Nightingale 0 #26 February 16, 2006 Quote 2. Universal non discrimination clause. No discrimination against any person, for any reason. I'm assuming you're extending this to individuals, as well as the government? If so, not a great idea. You'd end up with a situation where apartment complexes couldn't discriminate against, and thus, not rent to, low income people, even though they wouldn't be able to afford the apartment. If you can't discriminate on the basis of ability, that would make it impossible for an employer to find the best person for the job. They'd have to hire the first applicant...or would that be discrimination against the second applicant? Even if you're not extending it to the people and just limiting it to the government, you've just taken away the capability of the armed forces to discriminate against those with a lack of ability to physically and/or mentally assist with doing what the armed forces needs to do. An amendment of that scope doesn't make any sense. We discriminate against people every day. We know it's not right to discriminate against people for reasons unrelated to the matter at hand. For example, it would be wrong for an apartment manager to refuse to rent to someone on the basis of race or religion, but they need to be free to discriminate by income. Quote 3. An end to capital punishment. I agree with this one. Something like "capital punishment shall be categorized as cruel and unusual" would be a good change. Quote 4. Remove the government, federal, state and local, from the content of media, news ,broadcast and print. Restrict the government to regulating the airways for the sole purpose of frequency assignment. I like your premise, but this isn't practical. For example, one of the major functions of local government when it comes to broadcast communications is the regulation of the cable television industry, which MUST be regulated by local government, since it uses local government property to run cables. I think something that forbids government from regulating content would be a bit more practical. Quote 5. Restore punitive damages. in what kind of cases? Quote 6. Repeal the court stripping clause. I agree. That clause gives congress a bit too much power. Quote 7. Establish universal reproductive freedom for women. How about the freedom to use birth control methods for all people, and abortion rights for women? Women aren't the only ones who can take drugs or use protection to prevent pregnancy. Quote 8. Redefine the first amendment. Establish the "lemon test" as the criteria for church/state separation. I like your idea, but the Lemon test has been criticized extensively as being overly subjective. Quote 9. Repeal the tax exempt status of churches. Personally, I don't think churches should be tax exempt for money spent to further their religion, but money taken in and used for charitable purposes should remain tax exempt. Otherwise, you remove an incentive for the churches to implement social programs, and the more churches that have assistance programs, the less money the government will spend on them. Quote 10. Remove the right of the legislature to restrict the administration in matters of foreign affairs. What kind of foreign affairs, and to what extent? Are you referring to treaties? Or are you referring to foreign trade policy, deployment of soldiers, or something else entirely? "foreign affairs" is extremely broad. Quote 11. Restrict military deployment to only declared wars. Only two thirds majority to declare war. Would you then pull every soldier out of every foreign nation, because we're not at war? What about peacekeeping efforts, foreign aid for disasters such as the tsunami, and soldiers stationed at US embassies in foreign countries? Quote 12. Establish full public funding for all elections. Funding by the federal government? Should the feds be funding local elections for city council or mayors? Quote 13. Remove the practice of criminal defense to the courts. IOW, all criminal attorneys work for the courts. No jackpot justice for rich defendants. If you do that, you won't have enough attorneys. Many attorneys don't want to work for the government, and it'll be a huge expansion of government. It can also be seen as a conflict of interest. Do you really want the same entity that is accusing you to provide your defense? Quote 14. Establish severe penalties for white collar crime and frivolous law suits. Who decides when a suit is frivolous? Quote Comments? see above. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Steel 0 #27 February 16, 2006 QuoteI would have suggested something that would support gay rights, but MC208B tells us gay people already have TONS of special rights. Hopefully if everyone asks nicely he'll tell me what they are so I can start using them. You have the right to be a jackass at work. If they call you on it, you can simply say that they are only bothering you because they are homophobes. Then they will be too scared of a law suit to fire your ass. Judging from you're posts referring to people homophobes here, it would seem you have already mastered the use of this right. But it only works when you pretend you have no idea what I am talking about. So I will let you carry on as usual. ,If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #28 February 16, 2006 QuoteYou have the right to be a jackass at work. If they call you on it, you can simply say that they are only bothering you because they are homophobes. Ooo. That's great. Since I'm the owner of the company I'll have to give that a try. I'll let you know how it turns out. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #29 February 16, 2006 QuoteI'll let you know how it turns out. {{trying to picture Narcimund in front of a mirror making idle legal threats and then trying to decide if the other guy is really serious or not}} If the insurance is good, you might just have the first successful case of a person suing themselves for wrongdoing. it could be a whole new area of litigation. Hold out for at least $2Mil, you can do it. Edit: I wonder how many can to file a lawsuit against themselves for inappropriate touching from when they were going through puberty. Oh the trama!! ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #30 February 17, 2006 QuoteSome think there should be the right to assisted suicide. Others think there should be a right to smoke, do drugs, etc. Others may think that the right to health care should be included. I think it's idiotic to include as a right anything that someone else might have to provide for you. Health care? That's not a right that entitles you to do something, it's a "right" that requires someone ELSE to GIVE you something. Ergo, no fuckin' way. I think we need to establish a clear-cut right to respond to attack by another person or persons with deadly force. Essentially, the Constitutional codification of the commonlaw right to self defense. It is too easy for some jurisdictions to come close to outlawing your right to preserve your own life. This goes beyond the right to own guns, but it goes hand-in-glove with it. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites freethefly 6 #31 February 17, 2006 QuoteI think it's idiotic to include as a right anything that someone else might have to provide for you. Health care? That's not a right that entitles you to do something, it's a "right" that requires someone ELSE to GIVE you something. Ergo, no fuckin' way. If you payed into the system then you should have access to healthcare. I pay over $1200.00 a year into medicare but only get one appointment a year and it is just to monitor the advancement of the disease. No one is "giving" you anything free. I think "peaceful"jeffery would rather see sick and dying people laying in the streets as it would make it easier for him to kick them. Quote I think we need to establish a clear-cut right to respond to attack by another person or persons with deadly force. You can move to Iraq and have this "right" all day long."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #32 February 17, 2006 I like the constitution the way it is. there is no other like it in the entire world. I would however like to see the immediate stop of trying to reinvent the constitution through changing the meaning of words, due to modern usage of these words. they were in fact stated simply for all to understand, and in order to stand the test of time itself. Our founding forefathers had the vision of what we might become, and definitely understood what tyranny was. I also know that they feared complacency and in fact, people becoming ignorant of fact. misapplication of our laws, and using these same laws to negate our protection provided by the constitution itself is an abhorrent act. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #33 February 17, 2006 ...Quoteit shouldn't be necessary to spell out every right that should already be protected. Doing so will only marginalize this concept to start with... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Very well said. Perhaps a short list of rights all Americans should enjoy, in keeping with the Founders' vision, might be the right to free speech & peaceful assembly, even if there's an abortion clinic nearby. It should also spell out that people running for public office are free to communicate with the public as often as possible, and that citizens are free to support such candidacies with their own money. How about the right to own & carry firearms without being hassled/arrested? Perhaps an amendment spelling out privacy rights regarding searches, seizures, etc. Of course, this will leave a lot of police departments with expensive K-9 units they won't be needing on a regular basis. In fact, if the Bill of Rights were formally repealed, how much different would our lives be than they are at present? Forgive my ignorance, but it seems to me the "right" to do something means you can do it, period, without being hassled by the cops. It does not mean that that you are hassled, ticketed, arrested, etc., but the charges are later dropped. What am I missing? Cheers, Jon S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #34 February 17, 2006 The Supreme Court has held that a dog sniff doesn't constitute a search, so the K9s should be just fine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #35 February 17, 2006 QuoteThe Supreme Court has held that a dog sniff doesn't constitute a search, so the K9s should be just fine. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Here we go again waiting for the Court to define common sense for us. If it isn't a search, what is it? Are they looking for something? If "yes," it's a search. If "no," what are they doing? By the way, I have no quarrel with a search under circumstances which would have been considered normal 25 years ago. That is, they have some solid reason to believe a crime has been committed. (In other words, you stop a guy for a traffic violation and, in the course of speaking with the driver, you smell pot, crack, etc., or see a roach in the ashtray. This is probable cause for a search. A "Greatful Dead" bumper sticker is not. Nor is two guys in their 20's passing through with out-of-state tags.) Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tkhayes 348 #36 February 17, 2006 the hell with 'rights' - how about we add some RESPONSIBILITIES to the constitution TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #37 February 17, 2006 QuoteI pay over $1200.00 a year into medicare but only get one appointment a year and it is just to monitor the advancement of the disease. Great example of application of a public system. Don't you wish you could use that money to pay for a better health insurance plan rather than let medicare decide how to use your money? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #38 February 17, 2006 Quotethe hell with 'rights' - how about we add some RESPONSIBILITIES to the constitution TK is honest. That's what a lot of these comments are. 1 - what do we think people should be responsible for others 2 - what do we think people should be responsible for themselves #2 is rights, #1 is a lot of the suggestions, it's something different than rights ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BIGUN 1,484 #39 February 18, 2006 Quote"The right of the individual to personal privacy shall not be infringed without due process." DEAR GOD!!! I think I'm in love!! Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tink1717 2 #40 February 18, 2006 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Universal non discrimination clause. No discrimination against any person, for any reason. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm assuming you're extending this to individuals, as well as the government? If so, not a great idea. You'd end up with a situation where apartment complexes couldn't discriminate against, and thus, not rent to, low income people, even though they wouldn't be able to afford the apartment. If you can't discriminate on the basis of ability, that would make it impossible for an employer to find the best person for the job. They'd have to hire the first applicant...or would that be discrimination against the second applicant? Even if you're not extending it to the people and just limiting it to the government, you've just taken away the capability of the armed forces to discriminate against those with a lack of ability to physically and/or mentally assist with doing what the armed forces needs to do. An amendment of that scope doesn't make any sense. We discriminate against people every day. We know it's not right to discriminate against people for reasons unrelated to the matter at hand. For example, it would be wrong for an apartment manager to refuse to rent to someone on the basis of race or religion, but they need to be free to discriminate by income. This would apply only to government, not to individuals. This would not apply to the case of qualifications (just like it is now). IOW, if you can't pay, you don't qualify. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Remove the government, federal, state and local, from the content of media, news ,broadcast and print. Restrict the government to regulating the airways for the sole purpose of frequency assignment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I like your premise, but this isn't practical. For example, one of the major functions of local government when it comes to broadcast communications is the regulation of the cable television industry, which MUST be regulated by local government, since it uses local government property to run cables. I think something that forbids government from regulating content would be a bit more practical. I think you misunderstand. The assignment of channels, frequencies and such are the only things a government, at any level, should be allowed to regulate. Also, I think you statement about cable systems running on government owned facilities might be wrong. We here in MD have had cable for 30 years and none of it is owned by the government. All cables, relay gear and even the poles are 100% private. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Restore punitive damages. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- in what kind of cases? All of them. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Establish universal reproductive freedom for women. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How about the freedom to use birth control methods for all people, and abortion rights for women? Women aren't the only ones who can take drugs or use protection to prevent pregnancy. Biology dictates that issues of reproductive freedom fall more heavily on women then men. Therefore it is women who are in need of protection for their reproductive rights. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Redefine the first amendment. Establish the "lemon test" as the criteria for church/state separation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I like your idea, but the Lemon test has been criticized extensively as being overly subjective. Where has this been criticized? The only place I know of where Lemon is controversial is that of the fundementalist religions who are continually trying to skirt it. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. Restrict military deployment to only declared wars. Only two thirds majority to declare war. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Would you then pull every soldier out of every foreign nation, because we're not at war? What about peacekeeping efforts, foreign aid for disasters such as the tsunami, and soldiers stationed at US embassies in foreign countries? Relief for disasters is not deployment for the purpose of war. The posting of garrisons at embassies is a legitimate security use and is not related to war. I'm talking about restricting the White House from making wars willy nilly without the consent of the people. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. Establish full public funding for all elections. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Funding by the federal government? Should the feds be funding local elections for city council or mayors? Funding would be at the level of the election. Feds pay for feds, states pay for state, local pays for locals etc... Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. Remove the practice of criminal defense to the courts. IOW, all criminal attorneys work for the courts. No jackpot justice for rich defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you do that, you won't have enough attorneys. Many attorneys don't want to work for the government, and it'll be a huge expansion of government. It can also be seen as a conflict of interest. Do you really want the same entity that is accusing you to provide your defense? This is a copy of the process in The Netherlands. All parties work for the courts. All parties are independent and are free to pursue any and all leads. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. Establish severe penalties for white collar crime and frivolous law suits. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who decides when a suit is frivolous? The legislature, guided by the courts would establish the criteria for frivolous lawsuits and would establish severe penalties.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #41 February 18, 2006 I used to work for the City of Los Angeles' cable regulatory agency. The majority of cable lines are run under public streets, in most places. We did surveys of major cities all over the US. In most places, there is simply no way to get cable from one place to another without either running it under a public street at some point, or placing a pole on public property. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tink1717 2 #42 February 18, 2006 Running cable lines under, over or through public property is different than regulating and far away from content regulation. I don't care how local governments and private companies work out access issues for cable or other communications. Nor should such actions be enumerated in the constitution. But I seriously want ALL levels of government out of the content business.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #43 February 19, 2006 Quotepeople should have the right to do what ever the fuck they want so long as it doesn't hurt other people. There are two types of laws. Laws that protect your from other people (theft, battery) and laws that protect you from yourself (suicide). However, there are a lot of other laws that are made to prevent you from doing what other people consider harm. (See any vice law) Somehow, other people define harm as emotional or spiritual. When other people apply their definitions to your life, there is almost always conflict. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #44 February 19, 2006 >I think it's idiotic to include as a right anything that someone else might have to provide for you And I think we have to get away from the idea of government as an entity that gives you some of its stuff if you try hard enough. It gives us OUR stuff. We support it. We put tax money in and get courts, police, roads, an air traffic control system, and the CDC out of it. It's our money. We provide government services for ourselves. There's no free lunch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #45 February 21, 2006 Quote"The rights provided by the US Constitution shall apply to non-citizens in their dealings with the United States." Rights are not "provided" by the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees rights that are understood to be inherent in us by virtue of our birth. Stating that the Constitution "provides" rights demonstrates a profound misunderstanding: the notion that we are given our rights by our government. Actually, our government is given its powers by us. When enough people get this wrong (have enough people gotten it wrong already?) we will be in real trouble, because the populace will actually expect that all it's allowed to do is what the government says it's allowed to do. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Steel 0 #27 February 16, 2006 QuoteI would have suggested something that would support gay rights, but MC208B tells us gay people already have TONS of special rights. Hopefully if everyone asks nicely he'll tell me what they are so I can start using them. You have the right to be a jackass at work. If they call you on it, you can simply say that they are only bothering you because they are homophobes. Then they will be too scared of a law suit to fire your ass. Judging from you're posts referring to people homophobes here, it would seem you have already mastered the use of this right. But it only works when you pretend you have no idea what I am talking about. So I will let you carry on as usual. ,If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass. Can't think of anything I need No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound. Nothing to eat, no books to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #28 February 16, 2006 QuoteYou have the right to be a jackass at work. If they call you on it, you can simply say that they are only bothering you because they are homophobes. Ooo. That's great. Since I'm the owner of the company I'll have to give that a try. I'll let you know how it turns out. First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #29 February 16, 2006 QuoteI'll let you know how it turns out. {{trying to picture Narcimund in front of a mirror making idle legal threats and then trying to decide if the other guy is really serious or not}} If the insurance is good, you might just have the first successful case of a person suing themselves for wrongdoing. it could be a whole new area of litigation. Hold out for at least $2Mil, you can do it. Edit: I wonder how many can to file a lawsuit against themselves for inappropriate touching from when they were going through puberty. Oh the trama!! ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #30 February 17, 2006 QuoteSome think there should be the right to assisted suicide. Others think there should be a right to smoke, do drugs, etc. Others may think that the right to health care should be included. I think it's idiotic to include as a right anything that someone else might have to provide for you. Health care? That's not a right that entitles you to do something, it's a "right" that requires someone ELSE to GIVE you something. Ergo, no fuckin' way. I think we need to establish a clear-cut right to respond to attack by another person or persons with deadly force. Essentially, the Constitutional codification of the commonlaw right to self defense. It is too easy for some jurisdictions to come close to outlawing your right to preserve your own life. This goes beyond the right to own guns, but it goes hand-in-glove with it. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #31 February 17, 2006 QuoteI think it's idiotic to include as a right anything that someone else might have to provide for you. Health care? That's not a right that entitles you to do something, it's a "right" that requires someone ELSE to GIVE you something. Ergo, no fuckin' way. If you payed into the system then you should have access to healthcare. I pay over $1200.00 a year into medicare but only get one appointment a year and it is just to monitor the advancement of the disease. No one is "giving" you anything free. I think "peaceful"jeffery would rather see sick and dying people laying in the streets as it would make it easier for him to kick them. Quote I think we need to establish a clear-cut right to respond to attack by another person or persons with deadly force. You can move to Iraq and have this "right" all day long."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #32 February 17, 2006 I like the constitution the way it is. there is no other like it in the entire world. I would however like to see the immediate stop of trying to reinvent the constitution through changing the meaning of words, due to modern usage of these words. they were in fact stated simply for all to understand, and in order to stand the test of time itself. Our founding forefathers had the vision of what we might become, and definitely understood what tyranny was. I also know that they feared complacency and in fact, people becoming ignorant of fact. misapplication of our laws, and using these same laws to negate our protection provided by the constitution itself is an abhorrent act. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #33 February 17, 2006 ...Quoteit shouldn't be necessary to spell out every right that should already be protected. Doing so will only marginalize this concept to start with... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Very well said. Perhaps a short list of rights all Americans should enjoy, in keeping with the Founders' vision, might be the right to free speech & peaceful assembly, even if there's an abortion clinic nearby. It should also spell out that people running for public office are free to communicate with the public as often as possible, and that citizens are free to support such candidacies with their own money. How about the right to own & carry firearms without being hassled/arrested? Perhaps an amendment spelling out privacy rights regarding searches, seizures, etc. Of course, this will leave a lot of police departments with expensive K-9 units they won't be needing on a regular basis. In fact, if the Bill of Rights were formally repealed, how much different would our lives be than they are at present? Forgive my ignorance, but it seems to me the "right" to do something means you can do it, period, without being hassled by the cops. It does not mean that that you are hassled, ticketed, arrested, etc., but the charges are later dropped. What am I missing? Cheers, Jon S. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #34 February 17, 2006 The Supreme Court has held that a dog sniff doesn't constitute a search, so the K9s should be just fine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #35 February 17, 2006 QuoteThe Supreme Court has held that a dog sniff doesn't constitute a search, so the K9s should be just fine. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Here we go again waiting for the Court to define common sense for us. If it isn't a search, what is it? Are they looking for something? If "yes," it's a search. If "no," what are they doing? By the way, I have no quarrel with a search under circumstances which would have been considered normal 25 years ago. That is, they have some solid reason to believe a crime has been committed. (In other words, you stop a guy for a traffic violation and, in the course of speaking with the driver, you smell pot, crack, etc., or see a roach in the ashtray. This is probable cause for a search. A "Greatful Dead" bumper sticker is not. Nor is two guys in their 20's passing through with out-of-state tags.) Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tkhayes 348 #36 February 17, 2006 the hell with 'rights' - how about we add some RESPONSIBILITIES to the constitution TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #37 February 17, 2006 QuoteI pay over $1200.00 a year into medicare but only get one appointment a year and it is just to monitor the advancement of the disease. Great example of application of a public system. Don't you wish you could use that money to pay for a better health insurance plan rather than let medicare decide how to use your money? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #38 February 17, 2006 Quotethe hell with 'rights' - how about we add some RESPONSIBILITIES to the constitution TK is honest. That's what a lot of these comments are. 1 - what do we think people should be responsible for others 2 - what do we think people should be responsible for themselves #2 is rights, #1 is a lot of the suggestions, it's something different than rights ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BIGUN 1,484 #39 February 18, 2006 Quote"The right of the individual to personal privacy shall not be infringed without due process." DEAR GOD!!! I think I'm in love!! Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tink1717 2 #40 February 18, 2006 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Universal non discrimination clause. No discrimination against any person, for any reason. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm assuming you're extending this to individuals, as well as the government? If so, not a great idea. You'd end up with a situation where apartment complexes couldn't discriminate against, and thus, not rent to, low income people, even though they wouldn't be able to afford the apartment. If you can't discriminate on the basis of ability, that would make it impossible for an employer to find the best person for the job. They'd have to hire the first applicant...or would that be discrimination against the second applicant? Even if you're not extending it to the people and just limiting it to the government, you've just taken away the capability of the armed forces to discriminate against those with a lack of ability to physically and/or mentally assist with doing what the armed forces needs to do. An amendment of that scope doesn't make any sense. We discriminate against people every day. We know it's not right to discriminate against people for reasons unrelated to the matter at hand. For example, it would be wrong for an apartment manager to refuse to rent to someone on the basis of race or religion, but they need to be free to discriminate by income. This would apply only to government, not to individuals. This would not apply to the case of qualifications (just like it is now). IOW, if you can't pay, you don't qualify. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Remove the government, federal, state and local, from the content of media, news ,broadcast and print. Restrict the government to regulating the airways for the sole purpose of frequency assignment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I like your premise, but this isn't practical. For example, one of the major functions of local government when it comes to broadcast communications is the regulation of the cable television industry, which MUST be regulated by local government, since it uses local government property to run cables. I think something that forbids government from regulating content would be a bit more practical. I think you misunderstand. The assignment of channels, frequencies and such are the only things a government, at any level, should be allowed to regulate. Also, I think you statement about cable systems running on government owned facilities might be wrong. We here in MD have had cable for 30 years and none of it is owned by the government. All cables, relay gear and even the poles are 100% private. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Restore punitive damages. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- in what kind of cases? All of them. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Establish universal reproductive freedom for women. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How about the freedom to use birth control methods for all people, and abortion rights for women? Women aren't the only ones who can take drugs or use protection to prevent pregnancy. Biology dictates that issues of reproductive freedom fall more heavily on women then men. Therefore it is women who are in need of protection for their reproductive rights. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Redefine the first amendment. Establish the "lemon test" as the criteria for church/state separation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I like your idea, but the Lemon test has been criticized extensively as being overly subjective. Where has this been criticized? The only place I know of where Lemon is controversial is that of the fundementalist religions who are continually trying to skirt it. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. Restrict military deployment to only declared wars. Only two thirds majority to declare war. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Would you then pull every soldier out of every foreign nation, because we're not at war? What about peacekeeping efforts, foreign aid for disasters such as the tsunami, and soldiers stationed at US embassies in foreign countries? Relief for disasters is not deployment for the purpose of war. The posting of garrisons at embassies is a legitimate security use and is not related to war. I'm talking about restricting the White House from making wars willy nilly without the consent of the people. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. Establish full public funding for all elections. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Funding by the federal government? Should the feds be funding local elections for city council or mayors? Funding would be at the level of the election. Feds pay for feds, states pay for state, local pays for locals etc... Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. Remove the practice of criminal defense to the courts. IOW, all criminal attorneys work for the courts. No jackpot justice for rich defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you do that, you won't have enough attorneys. Many attorneys don't want to work for the government, and it'll be a huge expansion of government. It can also be seen as a conflict of interest. Do you really want the same entity that is accusing you to provide your defense? This is a copy of the process in The Netherlands. All parties work for the courts. All parties are independent and are free to pursue any and all leads. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. Establish severe penalties for white collar crime and frivolous law suits. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who decides when a suit is frivolous? The legislature, guided by the courts would establish the criteria for frivolous lawsuits and would establish severe penalties.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #41 February 18, 2006 I used to work for the City of Los Angeles' cable regulatory agency. The majority of cable lines are run under public streets, in most places. We did surveys of major cities all over the US. In most places, there is simply no way to get cable from one place to another without either running it under a public street at some point, or placing a pole on public property. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tink1717 2 #42 February 18, 2006 Running cable lines under, over or through public property is different than regulating and far away from content regulation. I don't care how local governments and private companies work out access issues for cable or other communications. Nor should such actions be enumerated in the constitution. But I seriously want ALL levels of government out of the content business.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #43 February 19, 2006 Quotepeople should have the right to do what ever the fuck they want so long as it doesn't hurt other people. There are two types of laws. Laws that protect your from other people (theft, battery) and laws that protect you from yourself (suicide). However, there are a lot of other laws that are made to prevent you from doing what other people consider harm. (See any vice law) Somehow, other people define harm as emotional or spiritual. When other people apply their definitions to your life, there is almost always conflict. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #44 February 19, 2006 >I think it's idiotic to include as a right anything that someone else might have to provide for you And I think we have to get away from the idea of government as an entity that gives you some of its stuff if you try hard enough. It gives us OUR stuff. We support it. We put tax money in and get courts, police, roads, an air traffic control system, and the CDC out of it. It's our money. We provide government services for ourselves. There's no free lunch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #45 February 21, 2006 Quote"The rights provided by the US Constitution shall apply to non-citizens in their dealings with the United States." Rights are not "provided" by the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees rights that are understood to be inherent in us by virtue of our birth. Stating that the Constitution "provides" rights demonstrates a profound misunderstanding: the notion that we are given our rights by our government. Actually, our government is given its powers by us. When enough people get this wrong (have enough people gotten it wrong already?) we will be in real trouble, because the populace will actually expect that all it's allowed to do is what the government says it's allowed to do. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Nightingale 0 #34 February 17, 2006 The Supreme Court has held that a dog sniff doesn't constitute a search, so the K9s should be just fine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Airman1270 0 #35 February 17, 2006 QuoteThe Supreme Court has held that a dog sniff doesn't constitute a search, so the K9s should be just fine. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Here we go again waiting for the Court to define common sense for us. If it isn't a search, what is it? Are they looking for something? If "yes," it's a search. If "no," what are they doing? By the way, I have no quarrel with a search under circumstances which would have been considered normal 25 years ago. That is, they have some solid reason to believe a crime has been committed. (In other words, you stop a guy for a traffic violation and, in the course of speaking with the driver, you smell pot, crack, etc., or see a roach in the ashtray. This is probable cause for a search. A "Greatful Dead" bumper sticker is not. Nor is two guys in their 20's passing through with out-of-state tags.) Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites tkhayes 348 #36 February 17, 2006 the hell with 'rights' - how about we add some RESPONSIBILITIES to the constitution TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #37 February 17, 2006 QuoteI pay over $1200.00 a year into medicare but only get one appointment a year and it is just to monitor the advancement of the disease. Great example of application of a public system. Don't you wish you could use that money to pay for a better health insurance plan rather than let medicare decide how to use your money? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #38 February 17, 2006 Quotethe hell with 'rights' - how about we add some RESPONSIBILITIES to the constitution TK is honest. That's what a lot of these comments are. 1 - what do we think people should be responsible for others 2 - what do we think people should be responsible for themselves #2 is rights, #1 is a lot of the suggestions, it's something different than rights ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites BIGUN 1,484 #39 February 18, 2006 Quote"The right of the individual to personal privacy shall not be infringed without due process." DEAR GOD!!! I think I'm in love!! Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tink1717 2 #40 February 18, 2006 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Universal non discrimination clause. No discrimination against any person, for any reason. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm assuming you're extending this to individuals, as well as the government? If so, not a great idea. You'd end up with a situation where apartment complexes couldn't discriminate against, and thus, not rent to, low income people, even though they wouldn't be able to afford the apartment. If you can't discriminate on the basis of ability, that would make it impossible for an employer to find the best person for the job. They'd have to hire the first applicant...or would that be discrimination against the second applicant? Even if you're not extending it to the people and just limiting it to the government, you've just taken away the capability of the armed forces to discriminate against those with a lack of ability to physically and/or mentally assist with doing what the armed forces needs to do. An amendment of that scope doesn't make any sense. We discriminate against people every day. We know it's not right to discriminate against people for reasons unrelated to the matter at hand. For example, it would be wrong for an apartment manager to refuse to rent to someone on the basis of race or religion, but they need to be free to discriminate by income. This would apply only to government, not to individuals. This would not apply to the case of qualifications (just like it is now). IOW, if you can't pay, you don't qualify. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Remove the government, federal, state and local, from the content of media, news ,broadcast and print. Restrict the government to regulating the airways for the sole purpose of frequency assignment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I like your premise, but this isn't practical. For example, one of the major functions of local government when it comes to broadcast communications is the regulation of the cable television industry, which MUST be regulated by local government, since it uses local government property to run cables. I think something that forbids government from regulating content would be a bit more practical. I think you misunderstand. The assignment of channels, frequencies and such are the only things a government, at any level, should be allowed to regulate. Also, I think you statement about cable systems running on government owned facilities might be wrong. We here in MD have had cable for 30 years and none of it is owned by the government. All cables, relay gear and even the poles are 100% private. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Restore punitive damages. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- in what kind of cases? All of them. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Establish universal reproductive freedom for women. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How about the freedom to use birth control methods for all people, and abortion rights for women? Women aren't the only ones who can take drugs or use protection to prevent pregnancy. Biology dictates that issues of reproductive freedom fall more heavily on women then men. Therefore it is women who are in need of protection for their reproductive rights. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Redefine the first amendment. Establish the "lemon test" as the criteria for church/state separation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I like your idea, but the Lemon test has been criticized extensively as being overly subjective. Where has this been criticized? The only place I know of where Lemon is controversial is that of the fundementalist religions who are continually trying to skirt it. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. Restrict military deployment to only declared wars. Only two thirds majority to declare war. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Would you then pull every soldier out of every foreign nation, because we're not at war? What about peacekeeping efforts, foreign aid for disasters such as the tsunami, and soldiers stationed at US embassies in foreign countries? Relief for disasters is not deployment for the purpose of war. The posting of garrisons at embassies is a legitimate security use and is not related to war. I'm talking about restricting the White House from making wars willy nilly without the consent of the people. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. Establish full public funding for all elections. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Funding by the federal government? Should the feds be funding local elections for city council or mayors? Funding would be at the level of the election. Feds pay for feds, states pay for state, local pays for locals etc... Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. Remove the practice of criminal defense to the courts. IOW, all criminal attorneys work for the courts. No jackpot justice for rich defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you do that, you won't have enough attorneys. Many attorneys don't want to work for the government, and it'll be a huge expansion of government. It can also be seen as a conflict of interest. Do you really want the same entity that is accusing you to provide your defense? This is a copy of the process in The Netherlands. All parties work for the courts. All parties are independent and are free to pursue any and all leads. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. Establish severe penalties for white collar crime and frivolous law suits. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who decides when a suit is frivolous? The legislature, guided by the courts would establish the criteria for frivolous lawsuits and would establish severe penalties.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #41 February 18, 2006 I used to work for the City of Los Angeles' cable regulatory agency. The majority of cable lines are run under public streets, in most places. We did surveys of major cities all over the US. In most places, there is simply no way to get cable from one place to another without either running it under a public street at some point, or placing a pole on public property. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Tink1717 2 #42 February 18, 2006 Running cable lines under, over or through public property is different than regulating and far away from content regulation. I don't care how local governments and private companies work out access issues for cable or other communications. Nor should such actions be enumerated in the constitution. But I seriously want ALL levels of government out of the content business.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites happythoughts 0 #43 February 19, 2006 Quotepeople should have the right to do what ever the fuck they want so long as it doesn't hurt other people. There are two types of laws. Laws that protect your from other people (theft, battery) and laws that protect you from yourself (suicide). However, there are a lot of other laws that are made to prevent you from doing what other people consider harm. (See any vice law) Somehow, other people define harm as emotional or spiritual. When other people apply their definitions to your life, there is almost always conflict. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,116 #44 February 19, 2006 >I think it's idiotic to include as a right anything that someone else might have to provide for you And I think we have to get away from the idea of government as an entity that gives you some of its stuff if you try hard enough. It gives us OUR stuff. We support it. We put tax money in and get courts, police, roads, an air traffic control system, and the CDC out of it. It's our money. We provide government services for ourselves. There's no free lunch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites peacefuljeffrey 0 #45 February 21, 2006 Quote"The rights provided by the US Constitution shall apply to non-citizens in their dealings with the United States." Rights are not "provided" by the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees rights that are understood to be inherent in us by virtue of our birth. Stating that the Constitution "provides" rights demonstrates a profound misunderstanding: the notion that we are given our rights by our government. Actually, our government is given its powers by us. When enough people get this wrong (have enough people gotten it wrong already?) we will be in real trouble, because the populace will actually expect that all it's allowed to do is what the government says it's allowed to do. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Airman1270 0 #35 February 17, 2006 QuoteThe Supreme Court has held that a dog sniff doesn't constitute a search, so the K9s should be just fine. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Here we go again waiting for the Court to define common sense for us. If it isn't a search, what is it? Are they looking for something? If "yes," it's a search. If "no," what are they doing? By the way, I have no quarrel with a search under circumstances which would have been considered normal 25 years ago. That is, they have some solid reason to believe a crime has been committed. (In other words, you stop a guy for a traffic violation and, in the course of speaking with the driver, you smell pot, crack, etc., or see a roach in the ashtray. This is probable cause for a search. A "Greatful Dead" bumper sticker is not. Nor is two guys in their 20's passing through with out-of-state tags.) Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #36 February 17, 2006 the hell with 'rights' - how about we add some RESPONSIBILITIES to the constitution TK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #37 February 17, 2006 QuoteI pay over $1200.00 a year into medicare but only get one appointment a year and it is just to monitor the advancement of the disease. Great example of application of a public system. Don't you wish you could use that money to pay for a better health insurance plan rather than let medicare decide how to use your money? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #38 February 17, 2006 Quotethe hell with 'rights' - how about we add some RESPONSIBILITIES to the constitution TK is honest. That's what a lot of these comments are. 1 - what do we think people should be responsible for others 2 - what do we think people should be responsible for themselves #2 is rights, #1 is a lot of the suggestions, it's something different than rights ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,484 #39 February 18, 2006 Quote"The right of the individual to personal privacy shall not be infringed without due process." DEAR GOD!!! I think I'm in love!! Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #40 February 18, 2006 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Universal non discrimination clause. No discrimination against any person, for any reason. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm assuming you're extending this to individuals, as well as the government? If so, not a great idea. You'd end up with a situation where apartment complexes couldn't discriminate against, and thus, not rent to, low income people, even though they wouldn't be able to afford the apartment. If you can't discriminate on the basis of ability, that would make it impossible for an employer to find the best person for the job. They'd have to hire the first applicant...or would that be discrimination against the second applicant? Even if you're not extending it to the people and just limiting it to the government, you've just taken away the capability of the armed forces to discriminate against those with a lack of ability to physically and/or mentally assist with doing what the armed forces needs to do. An amendment of that scope doesn't make any sense. We discriminate against people every day. We know it's not right to discriminate against people for reasons unrelated to the matter at hand. For example, it would be wrong for an apartment manager to refuse to rent to someone on the basis of race or religion, but they need to be free to discriminate by income. This would apply only to government, not to individuals. This would not apply to the case of qualifications (just like it is now). IOW, if you can't pay, you don't qualify. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Remove the government, federal, state and local, from the content of media, news ,broadcast and print. Restrict the government to regulating the airways for the sole purpose of frequency assignment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I like your premise, but this isn't practical. For example, one of the major functions of local government when it comes to broadcast communications is the regulation of the cable television industry, which MUST be regulated by local government, since it uses local government property to run cables. I think something that forbids government from regulating content would be a bit more practical. I think you misunderstand. The assignment of channels, frequencies and such are the only things a government, at any level, should be allowed to regulate. Also, I think you statement about cable systems running on government owned facilities might be wrong. We here in MD have had cable for 30 years and none of it is owned by the government. All cables, relay gear and even the poles are 100% private. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Restore punitive damages. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- in what kind of cases? All of them. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Establish universal reproductive freedom for women. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How about the freedom to use birth control methods for all people, and abortion rights for women? Women aren't the only ones who can take drugs or use protection to prevent pregnancy. Biology dictates that issues of reproductive freedom fall more heavily on women then men. Therefore it is women who are in need of protection for their reproductive rights. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Redefine the first amendment. Establish the "lemon test" as the criteria for church/state separation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I like your idea, but the Lemon test has been criticized extensively as being overly subjective. Where has this been criticized? The only place I know of where Lemon is controversial is that of the fundementalist religions who are continually trying to skirt it. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. Restrict military deployment to only declared wars. Only two thirds majority to declare war. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Would you then pull every soldier out of every foreign nation, because we're not at war? What about peacekeeping efforts, foreign aid for disasters such as the tsunami, and soldiers stationed at US embassies in foreign countries? Relief for disasters is not deployment for the purpose of war. The posting of garrisons at embassies is a legitimate security use and is not related to war. I'm talking about restricting the White House from making wars willy nilly without the consent of the people. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. Establish full public funding for all elections. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Funding by the federal government? Should the feds be funding local elections for city council or mayors? Funding would be at the level of the election. Feds pay for feds, states pay for state, local pays for locals etc... Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. Remove the practice of criminal defense to the courts. IOW, all criminal attorneys work for the courts. No jackpot justice for rich defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you do that, you won't have enough attorneys. Many attorneys don't want to work for the government, and it'll be a huge expansion of government. It can also be seen as a conflict of interest. Do you really want the same entity that is accusing you to provide your defense? This is a copy of the process in The Netherlands. All parties work for the courts. All parties are independent and are free to pursue any and all leads. Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. Establish severe penalties for white collar crime and frivolous law suits. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who decides when a suit is frivolous? The legislature, guided by the courts would establish the criteria for frivolous lawsuits and would establish severe penalties.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #41 February 18, 2006 I used to work for the City of Los Angeles' cable regulatory agency. The majority of cable lines are run under public streets, in most places. We did surveys of major cities all over the US. In most places, there is simply no way to get cable from one place to another without either running it under a public street at some point, or placing a pole on public property. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tink1717 2 #42 February 18, 2006 Running cable lines under, over or through public property is different than regulating and far away from content regulation. I don't care how local governments and private companies work out access issues for cable or other communications. Nor should such actions be enumerated in the constitution. But I seriously want ALL levels of government out of the content business.Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off. -The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!) AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #43 February 19, 2006 Quotepeople should have the right to do what ever the fuck they want so long as it doesn't hurt other people. There are two types of laws. Laws that protect your from other people (theft, battery) and laws that protect you from yourself (suicide). However, there are a lot of other laws that are made to prevent you from doing what other people consider harm. (See any vice law) Somehow, other people define harm as emotional or spiritual. When other people apply their definitions to your life, there is almost always conflict. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #44 February 19, 2006 >I think it's idiotic to include as a right anything that someone else might have to provide for you And I think we have to get away from the idea of government as an entity that gives you some of its stuff if you try hard enough. It gives us OUR stuff. We support it. We put tax money in and get courts, police, roads, an air traffic control system, and the CDC out of it. It's our money. We provide government services for ourselves. There's no free lunch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #45 February 21, 2006 Quote"The rights provided by the US Constitution shall apply to non-citizens in their dealings with the United States." Rights are not "provided" by the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees rights that are understood to be inherent in us by virtue of our birth. Stating that the Constitution "provides" rights demonstrates a profound misunderstanding: the notion that we are given our rights by our government. Actually, our government is given its powers by us. When enough people get this wrong (have enough people gotten it wrong already?) we will be in real trouble, because the populace will actually expect that all it's allowed to do is what the government says it's allowed to do. --Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
