View Full Version : Choose a right to do away with.
Lucid
03-16-2010, 07:32 PM
From the first ten amendments in the US bill of rights, pick one to get rid of.
In case you've forgotten (and you shouldn't) or are not a citizen of the US, the rights are as follows:
1. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2. Right to keep and bear arms
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
3. Conditions for quarters of soldiers
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.
4. Right of search and seizure regulated
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.
5. Provisions concerning prosecution
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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
6. Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to 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.
7. Right to a trial by jury
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.
8. Excessive bail, cruel punishment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
9. Rule of construction of Constitution
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10. Rights of the States under Constitution
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.
Which can we do without and why do you think so? Answers of "none of them" are crap and shall be viewed as cowardly attempts to avoid answering the question while appearing to answer the question. Your ruse shall be discovered.
Also, while you're removing an amendment feel free to replace it with a new one if you like.
Considering that the Commerce and Elastic clauses weaken states rights, we can probably do without the 10th and there would be no actual change to the governing of the nation.
Since it is rarely enforced (Brady law, nuclear waste storage-- are the only ones I can think of). I say down with the 10th.
In it's place.
No individual citizen may be taxed on labor, trading services, or wage. Only direct taxes (such as a sales tax) may be required of the individual citizen.
(Isn't this better suited in the game thread?)
In it's place.
No individual citizen may be taxed on labor, trading services, or wage. Only direct taxes (such as a sales tax) may be required of the individual citizen.
So what of the 16th?
(sorry about drifting off-topic and going to an amendment whose number is greater than 10)
So what of the 16th?
(sorry about drifting off-topic and going to an amendment whose number is greater than 10)
The tenth would only better define the sixteenth (in my replacement). As it is now, the sixteenth is ambiguous and controversial in regards to individual citizens.
The tenth would only better define the sixteenth (in my replacement). As it is now, the sixteenth is ambiguous and controversial in regards to individual citizens.
Fair enough.
* * *
What's Lucid's choice?
Lucid
03-16-2010, 08:07 PM
(Isn't this better suited in the game thread?)
No. It's not a game.
(sorry about drifting off-topic and going to an amendment whose number is greater than 10)
You don't have to only discuss the first ten. Just choose one of the first ten kill.
What's Lucid's choice?
I haven't decided yet. That's why I started the thread.
No. It's not a game.
Should we be worried? :suspicious:
You don't have to only discuss the first ten. Just choose one of the first ten kill.
I haven't decided yet. That's why I started the thread.
Oh, sneaky.
It's an interesting concept (the thread). It has also piqued my curiosity.
larkin
03-16-2010, 08:46 PM
I agree about the 10th. I had a discussion with a friend who is much more conservative about this and she really considers states rights to be more than a cornerstone, a moral imperative. I consider it to be kind of an anachronism. What makes states inherently more valuable or any less fascist than counties or cities as a unit of organization? I'm sure others have theories about that, I'd like to hear.
I certainly don't consider being a citizen of North Carolina above being a citizen of the U.S.
Grimstad
03-16-2010, 10:42 PM
In my opinion, we can’t “do without” any of them. But if I had to choose one it would be the tenth.
While I don’t think it’s the least important, I do believe it would have the least negative impact. States can come up with whatever laws or state constitution they want but in the end, they still have to pass constitutional (national) muster.
Tristan
03-16-2010, 10:43 PM
A good question. I'd say trial by jury is the least important right. Frankly I think it's almost redundant with judges. Judges rule in civil cases anyway. If a judge's ruling goes against you, you can appeal. By cynical standards, a judge is a professional with an agenda, but by the same standards, jurors are idiots with agendas. So what's the difference?
You guys don't seem to realize how clever the 10th is. The long-term weakening of the tenth is not a good trend, it's actually rather dangerous. Right now, the federal government may be weakening its hold even as it strengthens its grip, if you take my meaning.
I agree about the 10th. I had a discussion with a friend who is much more conservative about this and she really considers states rights to be more than a cornerstone, a moral imperative. I consider it to be kind of an anachronism. What makes states inherently more valuable or any less fascist than counties or cities as a unit of organization? I'm sure others have theories about that, I'd like to hear.
I certainly don't consider being a citizen of North Carolina above being a citizen of the U.S.Well, here's my theory on the 9th and 10th. Funny you mention the South.
They are two elements of the Bill shoved in when the founders realized there was something really %$&#ing big missing. Essentially, they prevent civil war. They do this by confining federal powers to the "enumerated powers" only; by forcing the power structure of the country groundward, they allow disputes to be settled quietly, locally, and with huge majorities. Federal dictates on various issues would otherwise create unacceptable levels of regional unrest, like in 1860 for example, when slavery finally broke through these provisions.
The ninth and tenth have permitted the US government to remain stable while other constitutional republics, lacking counterparts to these subtle amendments, have experienced chronic unrest.
Elfrun
03-16-2010, 11:14 PM
I do not believe in the right to keep and bear arms. I'd take that away in a second.
In case the gun nuts freak out: That doesn't mean I'd push to take away your precious toys, I just don't believe it should be protected by bill of rights. Besides, I've checked with a fortune teller and I am destined to never be the US President or even a senator, you may breathe easy :)
acyckowski
03-16-2010, 11:43 PM
From the first ten amendments in the US bill of rights, pick one to get rid of.
6. Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.
Also, while you're removing an amendment feel free to replace it with a new one if you like.
As I understand it, the right to a speedy trial was a response to abuse in the English court systems, where a suspect could be held indefinitely "awaiting trial." In America, we seem to have gone in the opposite direction, where defendants string out the process for so long that the security of the people are put in jeopardy.
In my view, this amendment ought to be further amended to declare a right for the People to a fair and speedy trial.
---------- Post added 03-16-2010 at 09:45 PM ----------
I do not believe in the right to keep and bear arms. I'd take that away in a second.
The right to keep and bear arms is what keeps you safe from me, and several hundred of my closest friends, from arriving at your doorstep to take away your other rights.
Elfrun
03-17-2010, 12:00 AM
The right to keep and bear arms is what keeps you safe from me, and several hundred of my closest friends, from arriving at your doorstep to take away your other rights.
No, it's not.
The right for an individual to defend themselves is important, but I feel quite secure in the knowledge that it's illegal for you, and all of your non-police friends, to have firearms in my neck of the woods. See the beauty of not being a US citizen is I don't have to worry about arming myself because the odds are anyone who wants to harm me does not have a firearm themself. I don't presume fixing problems with firearms in the US is as simple as taking away the right to own one but I do think that right is freaken scary and creates a culture where firearms are a dime a dozen and violence is considered normal. Consider it a cultural thing where you're lucky you don't have to deal with my opinion and I'm lucky I don't have to deal with potentially being shot.
freeeekyyy
03-17-2010, 01:12 AM
Third amendment. It's not exactly a major issue and will never become one unless the US is invaded by a foreign country.
Aronnax
03-17-2010, 02:01 AM
The right to keep and bear arms is what keeps you safe from me, and several hundred of my closest friends, from arriving at your doorstep to take away your other rights.
If several hundred people show up at your house with malicious intent a single gun means fuckall.
On topic: With the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause the 10th amendment is effectively meaningless so if we had to get rid of one that'd be it.
kepstein8888
03-17-2010, 03:25 AM
Considering that they're all violated on a regular basis, with the possible exception of #3, I don't know if it matters. But I guess I'll go with #3. We don't have a big-screen TV, so they'll probably crash at my neighbors' house anyway.
If several hundred people show up at your house with malicious intent a single gun means fuckall.
Only if the individuals of that group are more determined to remove your rights than keep their lives. Groupthink stalls hard soon as anyone has to put their butt on the line.
larkin
03-17-2010, 06:06 AM
Well, here's my theory on the 9th and 10th. Funny you mention the South.
They are two elements of the Bill shoved in when the founders realized there was something really %$&#ing big missing. Essentially, they prevent civil war. They do this by confining federal powers to the "enumerated powers" only; by forcing the power structure of the country groundward, they allow disputes to be settled quietly, locally, and with huge majorities. Federal dictates on various issues would otherwise create unacceptable levels of regional unrest, like in 1860 for example, when slavery finally broke through these provisions.
The ninth and tenth have permitted the US government to remain stable while other constitutional republics, lacking counterparts to these subtle amendments, have experienced chronic unrest.
Yep, I mention the South because states' rights is kind of a mantra there, as if any minute now South Carolina or Texas is going to rise up in rebellion against the federal government. I suppose they're welcome to try, but is this anything we want to encourage?
It's served its purpose. I know states' rights were intended to "quell regional unrest", but that was then, this is now. Today, states' rights is an argument people use when there's a law they don't agree with.
Well, that's it. Next time North Carolina passes a law I don't like I'm going to lead Forsyth county against it. Try to tax my car, will you? Sic semper tyrannis!
hubcap
03-17-2010, 07:45 AM
The original intent of the Founders, to place strict limits on the power of the federal government, has been pretty much subverted and most of the Constitution is ignored on a regular basis already.
I'd pick the 3rd.
yoginimama
03-17-2010, 08:03 AM
I would pick the 10th. I think its removal would have the least negative effect.
In its place, I propose an amendment that all government and business/commercial activities in or connected with the United States must have a neutral or net positive effect on the environment AS determined by reputable nonpartisan international climatologists BOTH in the States AND in any relevant country of origin or impact, since pollution and global warming are dangerous and we will be severely up the creek without a paddle if our various biomes collapse.
Aronnax
03-17-2010, 08:35 AM
Only if the individuals of that group are more determined to remove your rights than keep their lives. Groupthink stalls hard soon as anyone has to put their butt on the line.
Really? Why do armies and street gangs work then? Group think is one of the most powerful social tools in existence and can easily motivate people to do things that directly violate their self interest.
If hundreds of people want you the second amendment isn't going to save you. The social breakdown required for "hundreds of people to show up at your door" is stemmed by a coherent legal system, maintained by the rest of the bill of rights. If that legal system failed the second amendment won't save you from "the mob". Furthermore, the second has very little impact on the existence of a legal system or the maintenance of those rights. The bill of rights, as a social construct, relies far more heavily on widespread agreement to the social contract than the threat of individual force.
Don't worry, I'm not advocating removing your guns, just pointing out how unimportant the second amendment is to the preservation of rights. The second amendment can protect you from another individual who decided not to honor the social contract, that's about the limit of its effectiveness.
Angel1
03-17-2010, 08:45 AM
The 3rd Amendment could be safely replaced.
I would replace it with -
Section 1: No citizen shall be forcibly deprived of their land by any government within the United States except by due process of law, unless that land is to be used for the public good and shall remain owned and operated and utilized by the government for a period of time not less than fifty years. The government shall not seize property for the public good of raising additional tax or rent or any other associated income by allowing a private enterprise to operate their business on the seized land.
Section 2: The government shall be required to pay the previous owner of the seized propert or their legal/designated heir agreed upon compensation for the land seized if the government wishes to vacate direct use of the property prior to fifty years elapsing for the purpose to turning it over to private enterprise. The government may sell seized property to different United States government agencies and/or levels, but the fifty year restriction shall be considered part of the property sold and the buyer will assume all such responsibilities.
Section 3: This amendment shall apply to all the United States, including federal, state, and territorial government and their agencies. This amendment shall apply to any government and its agencies that has been sanctioned by federal, state, or territorial government.
Section 4: Imminent domain, except as prescribed by this amendment, is prohibited. The owners of land seized under imminent domain shall be entitled to reasonable compensation, but this compensation shall not be construed to be a voluntary contract that would fulfill the requirements of "agreed upon compensation" in Section 2.
Section 5: The only way for the government not to be subject to the restriction on imminent domain shall be by making a mutually acceptable contract with the owner of the property in question. Shall the owner of the property in question not voluntarily sell his or her property to the government, then all parts of this amendment shall be considered valid for the property in question.
Tristan
03-17-2010, 08:57 AM
The 10th definitely isn't out-of-date, not by a long shot. Disputes over social, business, moral, tax, resource, and labor issues need to be resolved state-by-state, or even county-by-county, or they will not be solved at all. Federal rulings on these issues are unpopular and regarded as the most unjust laws we have in the country, with no exceptions.
The only reason states' rights seem like a mantra is because local governments have been losing autonomy for decades without any organized resistance to the trend. People just grumble about it because it is nebulous, and losing one small battle at a time is not a big deal.
...all government and business/commercial activities in or connected with the United States must have a neutral or net positive effect on the environment AS determined by reputable nonpartisan international climatologists...
DAMN. Sign me up for that job. A "reputable nonpartisan international climatologist" with no responsibility, unlimited potential for sex and bribes, and absolute power. A world governed not by what you do, but by who you know and how you use them. A return to the ancient caste systems where power was the only law :thumbsup:
yoginimama
03-17-2010, 09:03 AM
DAMN. Sign me up for that job. A "reputable nonpartisan international climatologist" with no responsibility, unlimited potential for sex and bribes, and absolute power. A world governed not by what you do, but by who you know and how you use them. A return to the ancient caste systems where power was the only law :thumbsup:
And this would be different from the current dominance of the IMF and World Bank...how?
The more things change, the more they stay the same. You are living in your own nightmare, you just don't seem to know it. I guess that would be because you basically agree with what the current set of Men In Black are doing.
All I want to do is throw in a counterweight. It can be as corrupt as it wants as long as it forces the "Debt peonage for everyone, capital gains for the 1%!" crowd to plant some damn trees.
TheLastMohican
03-17-2010, 09:03 AM
The 3rd Amendment. Though important in principle, it is obsolete in practice.
Tristan
03-17-2010, 09:21 AM
And this would be different from the current dominance of the IMF and World Bank...how?
The more things change, the more they stay the same. You are living in your own nightmare, you just don't seem to know it. I guess that would be because you basically agree with what the current set of Men In Black are doing.
All I want to do is throw in a counterweight. It can be as corrupt as it wants as long as it forces the "Debt peonage for everyone, capital gains for the 1%!" crowd to plant some damn trees.
I think it would be very different than the IMF and World Bank (not that those two institutions are particularly strong, but I take your meaning right enough). I would prefer for the world to be governed a little more directly by money, rather than by people. Money is only a corrupt judge to the extent that people corrupt it and force it in directions it wouldn't normally flow.
plotthickens
03-17-2010, 09:41 AM
3rd. Replaced with:
Ownership of firearms shall be granted to any and all citizens with the passing of a gun safety course. Refreshers required every year. Endorsement of your local law official required. No registration. No concealed carry restrictions.
yoginimama
03-17-2010, 09:53 AM
I think it would be very different than the IMF and World Bank (not that those two institutions are particularly strong, but I take your meaning right enough). I would prefer for the world to be governed a little more directly by money, rather than by people. Money is only a corrupt judge to the extent that people corrupt it and force it in directions it wouldn't normally flow.
Interesting perspective. The thing is, it seems very clear to me that the intent and spirit of the Bill of Rights is set completely against what you're saying here.
Since you want "to be governed a little more directly by money," but only people possess and use money, you're essentially saying you want to be governed a little more directly by rich people, aka you want to live in a plutocracy.
I think the U.S. has largely become a de facto plutocracy, but I do not think this is what the Founders envisioned or intended. While it's true that they restricted the franchise to male property owners, you'll notice that the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, placing strong checks on the potential actions of people with money.
To me, the "only" in your statement "Money is only a corrupt judge to the extent that people corrupt it" is an awfully big caveat, considering that money is a complete creation and tool OF PEOPLE and has no separate existence apart from them. How do we keep ourselves from using money corruptly? Laws and other people to enforce them are the only way.
Warrior
03-17-2010, 05:46 PM
I'd pick the third. It would probably have the least impact today.
I'd replace it with an ammendment saying that any tax increase passed by congress will apply double to all members of the congress that passed the increase (double based on the largest increase imposed on any citizen). :)
Paul Siraisi
03-18-2010, 05:33 AM
And why are we being instructed to dismantle the Constitution?
Just wondering.
larkin
03-18-2010, 06:38 AM
The 10th definitely isn't out-of-date, not by a long shot. Disputes over social, business, moral, tax, resource, and labor issues need to be resolved state-by-state, or even county-by-county, or they will not be solved at all. Federal rulings on these issues are unpopular and regarded as the most unjust laws we have in the country, with no exceptions.
What an unbelievably stupid statement. Federal rulings are unjust and unpopular, no exceptions?
I'm personally really sorry that every state doesn't manage its own bands on the radio spectrum. And meat inspections? What a waste! More needless regulation...henceforth, I declare each state should make its own decision about whether they care if the meat produced in their state will give you a degenerative brain disease. Plus, NOAA? I'm sorry, but predict your own weather, Kansas.
And for all those who think the 10th is essential for preventing federal government tyranny (but good luck with your governor!) while the 3rd is disposable...umm, curious definition of liberty you have there. That's the kind of right that seems obsolete until it's not.
And why are we being instructed to dismantle the Constitution?
Just wondering.
idk. It's an interesting thought experiment though. I did pick the 10th Amendment to go because of it's current interpretation, but I do appreciate states rights as a counterbalance to the centralization of power of the Federal government.
larkin
03-18-2010, 08:25 AM
I'd pick the third. It would probably have the least impact today.
I'd replace it with an ammendment saying that any tax increase passed by congress will apply double to all members of the congress that passed the increase (double based on the largest increase imposed on any citizen). :)
Again, sorry to come back to this, but I just can't get over that this is what passes for libertarianism today. People seem to think that a fucking tax increase (when our tax rate is lower today than it was under Reagan) is more important than arbitrary indefinite detention without trial, or soldiers permanently occupying your house. I know the possibility of quartering seems distant now but wait until there's a national federal emergency; take that right away and see how respectful the military is of your property. I have seen it happen and there is no recourse or appeal. But now people would give that right away for pennies on the dollar, wow. Cheap, myopic self-interest really doesn't begin to cover it.
Again, sorry to come back to this, but I just can't get over that this is what passes for libertarianism today. People seem to think that a fucking tax increase (when our tax rate is lower today than it was under Reagan) is more important than arbitrary indefinite detention without trial, or soldiers permanently occupying your house. I know the possibility of quartering seems distant now but wait until there's a national federal emergency; take that right away and see how respectful the military is of your property. I have seen it happen and there is no recourse or appeal. But now people would give that right away for pennies on the dollar, wow. Cheap, myopic self-interest really doesn't begin to cover it.
Okay. From the OP...
From the first ten amendments in the US bill of rights, pick one to get rid of.
Which can we do without and why do you think so? Answers of "none of them" are crap and shall be viewed as cowardly attempts to avoid answering the question while appearing to answer the question. Your ruse shall be discovered.
Also, while you're removing an amendment feel free to replace it with a new one if you like.
I guess the only way to not get you upset would be for everyone to just ignore the thread?
Also, could you please explain take that right away and see how respectful the military is of your property. I have seen it happen and there is no recourse or appeal
Where/when did you see this happen?
Also, could you please explain Where/when did you see this happen?
Places where there are acts of genocide does this happen. i.e. Kill all the men and take the women.
hubcap
03-18-2010, 11:04 AM
Again, sorry to come back to this, but I just can't get over that this is what passes for libertarianism today. People seem to think that a fucking tax increase (when our tax rate is lower today than it was under Reagan) is more important than arbitrary indefinite detention without trial, or soldiers permanently occupying your house. I know the possibility of quartering seems distant now but wait until there's a national federal emergency; take that right away and see how respectful the military is of your property. I have seen it happen and there is no recourse or appeal. But now people would give that right away for pennies on the dollar, wow. Cheap, myopic self-interest really doesn't begin to cover it.
Quite the contrary. Nobody is suggesting we give up anything. The discussion is entirely philosophical.
In reality I wouldn't willingly give up any rights, and I suspect most people feel the same way.
Angel1
03-18-2010, 11:15 AM
Quite the contrary. Nobody is suggesting we give up anything. The discussion is entirely philosophical.
In reality I wouldn't willingly give up any rights, and I suspect most people feel the same way.
Quite right, this is a purely philosphical debate. I'm just waiting for the first person to respond to my relatively long winded replacement amendment. In truth, I'd keep the third and add my amendment on If I could, but I doubt Congress and the States would willingly give their current imminent domain rights up unless people kept voting them out until they did (which i don't see happening either).
Synamon
03-18-2010, 11:25 AM
2. Right to keep and bear arms
3. Conditions for quarters of soldiers
7. Right to a trial by jury
10. Rights of the States under Constitution
Which can we do without and why do you think so? Answers of "none of them" are crap and shall be viewed as cowardly attempts to avoid answering the question while appearing to answer the question. Your ruse shall be discovered.
They aren't all crap, but the four I quoted could go. Actually this exercise is a good example of how outdated and inapplicable the document is today. People who cling to 18th century values love it though.
larkin
03-18-2010, 12:29 PM
Quite the contrary. Nobody is suggesting we give up anything. The discussion is entirely philosophical.
Philosophical concept understood, see below. Although your point is taken.
I guess the only way to not get you upset would be for everyone to just ignore the thread?
It's perfectly possible to theoretically suggest abolishing certain rights without relying on some pretty spectacular philosophical inconsistencies (and actually preferable.)
Also, could you please explain Where/when did you see this happen?
Colombia, Sudan, the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Lebanon...there is certainly no shortage of examples. Pretty much anywhere in the world where rule of law is not respected or otherwise treated casually. Which you could say will never be the United States, but of course everyone thinks that it is not them until it is them. A disaster or emergency of any serious magnitude and conditions easily deteriorate without these kind of protections, and sometimes even with.
hubcap
03-18-2010, 01:10 PM
Actually this exercise is a good example of how outdated and inapplicable the document is today. People who cling to 18th century values love it though.
I disagree that the document is outdated. I believe the exact same principles that applied in ancient Athens, Rome, and the United States apply today. In order for individuals to enjoy liberty their rights must be protected or as history has shown us, we will end up with the government being the master and the citizenry becoming the slave.
Government by its very nature continually attempts to gain more power. The only way the government can get that power is by taking it from "the people". The Founders were well aware of this and attempted to create a government that could not govern in a tyrannical fashion.
I consider liberty to be a timeless value.........not limited to the 18th century.
Warrior
03-18-2010, 02:15 PM
Again, sorry to come back to this, but I just can't get over that this is what passes for libertarianism today. People seem to think that a fucking tax increase (when our tax rate is lower today than it was under Reagan) is more important than arbitrary indefinite detention without trial, or soldiers permanently occupying your house. I know the possibility of quartering seems distant now but wait until there's a national federal emergency; take that right away and see how respectful the military is of your property. I have seen it happen and there is no recourse or appeal. But now people would give that right away for pennies on the dollar, wow. Cheap, myopic self-interest really doesn't begin to cover it.
The smiley face at the end of the comment is meant to imply a little humor in the statement.
The whole discussion is just for thought. In practice I would not do away with any of the 10.
They aren't all crap, but the four I quoted could go. Actually this exercise is a good example of how outdated and inapplicable the document is today. People who cling to 18th century values love it though.
I don't think it is outdated at all. The Constitution, including (perhaps especially) the Bill of Rights, is there to protect the freedom of individual citizens. Without it, there would be little or no check on government power and control.
INTJRyan
03-18-2010, 04:40 PM
I know the possibility of quartering seems distant now but wait until there's a national federal emergency; take that right away and see how respectful the military is of your property.
If there is a national federal emergency to the extent that soldiers need to stay in my house, we will be under martial law and/or laws will be passed granting such quartering. This is permissible under the third. If we (the US) are in such dire straits where the third even becomes an issue, habeus corpus will likely be suspended anyway so there won't be much to do about even if we wanted to.
larkin
03-18-2010, 09:39 PM
If there is a national federal emergency to the extent that soldiers need to stay in my house, we will be under martial law and/or laws will be passed granting such quartering. This is permissible under the third.
I understand revocation is theoretical, but this is one right where I simply don't believe the "if we revoke it we'll probably be fine" mindset. Of course that is a matter of speculation/opinion based on some experience. But my comment was directed to some of the libertarians on the forum, of which there are many - if you don't trust the federal government to tax you, do you really think you'll probably be fine to make it legal for the military to assume control of your property?
And I wouldn't assume that this would only happen under specific instances of martial law, either. We all saw what happened during Katrina; it just doesn't take much for people in the U.S. to lose their shit, with suddenly every option on the table. If the military could have taken possession of your house to better respond in Louisiana, don't you think they would have? Worse still, there's potentially a lot of people reading this thinking that would be reasonable.
If we (the US) are in such dire straits where the third even becomes an issue, habeus corpus will likely be suspended anyway so there won't be much to do about even if we wanted to.
Habeas corpus has already been suspended for some, without so much as a whimper from the public. But obviously I don't care much for this idea that "there's not much we can do about it." Infringement on rights absolutely relies on that kind of complacency.
Tristan
03-18-2010, 10:58 PM
Interesting perspective. The thing is, it seems very clear to me that the intent and spirit of the Bill of Rights is set completely against what you're saying here.
Since you want "to be governed a little more directly by money," but only people possess and use money, you're essentially saying you want to be governed a little more directly by rich people, aka you want to live in a plutocracy.
I think the U.S. has largely become a de facto plutocracy, but I do not think this is what the Founders envisioned or intended. While it's true that they restricted the franchise to male property owners, you'll notice that the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, placing strong checks on the potential actions of people with money.
To me, the "only" in your statement "Money is only a corrupt judge to the extent that people corrupt it" is an awfully big caveat, considering that money is a complete creation and tool OF PEOPLE and has no separate existence apart from them. How do we keep ourselves from using money corruptly? Laws and other people to enforce them are the only way. That's not what I'm saying, but I wasn't clear at all in such a brief post, so the fault is mine. When I referred to money "governing" a little more directly, I meant through prices. Pricing is a process through which all stuff is judged for its merit. Ultimately it leads to resource allocation, and in that way, money is a governor that has supplanted manorial lords, priesthoods, and other elite castes of old.
So you proposed to bring human beings back into a job which is currently automated by money, and that's why I threw a fit about it. It's like bringing back cartwrights, fullers, and horners. Professions so outdated, we only know the words as peoples' last names.
Sometimes humans really do invent "perfect" things. Mathematics is a human concoction. It has no separate existence from human usage, but it's perfection itself. Prices and money aren't perfect like that, but they are extremely mechanical. Prices are determined passively by endless numbers of people making their endless bids and offers, and we could say that despite individual preferences and insanity, the Law of Large Numbers-- a mathematical axiom-- influences pricing the most of all.
In short I think money needs a lot less help than people are offering it. They want to move money around without exchange, which actually distorts its value and damages its ability to do its job.
Icristhus
03-18-2010, 11:14 PM
Yep, I mention the South because states' rights is kind of a mantra there, as if any minute now South Carolina or Texas is going to rise up in rebellion against the federal government. I suppose they're welcome to try, but is this anything we want to encourage?
It's served its purpose. I know states' rights were intended to "quell regional unrest", but that was then, this is now. Today, states' rights is an argument people use when there's a law they don't agree with.
Well, that's it. Next time North Carolina passes a law I don't like I'm going to lead Forsyth county against it. Try to tax my car, will you? Sic semper tyrannis!
Amusnigly, the notion of that right arose from pretty much this exact viewpoint, when America had its revolution. Only instead of Forsyth county reacting to car tax, it was the American Colonies reacting to English Revenue Tax.
Additionally, one only needs to consider that every state has wildly differing norms and opinions, in the country itself. For instance: In Oklahoma, being openly gay can get you discriminated against pretty heavily, to the point of the Tag Agency refusing a man, recently, in his attempt to get custom license plates declaring his homosexuality. Meanwhile, go to California and you can be as open as you like about it without worrying that your right to freedom of expression will be denied so very openly by a State department.
That's merely one minor example. One only needs to look into politics on a national level to begin to understand exactly just how many -different- opinions and ideas there are in the US, among only 50 states.
Now imagine if all fifty of them were forced to uphold only one single standard of acceptable behavior, correct norms, standards of pay and living, etcetera. Millions of people, nationwide, would become upset with -something-, simply because there is such a wide diversity.
So, I would argue that nothing has changed, so far as the importance of States' Rights. If anything, as the country has grown larger over the past three centuries, the argument could be made that they are more important now than ever before, in order to retain the nation's unity.
Post-Midnight Edit: Or, as I recently told a friend of mine elsehwere in playing with this very same thread's question, when she too suggested States' Rights could be done away with:
It's a subtle thing, but really, really important in its way. Just looking at how much bickering there is in this nation's politics kind of proves it. None of the fifty states can agree, unanimously, on much of anything amongst themselves.
If there was a federal power to impose a completely uniform set of laws across all fifty states, then there'd be a helluva lot of people feeling oppressed. No matter who won out.
Gay rights, for instance - if it was federally mandated that no gay people could ever be together, then all the gays would be upset, as well as those people who felt they had a right to be together.
Meanwhile, if it was federally mandated that all gays could do whatever they want, there'd be a lot of more conservative, homophobic types feeling oppressed.
The key point to the States' Rights thing is that it keeps the federal government from:
A) Becoming waaaaaaaay too powerful, dictator-level powerful
B) It provides outlets for people to ensure they're living the way they want to live, within reason. If Oklahoma wants to be homophobic, that's fine, the gays can go to California where they're more accepted.. Rather than leading a revolution to overthrow Oklahoma.
Make sense? ;)
larkin
03-19-2010, 06:11 AM
Amusnigly, the notion of that right arose from pretty much this exact viewpoint, when America had its revolution. Only instead of Forsyth county reacting to car tax, it was the American Colonies reacting to English Revenue Tax.
Oh, and, we were rebelling against a king who came to power through a combination of divine right and primogeniture and ruled by fiat, but y'know, little differences. What we should learn from the revolution is that we will never again pay too much for sugar.
Now imagine if all fifty of them were forced to uphold only one single standard of acceptable behavior, correct norms, standards of pay and living, etcetera. Millions of people, nationwide, would become upset with -something-, simply because there is such a wide diversity.
You've pretty much described a potential problem any society or any system of governance, ever. How is that different from the decisions the state of North Carolina makes? Or Forsyth county? And you're already assuming, in this little scenario, a combination of things that both have never been dictated by law ("correct norms", although the term is suitably unclear to mean just about anything) and ones that are actually already federally mandated (federal minimum wage.)
The right was included in 1787 to convince states to sign on. Why, today, is the state is a unit of governance with inherently more value than my city or county?
Now imagine it was federally mandated that gays could do whatever they want, there'd be a lot more conservative, homophobic types feeling oppressed.
Yes, god forbid it be federally mandated that gays have free will. What's next, the right to congregate in public? That said, there are a lot of federal decisions I don't like, and I learn to live with them, or operate within the political system to deal with it, because of the benefits I get from greater cooperation. Again, pretty much what government is. Prisoner's dilemma strategy and all that business.
And feel free to explain what new powers will be granted the federal government should the 10th disappear tomorrow. Or generally how this vaguely-worded right is apparently the piece of the Constitution that separates the U.S. government from a dictatorship.
Warrior
03-19-2010, 06:29 AM
I understand revocation is theoretical, but this is one right where I simply don't believe the "if we revoke it we'll probably be fine" mindset.
If it were revoked, we would probably not be fine. That has less to do with the text of any particular part of the Bill of Rights more to do with the fact that a constitutional right has been done away with. If one is revoked, others could easily follow. Never before in the history of the United States have individual rights and liberties been under greater assault, on practically every front, than they are today. Any dismantling of constitutional protection of those rights and liberties is a threat to all of them.
hubcap
03-19-2010, 08:44 AM
And feel free to explain what new powers will be granted the federal government should the 10th disappear tomorrow. Or generally how this vaguely-worded right is apparently the piece of the Constitution that separates the U.S. government from a dictatorship.
The Constitution was written in such a fashion that only the specific enumerated powers in the Constitution were granted to the federal government. All other power remained in the hands of "We the People" or the "states". If you eliminate the 10th Amendment you have in effect gutted the states rights and power. Under such a scenario the states would have to yield to the federal government in pretty much every issue because then you have in essence re-written the Constitution to say that all power has been granted to the federal government except that retained by "the people"..............which at this point seems to me to be darn little.
If that were the case you could pretty much eliminate all state elections and just have the feds set up a bureaucracy to administer all state policies in accordance with federal direction.
Amphorian
03-19-2010, 08:52 AM
Either the second, "The right to keep and bear arms" or the tenth, "Rights of the States under the Consitution".
The second because a person can almost use nearly anything as a weapon. It doesn't have to be a gun or firearm. People can improvise and get creative.
The tenth because of the reasons others were talking about.
But I lean more strongly towards the 2nd, mainly because the United States is so large now. Uniformism among all, especially at such a large scale would push into the realm of a dictatorship at times.
larkin
03-19-2010, 04:44 PM
The Constitution was written in such a fashion that only the specific enumerated powers in the Constitution were granted to the federal government. All other power remained in the hands of "We the People" or the "states". If you eliminate the 10th Amendment you have in effect gutted the states rights and power. Under such a scenario the states would have to yield to the federal government in pretty much every issue because then you have in essence re-written the Constitution to say that all power has been granted to the federal government except that retained by "the people"..............which at this point seems to me to be darn little.
I'll quote you again:
The Constitution was written in such a fashion that only the specific enumerated powers in the Constitution were granted to the federal government.
So, to summarize, the Constitution was written in such a fashion that only the specific enumerated powers in the Constitution were granted to the federal government.
Specifically outlined in Article 1, sections 8, 9, and 10. Which is exactly what makes the 10th amendment needless. Getting rid of the 10th doesn't "rewrite the Constitution" ('cause it's actually in the Bill of Rights, natch), the Constitution limits the powers of a federal government, the same as it always has.
Y'know, written in such a fashion that only the specific enumerated powers in the Constitution were granted to the federal government.
If that were the case you could pretty much eliminate all state elections and just have the feds set up a bureaucracy to administer all state policies in accordance with federal direction.
Thankfully, we still have that Constitution!
Celeborn
03-19-2010, 05:38 PM
I am a Canadian, but I think I can still participate. I would get rid of the second. I think that SOME people should be able to bear arms, but the fact is, even in my own country, there are far too many idiots out there with guns and unhealthy attitudes towards them. I do not think guns should be banned outright, but I think removing it as a right would make it necessary to develop a system wherein it is a privilege. Owning a gun should be a privilege given to those who prove themselves to be truly mature enough to handle that kind of power.
Warrior
03-19-2010, 05:42 PM
I am a Canadian, but I think I can still participate. I would get rid of the second. I think that SOME people should be able to bear arms, but the fact is, even in my own country, there are far too many idiots out there with guns and unhealthy attitudes towards them. I do not think guns should be banned outright, but I think removing it as a right would make it necessary to develop a system wherein it is a privilege. Owning a gun should be a privilege given to those who prove themselves to be truly mature enough to handle that kind of power.
What type of maturity test would you propose? Instead of eliminating the ammendment, would you just change it to state you have to pass the test?
Celeborn
03-19-2010, 05:49 PM
I have never been in a position where it was necessary to come up with a way to decide this. In all honesty I doubt that anyone could come up with a viable "maturity test" which was not subjective. What I said was more of a negative observation (meaning that I was pointing out a fault in the system) rather than a positive suggestion.
What do you think would be an effective method, Warrior? In Canada, guns are far less a part of the culture, but the certification methods currently used obviously do not do their job, because there are many people who legally own guns, but who have scary, disturbing attitudes towards them. Barring some kind of long-term evaluation by a board, or perhaps a doctor referral as a character voucher, I do not know how a government could control this.
<snip>
In Canada, guns are far less a part of the culture, but the certification methods currently used obviously do not do their job, because there are many people who legally own guns, but who have scary, disturbing attitudes towards them.
This statement, to me, is scary and disturbing. That there are people out there who think laws should be made to make attitudes about certain things, restrict them from something their neighbors can easily get by lying, or faking a test.
"Scary" and "disturbing" are both subjective and merely opinion. I find roaches 'scary' and the idea of a socialism based govt "disturbing".
hubcap
03-19-2010, 11:25 PM
So, to summarize, the Constitution was written in such a fashion that only the specific enumerated powers in the Constitution were granted to the federal government.
Specifically outlined in Article 1, sections 8, 9, and 10. Which is exactly what makes the 10th amendment needless. Getting rid of the 10th doesn't "rewrite the Constitution" ('cause it's actually in the Bill of Rights, natch), the Constitution limits the powers of a federal government, the same as it always has.
Let's review the actual text of the 10th Amendment:
10th Amendment - 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.
So, you think if that was taken out of the Bill of Rights it wouldn't change the way the Constitution is interpreted? You're kidding, right? It would change the Constitution from a document limiting the government to a document that limited everything except the federal government.
By the way the Bill of Rights are considered part of the Constitution just as the rest of the Amendments are considered a part of the Constitution.
Nikita
03-20-2010, 12:30 AM
I want to do away with the "press" part of the first amendment until the press learns to actually function objectively.
hmm Did anyone else reading the 3rd amendment envision the physical quartering of soldiers?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. _Claes_%28Nicolaes%29_Jansz_Visscher.jpg/380px-The_execution_of_Guy_Fawkes%27_%28Guy_Fawkes%29_by _Claes_%28Nicolaes%29_Jansz_Visscher.jpg
yoginimama
03-20-2010, 05:49 AM
Pricing is a process through which all stuff is judged for its merit.
I believe you are completely wrong about that.
Pricing is a process through which men and women attempt to maximize their organization's profits by either putting the screws to consumers when demand is high, or tempting them when demand is low (but how you can pass that piece of crap up when it's on sale for 75% off?).
It goes without saying that an entire industry (advertising) exists to manipulate demand. Corporations pay lots of money to advertising agencies to help manipulate demand, which they hope will pay off by enabling them to sell more of their product at higher prices. It's a conscious investment.
There is nothing "natural" about prices, supply or demand, nor do their fluctuations have any relationship to "merit." Rather, prices are the result of hundreds of thousands of conscious decisions made by corporate employees with the goal of maximizing profit.
Ultimately it leads to resource allocation, and in that way, money is a governor that has supplanted manorial lords, priesthoods, and other elite castes of old.
And replaced them with CEOs, CFOs, fund managers, and other elite castes of today.
So you proposed to bring human beings back into a job which is currently automated by money
What, watching out for the environment? That is not even remotely automated by money, except to the extent that it will be automatically ignored by employees whose sole mandate is to maximize profit for their company's shareholders.
And back to the OP, the Bill of Rights stands in complete opposition to the exercise of money as a governing force, or else it would consist of only one item:
1) You can have all the rights for which you can afford to pay. When your money runs out, so do your protections.
I believe you are completely wrong about [pricing being a process through which all stuff is judged for its merit].
Pricing is a process through which men and women attempt to maximize their organization's profits by either putting the screws to consumers when demand is high, or tempting them when demand is low (but how you can pass that piece of crap up when it's on sale for 75% off?).
[citation required]
Pricing is the best mechanism that we have for allocating resources and capital development (Friendman 1990) (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). What would replace in its stead?
It goes without saying that an entire industry (advertising) exists to manipulate demand. Corporations pay lots of money to advertising agencies to help manipulate demand, which they hope will pay off by enabling them to sell more of their product at higher prices. It's a conscious investment.
Your point? Almost everybody accepts that advertising is a bit manipulative. If you feel that strongly about it, ignore it. No one is using force (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) to get you to buy a product. In the best case, advertising presents useful information to the consumer. In the worst case, advertising is manipulative. But, to paint a brush implying that it's all useless, is useless.
There is nothing "natural" about prices, supply or demand, nor do their fluctuations have any relationship to "merit." Rather, prices are the result of hundreds of thousands of conscious decisions made by corporate employees with the goal of maximizing profit.
Sure there is, supply and demand from microeconomics are about the only thing that economists can agree on: this includes Marxists, Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians. Of course the goal is to maximize profit: people, in general, want the best return (money or reputation) on whatever endeavor they do: I don't know anybody who will work for free. But it cuts both ways, if the profits are too high, competitors will notice and try to enter the market, which lowers prices (and profits).
1) You can have all the rights for which you can afford to pay. When your money runs out, so do your protections.
That's the way it always has been. The Rule of Law usually emerges when the society can evolve out of starvation.
larkin
03-20-2010, 07:42 AM
By the way the Bill of Rights are considered part of the Constitution just as the rest of the Amendments are considered a part of the Constitution.
This is largely semantics, but no, the Constitution is considered the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is considered, well, you probably know the rest. From the Constitutional Congress timeline:
March 4, 1789 - The Constitution goes into effect.
September 25, 1789 - Congress proposes Bill of Rights.
So, you think if that was taken out of the Bill of Rights it wouldn't change the way the Constitution is interpreted? You're kidding, right? It would change the Constitution from a document limiting the government to a document that limited everything except the federal government.
Hmm. And here I thought the Constitution was written in such a fashion that only the specific enumerated powers in the Constitution were granted to the federal government. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) So how does that square with it being a document that limited everything except the federal government?
yoginimama
03-20-2010, 10:25 AM
supply and demand from microeconomics are about the only thing that economists can agree on
But that's just a starting point. The question is, where do you go with it.
"The disciplining force of society is at its most effective when its human origins are denied or covered up. The admission that society - with all its prescriptions and proscriptions, rewards for obedience and punishments for veering off the line - rests ultimately on man-made choices and decisions invites critical scrutiny, dissent and resistance: What has been done by humans can be undone by humans. No wonder that throughout the modern era, attempts were made and continue to be made to represent the grounds for the demands of power-holders as beyond human capacity."
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. first paragraph after the introduction
What I'm trying to say is--money is not a Ding an sich. It's a tool. It's like a car or a gun; it doesn't operate unless someone does something (i.e. makes a choice).
So any talk which treats "money" or "prices" like a force of nature is talk which aims to prevent questioning and dissent. It is an effort to legitimize the current distribution of wealth and power as "beyond human capacity," as the way things inevitably are given the unchangeable circumstances around us.
From the article again:
"The capacity of the state for effective political action has been severely limited. As a result, quite a few of the modern-orthodox state functions have escaped or have been shifted sideways to the markets, increasingly emancipated from political supervision (let alone direction)...[the people affected by this change are now defined as] individuals: that is, actors concerned with the gratification of private needs and desires while using privately available and privately deployed resources and skills."
(3rd paragraph, section "The Agora")
Many people believe that this is how it 'naturally' is and how it 'must' be. Not so. There are other ways, including ones which do not lead to gulags--though I don't know why Americans are so afraid of that, given that our own system has led to the gulags too. The US is unquestionably a super-gulag society, given that we imprison more people than anyone else on earth, so I don't want to hear any protestations from anyone that more guv'mint involvement in the economy or to protect the environment would lead to loss of "freedoms." That ship has sailed:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._with _other_countries
"The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world at 754 persons in prison or jail per 100,000 (as of 2008).[3] A report released Feb. 28, 2008 indicates that more than 1 in 100 adults in the United States are in prison.[23] The United States has less than 5% of the world's population[24] and 23.4% of the world's prison population."
Which brings me back to the OP again: Lucid's point, obviously, in telling us to pick a right to do away with, is to spark the discussion that will make us realize that we've already lost them all, de facto if not de jure.
As witness the above.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.