Jump to content
270soft Forum
jnewt

Forum Constitutional Convention Proposals and Discussion

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Yes, I think a Senate Majority Leader could use this to circumvent moderate members of their own party. This goes for a Far-Left or Far-Right President/Senate Majority Leader combo

Ok I see what you're saying now. But now that I look into it further, I see this issue is actually covered in Article 2, along with vacancies in the executive branch. I therefore withdraw this proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add (disclaimer on how these may not be things I'm committed to, but things I'm not against):

  • A nationwide ban on the death penalty.
  • Independent judiciary commission (similar to independent redistricting commissions, but for the appointment of judges)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thunder said:

A nationwide ban on the death penalty.

I would also add to this a Constitutional ban on the privatization of the correctional system (prison-industrial complex) and profiting from prison labour - any such labour should only be used, if at all, for public infrastructure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make sure to propose it as an amendment so it doesn't get missed like some of my suggestions to your amendments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thunder said:

Add (disclaimer on how these may not be things I'm committed to, but things I'm not against):

  • A nationwide ban on the death penalty.
  • Independent judiciary commission (similar to independent redistricting commissions, but for the appointment of judges)

Expand on your second point. I'm curious for the reasoning behind an independent commission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thunder said:

Add (disclaimer on how these may not be things I'm committed to, but things I'm not against):

  • A nationwide ban on the death penalty.
  • Independent judiciary commission (similar to independent redistricting commissions, but for the appointment of judges)

I'd support the first proposal, though I'd actually prefer if we made an exception for terrorists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, jnewt said:

I'd support the first proposal, though I'd actually prefer if we made an exception for terrorists

I strongly disagree there. In fact, I disagree with existence of a class of criminal called "terrorists." The specifications, parameters, and definitions of what makes one a "terrorist" over someone else who commits the same collection of crimes, but is not labeled a "terrorist" is so ill-defined, arbitrary, politicised, subject to ruthless abuse and often without recourse, appeal, or a fair trial, and is, in essence, much the same as the label of a "political criminal" in authoritarian regimes, and easily be used and abused by a government in much the same way. EVERYONE should only be punished for the actual crimes on the criminal code they have committed with the standard punishments for those crimes, regardless of motivation. This also means I'm against the label "hate crimes," as they often lead to which hunts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Expand on your second point. I'm curious for the reasoning behind an independent commission.

Independent judiciaries work better when not elected by polarized politicians (or when the balance of the court isn't dependent on conveniently timed resignations or deaths). Essentially, take the argument for an independent redistricting commission and replace "gerrymandering" with "appointing activist judges", "districts" with "judges", and "House" with "Court."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd add a nationwide ban on judicial elections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the proposals for article 3 so far (let me know if I'm missing any or if there are any other proposals you'd like to add, voting will start tomorrow):

1. Fix the number of Supreme Court justices to 9, allowing for no reduction or increase in this number

2. Nationwide ban on the death penalty 

3. Independent judiciary commission (similar to independent redistricting commissions, but for the appointment of judges)

4. ban on the privatization of the correctional system (prison-industrial complex) and profiting from prison labor

5. Nationwide ban on judicial elections

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposals for Article 4 can now be submitted, here are mine:

  • repeal Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3, aka the Fugitive Slave Clause
  • members of Congress can only receive campaign donations from residents of that state

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jnewt said:

Proposals for Article 4 can now be submitted, here are mine:

  • repeal Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3, aka the Fugitive Slave Clause
  • members of Congress can only receive campaign donations from residents of that state

The second one would do zilch, people would give money to in-state residents to give

anyway here's my proposal

Amend section 3 to allow for referenda in the place to bypass state government and go directly to congress.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jnewt said:

Proposals for Article 4 can now be submitted, here are mine:

  • repeal Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3, aka the Fugitive Slave Clause
  • members of Congress can only receive campaign donations from residents of that state

I still insist on re-doing of discussion on Article 2, as I've said, and consider it null, void, and invalid otherwise. I'm serious on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jnewt said:

Proposals for Article 4 can now be submitted, here are mine:

  • repeal Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3, aka the Fugitive Slave Clause
  • members of Congress can only receive campaign donations from residents of that state

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

This should generally be clarified to be, say:

New states may be admitted by Congress into the Union. No new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor by the junction of two or more states or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned and of Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎26‎/‎2018 at 8:32 PM, jnewt said:

Proposals for Article 4 can now be submitted, here are mine:

  • repeal Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3, aka the Fugitive Slave Clause
  • members of Congress can only receive campaign donations from residents of that state

I move that ALL States are required to fully honour extradition treaties and treaties guaranteeing consular legal advice by their home nation's consulate made by the Federal Government applying to foreign citizens being charged for crimes while legally on Americans soil (I bring this up because Texas likes to ignore these treaties unilaterally - their "Texas justice" mentality - and nothing has been done about it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2018 at 12:01 AM, Patine said:

I still insist on re-doing of discussion on Article 2, as I've said, and consider it null, void, and invalid otherwise. I'm serious on this.

How about the order is:

Article IV (now)

Article V

Article VI

Amendments

Miscellaneous (further amendments on previous articles)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any other proposals for Article 4? Voting will probably begin tomorrow. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, jnewt said:

Any other proposals for Article 4? Voting will probably begin tomorrow. 

I will consider over the evening, and you can begin voting on Article 4 tomorrow. Though I still stand firm on my non-recognition of the debate, voting, and results on Article 2, and still demand a full redoing, and am completely serious on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jnewt said:

Any other proposals for Article 4? Voting will probably begin tomorrow. 

On top of my above proposal, I would consider as follows:

-Education and health care be Federal, not State jurisdictions of government authority, firmly stated.

-States be forbidden to pass laws circumventing Constitutional rights of minority groups in insidious ways, like they have a history of (Jim Crow laws in the past, "Religious Freedom" of businesses to refuse service wholesale to people based the business owner's judgement of someone's moral conduct in their private life alone, and not in ways directly related to business and contract law, discriminatory redefinition of marriage (miscegenation or same-sex marriage bans, or legality of under-aged girls being married with only PARENTAL permissions (still legal in a number of States, especially in the South today, shockingly enough) or polygamous marriage).

-Commerce and labour laws must have some standardization between States, to avoid monopolies in certain industries in certain States (like infamous telecommunication ones, who then proceed to provide rock-bottom service and demand any fees they want, because they have no incentive not to), and gutting of protections of the working class and their ability to collectively negotiate, have guaranteed reasonable wages, and have workplace safety regulations and protection from arbitrary termination of employment on flimsy, discriminatory, and prejudiced grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Patine said:

On top of my above proposal, I would consider as follows:

-Education and health care be Federal, not State jurisdictions of government authority, firmly stated.

-States be forbidden to pass laws circumventing Constitutional rights of minority groups in insidious ways, like they have a history of (Jim Crow laws in the past, "Religious Freedom" of businesses to refuse service wholesale to people based the business owner's judgement of someone's moral conduct in their private life alone, and not in ways directly related to business and contract law, discriminatory redefinition of marriage (miscegenation or same-sex marriage bans, or legality of under-aged girls being married with only PARENTAL permissions (still legal in a number of States, especially in the South today, shockingly enough) or polygamous marriage).

-Commerce and labour laws must have some standardization between States, to avoid monopolies in certain industries in certain States (like infamous telecommunication ones, who then proceed to provide rock-bottom service and demand any fees they want, because they have no incentive not to), and gutting of protections of the working class and their ability to collectively negotiate, have guaranteed reasonable wages, and have workplace safety regulations and protection from arbitrary termination of employment on flimsy, discriminatory, and prejudiced grounds.

Number 2 it isn't there personal conduct it's their wanting to have them cater to a same-sex wedding Most if not all allow people to buy pre-made cakes for their wedding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Number 2 it isn't there personal conduct it's their wanting to have them cater to a same-sex wedding Most if not all allow people to buy pre-made cakes for their wedding

My second proposal as whole goes FAR beyond just cakes - but obviously that's not apparent to you, or you're once again attempting your favourite tactic of using one single anecdote in a specific context, alone, to argue against or discredit a whole, broader, much more expansive issue. It's a tactic who would be well to rid your repertoire of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

My second proposal as whole goes FAR beyond just cakes - but obviously that's not apparent to you, or you're once again attempting your favourite tactic of using one single anecdote in a specific context, alone, to argue against or discredit a whole, broader, much more expansive issue. It's a tactic who would be well to rid your repertoire of.

Why would I comment on things I've no need to comment on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Why would I comment on things I've no need to comment on.

Isn't that a vice, at least part of the time, of 80-90% of active, vocal Internet users? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can now begin proposals for Article 5. Since Article 5 is simply a relatively small block of text, any proposals will have to show the complete text. If you only want to remove a word/sentence or add a word/sentence, just copy and paste the text with your desired changes. You can also completely rewrite the text. Our base text for the article can be found below ("both houses" is removed from the original text because we adopted a unicameral legislature), in bold, while my proposal can be found below, in italics, with changes underlined or written in strikethrough. When you make your proposals, please use the strikethrough to indicate portions you have removed, and underline portions you have added or changed.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of its members shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Congress.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of its members shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fifths of the several states, or by conventions in three fifths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Congress.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any other proposals for Article 5?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×