HB 2016-1037 - Amendment to Art. 1 Sec. 5 of The Constitution (WITHDRAWN)

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: 1184AZ

I open this up for a 48-hour debate.

[Kingpoleon]

First of all, all it should add is "security". Otherwise it reads:

"No person shall be deprived of... security of the person... without due process of law."

I have to say I'd oppose this. This would allow the government to put security at equal footing with liberty and in some cases ahead of it. The surrender of liberty for security is the first step in the transition to an authoritarian and borderline dictatorial government. I do not intend to support this, and any necessary laws this gives constitutional grounds for are the law already, and implied enough by liberty and life.
You may convince others by replacing it with "likely security," meaning most of the time.

[Enduro]

First of all, all it should add is "security". Otherwise it reads:

"No person shall be deprived of... security of the person... without due process of law."

I have to say I'd oppose this. This would allow the government to put security at equal footing with liberty and in some cases ahead of it. The surrender of liberty for security is the first step in the transition to an authoritarian and borderline dictatorial government. I do not intend to support this, and any necessary laws this gives constitutional grounds for are the law already, and implied enough by liberty and life.
You may convince others by replacing it with "likely security," meaning most of the time.

Kingpoleon has a point. Vote nay, please.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

This amendment will ensure individuals have a constitutional right to privacy of their body and health. This amendment also protects against significant government-inflicted harm to a persons mental state. This amendment can also be applied to economic rights, as it protects against the government denying an individual to make an income by: taking away welfare, seizing property necessary to complete a persons job.

[Enduro]

This amendment will ensure individuals have a constitutional right to privacy of their body and health. This amendment also protects against significant government-inflicted harm to a persons mental state. This amendment can also be applied to economic rights, as it protects against the government denying an individual to make an income by: taking away welfare, seizing property necessary to complete a persons job.

Property is already covered.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

If the sponsor is looking to constitutionally guarantee a right to privacy, I would suggest the Northern Bill of Rights as a model:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

This amendment guarantees protection for abortions, this has been freely admitted by the writer of this amendment. 

[Pragmatic Conservative]

This amendment guarantees protection for abortions, this has been freely admitted by the writer of this amendment.  

The goal is to protect against government inflected stress, and economic security. Legalized abortion is one of the consequences that this bill fortunately or unfortunately includes in it. This bill has elements that most Atlasians will find at least appealing.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: 1184AZ

I open this up for a 48-hour debate.

I propose this amendment

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: 1184AZ

I open this up for a 48-hour debate.

I propose this amendment

Now this blocks all abortions, by now classifying a life begins at conception (which it of course doesn't). I am very confused on the rationale for this amendment.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: 1184AZ

I open this up for a 48-hour debate.

I propose this amendment

Now this blocks all abortions, by now classifying a life begins at conception (which it of course doesn't). I am very confused on the rationale for this amendment.

This amendment actually accomplishes a lot. This amendment not only protects against government inflicted stress and harm to the health of Atlasians. Economic Security is also protected by this amendment, along with ensuring all Atlasians have a protected right to life from conception. This is an amendment I hope all Atlasians can get behind.

[Enduro]

I can get behind the "from conception" part, but we need to at least rewrite "security of the person" to something less redundant.

[Clark Kent]

I can get behind the "from conception" part, but we need to at least rewrite "security of the person" to something less redundant.

I agree.

This is also far too vague, and Rep. AZ's argument that it would prevent the government from taking away income could also be twisted to allow people to remain on welfare indefinitely, or to abolish taxes entirely.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

In what way would you want the second part of this amendment to be amended, or do you want Security of the person amended right out.  

[Enduro]

In what way would you want the second part of this amendment to be amended, or do you want Security of the person amended right out.  

I'd prefer it to be amended out. I don't see the purpose of amending this part of the constitution.

[NeverAgain]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: 1184AZ

I open this up for a 48-hour debate.

I propose this amendment

Now this blocks all abortions, by now classifying a life begins at conception (which it of course doesn't). I am very confused on the rationale for this amendment.

This amendment actually accomplishes a lot. This amendment not only protects against government inflicted stress and harm to the health of Atlasians. Economic Security is also protected by this amendment, along with ensuring all Atlasians have a protected right to life from conception. This is an amendment I hope all Atlasians can get behind.

By adding "conception" that blocks the ability of choice for women. I am a strong supporter of a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body. I think a better amendment would be securing economic security for elders, or securing something similar to the FDR Second Bill of Rights.

This takes away rights, not adding them. Again, I cannot support this.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: 1184AZ

I open this up for a 48-hour debate.

I propose this amendment

I offer this one final ammendment.
As the security of the person ammendment has gained little support I will  amend it out entirely, however the first part of this ammendment still makes a lot of positive accomplishments.

 

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

This is a radical amendment and while I understand the perspectives of both sides on the abortion issue, I urge this body to vote it down.

[LLR]

Amazing how much two words can change the entire content of the bill. This is disgusting, AZ, nad I really really hope it doesn't pass.

[Blair]

Whilst I'll being commenting on the entire situation I'm strongly opposed to this amendment, and will be fighting it with every tool possible

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

So after that "final amendment," the proposal as it stands doesn't actually do anything besides ban all abortions (all abortions - without exception and no matter how early in the pregnancy).  Now it doesn't protect anyone's privacy, it doesn't "protect against government-inflicted harm to a person's mental state" (whatever the hell that means), and it doesn't do anything for economic security.  My guess is the sponsor must have had a drastic shift in priorities over the last two days, as evidenced by his recent party switch.  Or, perhaps this extreme move was intended from the start.  Regardless of the circumstances, I hope that our Representatives will do the right thing and kill this amendment.

[Enduro]

Let's get something straight. This amendment isn't radical, or disgusting. Just because you disagree with it, doesn't make it those things. It it a bad idea, I'm in favor of banning abortions, but not in one fell swoop like this amendment proposed. People will have abortions illegally, and the best way to save children from this fate is to convince mothers to keep them, not force them to keep them.

On to this:

So after that "final amendment," the proposal as it stands doesn't actually do anything besides ban all abortions (all abortions - without exception and no matter how early in the pregnancy).  Now it doesn't protect anyone's privacy, it doesn't "protect against government-inflicted harm to a person's mental state" (whatever the hell that means), and it doesn't do anything for economic security.  My guess is the sponsor must have had a drastic shift in priorities over the last two days, as evidenced by his recent party switch.  Or, perhaps this extreme move was intended from the start.  Regardless of the circumstances, I hope that our Representatives will do the right thing and kill this amendment.

Privacy is what this amendent should be for. Let's get privacy in there. It already does those things. "Property" includes money you own, and "liberty" protects your right to earn said money.

[Senator Cris]

I strongly encourage the House to reject the amendment proposed by 1184AZ.

The Senate worked on a compromise act, the National Right to Life to Act. This act passed the Senate and, from what I understod, has to pass from the House for the final approval (I don't see a new thread for it, so I guess it will happen in the next days).

Let's first debate on and vote the bill that adress the issue.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

I am adamantly pro-life but would agree that a constitutional amendment is not the right vehicle to carry right to life beliefs into law code.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

I would like to first thank everyone for their feedback on this ammendment.

Sometimes legislation with good intentions gets introduced that either goes too far or is not introduced in a transparent manner. This legislation admittedly violates both of those provisions, and for that I apologize.   I will now formally withdraw this ammendment from the house.