The 28th Amendment to the US Constitution

[Philwelch]

THERE ARE OTHER CANDIDATES! RAAAAGHHHHH!

Not if we have a runoff, which is the system under debate.

[emceng]

What do you guys think is the appropriate scope for a state constitution? Below is one from Minnesota.

Tax increase amounts to 38 cents on a $100 purchase. Money would be divided among projects related to clean drinking water (33%), natural areas and wildlife habitat (33%), parks and trails (14.25%) and arts and culture (19.75%). Must be approved by a majority of all voters - not voting on the question counts as a "no" vote.


I consider this a ridiculous expansion of a document that is supposed to lay out the groundwork for our democracy. On the other hand, I read this commentary in the local paper.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/comm ... 08149.html

It makes some good points - but the overall point I still get it that the state constitution has been screwed with far too much over the years.

[paragon12321]

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.

I assumed the part where I said we always make sure we have an odd number of people would make people I was kidding. Mandatory voting=bad.

[Qaanol]

“Congress shall make no law requiring a contract among private parties to include language wherein a contracting party waives a legal or constitutional right. Such language may be included in private contracts, but no law shall require its inclusion nor punish its absence.”

[Diadem]

edit: Wait, why is this thread 4 years old? Hadn't seen that. Oh well. Still a fun topic, if probably not quite SB-worthy.

“Congress shall make no law requiring a contract among private parties to include language wherein a contracting party waives a legal or constitutional right. Such language may be included in private contracts, but no law shall require its inclusion nor punish its absence.”

So, doctors can just walk out in the middle of a surgery with impunity?
People can sell company secrets regardless of non-disclosure agreements?
Kindergarten teachers are allowed to bring guns to school?

I don't think your amendment is a very good one.


But what about this one:

Any elected representative of the people who votes yes on or signs a bill without having read its full text shall be removed from office and be ineligible for future office.

[Malice]

But what about this one:

Any elected representative of the people who votes yes on or signs a bill without having read its full text shall be removed from office and be ineligible for future office.

Congress moves slowly enough as it is. I see no reason to bar the standard practice whereby your Congressional staff reads the bills and summarizes the information so you can make a decision.

Personally I think these two are the most important right now:

Congress shall establish a public campaign fund for Congressional and Presidential candidates. Candidates may not use any other funds, personal or donated, for the purpose of campaigning. All expenditures must be documented and made publicly available.

(There are some details to be worked out--the amount you get, when and how you get it, who qualifies as a candidate--and I kind of like the idea of paying for the fund via a per person "Democracy Tax" that they can either let go to the fund or freely apply to the candidate of their choice, but I'd rather leave all that up to Congress. Also I'd like to amend a way around Citizens United but I'm not sure how to word it.)

Congress shall make no law which discriminates on the basis of age, sex, gender, race, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, political affiliation, educational status, or financial status except where a rational basis for a compelling government interest exists.

[gmalivuk]

“Congress shall make no law requiring a contract among private parties to include language wherein a contracting party waives a legal or constitutional right. Such language may be included in private contracts, but no law shall require its inclusion nor punish its absence.”

So, doctors can just walk out in the middle of a surgery with impunity?
People can sell company secrets regardless of non-disclosure agreements?
Kindergarten teachers are allowed to bring guns to school?

How do you get any of those things from the proposed text?

[Diadem]

“Congress shall make no law requiring a contract among private parties to include language wherein a contracting party waives a legal or constitutional right. Such language may be included in private contracts, but no law shall require its inclusion nor punish its absence.”

So, doctors can just walk out in the middle of a surgery with impunity?
People can sell company secrets regardless of non-disclosure agreements?
Kindergarten teachers are allowed to bring guns to school?

How do you get any of those things from the proposed text?

Well all of those are examples of constitutional rights (4th amendment, 1st amendment, 2nd amendment) that can be taken away with a contract, right? It's extremely normal to sign away rights with contracts. Banning that is not a good idea. The proposal doesn't ban it outright, but makes such contracts unenforceable, which amounts to the same thing.

I'm not even sure to be honest what the proposal is trying to fix.

But what about this one:

Any elected representative of the people who votes yes on or signs a bill without having read its full text shall be removed from office and be ineligible for future office.

Congress moves slowly enough as it is. I see no reason to bar the standard practice whereby your Congressional staff reads the bills and summarizes the information so you can make a decision.

Well this amendment kills two birds with one stone. It forces congressman to read legislation before agreeing with it. But that also, as you rightly point out, slows government down. The only bills that would stand a chance of passing are bills that are short and easy to read. Which is exactly what I would like to see.

Personally I think these two are the most important right now:

Congress shall establish a public campaign fund for Congressional and Presidential candidates. Candidates may not use any other funds, personal or donated, for the purpose of campaigning. All expenditures must be documented and made publicly available.

(There are some details to be worked out--the amount you get, when and how you get it, who qualifies as a candidate--and I kind of like the idea of paying for the fund via a per person "Democracy Tax" that they can either let go to the fund or freely apply to the candidate of their choice, but I'd rather leave all that up to Congress. Also I'd like to amend a way around Citizens United but I'm not sure how to word it.)

The thing is that this wouldn't reverse citizens united. Because super-pacs are, officially, not associated with a candidate. You'd need a law that says that others can not spend unlimited resources on a candidate.

[CorruptUser]

Well this amendment kills two birds with one stone. It forces congressman to read legislation before agreeing with it. But that also, as you rightly point out, slows government down. The only bills that would stand a chance of passing are bills that are short and easy to read. Which is exactly what I would like to see.

I hate to say it, but when writing legislation that overhauls 1/7th of the entire US economy, it's going to be hundreds if not thousands of pages long. It was to be expected that the Affordable Care Act (aka The Affordable Care Act) would be as freakishly long as it is.

Edit: Silly filters

[Diadem]

Well this amendment kills two birds with one stone. It forces congressman to read legislation before agreeing with it. But that also, as you rightly point out, slows government down. The only bills that would stand a chance of passing are bills that are short and easy to read. Which is exactly what I would like to see.

I hate to say it, but when writing legislation that overhauls 1/7th of the entire US economy, it's going to be hundreds if not thousands of pages long. It was to be expected that the AHA (aka The Affordable Care Act) would be as freakishly long as it is.

It's still a bad thing, and one of the main reasons for terrible laws. Nobody knows what's in them! Laws are passed that literally no one has read.

A democracy can only really be viable in the long run if the people understand it. Most western democracies have become such huge bureaucratic messes that it threatens their very existence.

[CorruptUser]

I'm not sure the bureaucracies are in and of themselves terrible. Yes, there is a lot of waste, but overall there needs to be some way of providing social services in a consistent manner.

[Malice]

Well this amendment kills two birds with one stone. It forces congressman to read legislation before agreeing with it. But that also, as you rightly point out, slows government down. The only bills that would stand a chance of passing are bills that are short and easy to read. Which is exactly what I would like to see.

I hate to say it, but when writing legislation that overhauls 1/7th of the entire US economy, it's going to be hundreds if not thousands of pages long. It was to be expected that the AHA (aka The Affordable Care Act) would be as freakishly long as it is.

It's still a bad thing, and one of the main reasons for terrible laws. Nobody knows what's in them! Laws are passed that literally no one has read.

It seems very rare that a Congressperson demonstrates ignorance of the content of a bill, which suggests to me that whether or not they personally reading them, they are receiving the information.

If you want an amendment limiting the size of bills, write that amendment; your proposed one will only slow down the government and cause emergency bills to be improperly detailed.

But then realize that that amendment is stupid. Government is complicated, and we elect representatives for a reason: they worry about the 1000 pages of legal details, we worry about the broad strokes. I've heard about a lot of terrible laws lately, but no surprise passages; if nothing else, the media seems to be on top of going through these things with a fine-toothed comb.

If the public doesn't understand what the government is doing, the answer is more education, not to make what the government is doing simpler. Government wields power and I prefer it do so with scalpels rather than hammers.

[Zamfir]

Also, making laws simpler doesn't necessarily make their implementation and implications simpler. It just moves details to lower levels. Decrees, rules, guidelines, procedures, discretionary decisions of executive agencies. I think the US tends (by international standard) to put a relatively large amount of details at the highest level of laws, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

[omgryebread]

Yeah making all bills readable length makes government a lot less transparent. How many of you can name a bunch of senators? How many of you can name the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Kathleen Merrigan! I had to look it up. And now, instead of those Congressmen you've heard of deciding the details of agricultural policy, these unknown bureaucrats are now deciding those details. And lobbyists can still buy them lunch and show them their research. And they tend to be party hacks, so don't have technocratic dreams here. (They often are competent in whatever role they're in. The aforementioned Ms. Merrigan has worked in the USDA, as an academic studying agriculture, and has a PhD in environmental planning from MIT.) They're going to be influenced by their party, and they're going to keep their party's electoral politics in mind.


Yeah, they'll be more informed about those decisions than politicians will, because they'll specialize. We (and most democratic countries) chose to have unspecialized, highly accountable decision makers. This amendment would shift a lot of their power to specialized, but largely unaccountable decision makers. Since all these decision makers serve at the pleasure of the president, you'd also make the executive branch way more powerful.



Anyway a suggestion:

Every 10 years, the states shall appoint an independent board to determine districts for elections to the US House of Representatives. This board shall consist of an even number of members. Half the members shall be appointed by the majority leader of the lower house of that state's legislature. The other half shall be appointed by the minority leader. This board shall be approved by a majority vote of both houses of the legislature.

Basically it would make every state use bipartisan committees in redistricting, making gerrymandering a lot harder.

[lutzj]

Anyway a suggestion:

Every 10 years, the states shall appoint an independent board to determine districts for elections to the US House of Representatives. This board shall consist of an even number of members. Half the members shall be appointed by the majority leader of the lower house of that state's legislature. The other half shall be appointed by the minority leader. This board shall be approved by a majority vote of both houses of the legislature.

Basically it would make every state use bipartisan committees in redistricting, making gerrymandering a lot harder.

On the other hand, this would entrench the two-party, winner-takes all system (which makes gerrymandering so viable) almost inexorably. You'll also have trouble getting those even-numbered committees to agree on much without them resorting to "I cushion your district and you shore up mine" and other crooked agreements that aren't much different from gerrymandering.

[Soralin]

Anyway a suggestion:

Every 10 years, the states shall appoint an independent board to determine districts for elections to the US House of Representatives. This board shall consist of an even number of members. Half the members shall be appointed by the majority leader of the lower house of that state's legislature. The other half shall be appointed by the minority leader. This board shall be approved by a majority vote of both houses of the legislature.

Basically it would make every state use bipartisan committees in redistricting, making gerrymandering a lot harder.

Or, why not just make some common method to use, and so make gerrymandering impossible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUS9uvYyn3A

[CorruptUser]

Not quite amendment worthy, but I'd prefer it if child benefits stopped after the second child. Children already born can be grandfathered in. Just that I don't think it's fair for the family that can barely afford college for one kid and is trying to figure out how to support a second one has to be told they have to cut back because the family down the road that couldn't figure out how to use a condom just had their seventh. Yeah, I get that government should not be allowed to tell you how many kids you can have, but that doesn't mean I have to pay for said kids.

[lutzj]

Not quite amendment worthy, but I'd prefer it if child benefits stopped after the second child. Children already born can be grandfathered in. Just that I don't think it's fair for the family that can barely afford college for one kid and is trying to figure out how to support a second one has to be told they have to cut back because the family down the road that couldn't figure out how to use a condom just had their seventh. Yeah, I get that government should not be allowed to tell you how many kids you can have, but that doesn't mean I have to pay for said kids.

Not politically viable in the US at the moment because you're objectively harming poor families (the left will rage) and implicitly encouraging them to utilize family planning (the right will rage).

[CorruptUser]

I would also harm religious families (the right will rage even more). You'd be surprised how many people on Medicaid/Foodstamps tend to be hardline Republicans (they just think everyone else on welfare is a leech). But in reality, I'm not convinced the Left actually cares about the poor, so long as the Left gets to be the ones that supports them and gets the votes in return. Same goes for the Right, so long as the Right is the one supporting them via Church charities and so forth, and yes getting their votes.

I am a paranoid cynic; I tend to wonder if social services are designed to prevent people from escaping poverty. Because in a world where social services actually worked and there was no cycle of poverty, people wouldn't vote for more social services. If the Maytag Repairman had designed the machines, he wouldn't be out of work so often...

[Zamfir]

Yeah making all bills readable length makes government a lot less transparent. How many of you can name a bunch of senators? How many of you can name the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Kathleen Merrigan! I had to look it up. And now, instead of those Congressmen you've heard of deciding the details of agricultural policy, these unknown bureaucrats are now deciding those details. And lobbyists can still buy them lunch and show them their research. And they tend to be party hacks, so don't have technocratic dreams here. (They often are competent in whatever role they're in. The aforementioned Ms. Merrigan has worked in the USDA, as an academic studying agriculture, and has a PhD in environmental planning from MIT.) They're going to be influenced by their party, and they're going to keep their party's electoral politics in mind.

Well, there's two sides of every coin, and there's a risk in going too far the other way either: once details are put down in law, they become seriously hard to change. That raises the stakes, and basically forces everyone involved to do concentrated lobbying. Even when you mostly agree with the setup of a new law, you still have to make sure that no details with potentially problematic effects make their way into it.

That's a big driver for such notorious "written by lobbyists" laws. At some level of detail, politicians have to distribute proposals to the people with an interest, and incorporate their proposals for changes. Because the alternative is a law that could unintentionally piss off some people, through some detail that has consequences the politicians and their close advisors could not foresee.

At some point, the bureaucrats-lunch-with-insiders become a necessary tool*. It's better if someone can just say, look Mark, that recent change in policy X hurts us a lot in area Y, and I can telly ou right now that the benefits are nowhere what they seem at first. And the bureacrats says, I am under pressure from higher up to tackle problem Z, and this is the best we can do. But we'll keep area Y out of it for another year, and if you're right about the limited benefits, we'll reconsider the policy. Yeah, it's smooching and it can be nasty, but it can also be healthier than lobbying and lawyering up.

* Disclosure: I sometimes have "lunch with bureaucrats". Being a low-level flunky in a glamourless industry, this means we each buy our own cheese sandwiches in a self-service canteen. But it still has its tiny tiny effect on government policy. You talk about kids and traffic jams, and by the end you know and trust and respect each other a little more. If their department and mine have a disagreement or conflict of interest, it gets settled that little bit more smoothly. There are people out there who don't even know they have a potential disagreement with the government or my employers, let alone that it could have been smoothed over. Stuff Just Happens.

[morriswalters]

* Disclosure: I sometimes have "lunch with bureaucrats". Being a low-level flunky in a glamourless industry, this means we each buy our own cheese sandwiches in a self-service canteen. But it still has its tiny tiny effect on government policy. You talk about kids and traffic jams, and by the end you know and trust and respect each other a little more. If their department and mine have a disagreement or conflict of interest, it gets settled that little bit more smoothly. There are people out there who don't even know they have a potential disagreement with the government or my employers, let alone that it could have been smoothed over. Stuff Just Happens.

I wish more people understood this.

[omgryebread]

Well, there's two sides of every coin, and there's a risk in going too far the other way either: once details are put down in law, they become seriously hard to change. That raises the stakes, and basically forces everyone involved to do concentrated lobbying. Even when you mostly agree with the setup of a new law, you still have to make sure that no details with potentially problematic effects make their way into it.

That's a big driver for such notorious "written by lobbyists" laws. At some level of detail, politicians have to distribute proposals to the people with an interest, and incorporate their proposals for changes. Because the alternative is a law that could unintentionally piss off some people, through some detail that has consequences the politicians and their close advisors could not foresee.

At some point, the bureaucrats-lunch-with-insiders become a necessary tool*. It's better if someone can just say, look Mark, that recent change in policy X hurts us a lot in area Y, and I can telly ou right now that the benefits are nowhere what they seem at first. And the bureacrats says, I am under pressure from higher up to tackle problem Z, and this is the best we can do. But we'll keep area Y out of it for another year, and if you're right about the limited benefits, we'll reconsider the policy. Yeah, it's smooching and it can be nasty, but it can also be healthier than lobbying and lawyering up.

* Disclosure: I sometimes have "lunch with bureaucrats". Being a low-level flunky in a glamourless industry, this means we each buy our own cheese sandwiches in a self-service canteen. But it still has its tiny tiny effect on government policy. You talk about kids and traffic jams, and by the end you know and trust and respect each other a little more. If their department and mine have a disagreement or conflict of interest, it gets settled that little bit more smoothly. There are people out there who don't even know they have a potential disagreement with the government or my employers, let alone that it could have been smoothed over. Stuff Just Happens.

Another reason lobbying can be very important and "written by lobbyists" bills is research. If the state is deciding on policy (either via a bill or a regulatory decision) on fertilizers, they can't possibly afford to pay for the research into the effects. Each state and the federal government would pay enormous amounts of money to research every bill, even before the cost of implementation. So the farm lobby pays for a lot of research that supports fertilizer use, the seafood lobby and environmental groups pay for a lot of research supporting further regulation, and then both take their research and arguments to legislators and bureaucrats. Yes, campaign contributions often figure in, at least implicitly, and everyone loves a free lunch, but government decision makers, both bureaucratic and legislative aren't stupid and easily bought off. Lobbying is one part of their decision making process.

(Since we're disclosing: I work for a lobbying firm. As a part-time receptionist in a small state level lobbying firm while I go to school, but still, potential bias. Though I wouldn't work in lobbying if I didn't feel it was good and valuable work.)

[HungryHobo]

Well all of those are examples of constitutional rights (4th amendment, 1st amendment, 2nd amendment) that can be taken away with a contract, right? It's extremely normal to sign away rights with contracts. Banning that is not a good idea. The proposal doesn't ban it outright, but makes such contracts unenforceable, which amounts to the same thing.

that's not my reading of it at all.

Just that a law cannot *require* you to sign away a constitutional right in a contract with a third party.

person A and B can still put such a thing in a contract and sign it and it can still be enforced but lawmakers couldn't require that any contracts between A and B include some clause which would constrain either A or B in a manner which the lawmakers couldn't legally constrain A or B with a new law.

So if the lawmakers couldn't legally push through a law to ban you from saying "fuck" on the internet they also couldn't write a law requiring that all ISP's include in their contracts a clause requiring that you never say "fuck" on the internet.

The ISP can still include such clauses but lawmakers just can't make them.

[StevenR]

I would make three changes:

1) All laws sunset after ten years. If it was a good law, it will be easily passed through the legistative system again. If it wasn't a good law, it probably won't.

2) 4/5 of both houses are required to pass anything. This means no more laws strictly on party lines.
2a) A simple majority of both is required to repeal a law and is not subject to the president's signature.
2b) Congress sits for only 90 days each year. Period.

3) Members of Congress must follow all the laws they pass. No more excluding Congress from insider trading laws, Social Security, Medicaid, and the like.
3a) All members of Congress are subject to recall elections and/or direct recall by their state governor. No more laws for the party that screw over their home state.
3b) No more pensions. Once you leave Capitol Hill or the White House or the SCOTUS, the tit is dry.
3c) Congress can no longer allow the agencies to set regulations. Congress has to actually take responsibility instead of just letting the alphabet agencies do whatever they want.

[Ixtellor]

Another reason lobbying can be very important and "written by lobbyists" bills is research. If the state is deciding on policy (either via a bill or a regulatory decision) on fertilizers, they can't possibly afford to pay for the research into the effects. Each state and the federal government would pay enormous amounts of money to research every bill, even before the cost of implementation. So the farm lobby pays for a lot of research that supports fertilizer use, the seafood lobby and environmental groups pay for a lot of research supporting further regulation, and then both take their research and arguments to legislators and bureaucrats.

There are several positive aspects of interest groups engaged in lobbying Congress. Thank you for identifying one of the best.

It allows Congress the ability to make an informed decision after hearing 2 concise arguments from the pro and con.

[StevenR]

I know. I mean, who could possibly foresee that a lobbyist would wine and dine a congresscritter and give them a huge "campagin contribution", write the legistlation for Congress, because it is so technical and whatnot, and then be surprised when that industry benefits significantly from the legislation.

[Diadem]

Another reason lobbying can be very important and "written by lobbyists" bills is research.

What is it about being lied two twice that makes you able to make an informed decision? And even if one side is being honest, you still need to do that research yourself to find out which side is.

If you want an amendment limiting the size of bills, write that amendment; your proposed one will only slow down the government and cause emergency bills to be improperly detailed.

A hard cap on the size of bills would be stupid. Either it would be very law, restricting some kinds of bills that are necessarily long. Or it would be very high, still allowing 99% of all laws to contain a lot of pork and obfuscation.

I do want to limit the size of laws though. Not just laws, all regulations. Governments have become way too complicated and bureaucratic for my taste. I want a society where normal citizens are able to understand the law. Are able to understand how government works. Or if that is too much to ask for, at least one where representatives are!

Maybe my amendment is not the best way to go about that. There's some good criticism against it here in this thread. I'm open for suggestions on how to improve it.

[Zamfir]

I do want to limit the size of laws though. Not just laws, all regulations. Governments have become way too complicated and bureaucratic for my taste. I want a society where normal citizens are able to understand the law. Are able to understand how government works. Or if that is too much to ask for, at least one where representatives are!

I understand the feeling, but i suspect it requires a power to shape government that we just don't shave. To a large extent, government is an attempt to nudge and channel social power. Like canals move water, but don't create it out of thin air or can make it disappear if there's too muc

Making laws and regulation simpler doesn't necessarily make their effect easier to understand. Or their place gets taken by unwritten rules, making it even harder for outsider to get a grip.

[Griffin]

My 28th
Control one's own mind and body, being necessary to the existence of a free people, the right of the people to keep and consume chemicals shall not be infringed, and prohibitions on production of chemicals intended for personal use shall have no legal standing.


Could probably use some tweaking.

[Elvish Pillager]

You're a pharmaceutical industry shill trying to exploit people's desire for recreational drug legalization to deregulate industry?

[Griffin]

What makes you think the drug industry wouldn't be regulated?

[Diadem]

My 28th
Control one's own mind and body, being necessary to the existence of a free people, the right of the people to keep and consume chemicals shall not be infringed, and prohibitions on production of chemicals intended for personal use shall have no legal standing.

Could probably use some tweaking.

Considering some chemicals can kill an entire suburb in a matter of minutes, even in relatively small quantities, I'd say yes, that can use some tweaking. A state should obviously be able to ban the average person from fucking with chemicals that are dangerous to others, not just himself. Hell those things are banned by international treaty, the US couldn't even put that in their constitution!

[Griffin]

You know, we've got the same wording for guns pretty much, but they don't let people sell atom bombs either. Writing one of these always involves a lot of looking at how precedent means it will be interpreted.

(Plus the constitution supersedes treaties)

But yeah, you have to keep context in mind.

People can't buy armed tanks or yell fire in a crowded theater, after all.

[Diadem]

You know, we've got the same wording for guns pretty much, but they don't let people sell atom bombs either. Writing one of these always involves a lot of looking at how precedent means it will be interpreted.

True. But an atom bomb is not a gun. And even if it was, that law was written over 200 years ago, with guns of those days in mind. You can reasonably argue that the founders couldn't foresee modern weapons, and did not intend those to be legal.

You can't argue that if you write such a law now.

(Plus the constitution supersedes treaties)

They are on equal footing, actually. But my 'could' was not meant as an absolute but a relative one. I suppose you could amend to constitution to invalidate a treaty (you are pretty much free to do whatever when you are changing the rules about how the rules work), but not without serious repercussions.

[Griffin]

Can you think up a rewrite that would get the obvious intent across, at least?

[Qaanol]

Well all of those are examples of constitutional rights (4th amendment, 1st amendment, 2nd amendment) that can be taken away with a contract, right? It's extremely normal to sign away rights with contracts. Banning that is not a good idea. The proposal doesn't ban it outright, but makes such contracts unenforceable, which amounts to the same thing.

that's not my reading of it at all.

Just that a law cannot *require* you to sign away a constitutional right in a contract with a third party.

person A and B can still put such a thing in a contract and sign it and it can still be enforced but lawmakers couldn't require that any contracts between A and B include some clause which would constrain either A or B in a manner which the lawmakers couldn't legally constrain A or B with a new law.

So if the lawmakers couldn't legally push through a law to ban you from saying "fuck" on the internet they also couldn't write a law requiring that all ISP's include in their contracts a clause requiring that you never say "fuck" on the internet.

The ISP can still include such clauses but lawmakers just can't make them.

That’s how I intended it.

My 28th
Control one's own mind and body, being necessary to the existence of a free people, the right of the people to keep and consume chemicals shall not be infringed, and prohibitions on production of chemicals intended for personal use shall have no legal standing.

Could probably use some tweaking.

Considering some chemicals can kill an entire suburb in a matter of minutes, even in relatively small quantities, I'd say yes, that can use some tweaking. A state should obviously be able to ban the average person from fucking with chemicals that are dangerous to others, not just himself. Hell those things are banned by international treaty, the US couldn't even put that in their constitution!

Can you think up a rewrite that would get the obvious intent across, at least?

Well, I do agree that a right to bodily autonomy is inherent and fundamental, and deserves explicit mention, but for the specific case you mention it looks like the very first post in this thread should suffice:

No act shall be forbidden by law unless it will result in unreasonable harm or restriction of rights to another person. Nor shall any person be convicted for any act unless the same or unreasonable risk of the same can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I've always been almost surprised that what i've written (or some other version, better worded) wasn't in the bill of rights. The whole "Don't fuck with anyone and the government won't fuck with you" thing is sort of the whole idea behind the US constitution. That they would say pretty much everything but that seems...odd to me. So we should write it in, and put a stop to all the insanity we're coming out with now.

[Ixtellor]

hat is it about being lied two twice that makes you able to make an informed decision? And even if one side is being honest, you still need to do that research yourself to find out which side is.

I am going to assume you have never worked in congress or been part of the legislative process.

Lobbyists that lie to congressmen don't get invited back.

The hardest part of the Planned Parenthood lobbying arm is that they DON'T lie.

When a congressmen says "how many abortions were performed last year/decade".
Or "what is the % chance that an African-American pregnancy results in an abortion" they have to tell the Truth to keep credibility and a respectful working relationship with the Congressmen whose support they need. R or D.

If Planned Parenthood were to lie, they would never be giving face time again.

[Diadem]

There are many ways of lying that do no involve telling falsehoods.

[gmalivuk]

I would make three changes:

1) All laws sunset after ten years. If it was a good law, it will be easily passed through the legistative system again. If it wasn't a good law, it probably won't.

2) 4/5 of both houses are required to pass anything. This means no more laws strictly on party lines.
2a) A simple majority of both is required to repeal a law and is not subject to the president's signature.
2b) Congress sits for only 90 days each year. Period.

3) Members of Congress must follow all the laws they pass. No more excluding Congress from insider trading laws, Social Security, Medicaid, and the like.
3a) All members of Congress are subject to recall elections and/or direct recall by their state governor. No more laws for the party that screw over their home state.
3b) No more pensions. Once you leave Capitol Hill or the White House or the SCOTUS, the tit is dry.
3c) Congress can no longer allow the agencies to set regulations. Congress has to actually take responsibility instead of just letting the alphabet agencies do whatever they want.

1) Do you have any idea how many laws are already on the books? This would reduce Congress to debating old laws (and trying to add pork to them) the entire time they're in session.

2) This will effectively deadlock both houses. It's not quite as ridiculous as requiring unanimity, but it's still pretty ridiculous.

3a) State governors should not be able to recall US congresspeople, especially when you consider how often a state votes for governors and congresspeople from different parties.

[Ixtellor]

28th Amendment - Congressional Term limits. 5 terms in the House and 2 in the Senate.


The obvious downside is that it could result in our Government really being run by technocrats due to congressmen's inability to learn the ropes of how to legislate before their time expires, but I think a decade would be sufficient to leave ultimate power in their hands and not the bureaucracies.

Also, clearly it would need legalise wording as I did the laymans version.