Amending the Constitution - Senate Powers

[Bono]

I suggest that when we go to vote on the final proposal, that be made clause by clause by clause.

[Bono]

I personally like Ernest's amendment the best although I consider both his and Bono's to be adquit in their scope and in their message.

I don't mind most of Ernest's proposal, ut I disagree with a few claues. Most of them aren't that bad, but this one is execrand:"

"Clause 27. To Suspend the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and to make provision for its Suspension by the executive when the Senate is not in session, but the Privledge shall be Suspended only when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

[Bono]

I personally like Ernest's amendment the best although I consider both his and Bono's to be adquit in their scope and in their message.

I don't mind most of Ernest's proposal, ut I disagree with a few claues. Most of them aren't that bad, but this one is execrand:"

"Clause 27. To Suspend the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and to make provision for its Suspension by the executive when the Senate is not in session, but the Privledge shall be Suspended only when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

Yes that is rather strange that that clause is included in their. Ernest can you give an explanation to why you have this clause in your amendment?

The suspension of the Writ of Habeus Corpus is in the Constitution.  At the Start of the Civil War, Lincoln suspended the provision while the Congress was not in session, on grounds that some people consider shaky.  I can see both sides of that issue.  It is a measure intended to be used in emergencies and so needs to be able to quickly invoked.  On the other hand, it is a tool that should be under the control of the Legislature to decide when to deny it.  Seven days should be more than enough time for the Senate to convene when it is not in session so that it can decide if it agress with the action of the President.  Hence, allowing for a suspension by the executive that can only be invoked when the Senate is not in session and only for a limited time seems reasonable to me.  If the Senate ever becomes distrustful of a President's discretion, they can either remain in session or fail to make provision for him to be able to use it while they are not in session, as either strategem would deny the executive the authority to use that limited power.

You are basing yourself in the principle that politicians can be trusted. No offense to anyone, but they can't. Who would decide when the "public safety" would require it?
This clause allows for fascist measures like the Patriot Act to be passed. I will vote NAY on this as long as this cluas remains, and I hope all right-minded senators do the same.

[Bono]

You are basing yourself in the principle that politicians can be trusted. No offense to anyone, but they can't. Who would decide when the "public safety" would require it?
This clause allows for fascist measures like the Patriot Act to be passed. I will vote NAY on this as long as this cluas remains, and I hope all right-minded senators do the same.

I'll admit that I haven't deeply studied the Patriot Act, but I wasn't aware that it had any provisions concerning the Writ of Habeus Corpus.  The suspension is already limited to times of rebellion or invasion, which the United States per se last suffered 1865, and its territory in 1945, unless you count the British invasion of 1964 that is.    The public safety provision limits even further how it may be used when there is a Rebellion or Invasion.  I can see where one might like even more explict restrictions, but the power to suspend the Writ of Habeus Corpus is a necessary war power for a government to have.  Perhaps limiting the suspension to being able to be used only during a War declared by the Senate?

I used the Patriot Act as an example, not necesarryly fitting this.
But you can't trust people with that. Those words will have as much meaning as "shall not be infringed" in some time. We cannot place any dubious writing in the constitution, or in some time, when we are all 'retired', a lot of abuse will stem from there. We won't allways have a great suprme court like we do.

[Bono]

Helloooooooo.......
I move discussion (not that anyones disscussing} be closed and the Defarge amendment be brought up for a vote.

I second that.

[Bono]

The PPT has to put up 2 public polls on each of the Peter Bell amendments.

Aren't you forgetting something... Like senate vote?

[Bono]

The PPT has to put up 2 public polls on each of the Peter Bell amendments.

Aren't you forgetting something... Like senate vote?

The Senate vote has already ocurred
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=12660.0

Sure, me bad, I misread it.

[Bono]

I'll add some stuff to my amendment then after I come back from school. But Ernest still needs to find a sponsor to tht ammendment, since he has no power to present laws. Anyways, I'll oppose it as long as Clause 27 of Section One is still there.

[Bono]

Yea on the first.
Yea on the second.
Yea on the third.
Abstain on fourth.
Abstain on fifth because the evil is still there. Soon, there will be laws deeming possessing a package of Xanax is a threath to national security.

[Bono]

Nay.