Constitutional Amendment to Protect Civil Liberties (Withdrawn) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 18, 2024, 11:26:11 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Constitutional Amendment to Protect Civil Liberties (Withdrawn) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Constitutional Amendment to Protect Civil Liberties (Withdrawn)  (Read 3005 times)
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


« on: October 13, 2005, 04:43:20 PM »
« edited: October 14, 2005, 05:15:24 PM by Emsworth »

Constitutional Amendment to Protect Civil Liberties

The following is added to Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution:

9. No Region shall abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of Atlasia guaranteed by Article VI and Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution.


Sponsor: Sen. Ebowed
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2005, 04:46:45 PM »

Members of the Senate,

This amendment might seem trifling, but our Bill of Rights at the moment operates only against the federal government. It does not restrain the governments of the regions. It has long been held as a principle of American law that no constitutional provision extends to a state unless explicitly indicated otherwise; the analogy holds in Atlasia with respect to the regions.

Therefore, the objective of this bill is to correct what I believe may have been an oversight on the part of the authors of the Atlasian Constitution, and extend these fundamental protections to the regional level as well. It is akin to the Fourteenth Amendment in the real-life United States.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2005, 08:01:20 PM »

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.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


« Reply #3 on: October 14, 2005, 05:48:40 AM »
« Edited: October 14, 2005, 06:02:42 AM by Emsworth »

Of course, the Supremacy Clause prevents the regions from applying laws that contradict the Constitution. But regional laws that violate the Bill of Rights do not contradict the Constitution.

In Barron v. Baltimore, John Marshall said that the People adopted the Bill of Rights "for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States." He said that "no limitation of the action of [the federal] government ... would apply to the State government," and that any provision, "however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on State legislation," unless it is specifically provided that a state shall be so restrained.

So, yes, the Supremacy Clause prevents a state from violating the Constitution. But a region denying freedom of speech, or gun rights, does not violate the Constitution. As it currently stands, the Bill of Rights is a restriction on federal, not regional power.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


« Reply #4 on: October 14, 2005, 03:30:10 PM »

Plus, i disagree that forcing employers to deal with, and workers to be pushed around and estorted by organized crime is a basic right...
I have said that any part of the Bill of Rights does not apply to the regions unless explicitly stated. By the very same logic, any part of the Bill of Rights does not apply to private persons unless explicitly stated.

The collective bargaining clause, under this rule of construction that governs interpretation of the Constitution, means that the government may not prohibit unions. It contains no rule whatsoever governing the action private employers.

There is a right to bear arms. Does that mean that I have to allow everyone to bear arms on my property? It does not--it only means that the government cannot prohibit the bearing of arms.

By the same logic, there is a right to collective bargaining, but it operates only against legislation of the government, never against the actions of private employers.

Whatever the intent of the collective bargaining clause may be, it cannot be interpreted as governing the actions of private individuals in a manner that is consistent with the rest of the Constitution.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


« Reply #5 on: October 14, 2005, 03:40:56 PM »

Therefore, it infringes of the Southeast0s right to work laws. Thanks for proving my point.
How so? The Southeast has not banned unions. It has merely provided that people may choose not to join them--there is no violation there.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


« Reply #6 on: October 14, 2005, 03:58:20 PM »

Right to work laws use government power to prohibit close shop deals that would limit workers choices of dealing or not with the unions.
Well, from a libertarian perspective, closed shops should not be prohibited, and neither should yellow dog contracts, but that's another matter.

The right to work laws improve freedom for the worker, not restrict it. There is no way in which a regional right to work law would be held unconstitutional, in my view.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
But surely that was just an oversight. How exactly does regulating "standards of weights and measures" involve setting a minimum wage? Surely, any reasonable court would conclude otherwise.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


« Reply #7 on: October 14, 2005, 04:08:05 PM »

We have not yet had any rulings in front of the Supreme Court that challenged Article VI, so henceforth our precedent in Atlasian jurisprudence is rather thin, and there is nothing that says that Marshall's words would apply here.
The same rules of interpretation which apply to the U.S. Constitution apply to the Atlasian Constitution--the rules prescribed by common law.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
That is not relevant in any way, in my opinion. For example, the original U.S. Constitution provides that "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." But the courts have always held that the states may suspend the writ at their pleasure, even though it is a part of the original Constitution. This indicates, I think, that whether the Bill of Rights was a part of the original Constitution is not relevant to the proper interpretation.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Amendment I is the only amendment to say so. The other seven of the first eight amendments do not make any reference to the federal government. But that does not mean that the other seven amendments applied to the states.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I would hardly call this lackadaisical. It is very carefully crafted, and excludes anything that might give rise to substantive due process.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I would respectfully disagree here. You have said that the Bill of Rights already applies to the regions. Then how does this amendment give rise to any new unintended consequences? If the Bill of Rights does already apply as you suggest, then those consequences would come about anyway, whether this amendment is passed or not.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


« Reply #8 on: October 14, 2005, 04:16:55 PM »

If the "right to colective bargaining" is merely protecting from government intervention against forming unions, this would be covered under the freedom of asociation clause.
I believe that there is only an explicit right to peacable assembly, not association (and there is a difference). So the collective bargaining clause is not entirely redundant.

I do not believe that this amendment will have any unfortunate consequences such as giving rise to a right to privacy, abortion, or liberty of contract. It was crafted quite carefully to exclude substantive due process.

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.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


« Reply #9 on: October 14, 2005, 04:23:49 PM »

Don't you trust the federal government to be restrained by its own bill of rights? Why not trust regions to be restrained by their own bill of rights?
Historically, it is true that the states have respected rightes less regularly than the federal government (slavery, segregation, and similar oppressive practices come to mind). However, Atlasia is probably quite different--our regions are unlikely to commit such abuses. A rather difficult question then...
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 10 queries.