Civil Liberties Amendment (for the public)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:59:50 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Civil Liberties Amendment (for the public)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Civil Liberties Amendment (for the public)  (Read 3969 times)
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 30, 2004, 07:42:23 PM »

At the request of a forumite I have made a copy of this for public debate here.

I know as President I can no longer propose legislation but I would like for the Senate to hear this Civil Liberties Amendment, Niles and I spoke of a proposed amendment and drafted one.

The Civil Liberties Amendment
Amendment III shall hereby be revised to state:


Clause 1:  No agency of government shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Clause 2: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Clause 3: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Clause 4: Private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Clause 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.

Clause 6: No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.

Clause 7: No person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

Clause 8: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the region wherein the crime shall have been committed, which region shall have been previously ascertained by law.  If a trial does not occur within one month of the accusation due to lack of evidence or otherwise, the trial will be thrown out of court and the accused will be declared innocent of the crime.

Clause 9:  The accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Clause 10:  Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Clause 11:  In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Clause 12:  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Clause 13:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Clause 14:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Logged
Patunia
Rookie
**
Posts: 202


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 30, 2004, 07:56:34 PM »

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.
Logged
badnarikin04
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 888


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 30, 2004, 09:10:12 PM »

Sounds good to me.
Logged
Niles Caulder
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 638


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 30, 2004, 10:21:49 PM »

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.

Good points, both.  Missed that "states" reference--thought I caught 'em all.

JFK gives me too much credit...this draft is obviously the work of shameless plagerists--but has the virtue of being perhaps better organized.

At any rate, I think that's all the "Caulder Consultancy" projects to hit that I got started before my GMing days...so y'all don't think I Still have TOO much time on my hands!
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2004, 03:27:42 AM »
« Edited: August 31, 2004, 03:30:55 AM by Bono »

The ACLU supports the ammendment. And urges senators to take it to the senate floor for discussion. also we urge all senators to vote "aye" to it.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2004, 03:29:03 AM »
« Edited: August 31, 2004, 03:31:34 AM by Bono »

Now my personal observations. I think one month is too much of a short deadline.
Logged
Akno21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,066
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2004, 06:02:02 AM »

I think we should clarify clause 12.
Logged
Bono
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,699
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2004, 08:07:39 AM »

What kind of clarification might: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged" needs?
Logged
Patunia
Rookie
**
Posts: 202


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: August 31, 2004, 08:34:35 AM »

I would like to point out this blatant attempt by a senator to deny the regions to govern themselves:
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.
Logged
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: August 31, 2004, 09:21:16 AM »

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.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: August 31, 2004, 09:26:09 AM »

Two comments:
1) As already noted by others, emend all mention of states to regions.
2) Back when the US Bill of Rights was passed $20 was worth a lot more than it is today.  Thus, ncreasing the figure in clause 11 would be worthwhile.  20 silver dollars woud be worth about $100 today and 20 gold dollars would be worth about $500.
Logged
Patunia
Rookie
**
Posts: 202


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: August 31, 2004, 09:27:24 AM »

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.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: August 31, 2004, 09:29:00 AM »

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. Smiley
Logged
Patunia
Rookie
**
Posts: 202


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: August 31, 2004, 09:31:23 AM »

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. Smiley
Without a doubt. It is the equal protection clause in the US Constitution that has taken minority rights and turned them into minority rule.
Logged
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: August 31, 2004, 09:39:20 AM »

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.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 31, 2004, 09:40:09 AM »

I'm of the view that had the neccessary and proper clause been interepreted more narrowly, it would have only served as a speed bump.  The US government today would be much the same except that we'd have some more amendments in the constitution similar to the 16th in nature.  However, let's not forget that the purpose of a speed bump is to slow things down for safety's sake.
Logged
Patunia
Rookie
**
Posts: 202


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: August 31, 2004, 09:51:31 AM »

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.
Logged
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: August 31, 2004, 10:12:47 AM »

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.
Logged
Patunia
Rookie
**
Posts: 202


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: August 31, 2004, 10:25:04 AM »

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.
Logged
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: August 31, 2004, 10:31:02 AM »

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.
Logged
Patunia
Rookie
**
Posts: 202


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: August 31, 2004, 10:39:19 AM »
« Edited: August 31, 2004, 10:50:26 AM by 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.
Logged
Niles Caulder
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 638


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: August 31, 2004, 10:45:33 AM »

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.

It's not preposterous at all...as this democracy is much more volitile than the one of reality!  This is the Fantasy Forum, and the fun would be in seeing what this or future batches of Supreme Court Justices would do with this issue.  Would they replicate the U.S. interpretation?  Would a stretch of Republican electoral victories cause a reversal?

I'd just like to see the fun of partaking in the fantasy of doing so rather than conducting a debate here about real constitutional law that belongs on the reality boards.  Let's pass this sucker, and refer to Clause 14 instead of Amendment X.  Let's refer to the Historic nailbiting decision of The Federalist League versus the U.A.F. instead of McChullock.  See my point?

This Amendment loses no real ground for anyone on any side of the issues.  It's just (hopefully) an agreeable gameboard for the community to start from.  The precedents of the American historical responses are plausible tactics to repeat.  Variations off that path are just as inviting.  This stuff is a good resource for issues to apply to the Fantasy Elections, and have it mean something more than "Hoorah for Liberals/Conservatives/Whatever!"
Logged
Niles Caulder
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 638


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: August 31, 2004, 10:47:56 AM »

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.
Logged
Patunia
Rookie
**
Posts: 202


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: August 31, 2004, 10:51:20 AM »

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 Tongue
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: August 31, 2004, 11:49:19 AM »

Regionsal judges: Too many positions, too much government, too much confusion, too little fun.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 12 queries.