The 28th Amendment to the US Constitution

[Silas]

Much more reasonable: "Senator Bix, your son is a lobbyist for the oil industry. You must recuse yourself from this vote on drilling in ANWR."

"Yeah, and my cousin is a unionized steelworker. Maybe I should sit out this NLRA vote. Is this a joke? I'm not going to vote or not based on what some punk kid does for a living!"

(Also, it's often unclear who's hiring whom to lobby for what. If one lobbying firm has five clients and twelve agents...)

[Seraph]

Much more reasonable: "Senator Bix, your son is a lobbyist for the oil industry. You must recuse yourself from this vote on drilling in ANWR."

How is that at all reasonable? If Senator Bix is for the ANWR bill, and I'm against it, all I need to do his pay kid few hundred thousand dollers for a lobying position. For a few million dollers I could probably stop almost any bill from passing.

[Gunfingers]

Isn't that kind of thing already illegal? I mean, it's still a bribe. Banning all relatives of congressmen from...i'm not even sure what, i have no idea how this could be implemented, but whatever it is it's probably more draconian than the situation warrants. Punishing people for accepting graft seems like a much easier way to go about it.

[Ixtellor]

Maybe it's just me, but i'm not seeing the reason why people shouldn't be able to speak their mind on politics just because they work for the federal government. {--} Are you really afraid that a DMV employee wearing a "Vote McCain" button is going to destroy democracy?

1) It could unduely influence Voters. If a moron who plans on voting, believes that the military, or post office, or police endorse a certain party or person, it could influence their decision.
2) I am more worried about the "Gays are an abomination" button.
or the "Blacks are Inferior - dont vote for Obama" buttons.
or the "Bush ordered 9/11 to happen" button.
or the "McCain has an illegitmate black baby, vote for Bush" Button.

Its one thing when some moron puts a bumper sticker on his car, it is different when a Federal judge has it on during a trial.

3) Those people are free to speak their minds on their own time. Not why they are on taxpayers time.

Can I also assume that you are against campaign finance laws and reforms, as they too inhibit personal freedom.

No, you can't assume that. Campaign finance laws affect all citizens uniformly; what you're proposing singles out some people because of facts about someone else.

Prohibiting the children of politicians from working as lobbyists imposes restrictions on the rights of a group people who have no special obligation or public trust.

So:
1) You are ok with limiting free speech in the form of Campaign finance reform.
2) Those laws do not affect us equally. You and I do not have the capacity to televise 60 second commericals 24 hours a day. Only very very very wealthy people do.
The federal cap of 25,000 max contributers per year, do not affect us equally, as most don't have the capacity to give that much to the parties.

On your second point. Then go with the solution already offered. Politicans must recuse themselves from votes where their is a conflict of interest or strong hint of bias.

First, you need to cite your numbers. My estimate counts only about a thousand, maybe two, influential politicians. I doubt they average two lobbyist children, each.

Are you counting State legislators and Governors?
In Texas, LARGE numbers of spouses and children are on the payroll of lobbyists. In fact, until recently, our congressmen were on their payrolls. I stick my initial number of thousands upon thousands of wives/children are on the payrolls of lobbyists.

I will concede that if the amendment were only to cover federal politicans, they number would go way down. With only around 50 wives and a few hundred children.

Second, wouldn't you expect children brought up by politicians to be more aware, interested, and connected to the political scene- in other words, more suited to lobbying? It doesn't really point to graft.

So, lets say there are 1000 wives/children of powerfull politicans who are paid by lobbyists.
What % do you think are hired for their expertise, and what % are hired solely because of the access to the politician.

A simple google search will reveal several conflict of interest votes.

Creates quite the conflict of interest. Vote against company X and your wife loses her $225K per year job.

This is an important concern- it's why I'm talking about children of politicians, not their spouses (since children are presumably financially distinct). I don't have a great answer for it.

Some children are financialy distinct because of their parents influence and favor seeking of corporations. Did Chelsea Clinton really deserve to have $150K/year job right out of the gate?
Did Fred Thompsons two sons, who are both paid lobbyists really just experts who deserved their position above all the applicants? Or was it ultimatly, who their parents were that got them jobs lobbying.

If Fred voted against company X who employeed his son, what would happen?
If Hillary votes against company X, could Chelsea see a fallout?

Isn't that kind of thing already illegal? I mean, it's still a bribe. Banning all relatives of congressmen from...i'm not even sure what, i have no idea how this could be implemented, but whatever it is it's probably more draconian than the situation warrants. Punishing people for accepting graft seems like a much easier way to go about it.

No its not illegal.
A corportation can hire your wife and kids and pay them any fee they want. They also have the right to fire them at any time. If it just happens to be because of a vote they didn't like, there are many other causes reasons that can be given.

Ixtellor

[TheStranger]

1) It could unduely influence Voters. If a moron who plans on voting, believes that the military, or post office, or police endorse a certain party or person, it could influence their decision.
2) I am more worried about the "Gays are an abomination" button.
or the "Blacks are Inferior - dont vote for Obama" buttons.
or the "Bush ordered 9/11 to happen" button.
or the "McCain has an illegitmate black baby, vote for Bush" Button.

Its one thing when some moron puts a bumper sticker on his car, it is different when a Federal judge has it on during a trial.

Just a note, some of this is already covered under the Hatch Act.

For those not familiar it's the act that prevents campaigning by employees of the Federal Government while 'on the job'. As an example a member of the military can go door to door for a candidate, but cannot do so in uniform. It includes all Federal employees, and also prevents distribution of campaign literature in the office.

[Cooley]

Amendments: I liked the Airforce/Spaceforce one, a law wouldn't quite get it across as well as an amendment. I mean, Congress still has the power to grant letters of Marque, the most important power it has, right? So it wouldn't be too big of a deal to codify it.

I feel the ERA is redundant, and would just complicate things as laws are passed to carry that bit of the constitution out (affirmative action TO THE MAX).

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned: Something to the effect that the US gov't can't restrict access to any part of the internet or any individual wobsite, and that access of any wobsite is not grounds for detainment ever.

haha, wobsite isn't a recognized word, why is that?

[Bubbles McCoy]

Something to the effect that the US gov't can't restrict access to any part of the internet

Isn't this a little to vague to be practical? Does this mean I get full, free access to every pron website I want?

[BlackSails]

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned: Something to the effect that the US gov't can't restrict access to any part of the internet or any individual wobsite, and that access of any wobsite is not grounds for detainment ever.

Not even visiting an FBI run child porn site and downloaded stuff from it?

[Indon]

Then go with the solution already offered. Politicans must recuse themselves from votes where their is a conflict of interest or strong hint of bias.

The problem with this is that politicians could abuse perceptions to keep other politicians from voting - an example earlier was given by paying the son of the guy you don't want voting for a bill to keep him from doing so.

[Ixtellor]

Amendments: I liked the Airforce/Spaceforce one, a law wouldn't quite get it across as well as an amendment. I mean, Congress still has the power to grant letters of Marque, the most important power it has, right? So it wouldn't be too big of a deal to codify it.

We didn't need an amendment to clarify Presidential succession, so why would we need one to clarify who controlls the air/space force?
I don't see how a law would be insufficient.

I feel the ERA is redundant, and would just complicate things as laws are passed to carry that bit of the constitution out (affirmative action TO THE MAX).

It would result in a lot of lawsuits. Not really sure how I feel about it. The fact that women can't be fighter pilots in combat, seems odd and irrational. But I don't think it is necessary.

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned: Something to the effect that the US gov't can't restrict access to any part of the internet or any individual wobsite, and that access of any wobsite is not grounds for detainment ever.

Horrible idea IMHO, if you were being serious.
I don't think access is grounds for detainment is it? I assume that I could find highly illegal websites if I wanted, but just because I have access isn't a crime.
We all have access to rob banks, but it isn't a crime to have access, so I thought the last portion was non-sensical.

But the gov should be allowed to restrict access to certain websites.
Sites that offer identify theft information, or child porn, or a site that connects hitmen to clients SHOULD be removed and/or banned IMHO. (http://www.hitmaker.com or http://www.assassinmatch.com <---- illegal)

Ixtellor

[cooldude76]

My Constitution:

Please Burn This Document and stuff it down the current world leaders pants. Please?


That will be all, thank you. P

But seriously. Anarchy Burger anyone?

[SJ Zero]

The Canadian government hereby relinquishes the right to a standing army for the purposes of conquest, invasion, or occupation of foreign countries, alone or in concert with other nations.

Armed forces must fit within two categories:

1. Canadian Self Defense Force
2. Canadian International Peacekeeping Force

The government may not initiate or participate in any invasion or occupation, except within the role of peacekeeping.

[Indon]

The Canadian government hereby relinquishes the right to a standing army for the purposes of conquest, invasion, or occupation of foreign countries, alone or in concert with other nations.

Armed forces must fit within two categories:

1. Canadian Self Defense Force
2. Canadian International Peacekeeping Force

The government may not initiate or participate in any invasion or occupation, except within the role of peacekeeping.

So, you're in favor of... the United States conquering and demilitarizing Canada?

[SJ Zero]

It seems to me Canada would be safer from US invasion if our armed forces were here in Canada instead of blowing people up in Afganistan.

[Gunfingers]

The joke he was making was that you proposed a change to the Canadian constitution in a thread about the US constitution.

[SJ Zero]

Misinterpretation on my part. I read "change your country's constitution" to be inclusive of non-Americans.

Ducking out now.

[Gunfingers]

This is the place to propose amendments to your country's constitution, comment on another's idea (i'm sure mine could be improved), or write a whole constitution if you don't have one (i'm looking at you, you dirty lobsterbacks).

You misinterpreted nothing, it was intended to include people from less awesome parts of the world. The dude was just making a lame joke.

[Falmarri]

The right to own and bear arms shall be clarified as such:

1.) No firearm shall be banned from sale to qualified civilians upon completion of a background check ie there will be no arbitrary waiting period.
a.) This includes firearms with threaded barrels, fully automatic, military grade, "assault" rifles, etc
2.) Qualified is define as a person:
<Anyone who can currently legally buy a gun currently from a licensed FFL dealer>
3.) Anyone may carry any firearm they obtained legally concealed or openly into any establishment they are legally allowed to be in
4.) One may obtain a permit to carry a weapon they did not buy themselves concealed or openly. Such permit shall be issued to anyone established in 2.


Obviously not written in legal speak. But let the gun control arguments commence!

[++$_]

The right to own and bear arms shall be clarified as such:

1.) No firearm shall be banned from sale to qualified civilians upon completion of a background check ie there will be no arbitrary waiting period.
a.) This includes firearms with threaded barrels, fully automatic, military grade, "assault" rifles, etc
2.) Qualified is define as a person:
<Anyone who can currently legally buy a gun currently from a licensed FFL dealer>
3.) Anyone may carry any firearm they obtained legally concealed or openly into any establishment they are legally allowed to be in
4.) One may obtain a permit to carry a weapon they did not buy themselves concealed or openly. Such permit shall be issued to anyone established in 2.


Obviously not written in legal speak. But let the gun control arguments commence!

First, this should just go into the law. But if we're arguing about gun control, I have a suggestion (again, it doesn't belong in the Constitution):

1. Any adult citizen, upon completion of a background check and a gun safety course, shall be permitted to acquire a firearms license.
2. Any person with a firearms license shall be permitted to purchase and own any form of firearm. Such firearms must be individually registered with the government, and any transfer of ownership must be reported to the government within 2 days.
3. All firearms are required to contain functioning GPS tracking devices, to have unique and unmodifiable serial numbers, to mark any fired bullets with that serial number, and to maintain a record of every shot fired.
4. Possession of a firearm violating the requirements of section 3 shall be a misdemeanor, and grounds for immediate revocation of the firearms license.
5. Possession of a firearm without a license and a registration for that firearm shall be a felony.
6. Selling a firearm to an individual without a firearms license shall be a felony.

I think this should work. First of all, the ability of law-abiding citizens to hunt (legally), to practice target shooting, or to defend themselves is not impaired. Second, the ability of criminals to own illegal guns is reduced, because an illegal gun can be immediately recognized by any law-enforcement official. Third, the ability of criminals to use legal guns in crimes is reduced, because the location of every shot will be traceable, along with the gun that fired it. Finally, the ability of people to use open-carry for intimidation purposes is reduced.

There may be technical issues with the law (how do you make a gun with an unmodifiable serial number?), but I don't see how there could be ideological issues, at least from the pro-gun side. Unless I don't understand what people are really arguing for. The only thing that could be a problem at all is the GPS tracking requirement, but I think when someone owns a tool actually designed for killing people, they have to be willing to give up a little bit of privacy as regards that tool.

[roc314]

@Falmarri: Didn't you already get one thread locked by bringing on gun control debates?*

Nevertheless, I don't think your amendment is a good idea, as there is way too much detail for a constitutional amendment. It wouldn't supply the government with enough flexibility. Generally, amendments don't exist to define terms in other amendments. That's why we have the Supreme Court: to interpret the law.

* EDIT: Ah, here it is: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28690#p914894
Your post that introduced the topic was viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28690#p914268

EDIT 2: Here is another thread that was locked because it was taken over by a gun control debate: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28319
Maybe we should stop now?

[qinwamascot]

The right to own and bear arms shall be clarified as such:

1.) No firearm shall be banned from sale to qualified civilians upon completion of a background check ie there will be no arbitrary waiting period.
a.) This includes firearms with threaded barrels, fully automatic, military grade, "assault" rifles, etc
2.) Qualified is define as a person:
<Anyone who can currently legally buy a gun currently from a licensed FFL dealer>
3.) Anyone may carry any firearm they obtained legally concealed or openly into any establishment they are legally allowed to be in
4.) One may obtain a permit to carry a weapon they did not buy themselves concealed or openly. Such permit shall be issued to anyone established in 2.


Obviously not written in legal speak. But let the gun control arguments commence!

Better idea:

"The second amendment to the constitution is hereby repealed. The right to gun ownership shall be only permitted to those to whom the legislature defines necessity for such ownership" (aka police, military, etc.)

edit: this isn't entirely serious, but I don't think it's automatically bad either.

[Falmarri]

3. All firearms are required to contain functioning GPS tracking devices, to have unique and unmodifiable serial numbers, to mark any fired bullets with that serial number, and to maintain a record of every shot fired.

Everything is fine except for this. Way too much of an invasion of privacy. The government doesn't need to know how many rounds I put into a piece of wood at a range if I'm doing it legally with a legally owned gun. And it would be prohibitively expensive, and require every gun in existence to be modified or be illegal or defeat the purpose of this point.

Edit: I'd just like to say that this is one of the most reasonably compromising suggestions I've ever heard and I think most pro-gun people, apart from the crazy right wing guys, would think the majority of it (except what I've already noted) are pretty reasonable suggestions. If a law abiding citizen can go and purchase a firearm of their choice without having to jump through too many hoops (getting licenses for each firearm, arbitrary waiting periods, limits on number of guns one can buy at once, unreasonable tax stamps such as on fully auto weapons and suppressors) and use that weapon for its intended purpose (shooting targets and self defense), no reasonable person would say that's wrong.

Better idea:

"The second amendment to the constitution is hereby repealed. The right to gun ownership shall be only permitted to those to whom the legislature defines necessity for such ownership" (aka police, military, etc.)

edit: this isn't entirely serious, but I don't think it's automatically bad either.

Yes, the ones in power get to decide who can control all the weapons. Brilliant!

@Falmarri: Didn't you already get one thread locked by bringing on gun control debates?*

So I'm not allowed to participate in this thread by doing exactly what everyone else in the thread is doing? As for that other thread, I was simply responding to

what are some fundamental issues that Obama either comes up short

In my opinion, his stance on gun rights is one of them.

[Philwelch]

The ERA. I think that anyone who says that sexism doesn't still exist on a large scale in America needs to come up with a good answer to why this bill still hasn't reached ratification after 30 years.

It would require women to register for the draft and serve in combat, while giving more men custody of their children after a divorce. It would have tons of unintended consequences that even women wouldn't necessarily want.

I would like an amendment similar to a provision in Washington's state constitution—any bill can only address a single topic.

[Gunfingers]

Only if the standing laws were challenged under that amendment.

Besides, it's asenine to have an equal rights amendment specific to women. Throw in ethnicity, sexual orientation, and dominant hand if you're gonna go that route.

[roc314]

Only if the standing laws were challenged under that amendment.

Besides, it's asenine to have an equal rights amendment specific to women. Throw in ethnicity, sexual orientation, and dominant hand if you're gonna go that route.

Well there is no provisions for handedness or orientation, but I'm pretty sure 14-15 already cover the ethnicity part. (Interestingly enough, a lot of the feminists pushed for those amendments to also include provisions about sex, not just race.)

[SJ Zero]

Perfect 28th Amendment to the US Constitution:

"Any elected federal representative who proposes an unconstitutional law knowingly or with a reckless disregard for the constitution is to be stripped of his or her office, and shall be barred from collecting benefits or a pension."

[Indon]

Perfect 28th Amendment to the US Constitution:

"Any elected federal representative who proposes an unconstitutional law knowingly or with a reckless disregard for the constitution is to be stripped of his or her office, and shall be barred from collecting benefits or a pension."

That's a bit legally grey to be a good amendment - 'knowingly or with a reckless disregard for' is basically the iffy terminology. It would be very hard to determine intent for the presentation of a law.

[SJ Zero]

"Hey Rick, this bill restricts the ownership of firearms, the freedom of speech, and tries to create a state religion. You're fired."

[Indon]

"Hey Rick, this bill restricts the ownership of firearms, the freedom of speech, and tries to create a state religion. You're fired."

"Oh, you mean those are illegal?" You'd be amazed how little American politicians know when you try to pin them down on something.

Not to mention that we do have laws that restrict firearm ownership and freedom of speech.

[Silas]

>Hey, Rick, you're fired.
-Fired? What for?
>You remember that real-ID bill you sponsored a couple years ago? The one that was supposed to make it easier to crack down on the illegals who try to get credit cards?
-Yeah, what about it?
>Turns out it imposes an unreasonable barrier to voting for certain destitute Indiana residents. Who knew? Anyway, pack up your office and be out by seven.
-But... but...
>No buts. Constitution says, monkey do.

[SJ Zero]

That sounds like a non-obvious constitutional problem. Unless you could prove the congressman knew or should have known, I don't see a problem.

[roc314]

That sounds like a non-obvious constitutional problem. Unless you could prove the congressman knew or should have known, I don't see a problem.

But how are you going to prove it? Have a court/congress decide if s/he's guilty? In that case, it is either the case that a court (most likely the Supreme Court) can kick congresspeople out of office or that congress (whether the leadership or a majority vote) can kick out congresspeople. How is that any good? Your idea had some merit behind it, but it is not practical at all.

[SJ Zero]

I don't see any reason why a jury can't be assembled. The people are smart enough to judge whether a man is guilty of murder and sentence that man to death, why wouldn't they then be smart enough to judge whether a man is guilty of knowingly defying the constitution?

[roc314]

I don't see any reason why a jury can't be assembled. The people are smart enough to judge whether a man is guilty of murder and sentence that man to death, why wouldn't they then be smart enough to judge whether a man is guilty of knowingly defying the constitution?

I just realized something, it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to decide when the constitution has been violated. No one else (including juries) is allowed to do this. So only the Supreme Court could decide cases like this.

[SJ Zero]

In that case, it would be their choice whether to charge for dismissal under an "obviously unconstitutional" clause.

It would require more than simply a 1 justice split. I'd say in the case where all or all but one justice rule against a law, it shall be said to be "obviously unconstitutional", and the supreme court will have the option to dismiss the congressman, senator, or president who proposed the law.

[Indon]

That rather leads to a concern of the balance between the branches of government, when the SCotUS can decide at any time to retire someone if they took part of some legislation that proved to be problematic.

[SJ Zero]

I don't really see how. There's only one supreme court, they can only cover so many laws thoroughly, and the ones that do make it need to make it there by writ of certiorari, meaning many laws like the PATRIOT act won't ever be covered despite greatly deserving it. By contrast, it's relatively easy for the congress to queue up dozens or hundreds of blatantly unconstitutional laws, and for the president to blatantly defy the fourth amendment against unreasonable search and seizure with a warrantless wire-tapping program.

[qinwamascot]

Perfect 28th Amendment to the US Constitution:

"Any elected federal representative who proposes an unconstitutional law knowingly or with a reckless disregard for the constitution is to be stripped of his or her office, and shall be barred from collecting benefits or a pension."

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?

If congress passes unconstitutional laws, then the courts are supposed to strike them down. The supreme court doesn't have to be involved in every, or even any, such case.

I can't really think of any great amendments at this time, assuming you want ones that are related to actual constitutional questions and not just issues that I personally am in favor of. Except this one:

Congress shall make no law that is based on scientific evidence which at the time is known to be inaccurate by the general scientific community

meaning no star wars and yes global warming.

[SJ Zero]

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

As the charter determining the powers of the congress, it should be precisely written and strictly interpreted. If the document says "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech" then I say the courts should NOT be allowed to interpret this as "Congress may make some laws abridging the freedom of speech if they're really nice and wear silly hats".

The congress should be constantly and strongly aware of their mandate and the powers given to them by the constitution. If we're talking about a law that says "You can't talk about this", then I say that congressman, senator, or president should be removed from their office.

[Midnight]

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.