|
|
Back to UF - User Diary Index
|
Constitution Design 101, a learn-as-I-go effort. | by kelli217 | 2005-03-29 12:12:46 |
|
Part 2: Article 1: Limitations of Power | by kelli217 | 2005-04-06 11:23:54 |
| Wow |
by MatthewDBA |
2005-04-08 12:27:04 |
That's fairly exhaustive, but in many ways that's good.
General thought: You could get rid of much excess verbiage by phrasing the entire thing as (e.g.)
"Unless failure to do so would endanger the rights of the people as a whole, the government shall not: (1) (2) etc." (The reason I say "as a whole" is that in some cases, for example clause (3), it is not clear whether or not one could interpret "the rights of the people" to apply to the people whose rights are infringed - one could argue that suppression of a protest march infringed on the rights of the people marching, even if the march endangered the safety of the population at large. Just a bit more specificity might help here.
Specific thoughts on various clauses:
(4) I'm not clear on what exactly you mean by raising one religion higher than another. I imagine that courts could interpret that in a number of (perhaps conflicting) ways.
(6) I particularly like this. My dad always says that corporations should not be allowed to lobby for causes, since they can't vote.
(7) Will this include only agreements made between private persons, or wilil it be extended to agreements in which one or more parties is a corporate body or similar legally defined entity?
(8) As written, this could allow the government to interfere with actions undertaken between informed and consenting individuals (I would probably prefer "adults" in this instance) if such action took place in the house of a mutual friend. Perhaps you could say something about the adults having a reasonable expectation of privacy in the location?
(10) I don't know that it's possible to prove guilt beyond all doubt. Someone could always say "I don't think he did it," regardless of whether there are any rational grounds for supporting the statement. I think "reasonable doubt" is probably the best you can do here.
(11) I like this one too. It makes it more difficult for the executive branch to find loopholes.
(12) It appears then that civilians attacking a military installation or military personnel on duty will be prosecuted in a civil court?
(17) There are certain cases which are decided by a judge alone (or a panel of judges). Are you abrogating this practice, or do you intend this clause to be applicable only to criminal cases? Either way, I think you should clarify.
(18) I notice you don't mention "habeas corpus", or the right of the defendant to know the charges against him.
(21) This is good, but I wonder whether the phrasing couldn't be used by lawyers to turn a suit into a quibble about whether "significant value" is in question. I'm not sure I see a good alternative, though.
(29) - (30) I could argue with you over the precise age level (I tend to think eighteen is a more mature age, in general) but I don't think I'd win, and the precise age is not really the question here.
Last paragraph: I assume these limitations also apply to governmental institutions on foreign soil?
Another general thought: It's good to have a list of individual items, as you have here, but would you consider collecting some of the more closely related items into a single "Thou shalt not"?
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Wow indeed. Gotta lock them suckers down. | by kelli217 | 2005-04-08 13:13:30 |
|
Okay | by MatthewDBA | 2005-04-08 21:55:02 |
|
|
[Todays Cartoon Discussion]
[News Index]
|
|
