Re: What would you say about the following suggestion for constitution? -- Left-Wing Discussion

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Thu 2003-07-31 21:53:03
Author: Occam
Subject: Re: What would you say about the following suggestion for constitution?
In reply to: Redeye 's message, "What would you say about the following suggestion for constitution?" on Wed 2003-06-04 03:35:27

I haven't had the time to examine your proposal exhaustively, and I'm not a Constitutional expert, however, I'm appending my preliminary comments.

Article 2. Add at end of last sentence, "beyond protecting the rights and person of any individual."

Article 6. This last sentence sounds reasonable, but it doesn't seem to take into account the need for defensive ethics - protection from, say, invasion by armed troops or destructive religious fundamentalists.

Article 7. . . .conscription. . . Wouldn't the country need an army to respond to organized aggression from another country?

Article 8. First sentence: I would prefer some mechanism such that the 2% are clearly doing so independently and without some organized campaign financed by a special interest.

Article 8. Fourth sentence: I suggest that either each person may vote for as few or as many on the ballot as s/he desires, or that each voter may cast, say, up to three votes in order of preference for the candidates. In the first case the one with the highest majority wins; in the second, a win can only occur with a majority, and in each count iteration the lowest candidate is deleted and his/her votes be shifted to the voter's next lower choice on the ballot.

Article 8. Last sentence: What???? You want to allow citizens to vote for only five of the twenty-seven Specialized Legislators? While I think they should be appointed, if they are elected this limitation seems unreasonable.

Article 11. Fourth sentence: Would rather include a guarantee that all have access to the basic needs for life rather than allow a crime to balance a governmental deficiency.

Article 11. Last sentence: doesn't this last repeat the a priori prohibition in Article 59?

Article 12. No. Should spell out that the government is responsible for providing the funds for all health care. Can't expect a doctor or hospital to work for nothing.

Article 14. In the first sentence, delete the "or" and add after "ethnicity" "or individual behavior or characteristic which does not violate any other article of this document."

Article 16. No. May contribute funds and personnel to U.N. peace keeping forces. Should not be allowed to do this unilaterally, even if approved by the U.N.

Article 17. Add after "critical thinking" "and ethics"

Article 18. Change as follows: ". . .others [cross-out]to[/cross-out] {from} deliberately do{ing} the. . ."

Article 23. Ref. second sentence: Although it's not too practical and expensive, I'd rather the Representatives be elected in even years and the senators and president be elected in odd years.

Article 23. Need explanation of your use of "list."

Article 24. ". . . for a term of four years. . ." I prefer the stability of six years, the senators from one state not being elected at the same time, and only one third being elected at the same time as the president.

Article 24. Fourth sentence: "The number of eligible voters in every Senate district must be between four and a half and five and a half percent of the total number of eligible voters, . . " Interesting concept - that senators could represent voters in more than one state. For example, one Senator for Hawaii and Northern California each election. Would pairs of senators have to have the same geographic boundaries?

Article 24. Last sentence: "No candidate may contest more than one district" Ever or just at the same election?

Article 26. After "pertaining" "to"?

Article 26. Sixth sentence: "All bills must be debated for at least twenty-four net hours over at least three days and be passed in three readings in the house voting on them" {There are quite a few housekeeping bills that don't need that kind of discussion. Suggest adding in the beginning of the sentence, "If at least two members of the house request it, [cross-out]all[/cross-out] . . ."

Article 26. Last sentence: Some of these may put too much power in the hands of a single person or a very small group as obstructionists. Suggest needing a somewhat broader group to initiate these things.

Article 28. But, if the Federal government rejects or institutes a law prohibiting what the states said was legal, then all the state laws are invalid, e.g., medical use or decriminalization of marijuana, or gay marraige.

Article 29. I don't like this. If a liberal and an arch-conservative are the only two candidates, the liberal wins by a landslide then dies, the conservative gets in. If two liberals run to counter this then the conservative could win the election by a plurality. I would rather see a new election.

Article 31. This would make the ballots way too long for the average citizen to wade through. Suggest the houses appoint the members of the special legislators; one-quarter appointed by each of the two major parties, one-quarter apportioned among the minor parties, and one-quarter who are approved by caucuses of each major party.

Article 33. "The Presidential election coincides with every second Congressional election" unless the proposal for yearly elections is accepted.

Article 35. Uncertain of the ramifications of this, but it needs careful analysis before I could accept it. I get the feeling, without data, that some situations could occur where this could allow control to be given to someone the country's voters would and should reject.

Article 37. Add after, ". . .in cases of impeachment" "and conviction."

Article 40. First sentence: ". . . a citizen of the United States for five" {prefer at least ten and preferably twenty} "years and be at least thirty" {In general I'd like the person to have had more exposure in government so I could have more data on which to judge him/her. Thirty-five or forty seems more reasonable to me, especially with our longer life expectancies.} "at the beginning of the new term. Every candidate must also pass a National Knowledge Examination, written according to the Senate's guidelines" {How about intelligence, ethics, and adjustment?}.

Article 57. "States may secede from the Union, provided that in a referendum, three quarters of the voters" {Does this mean the voters in the state or the voters in the entire U.S.?}

Article 59. I would rather not see a limitation on the percent of taxes. I believe that everyone should have the right or at least chance to live above the poverty level, and their income shouldn't be taxed below that. I would rather see a personal exemption per family of, say, the first $50,000 of income, no deduction for dependents, and a flat tax after that, the percent calculated each year such that the budget is balanced. Note that the combination of initial large exemption with a set percentage after than isn't really a "flat tax" but rather, smoothly graduated with actual percent increasing with increasing income.

Article 60. Add "The current National Debt shall be reduced by one percent every year until it is eliminated."

Occam

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Okay, let's deal wtihthat point by point: -- Redeye, Fri 2003-08-01 12:14:47