Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 20, 2020, 12:56:44 am
News: 2020 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  Forum Community
  Election and History Games
  Mock Parliament (Moderators: Hash, Dereich)
  Legislation: Declaration of Rights Amendments, 1789 (Passed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Legislation: Declaration of Rights Amendments, 1789 (Passed)  (Read 564 times)
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,443
Chile
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 09, 2018, 12:14:14 am »
« edited: July 13, 2018, 09:44:00 pm by Lumine »

Declaration of Rights Amendments, 1789

Be it resolved, the following enumerated Amendments to the Constitution of the United States:


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

From the Sponsor:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,443
Chile
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2018, 12:15:16 am »

There will be 72 hours for debate, extendable to 96 at the request of the sponsor and further only by OOC requests by the players (with a credible reason).

As this is an Amendment to the Constitution it will require a simple Assembly majority like normal bills, but a two-thirds majority in the Senate and eventual ratification by the states (which I will simulate).
Logged
GoTfan
GoTfan21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,985
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2018, 12:19:13 am »

Mr Speaker,

We find ourselves in support of the Declaration, but before committing to support of it, we ask what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment as far as this declaration goes. Does it include capital punishment, for example?

We ask only for clarification.
Logged
Priest of Moloch
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,467
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2018, 12:36:59 am »

Mr. Speaker,

I do not consider capital punishment to itself be cruel or unusual, but there are certainly instances where its forms and applications may be. A jury sentencing a murderer to hang would be, in my view, entirely appropriate, but a sentence of death for petty theft would not be. Similarly, if a jury can be shown to have decided on a particular punishment as a result of a person's religious or political beliefs, rather than because of the facts of the case, that would be a case of unusual punishment. Death by hanging, too, is in a different category than death by torture, the latter of which is considered cruel in all decent societies.

I yield.
Logged
Galaxie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 520


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2018, 02:11:15 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

I do ask, if we are willing to codify that no citizen may be put in involuntary servitude if they have committed a crime, then how are we unwilling to codify that no innocent man or woman in this nation should be subject to it either? We are writing a document to protect the people of this nation, something that is codified in the 20th clause. How, then, are we still willing to sit idly by of the chaining and dehumanizing of our fellow man, even if his skin is of a different shade than ours?

We as the first leaders of this great nation and constitution have a duty to create a government that is truly fair and truly an example to all others. It is laughable that we believe to be true fore bearers of liberty when we also dispense the chains.

I yield.
Logged
Not_A_Man
Not_Madigan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,093
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.29, S: -7.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2018, 02:13:11 pm »

Mr, Speaker,

I and my fellow Patriots find ourselves in strong support of these amendments, as they protect Man's natural rights and fulfill The Gentleman from Lynchburg's idea of all men having a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  I believe that the inclusion of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury are necessary in order to protect the rights of citizens in Court, especially with the establishment of Federal courts currently being considered. 

In conclusion, I find myself in strong support of these amendments, and urge my fellow patriots to support these amendments.

I yield.
Logged
Not_A_Man
Not_Madigan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,093
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.29, S: -7.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 09, 2018, 02:25:01 pm »

Mr, Speaker,

The Gentleman from Pennsylvania appears to have a severe misunderstanding of the Amendments, as well as a misunderstanding on another matter.  First, if he would take the time to review the 11th Amendment, it clearly says "No citizen of the United States shall be reduced to a state of involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime." The Gentleman has made a clear error, as this amendment is recognizing that Citizens of this nation will not be subjected to involuntary servitude, and have their rights guaranteed by these amendments.

However, this Amendment would not guarantee the rights of that which is not even a man, let alone a citizen. Mr. Jackson then went on to iterate that slaves are not equal to man at all, and are but property, not worthy of freedom, let alone the rights guaranteed in these amendments. (GM Approved summary)

I find myself quite amused, as the Gentleman from Pennsylvania of the Tories seems to have partaken in substances which would send him to a realm or time in which his insane ramblings of property being equal to man are actually an accepted idea. I suggest he takes time to return to sobriety and this world before speaking on this matter again.

I yield.
Logged
Galaxie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 520


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2018, 02:34:12 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

Truly it is a shame that the Gentleman from Georgia must revert to such childish and outlandish insults of his peers, especially for suggesting ideas as seemingly "radical" as the true ending of involuntary servitude and the liberation of our fellow man.

While it may seem, myself being from the North, that I and my peers come from a different "world," as Mr. Jackson has suggested, it is only because our world, and our politics for that matter, is not sullied by the regressive and dangerous ideology that these so-called "Patriots" espouse.

Truly, if Mr. Jackson is so uncaring for these basic human rights, I truly pray he does not find himself in charge of ours.

I yield. 
Logged
terp40hitch
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,587
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2018, 03:40:38 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

The gentlemen from Augusta will join with the Deputy from Charlottesville in support of this amendment. I have come to speak today to urge my fellow deputies and Patriots to join with me to support this amendment.

This amendment is everything that the enlighted leaders in Europe that wanted when they inspired our American Revolution. We want to make sure that our natural rights our gurteened in our constitution and this is what this proposed amendment by the deputy from Charlottesville will do. This is why I will do whatever I can to get this amendment passed.

I yield
Logged
Priest of Moloch
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,467
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 09, 2018, 05:52:41 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

I am in full support of the proposed amendment and will encourage the members of the Western faction to vote likewise.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,693


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2018, 06:09:56 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

The proposal brought by the gentleman from Charlottesville is made according to the best precepts of human nature, designed to offer the surest protection of human liberty. Many who have otherwise regarded our federal Constitution with fitting admiration have lamented the exclusion of a Declaration of Rights as the gravest of errors, and one which demands immediate rectification. Having reviewed the proposal and found it satisfactory on all counts, I vote that the Declaration of Rights be adopted as presented and so urge my fellow Whigs to follow.

I yield my time to the chair.
Logged
the long way home
hummus_con_pita
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,117
Israel



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2018, 11:35:32 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

I feel it is all but unnecessary to bring into question the usage of the word "citizen", presently in the 11th point presented by the First Secretary. Whereas the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and I believe all states of our fair Republic, in fact, does have two significant populations of non-citizens; presently women and free blacks. Many of them do own property and pay any taxes levied against them, and do they not too deserve protection from such punishment? I fear that excessive specificity on this particular issue, especially in the context of the broadness of the rest of the amendments, only diminishes the strength of our Republic's liberty. We must remember that these rights are self-evident, granted to us by our Creator, not our government. Enumerating these rights on the basis of citizenship is an affront to the very concept; we cannot be so haughty as to believe that we, the government here assembled, are the ones who have granted these rights to the people. I hope we can reach a more fitting solution based on common understanding.

Additionally, I seek more clarity on several of these points.

On the 7th point, is it not an attack on the rights of individual states to regulate commerce within their own borders? I see this as a rather broad expansion of federal powers, or at least a remarkable diminishing of the powers of states.

On the 8th point, I desire more clarification on whether such resources will be regulated by the federal government, or by the individual states, and if it can be provided, I would be inordinarily grateful.

On the 17th point, I desire to understand what had necessitated such conditionality, for I fail to understand why any condition would allow our republic to begin its slide into tyranny.

On the 19th point, I fear that such an amendment may be used as justification by a particularly unfriendly federal government to enforce laws that may put in jeopardy the interests of certain states; for example, on the issue of slavery, perhaps a government more beholden to plantation interests may pass a bill or an amendment affirming the right of some to own others as property, and use the 19th amendment to trample on the rights of states such as Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, which have taken steps to resist the practice, to address the issue, and perhaps even reverse statutes that have been passed in these states or in any other. Or perhaps on the issue of the franchise; states such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey, whose franchise spreads further and wider than those in some other states, may find that some of their residents suddenly become disenfranchised by an Act of the federal government restricting the right to vote to a more restrictive criterion.

I believe it would be imprudent and foolhardy to rush to judgement on these Amendments, and the Radical Faction will not make any decision until our concerns are addressed and hopefully properly rectified.

I yield.
Logged
Priest of Moloch
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12,467
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2018, 11:59:07 pm »
« Edited: July 11, 2018, 07:24:55 pm by sjoyce »

Mr. Speaker,

To respond to some of the concerns raised by my colleague from Pennsylvania: while at the present moment states do have the authority to levy the tariffs and duties they see fit in their ports, this power has little meaning in practice -- foreign ships in particular will seek out the least expensive port and avoid paying those duties. Regulating internal commerce is the duty of the states, but the federal government ought to take some interest in regulating commerce between these United States and foreign nations -- and ought to do so without discriminating between states.

As for trade between states, this proposal would apply only to those states that have endeavored to establish tariffs on interstate trade, and should not be construed to expand the powers of this federal government; rather, it merely establishes that inhabitants of the several states are able to trade freely amongst themselves. While this may be considered as a minor limitation on the powers of states, I prefer to view it as a significant enhancement of liberty -- residents of states such as North Carolina, which lacks major port cities, will not be subject to punitive tariffs as a result of the unfortunate whims of geography.

On the eighth point, the purpose is to ensure that the lands are to remain open to all, rather than under the ownership of a particular individual or corporation, along similar lines to those established by the English Magna Carta. There is no particular regulatory role envisioned, save possibly suits brought against individuals attempting to unjustly enclose some part of the land. I suppose you could consider the land to be under federal regulation, as such enforcement of the provision would be through the system of federal courts, but it ought not to reflect active regulation or ownership by the federal government.

On the seventeenth point, I do not foresee the writ being suspended save in the most urgent occasions, in cases where the crisis has overwhelmed the normal channels of justice. Personally, however, I am not wedded to that exemption.

I do not see the potential scenarios you highlight in the nineteenth point coming to be, as the point is limited to the rights of the people, and does not allow the federal government to impose any laws it wishes. If a government chose to pass a bill declaring a right to own slaves, I do not believe it would be enforceable upon the states. If it were to pass an amendment, that would be another matter, but the procedures in place for such amendments are, I believe, sufficient to ensure any such measure would have to command broad support.

I yield.
Logged
the long way home
hummus_con_pita
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,117
Israel



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 11, 2018, 12:31:09 am »

Mr. Speaker,

I rise to thank the gentleman from Kentucky for answering the questions I have presented.

I do, however, still hold reservations regarding the 19th point. If we follow the language presented in the 18th point, that the "enumeration here or elsewhere" shall be used a metric for understanding which rights our government shall guarantee, I believe that an unfriendly government shall use it as an opportunity to enforce rights presented in simple bills as equivalent of the rights preserved in amendments, and shall thenceforth actively trample on the rights of the states.

While I believe many of these amendments to be rather positive, I am worried that the rather sloppy and hasty language used in their creation will provide for heart- and headache in the future, and allow for tyranny to return to our shores. I hope we can amend or edit several of these potentially problematic points, and thus amend our Constitution to better defend liberty today and in the future.

I yield. 
Logged
YPestis25
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 845


Political Matrix
E: -4.65, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 11, 2018, 07:06:20 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

While the Radical leader has risen to express his reservations about this Declaration of Rights, I rise in support of the amendment. The gentleman from Kentucky has submitted a well conceived enumeration of the most important rights guaranteed to citizens of our young republic.

The direct and forthright nature of this Declaration will ensure that liberty is protected from even from the most rapacious power-monger. I offer my full support for this amendment, and urge other members of the assembly to support it.

I yield.
Logged
DKrol
dkrolga
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,728


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 11, 2018, 08:20:50 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

I propose an amendment, a 21st article.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Slavery is truly abhorrent and irreprehensible for so great a nation to practice. Ending the practice of importing slaves is the first step in irradicating this great evil from our society.

I yield.
Logged
Not_A_Man
Not_Madigan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,093
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.29, S: -7.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 11, 2018, 08:37:00 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

I rise in strong opposition to the amendment proposed by the Gentleman from New York & Westchester.  The Gentleman appears to wish not only for the destruction of the rights of people of new states to choose whether or not their state shall have the institution of slavery, and now wishes to disallow the ability of states to choose whether or not the slave trade should continue to exist in their state.  The people of an individual state should have the right to choose whether or not the slave trade exists in their state, especially states where it is a rather large portion of their economy such as South Carolina.  The Gentleman from New York & Westchester appears to fail to recognize that half of the states of this great nation of ours relies on the institution of slavery for their economy, and instead wishes to destroy those states' entire well-being by moving against the institution. 

However, I am proud to say this nation is not the monarchy that the Tories wish it to be, and that the Gentleman from New York City & Westchester cannot force his destructive policies upon the people of the slave states alone.  I urge all Deputies of this assembly to oppose this amendment, in the spirit of protecting the right of the states to choose their own fate on the issue of slavery, and to protect the economies of states in which the slave trade is practiced.

I yield.
Logged
DKrol
dkrolga
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,728


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 11, 2018, 08:47:31 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

The Deputies in this Chamber who support the abhorrent practice of slavery speak very highly of allowing the states to decide their course forward. They speak of allowing the people of the several states to decide if they will continue to allow, or to introduce, the practice of slavery to their lands. Why do they never speak of the rights of the African man? Stolen from his homeland in the middle of the night by white men with guns and whips and chains. When was the African man ever allowed to make the choice to become a slave? When was the African man ever asked if he wanted to become a slave? Never.

And it is for this reason that I oppose the practice. For what man in the Chamber would want to be awoken from his bed in the middle of the night, prodded with guns and bayonets into cages, put onto a ship across the Atlantic, and forced to work long days in hot fields, without basic clothing, food, shelter, and - most importantly of all - the basic rights of man. If any man in this Chamber stands and, with his hand to the Lord, God, pledges that he would willingly enter into a slave-slaveholder arrangement and that he would, being a slave, wish for the practice to continue, I would call to the Sargeant-at-Arms to have that man escorted away to a hospital or other institution for his own safety, for surely he is unwell of the mind.

I yield.
Logged
terp40hitch
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,587
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 11, 2018, 09:17:39 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

I will not stand by as Mr. Jay attacks me and the rest of the Patriots for calling us immoral for supporting slavery. I will not stand by and be attacked for trying to save the southern economy from a bunch of rich northern businessmen who think they know what is best for our economy.

Now moving on from discussing Mr. Jay attacks, I would like to talk about the new amendment. Mr. Jay has just introduced one of the most dangerous amendments this nation assembly may ever see. We cannot get rid of slavery, this would destroy the southern economy and in the end the national economy when we end up with food shortages. This is why if this amendment does pass, that I can no longer support this amendment.

We must stop the destructive northern parties from trying to damage our southern United States, we must do this by stopping this amendment.

I yield
Logged
Galaxie
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 520


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 11, 2018, 10:42:57 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

While this Delegate is opposed to the institution of slavery, it is clear that for the unity of this Nation of ours that our current system -- a divided one -- must remain in place.

It is for this reason that I will not be supporting The Hon. Jay's amendment to outlaw the institution of Slavery. So long as slaves are fairly taxed, and not counted towards the populations of these states that do consider them property, may the institution continue by those who wish to continue it.

I yield.
Logged
wxtransit
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,669


Political Matrix
E: -0.26, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 11, 2018, 10:47:10 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

Given not only my resolve on the issue at hand, and the concerns by my colleagues from Pennsylvania, Augusta, and Savannah, I firmly oppose the proposed amendment by the honorable member from New York City and Westchester, along with the firm united opposition of members of the government and the opposition.

I yield.
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,693


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 11, 2018, 11:16:34 pm »

Mr. Speaker,

I detest slavery, with every fiber of my being. As an institution, its future is as doomed as its existence is morally repugnant. Yet though my personal inclination would be to see that practice perish from this earth, it is a different question entire to propose the employment of coercive force to dismember that institution in those states where the opinion of the majority sustains it. I cannot, at this fateful hour in the history of our republic, countenance any measure which would threaten to dissolve our federal union. I therefore vote against the amendment proposed by the gentleman from the City of New York and Westchester, and for passage of the bill brought by Mr. Madison unamended; which course I recommend to my fellow Whigs.

I yield my time to the chair.
Logged
GoTfan
GoTfan21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,985
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 12, 2018, 12:48:11 am »

Mr Speaker,

I despise slavery both as an institution and as an idea. We as a faction wish to see the Atlantic slave trade dismantled. However, we cannot deny the importance of it to the southern states. We cannot support the amendment offered by my colleague from New York City and Westchester, as it would disproportionate affect the southern states.

I yield.
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,443
Chile
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 13, 2018, 09:43:43 pm »

Debate having been closed, the Speaker called for a vote on the Jay Amendment. By a vote of 62 to 3, the Amendment failed.

National Assembly Vote:

Moving into the final vote, the result was 53 in favor, 7 against, 5 abstentions.

Senate and President:

The Senate vote seeing 20 votes in favor, surpassing the two-thirds necessary for a Constitutional Amendment, the Declaration of Rights Amendments were considered passed and sent to the states for ratification.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC