OT (xposted) - US Constitution discussion

[Kane]

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:44:14 +1000, michelle downunder
> wrote:

>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:57:35 -0500, toto >
>wrote:
>
>>Any ideas would be appreciated. No legal language please.
>>Let's keep it on a level that those of us who are not lawyers,
>>can understand.
>
>maybe clarify the part about the "right to bear arms", as far as this
>os person is concerned, it pertains to the militia, not to the
>ordinary citizen.

The ordinary citizen, that is the enfranchised, and that changes over
time since the founders wrote the document, ARE the militia.

It has been show that the attempt to portray the National Guard as
"the militia" is a bogus association. They NG did not exist at the
time.

The entire concept was that the ordinary citizen was the ultimate
arbiter of its own fate and could not prevail without arms.

You need to read the debate at the time and understand the concept.
The idea of an armed government and an unarmed citizenry was repugnant
to our founders as they understood history and did not wish to repeat
the blunder's of Europe.
>
>maybe your voting could become compulsory ;-) and like the rest of
the
>commonwealth

Not quite sure what that means, but that would be flying directly in
the face of the recognition of basic human rights, listed and not
listed in our constitution.

I've taken the liberty of xposting to the most appropriate ng for the
subject you brought up. If you'd care to google "the second amendment"
or "the 2nd" in that ng you'll see this has been debated endlessly and
resolved.

>/snicker

Don't snicker, it's unbecoming. And the hallmark of the subject,
rather than the citizen.

>
>Michelle

Kane

[Robert Frenchu]

On 2 Jul 2003 05:50:13 -0700, (Kane)
wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 14:44:14 +1000, michelle downunder
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 13:57:35 -0500, toto >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Any ideas would be appreciated. No legal language please.
>>>Let's keep it on a level that those of us who are not lawyers,
>>>can understand.
>>
>>maybe clarify the part about the "right to bear arms", as far as this
>>os person is concerned, it pertains to the militia, not to the
>>ordinary citizen.
>
>The ordinary citizen, that is the enfranchised, and that changes over
>time since the founders wrote the document, ARE the militia.

It makes no sense for the GOVERNMENT to give itself a RIGHT. IT just
doesn't work that way. Of course, the gun-grabbing monkeys see what
they want to see.

--

If my "assault rifle" makes me a criminal
And my encryption program makes me a terrorist
Does Dianne Feinstein's vagina make her a prostitute?

[Robert Frenchu]

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:58:04 -0500, tötö© >
wrote:

>I asked a MUCH broader question.
>
>What should a modern constitution include and why?
>
>I am not interested in debating what the current constitution means
>at this point.
>
>Despite the American tendency to believe that the Constitution is a
>sacred document, the fact is that the life span of a democratic
>republic tends to max out at about 200 years. If we want to keep
>our country viable for longer, I think that we need to consider
>what kinds of changes might be needed to our founding document.
>
>I don't want to eliminate the bill of rights or to change individual
>freedoms it guarantees, but we need to make the words much
>clearer and we need to change some things for the modern
>world and the changes that have come over time to the country
>itself in terms of size, diverse population and other factors.

In that case, I would include something along the lines of

"Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful
purposes. This declaration in no way limits the reasons a citizen may
keep or bear arms."

[David J. Hughes]

tötö© wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:22:21 GMT, Robert Frenchu
> <The-Rifleman-_at_-toughguy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>It makes no sense for the GOVERNMENT to give itself a RIGHT. IT just
>>doesn't work that way. Of course, the gun-grabbing monkeys see what
>>they want to see.
>
>
> Michelle, btw, is from Australia not from the US and her perspective
> is interesting, but not necessarily accurate.
>
> This thread despite Kane's attempt to make it about gun rights is not
> intended to be about any single issue. It's not about the first
> amendment or any other parts of the BOR..
>
> I asked a MUCH broader question.
>
> What should a modern constitution include and why?
>


The primary organizational document for a government should cover
several things:
The form of government
The structure of the government
The operation of the government
The powers of the government
The balance and separation of powers within the government
The restrictions imposed on the government
A method of changing the document

There are many ways to govern, I have a certain fondness for a
Democratically Representative Federal Republic, but I can also make an
argument for a Confederation of Sates (Essentially where the EU is
heading, but with each of the 50 States being in the position of
independent countries. Yes, the EU is just now catching up to the
position the North American Colonies were 220 years ago :-).)

Currently the US use a system of three branches, the executive,
legislative and judicial, with the legislative branch consisting of
two houses. Not a bad system when it works properly, but showing
signs of creeping decay.

My biggest complaint is that the legislative branch both determines
how the funds that support the government shall be raised, and how
they shall be spent, with essentially no outside control.
Now, would you give your 13 year child a Platinum credit card, and not
bother looking at the statements for a year, just paying the balance
every month? You might have a responsible kid, and no problems, you
might have one that needs a little guidance, or you might find
yourself so deep in debt you'll never get out.

The often proposed Presidential line item veto would be similar to
saying to your kid "No, you can't have that" "You don't need it" or
"We can't afford it".
Of course, you would want to have a process to overrule this line
veto, but it should be item by item, with a higher level of
legislative concurrence required.

In addition, the legislature sets their own salaries and expense
account limits. How do I get a deal like that?

There's a start on answering your question.

[Robert Frenchu]

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 15:50:55 -0500, tötö© >
wrote:

>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 18:34:22 GMT, Robert Frenchu
><The-Rifleman-_at_-toughguy.net> wrote:
>
>>In that case, I would include something along the lines of
>>
>>"Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and
>>defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful
>>purposes. This declaration in no way limits the reasons a citizen may
>>keep or bear arms."
>
>One comment here. I think the this declaration in no way limits the
>reasons is redundant. I don't think citizens should have it as a
>right to keep arms because they want to burglarize a bank for
>example, but actually the reasons can't be addressed at all
>because no one is going to give an unlawful reason if you ask
>them and we don't want thought control.
>
>I can't see any way to determine what a person's reason for wanting
>a gun is anymore than I can read his mind.

Reasonable people might agree with you. However, I believe the
statement is necessary, as some will twist the examples given to mean
limits.

[Robert Frenchu]

On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:29:20 GMT, "Scout" >
wrote:

>
>"Robert Frenchu" <The-Rifleman-_at_-toughguy.net> wrote in message
s.com...
>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:58:04 -0500, tötö© >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I asked a MUCH broader question.
>> >
>> >What should a modern constitution include and why?
>> >
>> >I am not interested in debating what the current constitution means
>> >at this point.
>> >
>> >Despite the American tendency to believe that the Constitution is a
>> >sacred document, the fact is that the life span of a democratic
>> >republic tends to max out at about 200 years. If we want to keep
>> >our country viable for longer, I think that we need to consider
>> >what kinds of changes might be needed to our founding document.
>> >
>> >I don't want to eliminate the bill of rights or to change individual
>> >freedoms it guarantees, but we need to make the words much
>> >clearer and we need to change some things for the modern
>> >world and the changes that have come over time to the country
>> >itself in terms of size, diverse population and other factors.
>>
>> In that case, I would include something along the lines of
>>
>> "Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and
>> defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful
>> purposes. This declaration in no way limits the reasons a citizen may
>> keep or bear arms."
>
>I see an immediate problem. We understand what you are referring to when you
>say citizen. However, what happens if a shift in language makes people
>"subjects", "residents", "participants", etc?

I suppose anything can be redefined- "firearm," "kee," "bear," etc.
etc.

>Suddenly since this only protects the rights of citizens, and there are no
>citizens, we have no protections.
>
>Sorry, but you guys are fighting a lost battle. The problem isn't that the
>language isn't understood, or no one knows what it means, but rather it is
>because those in power are not required to pay attention to it. THAT, is the
>problem, and one which altering the language is NOT going to solve.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the present Constitution.

[Scout]

"tötö©" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 22:29:20 GMT, "Scout" >
> wrote:
>
> >Part I
> >"Any person in an elected office who introduces or votes for legislation
> >that is later found to be Unconstitutional, shall be removed from any
> >government position they currently hold, lose all benefits they may be
due
> >from any government service, position or office they have ever held. Such
> >person shall be prohibited from ever again being in government service or
> >holding any government position or office.
> >
> >Part II
> >"Any Judge or Justice that rules a law is Constitutional which is later
> >found to be Unconstitutional, shall be subject to summary execution
without
> >the possibility of stay, suspension or pardon."
> >
> Why execute judges but not legislators? At least make the penalties
> the same in both cases.

Because as I explained. Judges are held to a higher standard because they
are the assigned watchdogs over the legislature. The legislature can try to
pull dirty tricks but can't unless the Judges fail. So ultimately the
enforcement of Unconstitutional law falls directly in the lap of the Judges.
They are the ones that ultimately failed their obligation and did so in a
manner that directly harmed others. As such, they are the ones that should
be subject to the harshest penalities. Not that I would protect execution in
Part I, but I feel that might be somewhat excessive given that until
enforced by a Judge, the law does no harm.

> >Let's hold their feet to the fire, and make them accept consequences for
> >violating what is enacted within the Constitution.
>
> Aside from that, this position will have a chilling effect on both
> those who are voting for our laws and those who are judging them
> in terms of interpreting their constitutionality, I fear. The way the
> second one is worded, the judges would be best to rule every law
> that comes before them Unconstitutional immediately.

And that is a problem because?

Seriously though, it would be a complication only if Judges either
accidentally or intentionally failed to apply the Constitution in their
decisions about the Constitutionality of the law. If it was accidental, then
they should have known better, and **** happens, if intentional then they
are better off dead. The only real fault would that could occur is where one
or more Judges rule a law is Constitutional, and other Judges work to
protect them from the consequences of their decision.

However, consider for the moment the pain, torment, suffering, etc that will
result from an Unconstitutional law which is being enforced. How many
hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of people will have their lives
disrupted and/or destroyed due to the enforcement of such a law. What of the
value of what they have lost, perhaps forever?

Nope, I can't consider any punishment too harsh when compared against such
loses. After all we execute criminals who have done far less, and they
aren't expected to uphold the Constitution and thus held to a higher
standard. Nope, I think a judge SHOULD give serious pause at every ruling
and consider whether the law in question truly is Constitutional. Don't you?

[Morton Davis]

"David J. Hughes" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> tötö© wrote:
> > On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 13:22:21 GMT, Robert Frenchu
> > <The-Rifleman-_at_-toughguy.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It makes no sense for the GOVERNMENT to give itself a RIGHT. IT just
> >>doesn't work that way. Of course, the gun-grabbing monkeys see what
> >>they want to see.
> >
> >
> > Michelle, btw, is from Australia not from the US and her perspective
> > is interesting, but not necessarily accurate.
> >
> > This thread despite Kane's attempt to make it about gun rights is not
> > intended to be about any single issue. It's not about the first
> > amendment or any other parts of the BOR..
> >
> > I asked a MUCH broader question.
> >
> > What should a modern constitution include and why?
> >
>
>
> The primary organizational document for a government should cover
> several things:

It's a troll question.

-*MORT*-

[David J. Hughes]

Follow up to address several points:

"The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms."

"The people" same usage as all other portions of the Constitution, an
individual right.

A person, duly convicted in a court of law, may have any and all
rights restricted, but such restrictions are removed upon completion
of sentence.
In many cases, as soon as a person completed their full sentence, they
would immediately be able to vote, run for elected office, keep and
bear arms, perform jury duties. After all, if they can't be trusted,
why have they been released?
On a case by case basis, a court may impose extended restriction on
rights (someone with a history of violence may have the right to keep
and bear arms restricted, someone convicted of election fraud may have
their right to run for elected office or vote restricted, etc.), but
any individual, upon completing the regular terms of sentence, may
petition the court for release from these restrictions.

Note that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't remove the
responsibility of the individual for public safety and personal
responsibility.

If you want to pack around a LAW rocket, be prepared to pay for any
damages you might cause with it.


On the Constitutionality question:
Between the time a bill is signed into law and it goes into effect,
the appropriate level of the judiciary must review it for
Constitutionality. (A city law goes to state and federal court, a
national law goes to the Supreme Court.)
Such review does not limit later challenges to the law on
Constitutional grounds.

Any elected official found to have violated the Constitutional rights
of any individual, including by passing or enforcing a law later found
to be unconstitutional, may be subject to a fine of up to $10,000 per
violation, and may be subject to up to one year of penal servitude.

And a new item:
"An individual owns and is sole responsible for their own person."

If someone wants to smoke tobacco, drink alcohol, get a tattoo,
indulge in recreational pharmaceuticals, commit suicide, etc., it is
their right. If they damage themselves, they get to pay for repairs
themselves. If they damage anyone else, they get to pay for the
damages first, before paying off their own problems.

David Hughes

[The Lone Weasel]

"David J. Hughes" > wrote in message >...
> Follow up to address several points:
>
> "The people shall have the 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."

It's a militia amendment. The language you cited is found in state
constitutions.

Point proven.

> "The people" same usage as all other portions of the Constitution, an
> individual right.

Well, your rightwing pal on the US Supreme Court says the word people
means the same all through the Constitution, like in the Preamble and
Article I, Section 2, and those are clearly collective contexts.

"U.S. Constitution: Preamble

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for
the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We the People of the United States..." means all the people together,
not just persons accused of crimes.

"U.S. Constitution: Article I

"Section 2.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen
every second Year by the People of the several States, and the
Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for
Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to
the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the
United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of
that State in which he shall be chosen."

That's pretty clear constitutional language. "... chosen every second
year by the people of the several states..." certainly doesn't mean by
just a few guys in the state capital, isn't that right Davey?

And in the next clause, "no Person shall be a Representative who shall
not have attained to the age of twenty five Years...", that certainly
refers to individuals, doesn't it? Because the whole body of the
people doesn't become a representative, right?

I'm glad you asked. Now you know better than the gunlobby would
allow, if you gave them a say so.

Judge Roberts said the same thing in Cockrum v State, 1859. It's not
a new concept that the people indicates a collective context and not
an individual one, as Chief Justice Rehnquist, one of the gunlobby's
most reliable friends, said in UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ (494
US 259)265:

"While this textual exegesis is
by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by
the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and
to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth
Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national
community..."

A class of persons is not an individual person. It is a collective of
persons, as is a community. When the Constitution means an individual
person it says so:

"FIFTH AMENDMENT

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury..."

See how that works, Davey? And here's Judge Roberts just to show that
we knew the same thing in Texas way back in 1859 just like today:

_______________


The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it is
said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the amendments:
"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." O. & W. Dig. 7. The clause in the
constitution of this state, which it is said to violate, is the
13th section of the bill of rights: "Every citizen shall have
the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defense of
himself or the state." O. & W. Dig. 14.

The object of the clause first cited, has reference to the
perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea, that
the people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are
not first disarmed. The clause cited in our bill of rights, has
the same broad object in relation to the government, and in
addition thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen. The
right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of
himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from
the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention
of the people that framed the state government.

The clause cited in our bill of rights, has the same broad
object in relation to the government, and in addition thereto,
secures a personal right to the citizen.


Cockrum v. State, 24 Texas 394 (1859)

[David Lentz]

Scout wrote:

<snip>

> > Why execute judges but not legislators? At least make the penalties
> > the same in both cases.
>
> Because as I explained. Judges are held to a higher standard because they
> are the assigned watchdogs over the legislature. The legislature can try to
> pull dirty tricks but can't unless the Judges fail. So ultimately the
> enforcement of Unconstitutional law falls directly in the lap of the Judges.
> They are the ones that ultimately failed their obligation and did so in a
> manner that directly harmed others. As such, they are the ones that should
> be subject to the harshest penalities. Not that I would protect execution in
> Part I, but I feel that might be somewhat excessive given that until
> enforced by a Judge, the law does no harm.

I disagree on two points.

One, nothing in either our legal tradition or the Constitution
anoints judges with any percale authority over the Constitution.
The Constitution was aa grant by the People to create a federal
government. The Constitution is not a license to judges to
create law as they alone see fit.

Two, the problem with judicial accountability is that their isn't
any. It not that judges are held to a higher standard, They
are not held to the lowest of standards. We need to start
impeaching judges for misconduct from the bench. Those judges,
hello Sandra Day O'Connor, who refuse to adhere to the
Constitution must be removed from the People's office.

David

[David J. Hughes]

Tom Boland wrote:
> "Robert Frenchu" <The-Rifleman-_at_-toughguy.net> wrote in message
> s.com...
>
>>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:58:04 -0500, tötö© >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I asked a MUCH broader question.
>>>
>>>What should a modern constitution include and why?
>>>
>>>I am not interested in debating what the current constitution means
>>>at this point.
>>>
>>>Despite the American tendency to believe that the Constitution is a
>>>sacred document, the fact is that the life span of a democratic
>>>republic tends to max out at about 200 years. If we want to keep
>>>our country viable for longer, I think that we need to consider
>>>what kinds of changes might be needed to our founding document.
>>>
>>>I don't want to eliminate the bill of rights or to change individual
>>>freedoms it guarantees, but we need to make the words much
>>>clearer and we need to change some things for the modern
>>>world and the changes that have come over time to the country
>>>itself in terms of size, diverse population and other factors.
>>
>>In that case, I would include something along the lines of
>>
>>"Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and
>>defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful
>>purposes. This declaration in no way limits the reasons a citizen may
>>keep or bear arms."
>
>
> So you have no problem with making hunting a constitutional right (CR)? What
> about water skiing or nude volleyball or dwarf tossing or other forms of
> recreation?

Well, he did specify "lawful" hunting, suggesting that hunting is NOT
an unrestricted right (the same would apply to "recreational use").

>
> If hunting is a CR, would it then be legal to have guns to hunt pigeons in
> the middle of a densely populated city?

Sure, why not? An intelligent hunter would chose an appropriate
firearm, caliber and round for the intended purpose, to eliminate as
much as possible any hazard to the public, since you would still be
responsible for any injuries or property damage you cause.
(Careless or unthinking hunters would quickly find themselves in
court, thereby becoming a self limiting problem.)

Think about it for a minute - if you
> can only use your hunting guns in unpopulated areas, you are discriminating
> against all city dwellers.
>
> This is not as silly as it sounds. One of the problems with making changes
> like this is that we will end up creating CR's that we did not intend.
>
> I am not picking on the second amendment in particular here. It was just the
> one under discussion at the moment.
>
> Tom Boland
>

Just addressing your questions, I personally favor an absolute right
to keep and bear arms, with no weasely justifications or purposes.
"Sir, why are you lugging around a manpack mini gun?"
"Because I damn well feel like it, not that it's any of your damn
business, nosey!"

David Hughes

[Robert Frenchu]

On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 04:19:47 GMT, "Tom Boland"
> wrote:

>
>"Robert Frenchu" <The-Rifleman-_at_-toughguy.net> wrote in message
s.com...
>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:58:04 -0500, tötö© >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I asked a MUCH broader question.
>> >
>> >What should a modern constitution include and why?
>> >
>> >I am not interested in debating what the current constitution means
>> >at this point.
>> >
>> >Despite the American tendency to believe that the Constitution is a
>> >sacred document, the fact is that the life span of a democratic
>> >republic tends to max out at about 200 years. If we want to keep
>> >our country viable for longer, I think that we need to consider
>> >what kinds of changes might be needed to our founding document.
>> >
>> >I don't want to eliminate the bill of rights or to change individual
>> >freedoms it guarantees, but we need to make the words much
>> >clearer and we need to change some things for the modern
>> >world and the changes that have come over time to the country
>> >itself in terms of size, diverse population and other factors.
>>
>> In that case, I would include something along the lines of
>>
>> "Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and
>> defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful
>> purposes. This declaration in no way limits the reasons a citizen may
>> keep or bear arms."
>
>So you have no problem with making hunting a constitutional right (CR)? What
>about water skiing or nude volleyball or dwarf tossing or other forms of
>recreation?

I'm not "making" any rights. Rights aren't "made." They're simply
declared.

[Morton Davis]

"Tom Boland" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Robert Frenchu" <The-Rifleman-_at_-toughguy.net> wrote in message
> s.com...
> > On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:58:04 -0500, tötö© >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I asked a MUCH broader question.
> > >
> > >What should a modern constitution include and why?
> > >
> > >I am not interested in debating what the current constitution means
> > >at this point.
> > >
> > >Despite the American tendency to believe that the Constitution is a
> > >sacred document, the fact is that the life span of a democratic
> > >republic tends to max out at about 200 years. If we want to keep
> > >our country viable for longer, I think that we need to consider
> > >what kinds of changes might be needed to our founding document.
> > >
> > >I don't want to eliminate the bill of rights or to change individual
> > >freedoms it guarantees, but we need to make the words much
> > >clearer and we need to change some things for the modern
> > >world and the changes that have come over time to the country
> > >itself in terms of size, diverse population and other factors.
> >
> > In that case, I would include something along the lines of
> >
> > "Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and
> > defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful
> > purposes. This declaration in no way limits the reasons a citizen may
> > keep or bear arms."
>
> So you have no problem with making hunting a constitutional right (CR)?
What
> about water skiing or nude volleyball or dwarf tossing or other forms of
> recreation?
>
> If hunting is a CR, would it then be legal to have guns to hunt pigeons in
> the middle of a densely populated city? Think about it for a minute - if
you
> can only use your hunting guns in unpopulated areas, you are
discriminating
> against all city dwellers.
>
> This is not as silly as it sounds. One of the problems with making changes
> like this is that we will end up creating CR's that we did not intend.
>
> I am not picking on the second amendment in particular here. It was just
the
> one under discussion at the moment.
>
Being silly about it is not the way to go. Why don't you suggest that it
would mean wildlife preserves would be uncoinstitutional and we could hunt
the animals in the zoo as well?

-*MORT*-

[Robert Frenchu]

On 4 Jul 2003 13:08:18 GMT, Carl Nisarel
> wrote:

>Insisting that it was only a flesh wound, Robert Frenchu,
>cried out --
>
>> I'm not "making" any rights. Rights aren't "made." They're
>> simply declared.
>
>Heh. AnthroBob thinks that rights are 'things' that float
>around in the ether.

Hey look! It's "Carl!" The attention defict poster boy! Are you
following me around, trying to get my attention, "Carl?"

Carl will now give us an example of how to manufacture a right, using
only common household ingredients.

_______
"Yet another gunnutter runs away spewing ad hominems."
-Catl, 10 June 2002

[Scout]

"Tom Boland" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Robert Frenchu" <The-Rifleman-_at_-toughguy.net> wrote in message
> s.com...
> > On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 12:58:04 -0500, tötö© >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I asked a MUCH broader question.
> > >
> > >What should a modern constitution include and why?
> > >
> > >I am not interested in debating what the current constitution means
> > >at this point.
> > >
> > >Despite the American tendency to believe that the Constitution is a
> > >sacred document, the fact is that the life span of a democratic
> > >republic tends to max out at about 200 years. If we want to keep
> > >our country viable for longer, I think that we need to consider
> > >what kinds of changes might be needed to our founding document.
> > >
> > >I don't want to eliminate the bill of rights or to change individual
> > >freedoms it guarantees, but we need to make the words much
> > >clearer and we need to change some things for the modern
> > >world and the changes that have come over time to the country
> > >itself in terms of size, diverse population and other factors.
> >
> > In that case, I would include something along the lines of
> >
> > "Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and
> > defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful
> > purposes. This declaration in no way limits the reasons a citizen may
> > keep or bear arms."
>
> So you have no problem with making hunting a constitutional right (CR)?
What
> about water skiing or nude volleyball or dwarf tossing or other forms of
> recreation?
>
> If hunting is a CR, would it then be legal to have guns to hunt pigeons in
> the middle of a densely populated city? Think about it for a minute - if
you
> can only use your hunting guns in unpopulated areas, you are
discriminating
> against all city dwellers.
>
> This is not as silly as it sounds. One of the problems with making changes
> like this is that we will end up creating CR's that we did not intend.
>
> I am not picking on the second amendment in particular here. It was just
the
> one under discussion at the moment.

As far as all the above go. I have absolutely NO problem with prohibited the
federal government from imposing such controls. It should be left up to the
State, County, or City to decide on these issues, if anyone should have the
power to address these.

[Scout]

"tötö©" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:57:01 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
> > wrote:
>
> >Just addressing your questions, I personally favor an absolute right
> >to keep and bear arms, with no weasely justifications or purposes.
> >"Sir, why are you lugging around a manpack mini gun?"
> >"Because I damn well feel like it, not that it's any of your damn
> >business, nosey!"
> >
> >David Hughes
>
> LOL Don't take this wrong (it's a quote from a friend who is
> in Switzerland)
>
> "Why would anybody in our civilized countries need to bear and keep
> weapons for security?

Answer: Because civilized countries don't always remain civilized nor free
from attack by those less civilized whether on a national or individual
level.

> Aren't we all cozily protected by our wonderful
> governments?

Who protects you from your wonderful government?

> And what would recreational mean? The idiots disturbing
> my Sunday peace at the nearby shooting range? I pray to whoever is
> responsible the ****s shoot there respective heads off, asap.
> Yours must be one of very few countries cementing penis envy in the
> constitution."

No offense, not this doesn't sound like anyone from Switzerland to me.
Sounds more like an American anti-gun troll.

[Scout]

"tötö©" > wrote in message
...
> On 3 Jul 2003 22:14:32 -0700, (Leif Rakur)
> wrote:
>
> >There's a difference between voting on the one hand and chosing or
> >electing on the other. Voting is an individual act. Choosing or
> >electing a representative is an act of the electorate collectively. A
> >witty U.S. politician, after having lost his bid for re-election,
> >commented:
>
> Something interesting here from Australia, btw.
>
> The Australian have compulsory voting, but.... they allow you to
> put in a blank ballot if you don't want to vote for any of the
> candidates on the ballot. I assume though I don't know, that
> they also would allow you to write in anyone you wished to
> write in.
>
> With this system, my Aussie friend contends that at least people
> do think about the situation because it takes some effort to go
> and get to the polling place.
>
> Now, my own thought would be that if the number of blank ballots
> exceeds the number of votes for any candidate, the candidates
> would be deleted and the process would then have to begin with
> new candidates entirely... Meanwhile the offices would go vacant
> until a new election
>
> Comments?

Absolutely......

Of course, the next step would be to prohibit blank ballots. Then fictitious
characters. Then.....

[Two Bears]

toto > wrote in message >...
> If aps and asadd would like to participate, I invite people to
> come over to aac to continue since this may be annoying to
> regs in aps or asadd who are not interested. I wanted to invite
> those who had participated in the What is Terrorism thread
> that was xposted to misc.kids into the discussion and I don't
> know which groups most of them post to by their nics.
>
> Marcie, Jake, Chris, Kane, Mark Probert? Any of you up
> for this kind of discussion? I really would like some ideas
> about this. My own are only half-formed really.
>
> US Constitution is hopelessly outdated according to some people
> I speak to from various other countries of the world.

What a laugh! In other countries huh? Screw them and I don't like
their hats. They are not worth the words which prove them contemptuous
and jealous of the fact that some of us US citizens HAVE a
constitution WITH a Bill of Rights and were and are willing to fight
to get and keep them ~!!

> There is some sentiment for this in the US as well. And there is
> some sentiment that our present constitution is a problem mainly
> because the powers that be have not really adhered to its original
> tenets and protections for citizens.

Yep, and they should be in one of those "other countries"

> So....
>
> What kinds of things should a modern constitution contain?

None. It is fine the way it is. The controversy it causes is healthy,
reminding patriots to be ever vigilant.


> Which provisions that are currently in the US Constitution
> should be eliminated, if any? (No, I am not for eliminating
> the BOR, though updated language might make a few things
> more clear).

One of the beauties of the document is that those who are good for the
country understand it and those who are cancerous to the country try
to missinterpret it.

> Any ideas would be appreciated. No legal language please.
> Let's keep it on a level that those of us who are not lawyers,
> can understand.

The first good thing you've said.

[David J. Hughes]

tötö© wrote:
> On 3 Jul 2003 22:14:32 -0700, (Leif Rakur)
> wrote:
>
>
>>There's a difference between voting on the one hand and chosing or
>>electing on the other. Voting is an individual act. Choosing or
>>electing a representative is an act of the electorate collectively. A
>>witty U.S. politician, after having lost his bid for re-election,
>>commented:
>
>
> Something interesting here from Australia, btw.
>
> The Australian have compulsory voting, but.... they allow you to
> put in a blank ballot if you don't want to vote for any of the
> candidates on the ballot. I assume though I don't know, that
> they also would allow you to write in anyone you wished to
> write in.
>
> With this system, my Aussie friend contends that at least people
> do think about the situation because it takes some effort to go
> and get to the polling place.
>
> Now, my own thought would be that if the number of blank ballots
> exceeds the number of votes for any candidate, the candidates
> would be deleted and the process would then have to begin with
> new candidates entirely... Meanwhile the offices would go vacant
> until a new election
>
> Comments?
>

Rather than a blank ballot, which is merely an abstention, how about:

Candidate A
Candidate B
Candidate C
..
..
Candidate whatever
Write in candidate
Abstention
None of the above are acceptable

Vote for any of the listed candidates, write in a candidate, abstain,
which means your vote is listed specifically as an abstention, or vote
"NotA", which would specifically call for either a new slate of
candidates or a vacant position.

David Hughes

[Scout]

"tötö©" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 15:03:42 GMT, "Scout" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"tötö©" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:57:01 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Just addressing your questions, I personally favor an absolute right
> >> >to keep and bear arms, with no weasely justifications or purposes.
> >> >"Sir, why are you lugging around a manpack mini gun?"
> >> >"Because I damn well feel like it, not that it's any of your damn
> >> >business, nosey!"
> >> >
> >> >David Hughes
> >>
> >> LOL Don't take this wrong (it's a quote from a friend who is
> >> in Switzerland)
> >>
> >> "Why would anybody in our civilized countries need to bear and keep
> >> weapons for security?
> >
> >Answer: Because civilized countries don't always remain civilized nor
free
> >from attack by those less civilized whether on a national or individual
> >level.
> >
> >> Aren't we all cozily protected by our wonderful
> >> governments?
> >
> >Who protects you from your wonderful government?
> >
> >> And what would recreational mean? The idiots disturbing
> >> my Sunday peace at the nearby shooting range? I pray to whoever is
> >> responsible the ****s shoot there respective heads off, asap.
> >> Yours must be one of very few countries cementing penis envy in the
> >> constitution."
> >
> >No offense, not this doesn't sound like anyone from Switzerland to me.
> >Sounds more like an American anti-gun troll.
> >
> Nah. He's a radical left-winger though.

Figures. Same empty headed emotionalism.

[Beth]

Dorothy,


I am interested in your discussion, but the ideas I have are too vague
and ill-formed for posting publicly. I recently lost my address book
due to a hard-drive failure combined with my own proscrationation
tendencies towards back-ups. Could you email me your current address
and I'll correspond with you privately.

Beth Clarkson


(Two Bears) wrote in message >...
> toto > wrote in message >...
> > If aps and asadd would like to participate, I invite people to
> > come over to aac to continue since this may be annoying to
> > regs in aps or asadd who are not interested. I wanted to invite
> > those who had participated in the What is Terrorism thread
> > that was xposted to misc.kids into the discussion and I don't
> > know which groups most of them post to by their nics.
> >
> > Marcie, Jake, Chris, Kane, Mark Probert? Any of you up
> > for this kind of discussion? I really would like some ideas
> > about this. My own are only half-formed really.
> >
> > US Constitution is hopelessly outdated according to some people
> > I speak to from various other countries of the world.
>
> What a laugh! In other countries huh? Screw them and I don't like
> their hats. They are not worth the words which prove them contemptuous
> and jealous of the fact that some of us US citizens HAVE a
> constitution WITH a Bill of Rights and were and are willing to fight
> to get and keep them ~!!
>
> > There is some sentiment for this in the US as well. And there is
> > some sentiment that our present constitution is a problem mainly
> > because the powers that be have not really adhered to its original
> > tenets and protections for citizens.
>
> Yep, and they should be in one of those "other countries"
>
> > So....
> >
> > What kinds of things should a modern constitution contain?
>
> None. It is fine the way it is. The controversy it causes is healthy,
> reminding patriots to be ever vigilant.
>
>
> > Which provisions that are currently in the US Constitution
> > should be eliminated, if any? (No, I am not for eliminating
> > the BOR, though updated language might make a few things
> > more clear).
>
> One of the beauties of the document is that those who are good for the
> country understand it and those who are cancerous to the country try
> to missinterpret it.
>
> > Any ideas would be appreciated. No legal language please.
> > Let's keep it on a level that those of us who are not lawyers,
> > can understand.
>
> The first good thing you've said.

[David J. Hughes]

tötö© wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:43:31 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
> > wrote:
>
> Thanks David. You have a lot of interesting ideas about this.
>
>>
>>Follow up to address several points:
>>
>>"The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms."
>>
>>"The people" same usage as all other portions of the Constitution, an
>>individual right.
>>
>
> I agree about the non-ambiguous phrasing here.
>
>
>>A person, duly convicted in a court of law, may have any and all
>>rights restricted, but such restrictions are removed upon completion
>>of sentence.
>
>
> Do you think this might lead to harsher and longer sentences for
> crimes of violence though?
>

A definite possibility. Which would you rather see confined, a
violent sociopath, a generally useful and law abiding citizen who
would benefit from anger management therapy, or a shoplifter?

>
>>In many cases, as soon as a person completed their full sentence, they
>>would immediately be able to vote, run for elected office, keep and
>>bear arms, perform jury duties. After all, if they can't be trusted,
>>why have they been released?
>
>
> There is a certain amount of recidivism for many crimes. And they
> are released often because it costs so much to keep them in jail
> that we cannot do so.

Release all the simple drug possession offenders, and we have plenty
of space and resources.

>
>
>>On a case by case basis, a court may impose extended restriction on
>>rights (someone with a history of violence may have the right to keep
>>and bear arms restricted, someone convicted of election fraud may have
>>their right to run for elected office or vote restricted, etc.), but
>>any individual, upon completing the regular terms of sentence, may
>>petition the court for release from these restrictions.
>>
>
> I like this. It would probably make sex-offender registry
> unconstitutional too, though. How do you feel about that
> issue?

Break it down into categories:
Violent, abusive sexual predators? Bury them under the jail, as far
as I'm concerned.

People who made some bad choices, and are unlikely to be repeat
offenders? Why mess up the rest of their lives?

Other? Take on a case by case basis.

>
>
>>Note that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't remove the
>>responsibility of the individual for public safety and personal
>>responsibility.
>>
>>If you want to pack around a LAW rocket, be prepared to pay for any
>>damages you might cause with it.
>>
>>
>>On the Constitutionality question:
>>Between the time a bill is signed into law and it goes into effect,
>>the appropriate level of the judiciary must review it for
>>Constitutionality. (A city law goes to state and federal court, a
>>national law goes to the Supreme Court.)
>>Such review does not limit later challenges to the law on
>>Constitutional grounds.
>>
>>Any elected official found to have violated the Constitutional rights
>>of any individual, including by passing or enforcing a law later found
>>to be unconstitutional, may be subject to a fine of up to $10,000 per
>>violation, and may be subject to up to one year of penal servitude.
>>
>>And a new item:
>>"An individual owns and is sole responsible for their own person."
>>
>>If someone wants to smoke tobacco, drink alcohol, get a tattoo,
>>indulge in recreational pharmaceuticals, commit suicide, etc., it is
>>their right. If they damage themselves, they get to pay for repairs
>>themselves. If they damage anyone else, they get to pay for the
>>damages first, before paying off their own problems.
>>
>
> I like that too. OTOH, would this preclude parents piercing their
> children's ears or c*rcumscising them? Since the child also
> would own and be responsible for his own person. Would you
> limit this by age? (playing devil's advocate here a bit).
>

Yeah, that's a major point. Ideally, rights should go back to
conception, but that's impractical.
Could use a graduated maturity scale. Parents or guardians have
absolute rights up to roughly age seven, or when the child can
understand and explain what their rights are.
Limited control granted in steps, possibly after tests for maturity
and recognition of the consequences of choices.
Full rights granted only upon demonstrated financial and social
independence from parents.

Some kids might exercise full rights, including voting and holding
public office at 12, others might never make it.

Possibly allow for the child to sue for divorce from the family,
making themselves wards of the court.

Then again, sometimes I think the Roman Republic had the right idea.
Children were chattel property of the father, subject to retro active
abortion, until 19 for females, and 23 for males.

>
>>David Hughes
>
>
>
>

[David J. Hughes]

tötö© wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 04:21:54 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>tötö© wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 21:43:31 -0500, "David J. Hughes"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>Thanks David. You have a lot of interesting ideas about this.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Follow up to address several points:
>>>>
>>>>"The people shall have the right to keep and bear arms."
>>>>
>>>>"The people" same usage as all other portions of the Constitution, an
>>>>individual right.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I agree about the non-ambiguous phrasing here.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>A person, duly convicted in a court of law, may have any and all
>>>>rights restricted, but such restrictions are removed upon completion
>>>>of sentence.
>>>
>>>
>>>Do you think this might lead to harsher and longer sentences for
>>>crimes of violence though?
>>>
>>
>>A definite possibility. Which would you rather see confined, a
>>violent sociopath, a generally useful and law abiding citizen who
>>would benefit from anger management therapy, or a shoplifter?
>>
>
> I think that we should confine the least number of people possible.
> There are other alternatives to curtail criminal behavior than locking
> people up (other than those who are violent sociopaths, who must
> be locked away from us while they are being treated - some of these
> will not be amenable to treatment at all, but some will once we have
> more knowledge about the disease they suffer from).

Agreed.

>
>>>>In many cases, as soon as a person completed their full sentence, they
>>>>would immediately be able to vote, run for elected office, keep and
>>>>bear arms, perform jury duties. After all, if they can't be trusted,
>>>>why have they been released?
>>>
>>>
>>>There is a certain amount of recidivism for many crimes. And they
>>>are released often because it costs so much to keep them in jail
>>>that we cannot do so.
>>
>>Release all the simple drug possession offenders, and we have plenty
>>of space and resources.
>>
>
> Frankly I would legalize most drugs. I think that the crimes
> committed to get the money to buy them are worse than the
> drugs. And I think that alcohol is worse than most drugs when
> abused.
>
> I would however have a more Swedish view about driving under
> the influence. A person who drives when drunk on alcohol or
> under the influence of drugs should lose his license for a lengthy
> period ot fime for the *first* offense and permanently for the
> second offense. If you do drugs, fine, you only harm yourself,
> but if you drive and do drugs, you have the potential to kill other
> innocent people.
>
> This, however, doesn't have to be spelled out in the constitution,
> but it should be federal law, imo.
>

I concur.

>
>>>
>>>>On a case by case basis, a court may impose extended restriction on
>>>>rights (someone with a history of violence may have the right to keep
>>>>and bear arms restricted, someone convicted of election fraud may have
>>>>their right to run for elected office or vote restricted, etc.), but
>>>>any individual, upon completing the regular terms of sentence, may
>>>>petition the court for release from these restrictions.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I like this. It would probably make sex-offender registry
>>>unconstitutional too, though. How do you feel about that
>>>issue?
>>
>>Break it down into categories:
>>Violent, abusive sexual predators? Bury them under the jail, as far
>>as I'm concerned.
>>
>>People who made some bad choices, and are unlikely to be repeat
>>offenders? Why mess up the rest of their lives?
>>
>>Other? Take on a case by case basis.
>>
>
> We are more in agreement than not here. I think that such a registry
> gives people a false sense of security actually. I do think that the
> most violent need to be confined away from society. Still I don't
> believe we need to treat them harshly in such a prison situation. It
> seems to me that society should not descend to the level of the
> criminal in its treatment of them.
>
>
>>>
>>>>Note that the right to keep and bear arms doesn't remove the
>>>>responsibility of the individual for public safety and personal
>>>>responsibility.
>>>>
>>>>If you want to pack around a LAW rocket, be prepared to pay for any
>>>>damages you might cause with it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On the Constitutionality question:
>>>>Between the time a bill is signed into law and it goes into effect,
>>>>the appropriate level of the judiciary must review it for
>>>>Constitutionality. (A city law goes to state and federal court, a
>>>>national law goes to the Supreme Court.)
>>>>Such review does not limit later challenges to the law on
>>>>Constitutional grounds.
>>>>
>>>>Any elected official found to have violated the Constitutional rights
>>>>of any individual, including by passing or enforcing a law later found
>>>>to be unconstitutional, may be subject to a fine of up to $10,000 per
>>>>violation, and may be subject to up to one year of penal servitude.
>>>>
>>>>And a new item:
>>>>"An individual owns and is sole responsible for their own person."
>>>>
>>>>If someone wants to smoke tobacco, drink alcohol, get a tattoo,
>>>>indulge in recreational pharmaceuticals, commit suicide, etc., it is
>>>>their right. If they damage themselves, they get to pay for repairs
>>>>themselves. If they damage anyone else, they get to pay for the
>>>>damages first, before paying off their own problems.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I like that too. OTOH, would this preclude parents piercing their
>>>children's ears or c*rcumscising them? Since the child also
>>>would own and be responsible for his own person. Would you
>>>limit this by age? (playing devil's advocate here a bit).
>>>
>>
>>Yeah, that's a major point. Ideally, rights should go back to
>>conception, but that's impractical.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>>Could use a graduated maturity scale. Parents or guardians have
>>absolute rights up to roughly age seven, or when the child can
>>understand and explain what their rights are.
>
>
> Not bad, would you have a test of some kind for the full exercise
> of a child's rights?

Perhaps, but I have no valid idea how to design or administer such a
test.

>
>
>>Limited control granted in steps, possibly after tests for maturity
>>and recognition of the consequences of choices.
>>Full rights granted only upon demonstrated financial and social
>>independence from parents.
>>
>>Some kids might exercise full rights, including voting and holding
>>public office at 12, others might never make it.
>>
>>Possibly allow for the child to sue for divorce from the family,
>>making themselves wards of the court.
>>
>>Then again, sometimes I think the Roman Republic had the right idea.
>>Children were chattel property of the father, subject to retro active
>>abortion, until 19 for females, and 23 for males.
>>
>
> Interesting that you think males should be killed for longer than
> females here. You must dislike your own sex.. <g>

Well, in the Republic, girls were generally married by 19, and became
their husbands' chattel and no longer a concern to their father.
Boys only option get out from under daddy's thumb was to join the
Legion. Join at 15, first enlistment runs 20 years.

Let's be honest, human males aged 14 to 25 do a lot of really stupid
things. <g>