PA3: The Clarification of the Practise of Rights Amendment [withdrawn]

[Türkisblau]

The Clarification of the Practise of Rights Amendment

Section 17 of Article VI of the Pacific Constitution is stricken from the document.

Note: The Amendment as introduced by the governor states that Section 17 of Article IV is stricken by the document; I assume that he meant Article VI and have changed the amendment accordingly.

[Simfan34]

Can someone tell me Section 17 of Article IV... wait, wait. That should be Article VI, not Article IV. Could someone please introduce an amendment to fix that?

Anyway, Can someone tell me what Section 17 of Article VI of the Regional Constitution means? "The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It essentially says that there are "secret rights" not listed in the constitution that still exist. Now I'm well aware this is copied verbatim from the Federal Constitution but it doesn't make the clause any less nonsensical.

EDIT: Oh, you already fixed that. Thanks!

[Türkisblau]

Yeah I thought that it would be more expedient to just fix that right off the bat.

What I believe what that section is talking about is that there are still certain rights that the people still have despite not being specifically listed, no?

[Simfan34]

Well I suppose so, but what are these rights? Whence do they come? Who decided they were rights? If these "rights" are not enumerated or actually described how can we be sure our laws are not violating these "rights"? How could we legislate or do anything at all in the face of an infinite number of unspecified rights "retained by the people"?

If I am arrested for doing some thing x, and I claim that I in fact have a right to x and argue that Art. VI S. 17 not only allows for the existence of a "right to x" but protects that right, how could that possibly be disproven? How could the claim of a right to anything be disproven?

You see what the problem with this section is, yes?

[Türkisblau]

Well I suppose so, but what are these rights? Whence do they come? Who decided they were rights? If these "rights" are not enumerated or actually described how can we be sure our laws are not violating these "rights"? How could we legislate or do anything at all in the face of an infinite number of unspecified rights "retained by the people"?

If I am arrested for doing some thing x, and I claim that I in fact have a right to x and argue that Art. VI S. 17 not only allows for the existence of a "right to x" but protects that right, how could that possibly be disproven? How could the claim of a right to anything be disproven?

You see what the problem with this section is, yes?

Yes, I understand however this as a whole is a concept in the American Constitution of yore before Atlasia was founded. Article IX of the Constitution states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This goes to the concept of unenumerated, or implied rights. This is an important part of our Regional Constitution, and if it is the Federal Constitution, I do not see the point in striking it from our Regional Constitution.

[Türkisblau]

Voting on this amendment will begin in 12 hours.

[Türkisblau]

Voting on this amendment begins immediately and will last 48 hours.

[Türkisblau]

Nay

[Türkisblau]

I'm going to be extending the voting time until after the new elections - we shouldn't be conducting votes with only 2 councilors.

[Türkisblau]

We will resume voting procedure.

[Intell]

Can someone please explain me this amendment?

[Türkisblau]

Can someone please explain me this amendment?

In essence, the governor is trying to get rid of a part of our regional  consitution that is roughly equivalent to the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution. I, personally, don't see the issue with it.

[Intell]

Don't see the need for this, Useless Amendment

NAY

[Tetro Kornbluth]

nay

Blatant Power grab.

[Simfan34]

Can someone please explain me this amendment?

In essence, the governor is trying to get rid of a part of our regional  consitution that is roughly equivalent to the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution. I, personally, don't see the issue with it.

I think this is a considerable mischaracterisation, to say the least.

[Türkisblau]

Can someone please explain me this amendment?

In essence, the governor is trying to get rid of a part of our regional  consitution that is roughly equivalent to the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution. I, personally, don't see the issue with it.

I think this is a considerable mischaracterisation, to say the least.

We'll be doing 48 hours of debate seeing as the governor desires it.

Can you please characterize it then, for us? I actually take back roughly equivalent. They appear to be have the same wording sans commas.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Simfan34]

Huh? That's in there? I thought that dealt with the states.

Erm, can I withdraw?

[Türkisblau]

Huh? That's in there? I thought that dealt with the states.

Erm, can I withdraw?

Sure. I'll do that.