All references below are from
The Constitution:
Originally posted by abeyer
+ National Referendum on all Constitutional Amendments needing to pass by a 2/3 majority.
Article 5:
The Congress, whenever
two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application
of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments...
Already covered...Even the States can propose Amendments, but have to run them to Congress for ratification.
Originally posted by abeyer
+ A "Read the Acts" clause stating that all bills must be read aloud in their entirety, and all Congressmen must sign waiver stating that they read
the bill personally. Falsely signing the waiver without reading the bill would be the legal equivalent of perjury.
Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed....
Attainder:
attainder n.
The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime. [< OFr. attaindre, to convict] Source: American Heritage
Dictionary
In the context of the Constitution, a Bill of Attainder is meant to mean a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (for example, a
fine or term of imprisonment). Originally, a Bill of Attainder sentenced an individual to death, though this detail is no longer required to have an
enactment be ruled a Bill of Attainder.
How could Congress determine "attainder" clauses in the Patriot Act if they didn't read it first? This was already a
serious breech of
Congressional procedure, there...In effect, the Patriot Act did not obtain the full "enjoyment of due process," therefore the Patriot Act cannot be
enforced as law because
it never became law.
Originally posted by abeyer
+ Clarify gun rights to include the right to self defense.
Second Amendment:
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.
Infringe:
infringe vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass Source: New Merriam-Webster Dictionary
How does the addition of a
specific clause for self-defense be construed as not already covered under the "shall not be infringed" part? This
goes right along with the idea that the only
limit to an Unalienable Right is if the exercise of a Right commits a violation of another
person's Rights...In effect, "Your Rights end where my nose begins" & there's
legally nothing that the government can do about it.
Originally posted by abeyer
+ Votes of confidence on Supreme Court members every 8 years; Judges on the Court less than 4 years would be excluded.
Article 3, Section 1:
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior...
Even though the Supreme Court has, within its Power, "interpreted" this term to mean "for life," this is meant that the Judge must still obey his
Constitutional Oath of Office (Article 6, Clause 3) to confine his official actions with the goal to "act in pursuance of" the Constitution...Judges
in violation of any Constitutionally-granted Judicial Power or acting in violation of the Constitutional limitations on Power still constitutes "bad
behavior" & should still be subject to Congressional Impeachment.
This is the
legal interpretation, but it's simply not
practiced or enforced. Again, nothing that needs to be
changed, only needs
to be
enforced.
Originally posted by abeyer
+ Right of Nullification - States that pass a resolution and a state referendum, both by a 3/4 majority, can nullify a federal bill
Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the
United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular
State.
In the context of the writing, "United States" means the "States of the Union." Basically, if the Feds step outside of these lines...
Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.
...And since there's nothing else anywhere in the Constitution that specifically deprives States to do so, then the States or the People
can
intervene on their own behalf whenever any Federal
Constituional Torts come into
question.
Originally posted by abeyer
+ November elections held on the first weekend of November with voting on Saturday and Sunday.
Any employer that does not allow time off from work for employees to vote are in violation of the Right to Vote...So this problem really doesn't
exist, except as a lawsuit to correct it if it happens.
Originally posted by abeyer
+ All voting machines must produce a paper record of every vote cast.
I would agree with this one, except there must also be an official, legal guarantee that
all votes will be counted, regardless of any other
controversy surrounding the overall voting process. It's not who votes that decide the President, it's the Electoral College that does & they are
not
required by law to follow popular vote...Other government Offices do rely on popular vote. The problem arises in deciding
who is
authorized to count the votes. Electronic voting if fine, as long as there is an
infallible way to also produce an accurate
recording of the votes.
Originally posted by abeyer
+ Recognize marriage as a guarenteed right to any two people.
Since this is
not a Specific Power granted by the Constitution to
any Branch or Level of government, but not denied to the States or the
People, then this is where it must be decided. And yet, there exists the argument that, this being a
social or religious issue, the States
should also not touch it either...Even with popular vote in favor of either side of the issue. No matter how you slice it though, the whole
argument is moot by now anyway...The Supreme Court (in California) has ruled that
denying same sex marriages is Unconstitutional.
Originally posted by abeyer
+ Waive the right of Presidential Signing Statements.
Article 1, Section 1:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives.
Presidential use of "signing statements" is a
Felony Offense against the Constitution, as it usurps Legislative Power from Congress.
Originally posted by abeyer
+ Legalize fusion voting, and enable runoff elections to be held the last weekend of November if needed.
There is nothing in the Constitution that
grants any such Power to the Federal Level over the practice of "fusion voting" & nothing that
denies that Power to the States or the People...If anything is to be done with this, that's the level where it must be decided.
[edit on 12-6-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]
