Civil Liberties Amendment (for the public)

[Patunia]

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.

[Patunia]

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.

[Patunia]

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.

[Patunia]

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.

Without a doubt. It is the equal protection clause in the US Constitution that has taken minority rights and turned them into minority rule.

[Patunia]

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.

[Patunia]

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.

[Patunia]

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.

[Patunia]

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

[Patunia]

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

Too little fun to put more power into the hands of the people? An assbackwards sentiment if Ive ever heard one.

I wont belabor the point that limitations are necessary due to our size. But at the same time I think that all of these things can be accomidated. It doesnt take that many people to form a regional legislator(3 or 5 I would say.) And each region can live with one regional judge. Your line of reasoning would suggest that we elect an emperor to serve for life and his word would be absolute. How can not this possibly detract from the formation of a more dynamic, particapatory and FUN republic?

I think to many people are just to happy to be ruled over by a monomaniacal congress.

[Patunia]

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

Too little fun to put more power into the hands of the people? An assbackwards sentiment if Ive ever heard one.

Uhhh... how is that more power to the people?  We get the same power through the Supreme Court.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would be stupid.  Why do we need a regional legislature?

You just don't seem to understand the only purpose of regions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I ask again: WHY?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That would not be fun

And I don't go for the slippery slope argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because instead of leading to more fun elections... fun debates... fun bills... it'll just lead to more beaurocracy.  If we have a court case here, we don't want to get it stuck in red tape... we want to get it done and get on with life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Other than the monomaniacal part, sure, we are.  And we should just leave it that way

None of your points address my original complaint.

We do not get the same power through the Supreme Court. Wasnt it my complaint against the congrees that the court refused to hear that proves this point? The only redress to that issue is through regional governance.

Why do we need a regional legislature? Why, to govern ourselves on a regional level of course.The 4th amendment created a greater reason for the regions.

Why do we need regional judges? Why to enforce and interprut a regions own laws of course.

And a bill passed by a congress that does not truly represent me is some how fun?