Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2014, 12:56:02 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Gustaf, MasterJedi)
| | |-+  Civil Liberties Amendment (for the public)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: Civil Liberties Amendment (for the public)  (Read 2429 times)
JohnFKennedy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7514


View Profile
« on: August 30, 2004, 07:42:23 pm »
Ignore

At the request of a forumite I have made a copy of this for public debate here.

I know as President I can no longer propose legislation but I would like for the Senate to hear this Civil Liberties Amendment, Niles and I spoke of a proposed amendment and drafted one.

The Civil Liberties Amendment
Amendment III shall hereby be revised to state:


Clause 1:  No agency of government shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Clause 2: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Clause 3: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Clause 4: Private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Clause 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.

Clause 6: No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.

Clause 7: No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

Clause 8: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the region wherein the crime shall have been committed, which region shall have been previously ascertained by law.  If a trial does not occur within one month of the accusation due to lack of evidence or otherwise, the trial will be thrown out of court and the accused will be declared innocent of the crime.

Clause 9:  The accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Clause 10:  Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Clause 11:  In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Clause 12:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Clause 13:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Clause 14:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Logged
Patunia
Full Member
***
Posts: 202


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2004, 07:56:34 pm »
Ignore

I support this amendment and the spirit it represents. Although clause 8 could be removed altogether, or at least remove the time limit line and let congress mandate statutory limits through legislation. And amend clause 14 to read regions instead of states.
Logged

"A desire for centralized government is a desire for tyranny." That pain in the ass agitator Patunia.

My political compass
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.26
badnarikin04
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 892


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2004, 09:10:12 pm »
Ignore

Sounds good to me.
Logged

www.badnarik.org
www.lp.org


Economic Left/Right: 2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.72
Niles Caulder
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 641


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2004, 10:21:49 pm »
Ignore

I support this amendment and the spirit it represents. Although clause 8 could be removed altogether, or at least remove the time limit line and let congress mandate statutory limits through legislation. And amend clause 14 to read regions instead of states.

Good points, both.  Missed that "states" reference--thought I caught 'em all.

JFK gives me too much credit...this draft is obviously the work of shameless plagerists--but has the virtue of being perhaps better organized.

At any rate, I think that's all the "Caulder Consultancy" projects to hit that I got started before my GMing days...so y'all don't think I Still have TOO much time on my hands!
Logged

The chance to use your voice cost countless lives.  Choose your words carefully; they're weapons of war.
frenger
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11698
Portugal


Political Matrix
E: 8.65, S: -4.17

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2004, 03:27:42 am »
Ignore

The ACLU supports the ammendment. And urges senators to take it to the senate floor for discussion. also we urge all senators to vote "aye" to it.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2004, 03:30:55 am by Bono »Logged

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken



NO, I don't want to go back to Fantasy Elections.
frenger
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11698
Portugal


Political Matrix
E: 8.65, S: -4.17

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2004, 03:29:03 am »
Ignore

Now my personal observations. I think one month is too much of a short deadline.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2004, 03:31:34 am by Bono »Logged

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken



NO, I don't want to go back to Fantasy Elections.
Akno21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9138
View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2004, 06:02:02 am »
Ignore

I think we should clarify clause 12.
Logged

frenger
Bono
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11698
Portugal


Political Matrix
E: 8.65, S: -4.17

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2004, 08:07:39 am »
Ignore

What kind of clarification might: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged" needs?
Logged

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencken



NO, I don't want to go back to Fantasy Elections.
Patunia
Full Member
***
Posts: 202


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2004, 08:34:35 am »
Ignore

I would like to point out this blatant attempt by a senator to deny the regions to govern themselves:
Clause 14 needs to be expanded more.
Our justice system consists only of the Supreme Court. Our regions (not states - we don't have these as government entities) don't have judicial powers.
This text is more relevant to America than to the Atlas.
Under the current Atlatian Constitution the 4th amendment DOES give judicial powers to the regions. The flawed reasoning here is that because no region has deviced thier own court system as yet that no region has the right to. All cluase 14 does is clarify a regions right to "govern themselves."
 
Our "federal" justice system consists only of the Supreme Court. This does not preclude a regional court system.
Logged

"A desire for centralized government is a desire for tyranny." That pain in the ass agitator Patunia.

My political compass
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.26
migrendel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1681
Italy


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2004, 09:21:16 am »
Ignore

This has worked for many years in America, and I do not see why it shan't work here. I'd question the necessity of clause 14, though. It could get out of hand without a complementary necessary and proper clause.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Left/Right: -10.00

Registered in Massachusetts as a Democrat for Fantasy Elections, though now living in Rome.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26714
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2004, 09:26:09 am »
Ignore

Two comments:
1) As already noted by others, emend all mention of states to regions.
2) Back when the US Bill of Rights was passed $20 was worth a lot more than it is today.  Thus, ncreasing the figure in clause 11 would be worthwhile.  20 silver dollars woud be worth about $100 today and 20 gold dollars would be worth about $500.
Logged

Daily Reflections on the Revised Common Lectionary

Bible thumping kept to a minimum unless you go to sleep!
The below comic stars me!
Patunia
Full Member
***
Posts: 202


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2004, 09:27:24 am »
Ignore

This has worked for many years in America, and I do not see why it shan't work here. I'd question the necessity of clause 14, though. It could get out of hand without a complementary necessary and proper clause.
You consider the ability of the regions to govern themselves as something to "get out of hand?" What exactly does that mean? I can not imagine any "complementary necessary and proper clause" that would be needed to clarify the point any more finely. A desire for centralized government is a desire for tyranny.
Logged

"A desire for centralized government is a desire for tyranny." That pain in the ass agitator Patunia.

My political compass
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.26
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26714
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 31, 2004, 09:29:00 am »
Ignore

I'd question the necessity of clause 14, though. It could get out of hand without a complementary necessary and proper clause.
Some would argue that the necessary and proper clause is what has gotten out of hand. Smiley
Logged

Daily Reflections on the Revised Common Lectionary

Bible thumping kept to a minimum unless you go to sleep!
The below comic stars me!
Patunia
Full Member
***
Posts: 202


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2004, 09:31:23 am »
Ignore

I'd question the necessity of clause 14, though. It could get out of hand without a complementary necessary and proper clause.
Some would argue that the necessary and proper clause is what has gotten out of hand. Smiley
Without a doubt. It is the equal protection clause in the US Constitution that has taken minority rights and turned them into minority rule.
Logged

"A desire for centralized government is a desire for tyranny." That pain in the ass agitator Patunia.

My political compass
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.26
migrendel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1681
Italy


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2004, 09:39:20 am »
Ignore

Judges are not opinion pollsters, and I might remind you that the majorities of our society lack the training and erudition to decide most legal questions. The Necessary and Proper doctrine has overriden the Tenth Amendment since the decision of McCulloch v. Maryland (1818). Chief Justice Marshall wrote that to list all of the government's powers in the Constitution "would partake of a prolixity of a legal code and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind." I think that question is pretty much settled.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Left/Right: -10.00

Registered in Massachusetts as a Democrat for Fantasy Elections, though now living in Rome.
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26714
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 31, 2004, 09:40:09 am »
Ignore

I'm of the view that had the neccessary and proper clause been interepreted more narrowly, it would have only served as a speed bump.  The US government today would be much the same except that we'd have some more amendments in the constitution similar to the 16th in nature.  However, let's not forget that the purpose of a speed bump is to slow things down for safety's sake.
Logged

Daily Reflections on the Revised Common Lectionary

Bible thumping kept to a minimum unless you go to sleep!
The below comic stars me!
Patunia
Full Member
***
Posts: 202


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 31, 2004, 09:51:31 am »
Ignore

Judges are not opinion pollsters, and I might remind you that the majorities of our society lack the training and erudition to decide most legal questions. The Necessary and Proper doctrine has overriden the Tenth Amendment since the decision of McCulloch v. Maryland (1818). Chief Justice Marshall wrote that to list all of the government's powers in the Constitution "would partake of a prolixity of a legal code and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind." I think that question is pretty much settled.
First off, this ruling was in 1819. And second, its core philosophy had nothing to do with a states right to govern themselves. The argument in this case centered around whether the states had the ultimate authority over federal government, or whether federal government had the ultimate authority over its own business. Try again my friend.

And get your dates right next time.
Logged

"A desire for centralized government is a desire for tyranny." That pain in the ass agitator Patunia.

My political compass
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.26
migrendel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1681
Italy


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 31, 2004, 10:12:47 am »
Ignore

The issue presented was one of government's authority in a matter not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. You can deny its applicability because of whatever agenda it is your mission to push, but in reality, that does not change the central nature of McCulloch in this matter. Sorry about the date, but your sarcasm is nevertheless unwarranted.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Left/Right: -10.00

Registered in Massachusetts as a Democrat for Fantasy Elections, though now living in Rome.
Patunia
Full Member
***
Posts: 202


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: August 31, 2004, 10:25:04 am »
Ignore

The issue presented was one of government's authority in a matter not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. You can deny its applicability because of whatever agenda it is your mission to push, but in reality, that does not change the central nature of McCulloch in this matter. Sorry about the date, but your sarcasm is nevertheless unwarranted.
It only applies if we decided that this republic lives in a vacuum. But this government (and I suspect the courts as well) draw heavily from the precedents outlined in US history. As such, no resonable person will have such a braod interpritation of clauss 14. I do not deny, and would be surprised if the courts denied, the rights of the federal government to take care of federal matters.

Maryland argued rightly that the language of the 10th amendment grants the states all powers not enumerated in the constitution. But they over looked the fact that national interests are covered in other parts of that document through the power of congress.

Also, you seem to argue against yourself. To say that we need another clause to solidify the positions of the regions and the federal government. While at the same time arguing that the matter has already been interpreted by the US courts. And to imagine that this great republic would interpret it any differently, considering how closely we mirror the US system, is preposterous.
Logged

"A desire for centralized government is a desire for tyranny." That pain in the ass agitator Patunia.

My political compass
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.26
migrendel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1681
Italy


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 31, 2004, 10:31:02 am »
Ignore

I said that we need to outline a broader interpretation of the federal government's powers so that the states don't hinder necessary national action in a greedy steeplechase to assert their "rights". I also believe that since we have a Constitution wholly separate from the federal one, with aspects of it incorporated selectively, we really needn't take all these things for granted.
Logged

Economic Left/Right: -10.00
Social Left/Right: -10.00

Registered in Massachusetts as a Democrat for Fantasy Elections, though now living in Rome.
Patunia
Full Member
***
Posts: 202


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 31, 2004, 10:39:19 am »
Ignore

I said that we need to outline a broader interpretation of the federal government's powers so that the states don't hinder necessary national action in a greedy steeplechase to assert their "rights". I also believe that since we have a Constitution wholly separate from the federal one, with aspects of it incorporated selectively, we really needn't take all these things for granted.
I would not be interested in a clauss to broaden federal rights. A greedy steeplchase is just fine to me. Here I agree whole heartedly with Ernest. If a rare instance should arise in which, we as a nation, feel federal authority should reign supreme on a specific issue, then we have the ability to amend our constitution to reflect that desire. We are building a framework here. We cant build the house first and the frame later.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2004, 10:50:26 am by Patunia »Logged

"A desire for centralized government is a desire for tyranny." That pain in the ass agitator Patunia.

My political compass
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.26
Niles Caulder
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 641


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: August 31, 2004, 10:45:33 am »
Ignore

The issue presented was one of government's authority in a matter not specifically enumerated by the Constitution. You can deny its applicability because of whatever agenda it is your mission to push, but in reality, that does not change the central nature of McCulloch in this matter. Sorry about the date, but your sarcasm is nevertheless unwarranted.
It only applies if we decided that this republic lives in a vacuum. But this government (and I suspect the courts as well) draw heavily from the precedents outlined in US history. As such, no resonable person will have such a braod interpritation of clauss 14. I do not deny, and would be surprised if the courts denied, the rights of the federal government to take care of federal matters.

Maryland argued rightly that the language of the 10th amendment grants the states all powers not enumerated in the constitution. But they over looked the fact that national interests are covered in other parts of that document through the power of congress.

Also, you seem to argue against yourself. To say that we need another clause to solidify the positions of the regions and the federal government. While at the same time arguing that the matter has already been interpreted by the US courts. And to imagine that this great republic would interpret it any differently, considering how closely we mirror the US system, is preposterous.

It's not preposterous at all...as this democracy is much more volitile than the one of reality!  This is the Fantasy Forum, and the fun would be in seeing what this or future batches of Supreme Court Justices would do with this issue.  Would they replicate the U.S. interpretation?  Would a stretch of Republican electoral victories cause a reversal?

I'd just like to see the fun of partaking in the fantasy of doing so rather than conducting a debate here about real constitutional law that belongs on the reality boards.  Let's pass this sucker, and refer to Clause 14 instead of Amendment X.  Let's refer to the Historic nailbiting decision of The Federalist League versus the U.A.F. instead of McChullock.  See my point?

This Amendment loses no real ground for anyone on any side of the issues.  It's just (hopefully) an agreeable gameboard for the community to start from.  The precedents of the American historical responses are plausible tactics to repeat.  Variations off that path are just as inviting.  This stuff is a good resource for issues to apply to the Fantasy Elections, and have it mean something more than "Hoorah for Liberals/Conservatives/Whatever!"
Logged

The chance to use your voice cost countless lives.  Choose your words carefully; they're weapons of war.
Niles Caulder
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 641


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 31, 2004, 10:47:56 am »
Ignore

LOL I see in the previous three posts a convergence that makes my comments superfluous.

But since I'm in love with the sound of my own voice, I'll leave it up.
Logged

The chance to use your voice cost countless lives.  Choose your words carefully; they're weapons of war.
Patunia
Full Member
***
Posts: 202


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: August 31, 2004, 10:51:20 am »
Ignore

LOL I see in the previous three posts a convergence that makes my comments superfluous.

But since I'm in love with the sound of my own voice, I'll leave it up.
Hoorah for Caulders voice Tongue
Logged

"A desire for centralized government is a desire for tyranny." That pain in the ass agitator Patunia.

My political compass
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.26
ilikeverin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15244
Timor-Leste


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: August 31, 2004, 11:49:19 am »
Ignore

Regionsal judges: Too many positions, too much government, too much confusion, too little fun.
Logged

Chief Judicial Officer of the Most Serene Republic of the Midwest, registered in the State of Joy, in Atlasia
Recognized National Treasure of Atlasia
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines