitimate reason to increase voter turnout, it doesn't really matter how low the penalty is. And, in principle, penalizing someone for not voting without giving them the option to simply register an abstention seems to undermine the very idea of democratic choice.

As for ensuring the voting populace is always an odd number, it's more than possible to do so by registering all births and deaths (already done), keeping track of when voters turn 18, and then managing the naturalization queue. It would be uselessly difficult to implement but not really as impossible as it sounds.

I agree with you, I am just asking.

I think you have the right to not participate.

As far as having a voting populace that is always odd number... that seems ludicrous and unnessasary. We already have laws and regulations in place for ties. The entire concept of worrying about odd numbers of voters is silly.


Ixtellor

[TheStranger]

How would you feel about a fine for not voting? (as exists in some other nations)

You can choose to not vote but you get fined $100.


Ixtellor

Mandating voting is not mandating informed voting. More then likely those people who were not inclined to vote in the first place would just punch random buttons until they were through. Then you have the problem of those who flat out do not wish to vote for either candidate (say someone who is morally opposed to either of the presidential candidates)... would you force them to vote even though they cannot in good conscience vote for either candidate?

[Gunfingers]

THERE ARE OTHER CANDIDATES! RAAAAGHHHHH!