Legislation: Declaration of Rights Amendments, 1789 (Passed)

[Boobs]

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.

[Boobs]

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.