Essay talk:Needed Constitutional Amendments (UHM)

Re Article 4: Equality

“” Section 1: No inhabitant or citizen of the United States shall be restricted, discriminated or favored based on their race, gender, sexual identity, sexual orientation, age (if older than 18), heritage, birthplace, birthparents, disability, religion or irreligion in their treatment. Section 2: Marriage is a contract between persons. All persons over the age of 18 are free to enter marriage with consenting partners. Marriage partners shall not be related and shall have sufficiant mental capabilities. Section 3: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Please add gender identity and expression to Section 1, and remove the casual outlawing of affirmative action while you're at it.

The "sufficiant [sic] mental capabilities" bit in Section 2 is bullshit. In the U.S. such laws have a hugely racist and abusive history, and even in the way you probably intended it, the clause is clearly eugenic. Blue (is useful) 03:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I changed "sexual identity" into "sexual and gender identity or the persuing thereof" that should cover all three. I changes "of sufficient mental capabilities" into "reached sui juris", I hope that concept is still used in American law.

The "casual outlawing of affirmative action" is fully intended as such. I'm against it and this would be a way to make red states sign the damn thing even though it legalisizes same-sex marriage and polygamy. --★uːʤɱ secularist 14:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Article 5 needs clarification

Exeptions of War and public safety should be made more clear. "Life" also needs to be defined (you'll get a lot of anti-choice people and vegans popping up if you don't). Mr. Anon (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not speak about war and public safety as such but wrote "shall not diminish the duty of those serving". That means a soldier still can't run away from battle because (s)he has an unalianatable right to life. Same so the FBI-, CIA-, NSA- and whatnot-agents including police officers and firemen. I change it into human life for the vegans not to pop up, but the open door for anti-choice folk is intendedly left open. I don't feel I should define life, I'll leave that to experts and Supreme Court Justices. --★uːʤɱ kant 15:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that section could do anything but make things worse. You can't easily "define" life in legislation and then make one whole encompassing statement about it, in fact I'd say it's not possible and problematic to even try - not least because the way you've phrased it would potentially make murderers out of most women and constitutionally enshrine it. ^{d hominem} 15:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes. But only if you're dealing with a bunch of fucktards as a people. Look folks, I'm not saying abortion should be outlawed, I'm only withholding judgemnent via defining something. If the rest of society has good idea about it, ok. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 16:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Still, the problem remains with missions like bombings and assasinations of enemies in wars, which will often be necessary whether you like them or not. Perhaps it could be changed to "civilian" life. Mr. Anon (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Article 6 is extremely subjective

The "work for world peace" idea was Bush's excuse for invading Iraq, as was his father's, as was Reagan's. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Were it to be changed to "shall start no war and enter no war in shich is was not attacked" would it also outlaw UN mandate missions like Libya. I would entrust the people with the power not to elect a president that would take the phrase "work for peace" to start wars that help nobody. The propblem with this topic is not what it actually means, but the execution thereof. --★uːʤɱ socialist 15:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Some serious problems

You make mention of the Congress but no mention of how their composed or elected or what terms they serve. Nothing around how states are organized or admitted to the Union. Nothing around how the courts are composed or function. Nothing around the relation between the states and federal government. It's certainly an interesting intellectual exercise. Whenever I think about designing a constitution I find a lot of good items in what we've already got. The enumerated powers of Congress need to be more clearly defined and I tend to think that we ought to be a more federal system to avoid conflicts between federal and state laws. I would suggest you keep working on it. Stile4aly (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This... is... a list of needed Amendments to the already existing US Constitution. If I were to write a whole constitution, believe me it would look very different from the US Constitution. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 14:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)