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

[Former President tack50]

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).

[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.

[Coastal Elitist]

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

[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.

[Saint Milei]

This is a peak atlas thread

[Esteemed Jimmy]

HR 19-40 has failed to pass by a vote of 5-4.