HR 19-40: Equal Rights for Everyone Amendment (Failed)

[fhtagn]

Offering an amendment.

SENATE RESOLUTION

To grant equality of rights to all citizens of the Republic

Be it resolved by 2/3 of the House and Senate Assembled,

Equal Rights for Everyone Amendment

Article I of the Atlasian Constitution is amended by adding the following section, and renumbering as needed:

Section 14

1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged to any citizen of Atlasia by the Republic of Atlasia or by any Region on account of sex, race, religion, ethnicity, place of birth, or disability. Congress shall have power to enforce this section by appropriate legislation.

Amendment Explanation

This amendment will formally enshrine into the Atlasian constitution the equality of rights under the law for all citizens of Atlasia

This avoids the need to keep adding things to it or removing things that were unclear as seen in the Senate thread.

[fhtagn]

Amendment is not friendly

Why not? It literally doesn't change what the bill does. It just removes unnecessary wording that can easily be changed by any future Congress.

[fhtagn]

Nay

All it does is making everything more vague so I'd argue it is necessary.

Except it doesn't at all. Equal rights is equal rights. Adding unnecessary qualifiers is what makes it more vague, and we see problems like we saw in the Senate thread where it becomes unclear what should and should not be included when we add them.

[fhtagn]

I'm glad to know that the Labor/Peace reps don't actually believe in Equal Rights.

[fhtagn]

Aye

what about equal rights based on political beliefs. Is that discrimination okay, because under this it seems like it would be? All citizens should have equal rights without any qualifiers being attached.

I'm glad to know that the Labor/Peace reps don't actually believe in Equal Rights.

The language proposed by Fhtagn is effectively already in the constitution, in Article I:

"All persons born or naturalized in the Republic of Atlasia, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the Republic of Atlasia and of the Region in which they reside, and shall in all cases be afforded equal protection under the law."

Therefore it seems the Fhtagn amendment would make this legislation redundant, while the sponsor's language expands upon protections by creating explicit protected classes whose rights are protected by strict scrutiny.

If we already have equal protection under the current constitution, there's no point in having an equal rights amendment.

[fhtagn]

Aye

what about equal rights based on political beliefs. Is that discrimination okay, because under this it seems like it would be? All citizens should have equal rights without any qualifiers being attached.

I'm glad to know that the Labor/Peace reps don't actually believe in Equal Rights.

The language proposed by Fhtagn is effectively already in the constitution, in Article I:

"All persons born or naturalized in the Republic of Atlasia, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the Republic of Atlasia and of the Region in which they reside, and shall in all cases be afforded equal protection under the law."

Therefore it seems the Fhtagn amendment would make this legislation redundant, while the sponsor's language expands upon protections by creating explicit protected classes whose rights are protected by strict scrutiny.

If we already have equal protection under the current constitution, there's no point in having an equal rights amendment.

Without the explicit language we are using here, courts have historically used rational basis review rather than strict scrutiny, providing lesser protections.

Not the case when applied to Atlasia and the current wording in the Atlasian Constitution.

[fhtagn]

Objecting to a final vote motion.

[fhtagn]

Nay

[fhtagn]

bump

[fhtagn]

Nay

[fhtagn]

Nice to see the Federalist Party (minus Yankee) and the ACP do not agree with the equality of rights for the people of Atlasia

If you bothered actually reading the thread, we do.

The Constitution already has an equal protection clause, and I proposed an amendment that actually makes more sense than the wording that was presented to us.

[fhtagn]

Nice to see the Federalist Party (minus Yankee) and the ACP do not agree with the equality of rights for the people of Atlasia

If you bothered actually reading the thread, we do.

The Constitution already has an equal protection clause, and I proposed an amendment that actually makes more sense than the wording that was presented to us.

It is worth noting that during the Senate debate the Chief Justice said that the original wording (which included "any other social or physical characteristic" at the end) was too broad, so that got edited out.

So that amendment either would simply be a repeat of the equal protection clause with a different wording (like Wulfric claimed I think) or it would have the exact problems as the original Senate wording of being too broad.

Mind you I am not opposed to include more explicit protections for more cases (including for example protections for sexual orientation/identity, which I apparenty forgot to include; or political beliefs as TPH said).

We shouldn't we getting into specifics for every possible case in our Constitution. The equal protection clause already covers this issue.

[fhtagn]

Nice to see the Federalist Party (minus Yankee) and the ACP do not agree with the equality of rights for the people of Atlasia

If you bothered actually reading the thread, we do.

The Constitution already has an equal protection clause, and I proposed an amendment that actually makes more sense than the wording that was presented to us.

It is worth noting that during the Senate debate the Chief Justice said that the original wording (which included "any other social or physical characteristic" at the end) was too broad, so that got edited out.

So that amendment either would simply be a repeat of the equal protection clause with a different wording (like Wulfric claimed I think) or it would have the exact problems as the original Senate wording of being too broad.

Mind you I am not opposed to include more explicit protections for more cases (including for example protections for sexual orientation/identity, which I apparenty forgot to include; or political beliefs as TPH said).

The problem is that the more specific you get the more likely you are to leave something out

And the Senate debate thread proves that point.