Constitutional Amendment to Protect Civil Liberties (Withdrawn)

[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

[Emsworth]

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.

[MasterJedi]

Based on what Emsworth has said I strongly support this amendment.

[CheeseWhiz]

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

[Jake]

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

[CheeseWhiz]

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

So, what do you personally have against this amendment?

[Jake]

The same thing I have against the 14th. Namely, the application of federal rights to the states, or in this case the region. I believe that violates the principles of federalism, whether or not it what the amendment does is positive or negative.

[Emsworth]

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.

[Jake]

Then we simply disagree. I believe it is the regions that should decide which freedoms are protected by their laws.

[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?

[Bono]

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

I agree with you.
Plus, given that the people at the constitutional convention seemed to be on some kind of drug, the spurious "right to colective bargain" would be enforced upon ther egions.
This is nothing more than an organized labour plot against the Southeastern Right To Work laws, and if passed there will be adequate response.

[Ebowed]

This is nothing more than an organized labour plot against the Southeastern Right To Work laws, and if passed there will be adequate response.

I can assure you that neither I or Emsworth had any sort of connections to organized labor with this amendment.  I was more concerned that a region would put restrictions on free speech or the right to bear arms.

[Sam Spade]

This is nothing more than an organized labour plot against the Southeastern Right To Work laws, and if passed there will be adequate response.

I can assure you that neither I or Emsworth had any sort of connections to organized labor with this amendment.  I was more concerned that a region would put restrictions on free speech or the right to bear arms.

Gun rights are already protected by the Bill of Rights.  So is free speech last time I checked.

[Ebowed]

The Southeast Bill of Rights?  Yes.

Theoretically, though, a region could be permitted to not specifically protect those things or even ban them, as the Bill of Rights in the atlasian constitution appears to only operate within the federal government.

[Sam Spade]

The Southeast Bill of Rights?  Yes.

Theoretically, though, a region could be permitted to not specifically protect those things or even ban them, as the Bill of Rights in the atlasian constitution appears to only operate within the federal government.

The Federal Constitution already overrules any Regional Constitution where such issues as gun rights and free speech have been defined.  There may be vague areas where a Regional Constitution might be able to wiggle on the peripheries of the law, but the fundamental basics of the law would continue to apply in any case.

Please read the Supremacy Clause here:

Article 4, Section 3: Supremacy Clause and Restriction on Federal Government

1. This Constitution and the Laws of the Republic of Atlasia which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every Region shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any Region to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Gabu]

I'm curious about this bit here:

...anything in the Constitution or Laws of any Region to the contrary notwithstanding.

Doesn't this mean that any region can make a law that effectively overrules that section?

[Ebowed]

Indeed, that is what seems to be implied.

[Sam Spade]

I'm curious about this bit here:

...anything in the Constitution or Laws of any Region to the contrary notwithstanding.

Doesn't this mean that any region can make a law that effectively overrules that section?

Not in the complete context.

Taking the Clause one-by-one:

1. This Constitution and the Laws of the Republic of Atlasia which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land;...

Seems pretty clear with this line.

...and the Judges in every Region shall be bound thereby,...

Meaning that Judges in Regions, when and if they rule, must be bound by federal laws, not just Regional ones.

...anything in the Constitution or Laws of any Region to the contrary notwithstanding.

This line translated means that judges in Regional jurisdictions are not allowed to rule in favor of an interpretation of a Regional law or Constitutional clause at the Regional level that is contradictory with a federal law or Constitutional clause.

It also means, for all intensive purposes, that any law or Constitutional clause that a Region passes that is contradictory with a federal law or Constitutional clause is overruled and null and void in any and every possible situation.  Witness StatesRights vs. Atlasia.

In other words, it means exactly the opposite of what you're saying.  The federal government has supremacy in all situations where Regional and Federal law conflict.

[Gabu]

Oh yes, I can never remember whether something being "notwithstanding" means that it's being ignored or that it's a special case.  Quite frankly, I think that the English language would be given a large boost if the word were abolished.

Anyways, yes, having looked up the definition of the word, I now see that I was wrong in my interpretation of that passage.

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I will ask my constituents what they think of this before giving my opinion

[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!

[Bono]

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.

[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.

[Bono]

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.

Then no, becuase we aren't the same region.
Why don't  you trust the people and the constitution of your own region, let's never even mind the fact that you are governor?
Plus, i disagree that forcing employers to deal with, and workers to be pushed around and estorted by organized crime is a basic right, and it is certainly one that, even if this tyranical legislation is passed, that as long as I am Governor of the Southeast and the people of my region support me on this, I will not enforce, unless compelled by the force of bayonetts.