The Bill of Rights - Revised for the 21st Century

[OpSomBlood]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the National Guard peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the National Guard to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the National Guard, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the National Guard to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the National Guardsman or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No National Guardsman shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any National Guardsman be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused National Guardsman shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law against the National Guard, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted against the National Guard.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the National Guard.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the National Guard.

[T Town Jake]

1. LOL...

...the gun control crowds gonna love it!

[JayS]

2. "the right of the National Guard to keep and bear arms"

Well, that means that the National Guard can have guns for hunting, and they must be registered!

[OpSomBlood]

3. Note the distinction between "militia" and "National Guard"

It's an important one. I don't know why.

[billbuckhead]

4. More Walter Mitty crap, might as well write one for Mars

The real 21st century Constitution is the European Union, the fastest growing most economically successful, freest and liberal political entity in history. Gunners hate it because they did it without firing off a single gun.

[TexasMexican]

5. So obviously the answer to all of America's problems is...

to join the European Union. :eyes:

[FeebMaster]

6. All these Walter Mitty references are going right over my head. (nt)

[Liberal Classic]

8. Walter Mitty is the stereotypical henpecked husband

Whose imagination soars with flights of fancy.

[FeebMaster]

10. I see.

I like the Jackney Sneeb references better.

[T Town Jake]

7. Gee, bill...

...I thought you'd be the first in line to endorse
this "new" Constitution, since it parses the phrase
"the people" in the precise way you interpret it.
Am I missing something?

[iverglas]

9. my goodness

Did you think that up all by yourself?

And more to the point, of course, hereabouts: did you type it all by yourself? Are you going to provide us with the word count, so that we can ooh and aah, or make suitably snide remarks, or whatever else someone might want to do when faced with so many words on a screen?

What I can't figure out is: if you're going to revise the thing for the 21st century, why in dog's name wouldn't you get rid of that dépassé, pointless, incomprehensible 2nd amendment?

And, of course, why you didn't include equal benefit as well as equal protection of the law, and equality under as well as before the law. And why your draft doesn't recognize the right to security of the person, along with those more traditional rights to life and liberty. And why you limited yourself to guaranteeing due process, rather than requiring adherence to the principles of fundamental justice.

Could it be that you really don't want those National Guardspeople having the same rights as we in the rest of the world do??

Oh yeah ... looks like you need an equal rights amendment too, else someone might think that all that non-inclusive language excluded women.

Here's a real model for you: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/

You might also want to consult:
http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm
for guidance. That last one in particular, maybe:

Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

Hmm. One might almost think that this had something to do with the security of a free state ...


Eek, I answered my own question, the very first one right up top there: Did you think that up all by yourself?

Looks like not.

http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3b0d3dcf2b00.htm#24
you should pardon my French.

Here be the whole thing, which the freeper apparently also (i.e. like you) failed to attribute to its author:
http://www.mises.demon.co.uk/thepeople.html

But hell, who knows; perhaps one-track minds think alike.

[billbuckhead]

11. I'm SHOCKED how so many of the sites the DU gun crowd links to leads back

to the vast rightwing conspiracy of Newsmax, American Enterprise Institute, FreeRePUBELICK, etc

[T Town Jake]

12. Don't forget...

...the stentorian, bill. A recitation like that simply isn't complete without a straw man reference to the infamous stentorian....
/sarcasm

[DoNotRefill]

16. Iverglas:

"Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

Under that, wouldn't the States that became the Confederate States of America have been legally able to seceed?

[iverglas]

18. it's a question

Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Under that, wouldn't the States that became the Confederate
States of America have been legally able to seceed?

The "legally" bit of it I'll leave aside, since there was not actually any "law" that governed at that time, and there seldom is now. Canada, of course, is the exception: there is now federal legislation ("The Clarity Act") setting out the conditions on which Quebec may secede from Canada.

Would the confederate states have been able to found a claim to a right of secession on the Covenant?

*IF* the population of those states constituted "a people": maybe.

I don't know how familiar you are with contemporary thought in this area. It's rather complex, of course. In addition to the above "if", there are things like: IF the territory they claim is not subject to a legitimate claim by another "people", that sort of thing.

There are peoples within peoples, i.e. more than one within the same geographic territory, that being probably the more common situation. The African-American population of the confederate states could probably have advanced just as legitimate a claim to some self-government arrangement. Just as the First Nations of Canada are doing, with some success, today.

A mere claim to be a people and thus entitled to exercise the right of self-determination doesn't make a group a people.

And an attempt to secede may not be a legitimate exercise of the right at all. I'd say that it is more often a power grab by an indigenous élite, which is what legitimate liberation struggles most often seem to degenerate into. The Parti Québécois leadership, for instance, is really just the local economic élite these days, as was the leadership of the US's revolution -- looking to run their own show without another élite's interference, not really acting in the interests of "the people" in the exercise of their right to self-determination.

I may have referred you to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Reference re Secession of Quebec. That's how we do things here of course: in the courts. ;)

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1998/vol2/html/1998scr2_0217.html
Background on the process: http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/const/bck2.html
http://www.cric.ca/en_html/guide/supremecourt/supremecourt.html

I had to read a lot of the background material submitted to the Court in that case -- experts' reports on the state of Cdn and international law on the subject -- which was actually a lot more interesting and worth reading than the decision itself. Not easily accessible publicly, I don't think. ... Ah, here are a couple of things on line -- the AG's submissions only, unfortunately.

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/const/crarpt.doc
(Quebec itself refused to participate in the reference, so an amicus was appointed to represent its interests.)
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/const/renvoi.html
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/const/replyqa5.html
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/1997/factum/question2.html
(I don't know where the first part of that one is.)
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/1997/factum/factum.doc


The answer comes down to: local law governs, since there is no enforceable international law.

The Canadian and Belgian systems of government, for instance, involve attempts to recognize the right to self-determination of the various peoples within the federations. The right to self-determination does not necessarily imply the right to a separate state.

[OpSomBlood]

13. Why can't "National Guard" be used interchangeably...

...with "the people" throughout the entire Bill of Rights? The main argument against individual RKBA is that the Second Amendment confers no such individual right and that it only refers to the National Guard.

So logic would dictate that "the people" refers to the National Guard uniformly, doesn't it? Why is "the people" in the Second Amendment held to a different standard as "the people" elsewhere in the Bill of Rights?

[hansberrym]

14. It is not far fetched at all...

for instance, the freedoms of speech and of the press are slowly changing from a recognition of rights that each of us hold as individuals, to rights held only by state recognized entities such as the "institutional press" mentioned below.

Hey, who really needs their own printing press when we have these state recognized and licensed corporations now known as the "institutional press". Kind of gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling all over -don't it?


http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-1674.html
From McConnel v. Campaign FInance:

In addition to arguing that §316(b)(2)'s segregated-fund requirement is underinclusive, some plaintiffs contend that it unconstitutionally discriminates in favor of media companies. FECA §304(f)(3)(B)(i) excludes from the definition of electioneering communications any "communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate." 2 U. S. C. A. §434(f)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2003). Plaintiffs argue this provision gives free rein to media companies to engage in speech without resort to PAC money. Section 304(f)(3)(B)(i)'s effect, however, is much narrower than plaintiffs suggest. The provision excepts news items and commentary only; it does not afford carte blanche to media companies generally to ignore FECA's provisions. The statute's narrow exception is wholly consistent with First Amendment principles. "A valid distinction ... exists between corporations that are part of the media industry and other corporations that are not involved in the regular business of imparting news to the public." Austin, 494 U. S., at 668. Numerous federal statutes have drawn this distinction to ensure that the law "does not hinder or prevent the institutional press from reporting on, and publishing editorials about, newsworthy events." Ibid. (citations omitted); see, e.g., 2 U. S. C. §431(9)(B)(i) (exempting news stories, commentaries, and editorials from FECA's definition of "expenditure"); 15 U. S. C. §§1801-1804 (providing a limited antitrust exemption for newspapers); 47 U. S. C. §315(a) (excepting newscasts, news interviews, and news documentaries from the requirement that broadcasters provide equal time to candidates for public office).89



This is what it used to mean.

Virginia BoR
Section 12. Freedom of speech and of the press; right peaceably to assemble, and to petition.

That the freedoms of speech and of the press are among the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained except by despotic governments; that any citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; that the General Assembly shall not pass any law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, nor the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances.

[iverglas]

15. over here, T Town Jake

The main argument against individual RKBA is that the Second Amendment confers no such individual right and that it only refers to the National Guard.

This here will be yer straw person argument.

The references to the Stentorian whereof you complain (and gosh, haven't you been the quick study? - that discussion mainly occurred well before May 28 ...) just weren't.

I was gonna offer to find you some examples of real straw person arguments, if you insisted, and then saw that one had reared its head right here.

If you need any further assistance in identifying logical fallacies in general, or finding the particular example seen here, we can refer you to some useful sites, I'm sure.


Why is "the people" in the Second Amendment held to a different standard as "the people" elsewhere in the Bill of Rights?

Well, I guess that someone who asserts that other people blame inanimate objects for things (there being some such people in the vicinity ... and that being another fine example of a straw person, of course) might find it reasonable that a noun be "held to a standard" (let alone a "different standard as"). I find this mighty confusing, myself. Was somebody hereabouts trying to hold nouns to standards??

[T Town Jake]

17. Hi, Iverglas...

You said: "The references to the Stentorian whereof you complain (and gosh, haven't you been the quick study? - that discussion mainly occurred well before May 28 ...) just weren't"
Yes, I've been plowing through a few past threads in an attempt to better educate myself on a few points of order here in the Gungeon.
You said: "Well, I guess that someone who asserts that other people blame inanimate objects for things (there being some such people in the vicinity ... and that being another fine example of a straw person, of course) might find it reasonable that a noun be "held to a standard" (let alone a "different standard as"). I find this mighty confusing, myself. Was somebody hereabouts trying to hold nouns to standards??"

As someone around here might say, just too, too funny (I've probably read that phrase twenty different times tonight in various past threads). You've got two sentences there that talk a lot, but don't say much. The point they try to make, the question they try to ask, is opaque, at least to me. Care to state in a wee bit plainer language the point you're trying to get across, the question you're tyring to ask?

[iverglas]

19. well garsh

Care to state in a wee bit plainer language the point you're trying to get across, the question you're tyring to ask?

Yes, I guess you could say I was tyring to ask it.

Funny how you missed the first two sentences of my post:

"The main argument against individual RKBA is that the Second Amendment confers no such individual right and that it only refers to the National Guard."

This here will be yer straw person argument.

You see, here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=65092&mesg_id=65113&page=
you had said:

Don't forget...
...the stentorian, bill. A recitation like that simply isn't complete without a straw man reference to the infamous stentorian....
/sarcasm

... and I'd just wanted to you see what a real straw person argument looked like, so you might recognize one when you see it, and not keep being bedevilled by apparitions of straw person arguments that aren't really there.