Constitutional Amendment to Protect Civil Liberties (Withdrawn)

[CheeseWhiz]

Thank you, Emsworth, you answered all my questions about this amendment.  I hope the senate can pass this quickly.

[CheeseWhiz]

The 14th Amendment is easily the worst one. Atlasia does not need its equivalent.

So, what do you personally have against this amendment?

[CheeseWhiz]

The application of limited and defined rights (such as the right to equal protection of the laws, the right to due process of law, or the right to keep and bear arms) to the regional governments does not in my opinion unduly interfere with federalism. It is only when courts go beyond these limits--for example, by inventing a "right to privacy"--that federalism is threatened. This is what happened with the Fourteenth Amendment's overly vague wording. But this amendment guards against that difficulty, by specifically stating which protections are to be applied.

How come you and Ebowed always take my arguments before I get to use them?

[CheeseWhiz]

Everything in this amendment seems perfectacly reasonable to me.  It just ensures things like the right to bear arms, or freedom of speech and the press.  I again urge the senators to pass this.  Currently the Pacific could make a law that said that no one could make fun of the Governor, else they be given the death penalty!  Or the Midwest could, say, outlaw the smiley.  the Northeast could outlaw weapons of any sort.  The Mideast could make slavery legal and the Southeast could deny someone a trial.

Not that any of this will happen, but it could!

[CheeseWhiz]

Everything in this amendment seems perfectacly reasonable to me.  It just ensures things like the right to bear arms, or freedom of speech and the press.  I again urge the senators to pass this.  Currently the Pacific could make a law that said that no one could make fun of the Governor, else they be given the death penalty!  Or the Midwest could, say, outlaw the smiley.  the Northeast could outlaw weapons of any sort.  The Mideast could make slavery legal and the Southeast could deny someone a trial.

Not that any of this will happen, but it could!

By this logic, we should also allow the UN to intervene in violations of "human rights" in Atlasia.

No, because we aren’t the same country.  Anyway, these are very basic rights, that’s what I was trying to point out.  I don’t understand why we shouldn’t ensure these rights for the entire nation.

[CheeseWhiz]

Oh, I do trust the Midwesterners; I just don’t trust the Southeasterners

As for your second paragraph, I have no idea what you’re talking about

[CheeseWhiz]

As for your second paragraph, I have no idea what you’re talking about

"Right" to "colective bargaining".

So, are you saying that the right to collective bargain legalizes organized crime?

If that is what you’re saying, I’d like to hear what are Emsworth's interpretation of it is.

[CheeseWhiz]

Therefore, it infringes of the Southeast0s right to work laws. Thanks for proving my point.

Do you have a link to the Southeast right to work laws?

[CheeseWhiz]

Well, I found the Southeast Right to Work laws, and I don’t see anything that conflicts, but then again I’m not too knowledgeable in this area, so…

[CheeseWhiz]

I am, however, mindful of the federalism argument. It has certainly been very persuasive, although I am not fully convinced yet. On the one hand, I would trust the People of each Region to pass their own laws. On the other hand, I strongly believe that all governments ought to be restrained so as to prevent tyranny. While I am not entirely a fan of the unintended consequences argument, I do consider the federalism argument to be quite strong--so I will reserve my view on the subject for now.

Yes, I agree.