Essay talk:Needed Constitutional Amendments (142․124․55․236)

My proposals (not only Constitutional amendments)

I suck at writing letters and stuff, so it's just a bullet list:

1. Legalize weed (and fuck this whole War on Drugs shit, anyway)
2. Ban discrimination on basis of sex, sexual orientation or identification (that should cover all of LGBT+, right? If not, write, tell me, what I forgot)
3. Gay marriage Ooops, already there, very good! #lovewins
4. More efficient financing of the military, that should free funds
5. More R&D on alternatives to fossil oil (that'd put a big dent into the financing of terrorist groups, among other things)
6. More space research
7. Can this whole electoral college shit and make it one man, one vote, so that the prez is really and directly elected by a majority of teh people.
8. Universal healthcare

I will later add stuff I forgot. --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Most of that is pretty obvious. I'm not just gonna can the Electoral College, though; I'm gonna can the whole damn President! :D 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:44, 26 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

'k, there are buncha countries with the prez having no real power and the real power lying with the prime minister or chancellor.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Not planning on having any of those either. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:10, 26 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

And what'd you plan instead?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

How about nothing? Why does there need to be this single person at the top of the hierarchy? Does the president really do all that much when it comes to running the departments? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:25, 2 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

And the "president of parliament" that some countries have is hardly comparable in any form to an executive-power president. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:15, 26 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

One of the problem of intersex people is that they are often arbitrarily (sometimes violently) assigned a sex at birth or shortly thereafter. Few countries have found ways to really address this. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What if the gubment just didn't give a damn what people's sex was? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:50, 26 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

That would be a solution to most (though not necessarily all) of those problems. After all, gendered toilets are usually not government mandated, but still a common convention... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Why's 1 empty?

Is that something like the 13th floor in teh West or the 4th floor in East Asia?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a work-in-progress. :P 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:09, 26 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

A permanent provisorium? Hmmmmm, now where else did I saw that...?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

People like the words / sound of the Second Amendment

It appears again here. And I myself could not resist the temptation to use the style of it either... What is it about those words that draws people invariably to them? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The need to satirize it? That's why I used that phrasing, anyhow. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:38, 27 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Another fun thing about the 2nd Amendment; it actually starts out with "A well-regulated Militia", so clearly the provision is pro-regulation. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:43, 27 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Nah, why would the founders have put that in there? I just wanna go out shootin' stuff. It's me god given rite in da constitution! Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh God, I guess there might actually exist people that think the American Constitution was divinely inspired. That's rather troubling. o.O (Though admittedly not as troubling as some religious scriptures.) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 10:53, 29 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Fuzzy system of government?

Yeah, in law you have to be as concrete as possible. Your fuzzy language might sound good for a protest movement, but it won't work as a basic law for the organization of government. Especially the government thing Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Fuzzy? It's just a very basic outline at this point. What did you expect? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 17:59, 28 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

At the very least a blacklist of things not given to "the people" (reserving rights to "the people" without establishing a clear process of referendum is a stupid idea imho) or a whitelist of things explicitly given to "the people". If there is one thing I hate about common law, it is its inherent fuzziness. You managed to even one.up fuzzy common law. There should be an award for that. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, I've only just started on that section. What makes you think I wouldn't explicitly list and detail the powers/rights referred to later on? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:14, 28 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

(EC)I'm inclined to disagree, with respect to constitutional amendments. Their phrasing, in most cases, has been extraordinarily broad, and that is a good thing. That the first amendment only broadly guarantees the right to freedom of speech, rather than expressing the right in more concrete terms like spoken words, has allowed it to adapt as technology did in a way that made sense. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Well many rights should be broadly defined. But take the amendment about searches. Had it simply guaranteed a "right to privacy" it would have been better for all involved. Now we have to debate whether looking through the window with surveillance equipment unthinkable in the 18th century constitutes a "search". And when it comes to what government can and can't do, clarity is the name of the game. Just take the interstate commerce clause... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

From a non-rights perspective, the 13th amendment is very broadly worded, as is the 14th. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 18:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The 13th amendment has a loophole big enough to drive a whole company of "Negroes" through. Which was probably unknown to the people who wrote it Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, if there's any specific instances of undesirable 'fuzziness' in any of my Bill-of-Rights provisions that bother you, feel free to point them out and I'll try to address them. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:20, 28 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

Well I guess the bear arms thing is just plain silliness. And I don't really understand, why firearms have to be mentioned in the constitution at all. As far as I know, the US are the only major country that do. And as for the 13th amendment... I found one of these articles rather instructive. I dimly recall reading one of them a year ago while failing to sleep at an airport because I had - once again - been to cheap for a hotel.... As for the fuzzyness of your other thingies... I shall address them as I see them some time within the next decade or so ;-) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be pretty worried if you didn't realize the bear-arms thing is sheer silliness. And with Americans so obsessively citing the 2nd Amendment to oppose gun control laws, how could I not explicitly address the issue in my revised constitution? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:22, 28 August 42015 AQD (UTC)

My Answer

REQUEST DENIED! --Castaigne (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to elaborate. ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

So...

No comments on my proposed government being an undemocratic SJW dictatorship? ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 19:44, 28 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Democracy just gets in the way of freedom, yo. I for one welcome our new SJW overlords and would like them to know I would be very useful in rounding up MRA's to toil in the tear factories. --"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 00:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, such an enlightened opinion! This will certainly be taken into account when the Day of Social Reckoning is finally upon us. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 08:48, 29 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

Wait a minute, was this supposed to be serious or not? I was just about to raise my strong objections to a government that is a combination direct democracy and technocracy. Blitz (Complaints Box) 09:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You're free to object to the lack of elections, but to be frank, if the people can propose their own laws, is there really still a need to elect politicians as representatives (who then go on to mostly disregard the will of the people once they're elected)? Directly influencing what the government does seems like a much better deal than getting to pick who gets to run it (from a rather limited selection of politicians/political parties). 142.124.55.236 (talk) 10:02, 29 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

So is the proposal serious or not? Blitz (Complaints Box) 10:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much, though it's not completely finished. I'm open to criticisms and suggestions. (Though as alluded to earlier, I hope criticisms will be more substantial than "OMG! This is so SJW!" or "This isn't a representative democracy! That means it's inherently bad!") 142.124.55.236 (talk) 10:17, 29 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

You do know

How many laws are passed in any given year, don't you? It is hard enough to get people to vote as is, but do you really think the federal grant for a bridge renewal in Puxsawtowny, Wisconsin will get more turnout thaen can be accounted for by measurement error? And before you come with some small government BS that this type of laws is not necessary... Well the people of Puxsawtowny, Wisconsin might disagree. And if the town has thirty five inhabitants but the bridge is a major thoroughfare for regional traffic, they sure as hell can't foot the bill by themselves. And that's just one example of laws that are being passed even if the media don't speak about them... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I do know a lot of laws get passed every year. A portion of them is possibly superfluous, though you might disagree. I'm not sure how your point has any relevance to anything I wrote here, though. Perhaps it's not that obvious, but there's very little voting required in my government system. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:13, 30 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

So to be clear (I already bitched about the fuzziness of your system on a prior occasion) there is some entity that decides which laws are decided on by the (unelected) council and which laws are passed by popular majority? If so who makes said decision? Because anybody even vaguely familiar with lawmaking - and especially lawmaking in the US - knows that a weird unrelated sentence in some totally different law may change quite a lot in actual real things. In the current Congress the Puxsawtowny bridge bill is likely to contain something about dog breeds (dis)allowed on Amtrak. On the other hand a rider about the Puxsawatowny bridge may be inserted into the budget or some entirely unrelated bill (say a "must-pass" bill on mercury limits in coal plant exhaust) and unless someone in the media finds out in time or tries to make a story out of it, nobody - sometimes not even some of the people who vote on the bill - would be the wiser. Also, who chooses your unelected councils? What if a vacancy occurs? Do keep in mind that a council that replenishes itself (as in the Cardinals of the Catholic church) tends to become more conservative / reactionary thaen the people it leads over time... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to read what I wrote again. The Legislative Council doesn't get to decide what content goes into the bills, they just word the law proposals in proper legalese. If any of them does insert some random paragraphs about dog breeds into a bill, they get fired and are likely criminally charged for subverting the lawmaking process. And none of the other Councils are allowed to alter even a iota of text; all they do is decide whether to veto a bill or not.

Your second point is a valid concern and I'll try to address it further down the line in my proposal. I of course agree that just trusting the councils to fairly manage themselves would be plainly naïve. If you have any specific suggestions, they're always welcome btw. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 20:48, 30 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

So who proposes the laws? And do consider that in all parliamentary democracies I know of laws don't exit the parliament the same way they entered it. Even if one party has a supermajority. The only exceptions to this rule are places where parliament has nothing to say. And if your solution is that "the people" propose all laws, how would your mechanism be to separate wheat from chaff in terms of law proposals? Do keep in mind that any given populace is incredibly politically diverse and one of my biggest beefs with the two party system of the US is that it does not accurately reflect the political beliefs of its citizens. What for example is someone to vote who is anti-choice but pro higher taxes and more welfare? And who cares deeply about both those issues. Or someone who has some green tendencies but cannot fathom the social policies of the democrats? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

The Green Party?--"Paravant" ^{Talk & Contribs} 22:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Aka wasting their vote. In a representative system, people vote what their beliefs best align with. Not the lesser evil out of two options. The resulting coalition government will have to take into account the will of at least half the people and not just of some weird subset as in First Past the Post (How big was the percentage the Tories got in the last election again? And who is calling the shots?) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Dude, that's all in the text. I'm not gonna restate everything for you. If you think the wording is fuzzy then tell me what terms you're having trouble with.

And I very much agree with your critique of the bullshit that a two-party system entails. But even if there were as many parties to vote for as there were differing political beliefs, that still wouldn't mean the parties would enact the policies they claim to support (what's that adage about election promises again?). It doesn't even require nefariousness from any of the parties; party politics is inherently a minefield of stalemates and compromises. That's why I'm taking out the middle man and giving the people direct influence in the legislature. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:26, 30 September 42015 AQD (UTC)

3 years have passed

And this still looks pretty decent to me. Perhaps I haven't changed that much after all. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:29, 12 November 42018 AQD (UTC)