If you could add an Amendment to the Bill of Rights
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Actually, Bowser, it's an interesting question. For myself, the Constitution doesn't need any amending right now. That is, I can't figure what amendment I would add that isn't completely extraneous.
In my state, we have a right to privacy, and I'm hard-pressed to find a right I could dare claim without truly screwing up the social order.
Perhaps reiterate a form of the social contract in the state constitution, but that would be extraneous on the one hand, and confusing to the other.
In my state, we have a right to privacy, and I'm hard-pressed to find a right I could dare claim without truly screwing up the social order.
Perhaps reiterate a form of the social contract in the state constitution, but that would be extraneous on the one hand, and confusing to the other.
Healthy food, suitable shelter, health and wellness care and full education (including post-doc) at industry standard levels will be afforded to all citizens free of cost.
Obvioulsy it would need to be quite a bit more complex than just adding that line (SOMEONE has got to pay for it, for one) but I think that goal should be strived for at almost any cost.
It should be the primary objective for the government funds and systems.
All else should take a back seat.
Obvioulsy it would need to be quite a bit more complex than just adding that line (SOMEONE has got to pay for it, for one) but I think that goal should be strived for at almost any cost.
It should be the primary objective for the government funds and systems.
All else should take a back seat.
Bowser said:
Change a few laws? Change many, in the end.
But the Constitution itself? I'm of the opinion that the Constitution should not be tinkered with unless absolutely necessary.
Take the Fourteenth Amendment, for instance. The Equal Protection Clause of section 1 merely reiterates something implicit in the original Bill of Rights.
The United States Constitution was adopted by a convention of the states on September 17, 1787. Ratification satisfactory for enactment occurred on June 21, 1788. The government it powered was enacted on March 4, 1789. (1)
The First Congress of the United States, on September 25, 1789, presented 12 amendments to the Constitution for consideration by the states. Ten of those twelve Amendments were ratified. (2)
The next attempt to amend the Constitution came five years later, in March, 1794, and then again almost ten years after that. While the Twelfth Amendment (passed Dec., 1803, ratified June, 1804) is part of an interesting progression of re-evaluation (Article II, Section 1; Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment), that part of the discussion--necessary social evolution--can come at a different time. More important, it would be over sixty years before Congress touched the Constitution again. (3)
• Amendment XIII: passed Jan., 1865; ratified Dec., 1865
• Amendment XIV: passed June, 1866; ratified July, 1868
• Amendment XV: passed Feb., 1869; ratified Feb., 1870
• Amendment XIV: passed June, 1866; ratified July, 1868
• Amendment XV: passed Feb., 1869; ratified Feb., 1870
The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery officially; the Fourteenth came in response to "black codes" passed in the wake of slavery; the Fifteenth picked up what the Fourteenth left out for philosophical reasons. Three amendments in the wake of slavery and a Civil War, packed close together. The Constitution would not be amended again until July, 1909, and ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment (taxes) took four years (Feb., 1913).
To modern sensibilities, the issues of racial discrimination these amendments (XIII - XV) covered seem almost no-brainers, but it is because of them that we look so broadly upon society that one can complain that Equal Protection is violated unless moral and legal superiority is given a certain class. In modern political debate in the United States, for instance, the idea that a religious group is denied Equal Protection unless somebody else is deprived of Equal Protection is an argument given altogether too much credibility by voters.
The "most important" Amendments, the ones that people fight ferociously about--e.g. First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Fourteenth, &c.--are inclusive, attempting to include as many people as possible within the range of equality and justice.
What is gone? The Three-Fifths rule, slavery. What has arrived? Take the Nineteenth Amendment (passed June, 1919; ratified Aug., 1920), for example. One would think that the Fourteenth Amendment should have covered the point, or perhaps even the Fifteenth could have been better-written. But since life is a learning process, we actually had to go out of our way to reiterate what was should already have been quite clear: a woman's right to vote.
Any amendment I would add would most likely do the same thing: merely reiterate what is already clearly obvious, and at some point that just gets ridiculous.
In the meantime, look at exclusionary or condemning amendments. The Eighteenth (Prohibition; adopted Dec., 1917; ratified Jan., 1919): it would last fourteen years before it was repealed by the Twenty-First (passed Feb., 1933; ratified Dec., 1933).
Could anyone write a flag-burning amendment without touching the First? An anti-gender amendment without touching the fourteenth? Should the right to privacy be constitutionally enforced? What would the implications be?
Right now, the most pressing issues I perceive under the Constitution are already within its scope; something much more demanding must first arise. In the meantime, we must go through social fits and convulsions, such as we see in the argument about whether love is subject to legal discrimination on the basis of gender. I don't need to amend the Constitution in order to win my argument. It could be counterproductive to amend the Constitution to tip the scales in favor of my argument.
As to mere laws? I'd probably repeal more than I enacted. So it's hard to say what one, or even few laws I would seek to pass.
Perhaps I would seek to create a state law requiring truth in advertising, but that might muck up contract law more than it's worth. But one thing that seems to piss people off in general is political and commercial deception. Never mind that they continue to endorse the most notoriously-labeled offenders, but I don't think it so much to ask that one quote another correctly when, say, appealing for public office; nor is it too much to ask that a product actually deliver what it's said to.
Or maybe I would target tardiness in institutions; if you can charge someone for being late, you owe them in kind when you drop the ball.
Of course, I'm in a mood about that lately, so perhaps that's rash.
:m:
____________________
Amending the Constitution is serious enough. But the Bill of Rights?
I can't think of a damn thing that's worthy of being enshrined there. I'm with tiassa.
I can't think of a damn thing that's worthy of being enshrined there. I'm with tiassa.
I can think of lots of them. Here are some:
Amendment XXVIII – No person shall be held to pay taxes for or participate in a military action that the United Nations declares to be offensive or unreasonable.
Amendment XXIX –Article IV is hereby amended: a search or seizure shall be called unreasonable if the person is not informed prior to the search or seizure.
Amendment XXX – Article V is hereby amended: The clause “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” shall not be excepted “in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.” No person shall be held to involuntarily receive the death penalty.
Amendment XXXI – Voters shall be able to prioritize their chosen candidates for each office; their choice that is counted is the highest prioritized one who would thereby have a plurality, if any. Voters shall be entitled to a receipt and access to a web site from which their line item votes can be speedily verified or contested prior to the certification of the election.
The Bill of Rights definitely needed amending. Article V is circumventive as long as the US is at war somewhere in the world, which might well be the case for decades to come. People are being held indefinitely without charge for this reason now. When a person could die in prison 50 years after their arrest, been held incommunicado the whole time and not even told why, the Bill of Rights is seriously flawed.
Amendment XXXI breaks the lock that the Democrats and Republicans have on the country. People would be able to vote for an alternate party without giving away their vote to their least favorite major party. Had we had this amendment in 2000 then Gore would likely have won.
Amendment XXVIII – No person shall be held to pay taxes for or participate in a military action that the United Nations declares to be offensive or unreasonable.
Amendment XXIX –Article IV is hereby amended: a search or seizure shall be called unreasonable if the person is not informed prior to the search or seizure.
Amendment XXX – Article V is hereby amended: The clause “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” shall not be excepted “in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.” No person shall be held to involuntarily receive the death penalty.
Amendment XXXI – Voters shall be able to prioritize their chosen candidates for each office; their choice that is counted is the highest prioritized one who would thereby have a plurality, if any. Voters shall be entitled to a receipt and access to a web site from which their line item votes can be speedily verified or contested prior to the certification of the election.
The Bill of Rights definitely needed amending. Article V is circumventive as long as the US is at war somewhere in the world, which might well be the case for decades to come. People are being held indefinitely without charge for this reason now. When a person could die in prison 50 years after their arrest, been held incommunicado the whole time and not even told why, the Bill of Rights is seriously flawed.
Amendment XXXI breaks the lock that the Democrats and Republicans have on the country. People would be able to vote for an alternate party without giving away their vote to their least favorite major party. Had we had this amendment in 2000 then Gore would likely have won.
Last edited:
Hmm if I could put something in the Bill of Rights. . . would that mean I'd change history so that the founding fathers would do it for me, or would I just travel back in time myself and get in good with 'em?
Whatever the case I'd throw in something along the lines of "no fatties" and enforce a national happy hour.
Whatever the case I'd throw in something along the lines of "no fatties" and enforce a national happy hour.
The Constitution won't allow you to cede authority to an alien entity like that.zanket said:
It probably wouldn't matter though. The UN is hardly decisive enough to make such broad declarations.
Agreed it wouldn't fly anytime soon. I think it's inevitable though that we have a strong world government at some point, that the US will answer to. The trend is clear on that. The WTO and the UN are a rough start. It will happen faster when the superpower goes on an imperialistic binge.
Alpha said:
By direct or indirect consequences? This leaves things just a bit open, don't you think? Wording is very important in matters of law, leave your definitions and meaning vague and you're just asking for some unintended abuses.
I think it's an admirable opinion that one shouldn't be held in contempt for actions or in matters which don't have any real effect on other people, those with no steaks or potential damages done by the action, but really the handling of complicated situations where someone has been or will inevitably screwed over is a pretty big part of law, so your suggestion may be inadequately simplistic.
I think it defines a very fine line.
It's worded explicitly, and defines an excellent principle.
It's intentionally simplistic.
Everyone has equal rights (except perhaps if they are a criminal). If you have the right to live, then obviously no one can have the right to kill you, as that would infringe on your right to live. Also, it doesn't just say everyone should be allowed to do what they want, but that everone has the right to do what they want without infringing on people's rights. This protects against people and unjust laws from infringing on your rights by protecting your freedoms. No law should be made that prevents you from doing whatever you want so long as you're not infringing on anyone else's rights. From this principle stems the idea of equality, and the Golden Rule (do unto others...).
zanket said:
Yes, exactly, your wording would leave things a little too vague. There'd be some pretty big discrepancies in what people feel they are entitled too and what's really practical. The concept of ownership rights alone set into this context sort of makes my head spin. . .