Constitutional Amendment to Protect our Inalienable Rights

A link about Supreme Court cases with split decisions lacking any expressed opinion related to those decisions is really rather useless. As the amendment I proposed would establish that any split decision would result in the law or government action being declared unconstitutional so in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, which is the first one on the link, it was a split decision declaring Chicago's gun laws a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Under my proposal it still would have been unconstitutional if even one justice voted to overturn the law. It would have stopped an infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms.

Interesting related to this is the fact that this decision was hailed by conservatives because it imposed a restriction on cities and states based upon the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. At the same time many conservatives state that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause doesn't apply to gender discrimination in marriage because the US Constitution doesn't apply to the States. They are rather hypocritical in saying the 2nd Amendment applies to the States but the 14th Amendment does not. Of course Article VI of the US Constitution does establish the US Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land and all federal, state and local laws are subject to it.

 

That split decisions says we keep our Constitutional rights to own a fire arm. If it had went the other way we would have had them taken away from us.

 

A one vote change would have taken that Right away. I don't believe our Rights should hang on a single vote in a split decisions. As noted my proposed amendment would have protected the Right to Keep and Bear Arms even if the vote had been 1:8 (one to overturn and 8 to sustain the law) as opposed to the 5:4 vote to overturn. Only a unanimous vote would have allowed an infringement upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Which affords a greater protection for the Right? A split decision or a decision that requires all of the Supreme Court justices to allow the infringement? Remember that even one vote would overturn the law and infringement under my proposal. It wouldn't take five votes to overturn the law.

 

Under my proposed amendment even one Supreme Court justice could block any law that they found to be unconstitutional. Once again this is not a perfect solution but it does provide the maximum pragmatic protection of our Rights from being violated by our government.

 

I agree.

If Life and Happiness were inalienable, than any law that infringes on smeone's life or happiness would be an illegal law.

Therefore, the fact that states like Texas are allowed to have the death panalty, and gays can be barred from marriage, which has been considered an important part of a happy life for years, means that so called inalienable rights are only inalienable when they serve the purposes of the powers that be.

 

An inalienable Right relates to what is inherent in the individual that does not violate the Rights of others. A person has a Right to "Happiness" but they cannot do so at the expense of someone else. The argument above would be like saying it's acceptable for a sadist to beat the crap out of someone else because it makes them happy. That is, of course, pure BS.

A person does have a Right to Life but they don't have the Right to take another person's life. I have often argued that the dealt penality is unconstitutional because we cannot delegate a power to government where we don't have the Right to do the same thing. As individuals we don't have the Right to commit the premeditated killing of another person so we have no authority that we can delegate to the government which would allow them to commit a premeditated killing of another person. Capital punishment is unnecessary to protect the Rights of Individuals in society and cannot be justified.

Of note "anti-abortionists" try to frame the issue of abortion as if it's a case of murder but so far their arguments fail to address the fact that "murder" is the taking of the life of another person but there isn't a legal precedent establishing "personhood" prior to birth. Murder cannot occur unless it's the taking of the life of a person and that doesn't apply to the preborn. The "anti-abortionists" would first have to establish legal precedent for the "personhood" of the preborn but they're not addressing this. It could be done but only by Constitutional Amendment.

 

It seems that "unalienable" is really not true as previously stated. Unalienable rights are taken/infringed/modified all time.

Even the MOST basic (which would seem to be right up there with "unalienable") "rights" have been modified/infringed upon. There are many ways in which you can have your freedom of speech not be constitutional.

Don't even GET me started on the 2nd amendment. How about all the other ones?

And if we think that the 2nd amendment is outdated, why are WE KEEPING THE 3RD?

Shiva, I like what you are doing.

I have always thought that there are NOT "checks and balances" in Law. Who says that 12 jurors are better than 10? 5? 7? Why one judge? What is a quick and speedy trial?

I really despise lawyers. They (and the police) are the bain of our society.

 

Inalienable Rights exist regardless of whether the government protects them, infringes upon them, or denies them completely and they are established based upon logical argument. Inalienable Rights are those things inherent in ourselves as persons and which do not infringe upon the Inalienable Rights of others. These can, as noted, be established by logical deduction. There are pragmatic reasons for infringements upon our Inalienable Rights such as the infringement of "Liberty" which occurs with the incarceration of a convicted criminal that has demonstated that they have and will violate our Inalienable Rights of Person and Property. The key to these infringements it that they should be to the least extent possible to provide a greater protection of our Inalienable Rights.

My point in this thread is about protecting our Inalienable Rights to the greatest extent pragmatically possible. Our government was established with the primary purpose of protecting our Inalienable Rights and while there isn't a "magic bullet" the requirement that all nine Supreme Court justices agree that a law or action of our government is Constitutional is the greatest protection we can logically seek or expect. As I noted I've read the dessenting opinions when laws have been upheld and they reflect that there is very probably a violation of the Constitution but just not enough votes to protect us from the infringement. I would err on the side of caution whenever it addresses our Inalienable Rights and that is the point. The very purpose of our government should be to protect those Inalienable Rights whenever there is a question of whether the government is infringing upon them without Constitutional authority.

 

I would go a step further than you. Instead of "err"ing on the side of caution, when ever an "inalienable" right case is in a "grey" area, we should automatically fall back on the "inalienable" rights side.

Shiva_TD For President!

 

Really, you have to be kidding. You would absolutely guarantee that the Supreme Court would be powerless and useless. If that is your purpose, announce it up front. Say, "I favor abolishing the Supreme Court." Then we won't have to play the rest of the games. I am categorically, absolutely opposed to removing one leg from the stool of divided powers.

 

Far from being powerless the mandate for a unanimous decsions to support the Constitutionality of any law or government action provides the greatest possible power to the Supreme Court in ensuring that our Constitutional Rights are protected. It is not absolute protection but it is pragmatically as close as possible to absolute protection that I can imagine. It removes the political split we have today between conservative and progressive interpretations as a uninimous decision must meet the criteria for both basically taking "politics" out of the equation. It establishes the unquestionable role of the Supreme Court as being the protector of the Rights of the People over it's split purpose today which includes supporting the interests of Congress and the government where it infringes upon our inalienable Rights.

 

Unfortunately campaign finance laws of dubious Constitutionality prevent me from obtaining the funding necessary for a successful presidential bid. We'd need to remove the limitation of $2,500/person/candidate for me to successfully run for president. The campaign finance laws were created by Congress to provide a distinct advantage to the major political parties over any challengers.

Democrats and Republicans are united in ensuring that they, and no one else, control the politics of America. Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson was a perfect example of this as he was excluded from the Presidential Debates by the Democrats and Republicans in 2012. They didn't want Johnson's political opinions presented to the American voters. Both Democrats and Republicans want to violate the US Constitution for their own political agendas and they do it all of the time.

The Supreme Court, because it can uphold a law based upon a simple majority, contributes to this on-going violation of the Constitution that infringes upon our Inalienable Rights.

 

While I would rather have no gov't at all, I would support this. I like it a lot.

 

A piece of paper doesn't give you any power. The Constitution is a ruling-class manifesto designed to pacify the people with high-sounding mumbo jumbo. It was designed behind closed doors. A nation that would put up with an insult like that doesn't deserve to be free.

Freedom is not about words, it's about swords. Only slavish fools and cowards think that paper shields can protect them.

This Internet was designed by the ruling class of thieves and traitors to cripple our trigger fingers pumping pixels. The enemies of freedom of speech, the moderators, were enlisted to keep us peasants in line.

 

No kidding. The SCROTUS and the Constitution that sheep worship like a Bible were designed to overrule the opinion of the majority. Government was established to avoid war, where the greatest number would win anyway. So we need absolute rule by the majority or we need war to get us back to that natural state. The elitists must surrender. and they will without a fight if they have to face being outnumbered without the ability to trick people into thinking that the upper class comprises our natural leaders.

 

A piece of paper doesn't protect your gun rights. Only your gun protects your gun rights. Besides, you forget that the Founding Fodder we are brainwashed to worship tried to sneak pass the Constitution on us without the first ten Amendments.

 

Lawyers wrote the Constitutionazis' Mein Kampf. We the majority should make the laws; we don't need ghosts from the 18th Century to tell us what to think. Don't be fooled by your mind-castrating education. Those people behind closed doors in Philadelphia wanted to establish an aristocratic dictatorship just like the ones that ruled Europe. It was the only role model they had, which is no excuse, because it was the only role model these ambitious and conceited pseudo-intellectuals wanted.

 

In Marbury v. Madison, the SCROTUS interpreted the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution. If you think that is logical, we shouldn't care what you are categorically opposed to. Anyone who respects judicial review is a perfect example of the Big Lie. From childhood on, you are unanimously told to obey this absurdity, which blocks your ability to look at it logically.

 

They did nothing of the kind, it was agreed that there would be amendments after the main body of the Constitution was passed. Unlike the politicians today, they keep their word. And, Friend, I don't worship any man. But while we are on the subject, one of the signers was a relative of mine.

 

That isn't exactly true. The initial position of the Federalists was that because government wasn't authorized to violate our Inalienable Rights that it wouldn't have the "power" to do so. The Anti-Federalist presented a much more compelling argument so that even before the Constitution was submitted to the States for ratification the leading Federalists had been convinced that a Bill of Rights was a mandatory necessity. Madison, a leader of the Federalists, was the actual author if the ten Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights.

 

In truth the exact opposite is true. It provides even one Supreme Court Justice with the ability to invalid an law based upon the US Constitution. I've read numerous split Supreme Court decisions where the opinions of the dissenting justice(s) provided ample reasons for the law or action of our government to be deemed unconstitutional.

In spite of opinions to the contrary the justices on the US Supreme Court are some of the finest jurists in the United States and each and every one of them takes their role and responsibility seriously. When even one of them points to a law or action of government as violating the US Constitution then it introduces Constitutional questionability and, as I've stated, we can live without any law or action of government that is of dubious Constitutionalty. The laws and actions of our government should always be based upon unquestionable Constitutionality and every problem we really have today related to the laws and actions of government appear to be based upon laws where there were legitmate issues related to their Constitutionality that were raised by members of the US Supreme Court that offered a "minority" opinion in a split decision.

 

Actually, a piece of paper has protected those rights for well over 200 years.

But the 2nd Amendment is really erroneous. There is no Right of the Individual to own a specific type of property, The actual inalienable Right, which is protected by the 9th Amendment as an unenumerated Rigth, is the Right of Self-Defense Against Acts of Aggression. That is the real Right of the Person. A firearm is just a means, perhaps the best means, of being able to defend oneself from an Act of Aggression.

At the same time we need to acknowledge that the primary reason for government, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence, is to protect our Inalienable Rights including protecting us from acts of aggression by those in society. There is a legitimate reasons for the goverment to "provide for the public safety" which protects us from acts of aggression by others which would violate our Inalienable Rights. To accomplish this it sometimes requires pragmatic limitations upon our Freedom to Exercise our Inalienable Rights.

The problem is that when addressing most "gun control laws" they're not framed in this context.

 

(This is a general rant, not at you)

American pop culture always clamors for various rights much like in the days of our founding fathers in construction of our country's government. Go and read the writings of those founding fathers collectively. What you will find is that they advocated rights in which a man could freely exercise his walk of manhood as to profit himself, his family and his community to the extent of his several abilities and to build a good name and to be of good report amongst his peers. To forfeit his life in humble servitude to his family, his heritage and all other debts of a man and Patriot.
Yet today, we have completely stripped away any expectation of such a performance of Civic Duty. We only sop up 'rights' like gravy and use those rights according to our own definition apart from those who died and suffered for those rights. We use term 'freedom' in the most self serving context apart from any burden of maintaining it.

I have a new Amendment proposal myself;

Article XXX; It is hereby ordained that a citizen of these United States demand and expectation of Civil Rights be limited to that mans sense and performance of Civic Duty. If a man casts aside his children, sleeps til noon, doesn't work and doesn't volunteer to assist the widow and the fatherless then that man forfeits his various rights and cannot vote or have an expectation of equality.


How naive the founding fathers were in their assumption that the populace would use its freedoms to be 'doers'. They defined freedom as a man waking up and working as he pleased without an oppressive government. Now, freedom is to have pink hair and live with your parents until youre 35 and jobless.

 

While I can understand the sentiment I can't support the amendment.

We must note that the reason given for the existence of government in the Declaration of Independence was that government's primary role was to protect us from other people in society. While we often complain about the oppressive nature of government the predominate oppression in life is by other people. For example, if we listed every possible form of government oppression in the United States today it wouldn't even come close to being the oppression imposed by racial prejudice in society that denies equality of opportunity for minorities in the United States.

The oppression by "the people" far outweighs the oppression by government in the United States.

 

Thank you for your reply,
Such an Amendment wouldn't be practical to implement of course. Yet it could be added as Constitutional language as a reference to interpret other Constitutional law. Our Constitution isn't predicated on the Declaration but does allude to various precepts. The Declarations foundation concerns the relationship of the people and the government and ends with a list of rants against England's King. I'm not sure where you got this definition. Nonetheless, this same Declaration also declares that we are a Created people by a Creator. And our earliest American documents included the Mayflower Compact in which it declared that the reason for our being here is to propagate the Gospel and Truth of Jesus Christ. Yet today we discard any document that alludes to any deity.
Our Constitution is the Citizenry vs. Governmental tyranny and our protections against it.

As an aside(general rant), we have the well worn terms "free country" and "freedom and "free". Who defines those terms? The founding fathers? Our Patriots that died on the battle field? Or would that be 'The View'(talk show with Whoopie etc)?

Suppose that you lived a virtuous and prosperous life and left your son your fortune with the instruction to "multiply his inheritance and to bare many sons to grow up to honorable manhood". Thus, your son goes to Vegas and has his way with 100 different women as to bare all of these sons and then puts your fortune on the roulette wheel! He's doing what you told him....right? Who defines your words? You or him?
Likewise, when our founding fathers and our patriots handed over this sacred gift of 'freedom' we today say " I thank you sirs for the freedom to be nothing, to do nothing, to accomplish nothing, to work at nothing, to help no one, to not respect, to not care, to not volunteer and to not have any obligation or inclination to carry on the same burden that you have died for but to only live a life of self absorption. Thank you for the freedom to burn your flag, to spit on your grave and the freedom to laugh at your foolish loss of life for me, you fool lol".

Respectfully,