Not bad for about 15 minute's work! The first section defines exactly what the amendment is speaking of. Don't worry that "abridgements" of your freedoms will be prevented by private entities. The first section insures that only foreign and domestic courts and foreign parliaments will be barred from "infringing" upon these rights. So an employer can still tell people not to talk on the job. Notice also that this amendment would in no way hamper Congress. In fact, it would give Congress added authority under the Constitution (section 3) to prevent more injustice than it currently is allowed to. I don't think that any foreign rulings should be accepted in the U.S. However, such a blanket statement would likely draw huge flak, so I carefully defined each value in section 2, especially that part concerning felonious convictions. If you are convicted of a felony, then you have basically handed your freedoms over to the government to be dealt with as they please. The amendment is just in draft form at the moment. However, as I look over it I can probably smooth out the rough edges and make it more presentable. What do you think about it? Any suggestions on what needs to be edited/inserted? In Him, D3Text of the Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution Section 1: No ruling by any court, domestic, foreign, or intergovernmental, nor any legislation by any foreign or intergovernmental legislative or parliamentary body, which abridges or restricts any fundamental freedoms as defined below, shall be accepted as legitimate or used as the basis for laws or legal rulings in the United States.
Section 2: Each citizen of the United States not convicted through due process of law of a felonious crime is guaranteed the following liberties under this amendment:
Section 3: Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States have the authority to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation and judicial rulings.Subsection 1: The liberty of free speech: the freedom to verbally express their personal beliefs and convictions in any environment, public or private, provided that such speech is not terroristic in nature. Only speech designed to cause fear of imminent physical bodily harm or treason against the government of the United States shall be defined as terroristic.
Subsection 2: The liberty of free press: the freedom to print or electronically transmit any materials expressing any beliefs under any circumstances, and the freedom to distribute said materials provided that said distribution in no way interferes with the personal preference of the recipients of such materials.
Subsection 3: The liberty of free belief: the freedom to hold any personal beliefs concerning truth and the freedom to share these beliefs with others in any circumstances provided that the transmission of information does not disturb the free movement of the individuals.
10.03.2005
Protecting Fundamental Rights and Freedoms | A 28th Amendment
Today, my great-grandfather Starling visited our church assembly and our home for a little fellowship. The man is 93 years old and still sharp; he remembers everything that ever happened to him since he was a boy . . . and can tell you all about it, too!
On this trip, he was very excited about a new idea that he had for the United States. He is worried that very soon, our courts and legislators will begin looking to Europe and other countries for a legal basis. This is not as far-fetched as we may think; Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court Justice who just resigned, often said that we should follow the European's lead when setting new legal precidents. With the condition that cowardly Europe is in, this would prove disastrous to all that makes America great.
So, my great-grandpa wants me to contact Jay Sekulow with the American Center for Law & Justice with a proposal for an protective amendment to the U.S. Constitution! Pretty sharp for 93 years old, isn't he?
I happily typed up a legal document in Constitutional format defining the things he wanted to put forth and sent him home with a copy to read. I decided to post it, so here it is!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Great amendment. I hope you do submit that to Jay Sekulow, because something certainly needs to be done about the issues addressed in Section 1 and Subsection 2.
Hey David, I think you should check out the Bricker Amendment that nearly passed in the 1950s. Here is a version:
"Sect. 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this constitution shall not be of any force or effect.
"Sect. 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of a treaty.
"Sect. 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.
"Sect. 4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
That is awesome about your grandfather! You really should get him to write down his experiences/memories ASAP! My grandparents found a relative who had gone on wagon trains out west, but she didn't remember anything by that time. :( Save the history for posterity! :)
Maybe I'm missing something, but what exactly is the point of this amendment? It seems that the other preceding amendments to the Constitution may cover most of what I believe this new amendment could protect against.
Specifically, what lacking of the other amendments will this new one protect against?
I for one believe that participation in democracy is essential to its functionability and continuity. This causes me to feel encouraged by any act of the citizenry getting involved and putting forth ideas and suggestions.
However, amending the Constitution is serious business and should be considered thoroughly. After consideration I am still unsure of what purpose this amendment would serve.
Could you clarify your intent and the specific points that are lacking which this amendment would remedy?
After taking another look at the proposed amendment, the language about anyone who hasn't been convicted of a crime sticks out to me.
Is the purpose rather than extending free speech rights to all citizens, which would seem unnecessary and redundant because we already have that, to revoke rights from convicted persons?
This sounds like an addition to the US Patriot Act to take away rights from a criminal (or terrorist) that wouldn't pass a referendum in Alabama much less nationally.
Please correct me if Im wrong, but if Im right this sounds like a pretty dangerous and even un-American idea...
"Only speech designed to cause fear of imminent physical bodily harm or treason against the government of the United States shall be defined as terroristic."
This sounds like it may refer to Pat Robertson. Its about time that as Christians we get together and rally against false prophets and hate mongers like this dispicable man. His words and his misuse of Jesus Christ to further his own political goals take credibility from all Christians. He has been making hateful statements for decades without admonishment so its about time. The amendment sounds good to me in that respect.
I would be absolutely opposed to Section 3.
Courts have never had the power to enforce the law or constitution through Judicial Ruling. They have already overstepped their bounds and stolen more governmental power than they were intended to have. I am loathe to give them more.
Is terroristic a word?
Post a Comment