Constitutional Amendment to Protect our Inalienable Rights

Discussion in 'Civil Liberties' started by Shiva_TD, Dec 18, 2011.

  1. galant

    galant Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2014
    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    no piece of paper CAN protect your rights. Only the threat (or actual use) of force can protect your rights. and if rights really ARE "inalienable", then how come they need to be protected, hmm? cause they CAN be "alienated" from you, that's why!
     
  2. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once agian this confuses "inalienable" with "inviolable" and the two words are not the same. An inalienable (natural) right is not inviolable and can be violated.

    It is true to some extent that only the threat or the use of force can defend the Inalienable Rights of the Person which was the logical rationalization for "government" as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Without government each person would fundamentally be restricted to staying at home to defend themselves from acts of aggression by other individuals. Government, and it's ability to use force, provides an umbrella of protection allowing us the liberty to leave our homes and go out into the world. In short government allows us the "freedom to exercise" our "Inalienable (natural) right of liberty" because it imposes rules to protect our inalienable rights backed by the threat (or use) of force.

    Unfortunately because an understanding of "inalienable (natural) rights" is not really being promoted few even understand what they are.

    In addition to our inalienable rights we also have civil rights that only exist because government exists. The "right to vote" is a civil right that has no basis in nature because people don't vote in nature. Even with "civil rights" we have significant failures of the Supreme Court to enforce the Constitution.

    For example if we look at Article I Section 2 and at the 17th Amendment we find that the US Constitution specifies that members of the House and Senate are to be "elected by the people" and the word "people" (and person) when used in the US Constitution refers to all those living under the jurisdiction of our government. That includes both citizens and non-citizens residing in the United States and yet our statutory federal laws prohbit non-citizens from voting in direct violation of the US Constitution. The non-citizen immigrant, under the US Constitution, has a civil right to vote for the members of the Senate and House from their respective State that is being violated by federal law.
     
  3. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I found this article:
    http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/the-book/excerpt/

    It was an interesting read, and despite it happening a long time ago, it made me very angry.
    Apparently it is possible for State governments to imprison people and force them into servitude, without the victim ever having chosen to break a law.
     
  4. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    While not as blatant as the white supremacy right-wing racism of the KKK that was at it's peak of political power in turn of the (20th) century which the article addresses this same oppression continues today based upon laws crafted and selectively enforced to imprison African-Americans. Statistical evidence gives credence to the racial discrimination in our laws and criminal justice system today in most, but not all, cases related to the War on Drugs. The oppression is continuing including the disenfranchisement (loss of the right to vote) based upon racism in our laws and criminal justice system.

    African-Americans have long been trying to get this addressed and liberal Democrats have at least listened but done really nothing. On the flip side, with one noteable exception, the Republicans have refused to address the problem. The one exception is Sen Rand Paul that is publically speaking out on the problem of racial discrimination in our criminal laws and criminal justice system. Unfortunately the issue isn't getting much traction within the Republican Party so it is doubtful much will be done in the next to years (or foreseeable future).

    What was happening 100 years ago based upon racism is indefensible but the fact it continues today, albeit more hidden from view, is beyond deplorable.

    "ARRESTED FOR DRIVING WHILE BLACK" remains a felony offense in far too many cases today.
     
  5. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ignoring the fact that they were Black for a moment, the point is that the courts could potentially do this to anyone.
    Although I am sure they target vulnerable groups of people more frequently, like the poor or chronically unemployed.
     
  6. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are many factors in play. First of all there have to be the laws that generally establish a racial difference. For example the difference in sentencing guidelines for cocaine. The percentage of blacks and whites that use cocaine are close to the same but whites generally use powder cocaine while blacs use crack cocaine. Same drug in different physical forms while the mandatory sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine are far worse than for powder cocaine. Next comes the law enforcement. Blacks are far more likely to be stopped and searched than whites and this ultimately results in more arrests for cocaine possession. The difference in the number of stops is rationalized of course but the fact remains that blacks and whites are subjected to different law enforcement actions which results in far more blacks being arrested and charged and they are charged with a far more serious crime because they are caught with crack and not powder cocaine. Then they go to trial where anti-black prejudice using racial stereotyping that "blacks are more likely to commit crimes" influences the jury so they are far more likely to be convicted and because they were charged with more serious crime they receive longer prison sentences for much more serious felonies. Of course because "blacks" are committing "more serious crimes" we need stiffer laws like "three strikes and you're out" that disproportionately affects African-Americans.

    When you add all of this together it actually feeds anti-black racial prejudice because it puts more blacks in prison for longer terms which results in the stereotype that blacks are more likely to be criminals committing more serious crimes than whites when, in fact, both whites and blacks are committing the same crime (use of cocaine) per capita. It is a vicious circle feeding the same anti-black racial oppression today that existed 100 years ago.
     
  7. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have this same anti-black oppression in other laws as well that are being rationalized. The Voter ID laws are just such a case. Studies have shown that only 7% of white American citizens don't have ID that can be used to vote based upon most Voter ID laws while 25% of black American citizens don't have that ID. The Voter ID laws then, based upon what we know, disenfranchise only 7% of white US citizens while disenfranching 25% of black US citizens denying them the Right to Vote in our elections.

    Under my proposed Constitutional Amendment it would only require a single Supreme Court justice to recognize that these laws are, in effect, violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Right to Vote would be preserved while today it is being violated by nefarious laws that disproportionately deny African-American citizens of their Right to Vote.
     
  8. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    No one questions State supreme courts for adjudicating State laws or considering Constitutionality.

    And,

    from one perspective and in that alternative, our federal Congress doesn't seem to be able to distinguish between the common Defense and the common Offense; only one term is in writing in our federal Constitution.
     
  9. PCFExploited

    PCFExploited New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,152
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First off, I want to congratulate you for suggesting something truly novel. This forum is often a wasteland of old ideas, so it is refreshing to see a person suggest something new. You have my thanks.

    However, I have serious concerns about your proposal. As others have pointed out, the true import of this amendment would be to completely destroy the ability of the legislature to pass laws over controversial issues (i.e. laws that are actually important) that have staying power. Further, this system could easily be gamed for political advantage - because SC positions are appointed by the President, the President could simply nominate a person who will always vote against any law passed by the opposing parties. Given the extreme polarity of modern day politics, this isn't outside the realm of possibility.

    You have suggested that if the legislature really wants to embody something into law, they could simply alter the Constitution, thus removing the Courts ability to void it. This is extremely undesirable - the Constitution is for high-level laws. Altering it should not be taken lightly.

    Lastly, the Supreme Court decides what cases it is going to hear. So any case they decide to hear is likely to result in an overturned law - this drastically alters the balance of powers, because they would essentially be able to pursue whatever agenda the majority of the justices wanted, being sure to never accept cases that they hadn't already prejudged. In that case, the lower courts would become the de facto Supreme Court, unless of course you applied the same Amendment to ALL federal courts, in which case you have effectively gutted the entire legislative body of the United States.

    In the end, I simply don't see much benefit to this system. I would be willing to consider making it a bit easier for judges to strike down laws, but not to this extent.
     
  10. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    dudes, we have our Ninth and Tenth Amendments and their State equivalents; all we need do is muster with dictionary and thesuari militias and become more well regulated with words.
     
  11. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you. On thing I don't like are those that are easy to condemn but unwilling to offer any proposals. Let us seriously your concerns.

    This is false as it assumes that legislation on controversial issues must, by necessity, violate the US Constitution. That is a false belief.

    This is also false as it attempts to equate "conservative and progressive political agendas" by political parties with "conservative and progressive interpretations" of the Constitution by the US Supreme Court and they are not the same. Let me provide an example.

    Anti-abortion laws are passed based upon "social-conservative political ideology" but the only reason any law limiting abortion rights of the woman exist is because of a "progressive" interpretation of the US Constitution that provided protections to a non-person (defined as a "potential person") in the Roe v Wade decision. Under a strict "conservative" interpretation only the "woman" that is a "Person" under the US Constitution has any rights at all and all anti-abortion laws would be unconstitutional violation of the woman's rights related to her own body.

    It is often very interesting because Supreme Court justices often make decisions juxtaposed to the political agenda's of the political party responsible for their appointment. For example Supreme Court Justice John Robert's deciding vote on Obamacare. Conservative and progressive interpretations of the US Constitution have literally nothing to do with conservative and progressive politics.

    Far easier said than done as it requires 3/4ths of the States to ratify any Constitutional Amendment. We can also note that if we exclude adminstrative Amendments (e.g. 17th Amenment - popular election of Senators) to the Constitution with the exception of the 18th Amendment (alcohol prohibition) all of other Amendments have related to enumeration of Rights of the Person previously violated by statutory laws (e.g. 15th and 17th Amendments on the Right to Vote). Excluding adminstrative amendments that are sometimes necessary all other amendments should be about enumerating protections of the civil and inalienable rights of the person that are being violated by statutory laws which is what they have typically been historically.

    This is only partially true. The Supreme Court can only adjudicate cases heard and decided by the lower courts. It can't simply pick out some point of law or government action and intervene. The Supreme Court can choose to not hear an appeal of a lower court ruling in which case the lower court ruling stands but since these are typically related to Federal Appeals Court decisions the decision is only applicable in the states of jurisdiction under the Appeals Court. There has to be an issue of national controversy as well. Recently the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeals of Same-Sex Marriage cases because none of the Appeals Court rulings supported the prohibitions of same-sex marriage. There was no conflict to resolve. If all of the Appeals Courts rule that prohibitions against same-sex marriage are unconstitutional then the Supreme Court has no reason to hear the case. Of note since then one Appeals Court did uphold prohibitions against same-sex marriage and now there is a national issue the Supreme Court must address. It doesn't have a choice anymore but I don't believe it will happen until the 2016 Supreme Court session.

    There is a problem that my amendment doesn't address and that is "Constitutional Standing" which is required before a case is heard and determined. We do have some laws where apparently no one has the authority, based upon standing, to challenge the law. My example of that is the War Powers Act. Every challenge to the War Powers Act has been dismissed due to a lack of standing. That is an issue that should be addressed. If the courts are going to dismiss a challenge based upon standing it makes sense to me that the court should be required to define who has standing to challenge.

    With reading the rebuttal addressing your concerns perhaps you need to review your thoughts on this matter. Another good way to better understand is to read the minority opinion when there is a split decision. See what the minority has to say. Sometimes it's merely an argument in minor legal language and other times the minority puts forward very serious issues of Constitutionality. The minority opinions are where I found problems related to split decisons that upheld laws and actions as being Constitutional. Some of the arguments are quite compelling but the "minority" was merely out-voted.

    I don't believe our inalienable and civil rights should hinge on a democratic vote where a "majority wins" because once lost our Rights are next to impossible to get re-instated under the Constitution.That does really require a Constitutional Amendment and, as I noted, a Constitutional Amendment is not an easy task to achieve.
     

Share This Page