ALT Bill of Rights Poll

[Glen]

Resolved: That the Bill of Rights be adopted as the high law of the land.

[Straha]

Ok. works for me...

[Soyuz]

Uh... only if we strike down certain sections that don't apply to us... I though we agreed on direct representation, for example. We're not comprised of States, so s.10 can be ripped out, etc.

[jolo]

I believe atm we need more of a "Bill of Duties" or a "Bill of Rights and Duties".

Can't someone make a proposal?

If not, I'll think about it. (That's a threat! :) )

[Glen]

I would suggest that a 'Bill of Duties' be worked on in the Government thread and submitted for the agenda for the next general meeting of the community.

The reason I want a straight up-down vote on the Bill of Rights is that it is well known, has done fairly well over time, and we should serve as a pretty good start for our society.

I agree that the part of amendment 10 (states versus federal) doesn't really apply in this situation, but there is no real need to debate that at this point, since it is rendered moot for now by the fact that there is only one state.

I also suspect there will be a movement out to amend the voting age. I expect that to be an amendment to the motion....in fact, does anyone object to us amending it to 16?

There may be others, as well. I'd like to get SOMETHING established, and then we can amend it. Otherwise we're going to be at that first meeting a very long time, and we have a lot to get done.

[Ghost 88]

Soyuz the Tenth Amendmet say (not a qoute ) All things not covered in this constitution shall belong to the states OR TO THE PEOPLE just raised my voice not shouted:D

[Soyuz]

Soyuz the Tenth Amendmet say (not a qoute ) All things not covered in this constitution shall belong to the states OR TO THE PEOPLE just raised my voice not shouted:D
Holy shmidt. I hope you're not from the US. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Limi ts_on_the_states) I'm talking about the actual rules, not exceptions.

And since I'm on this, the entire Article 1 can be removed. We don't have the population to require all that.

[Doctor What]

A heavily modified version of it, maybe. There are entire sections that don't apply to our situation.

But aren't we kind of jumping the gun here? Shouldn't we be set up first and then worry about which country's bill of rights we use?

[Ghost 88]

Holy shmidt. I hope you're not from the US. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Limi ts_on_the_states) I'm talking about the actual rules, not exceptions.

And since I'm on this, the entire Article 1 can be removed. We don't have the population to require all that.
Guilty:D Soyuz there are no exceptions to the US Constitution there are admendments the first ten of them go by the title of "the Bill of Rights" now I may be wrong but I think this is what Doc Glen is proposing When I first Answered you I thought you were refering to the 10th Amend. :o

[Ghost 88]

A heavily modified version of it, maybe. There are entire sections that don't apply to our situation.

But aren't we kind of jumping the gun here? Shouldn't we be set up first and then worry about which country's bill of rights we use?
As I told Soyuz I think what Doc Glen is going for is a guideline

[SionEwig]

I have no problem with use of the US Bill of Rights, but even those great 10 will need some modification - like the 2nd.

[Ghost 88]

I have no problem with use of the US Bill of Rights, but even those great 10 will need some modification - like the 2nd.
explain please.

[SionEwig]

explain please.

Primarily one small modification (I really ought to make you wait over multiple posts cause I know you are just frothing at the mouth to bite my head off:D , but I'll go on and say the small change I think should be made to the second ammendment).

As it reads now:

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.

I would like it to be changed to read as such:

The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Though when I can find what I am looking for in one book, I may have an addition to it. (Trust me, you'll like it).

Now see, didn't you get worked up and ready for a fight over nothing:) .

[Ghost 88]

Primarily one small modification (I really ought to make you wait over multiple posts cause I know you are just frothing at the mouth to bite my head off:D , but I'll go on and say the small change I think should be made to the second ammendment).

As it reads now:

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.

I would like it to be changed to read as such:

The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Though when I can find what I am looking for in one book, I may have an addition to it. (Trust me, you'll like it).

Now see, didn't you get worked up and ready for a fight over nothing:) .
Yes:o and no I long ago gave up trying to reason with gun control people. That is why I phrased it nicely. Had you been fanaticly anti 2 adm I was going to point out that your opions may/may not have validity in the 21st century they don't in the 30th century BC

[Hendryk]

If adopting the Bill of Rights amounts to recreating wholesale the kind of societal debates that have been polarizing the US, I don't really see the point. We need something that works for us, with the conditions we have now.
I mean, in the 21st century I'm squarely on the side of the advocates of gun control, and supposing that I got to tamper with the Second Amendment at all, that would likely be to remove it altogether. Except, of course, that this isn't the 21st century, and that the abundance of potentially dangerous fauna as well as unpredictable neighbors are going to make the wide availability of firearms a necessity for the foreseeable future. (Though the recent case of manslaughter definitely argues for some degree of control over who gets to own a gun, and specifically how sane they are. History will record that the two first persons of our community who died didn't meet their fate by the claws of a grizzly bear or the arrows of a disgruntled native, but by a 9 mm pistol in the hands of the wrong person).

[Glen]

Holy shmidt. I hope you're not from the US. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Limi ts_on_the_states) I'm talking about the actual rules, not exceptions.

And since I'm on this, the entire Article 1 can be removed. We don't have the population to require all that.

Article 1 would be the constitution proper, I am proposing the Bill of Rights portions only (first ten plus the others that cover basic rights sans the stuff that doesn't apply).

[Glen]

My whole point in immediately proposing adoption of the Bill of Rights as our first guiding principle is to set the tone for our society, to give us a high law by which all other decisions must be judged, and to do it NOW, before things can go crazy.

While I appreciate there may be many differences of opinion over specifics, the Bill of Rights is well known, has stood up fairly well over time, and sets the right tone (IMO).

I'd like to adopt it (and the other amendments that deal with human rights such as anti-slavery amendment), so we have some starting point. While I understand some will desire modifications, this will result in lengthy debates, which we don't really have a lot of spare time for on day one. Maybe we could have one modification per meeting brought up for debate, and slowly modify it as necessary for our situation. But we need to get our initial order established.

As for the second amendment part specifically being removed or modified, I think we are closer to the situation of the founding fathers than anything from modern times. I think the need for a well regulated militia and the right to keep and bear arms (which we are almost all doing anyway) are both vital to our viability as a community. But as I said before, we can debate that at need later. Let's just get to start with that we can mostly agree upon.

[Doctor What]

So--"Adopt the Bill of Rights--subject to modification at a later date" proposal?

[Glen]

So--"Adopt the Bill of Rights--subject to modification at a later date" proposal?

Yep, that's the essence of it.

[Glen]

bump bump bump

[Glen]

bump bump bump

bump bump bump

[Max Sinister]

I'd vote for writing a new constitution from scratch... when else do we have the opportunity?

[Glen]

I'd vote for writing a new constitution from scratch... when else do we have the opportunity?

Eventually we will do this, I suspect. However, we DON'T have the opportunity at present. We have survival issues to deal with. There will be little time or energy to debate the intricacies of a new constitution.

I would like to see, though, by the end of the year a draft of a new constitution. But its going to take some time. We can go ad hoc for a while too; I'd rather get the new constitution right than fast.

Remember, the Constitution didn't come to be until years after the Declaration of Independence. First we had the Articles of Confederation. Some nations like the UK have never had a formally written constitution.

What IS important, however, is that we have a High Law to guarantee the rights of the people against the abuses of government and each other, which is why I've recommended our Bill of Rights and Common Law as interim rules.