My idea for a new law

SevenRoundMags

New member
I have a new idea for a law.

Its simple - any person that holds any position in the government, and has the correct legislative authority, manages to vote on, or invent a bill infringing ANY of the original, say, 10 amendments in ANY way, automatically gets 25 to life! No parole, trial within 30 days and no appeal.

Hell, call it the "Zero Tolerance Law" :)
 
Problem is, just who gets to determine what is or is not a violation of those first 10 ammendments? And just why only that part of the constitution? Why not all of it? That would be like saying that some parts are more important than others.

Well, actually that is already the case -- portions overridden by amendments already are less important...

Anyway, it seems to me that would end up being a very partisan thing in practice -- witch hunts by the prosecution backed up by whatever political leanings there happen to be at the time in the Federal Judiciary & Supreme Court.

Anyway, while I kinda like the proposal on the face of it, I feel that in practice it would be a very bad thing.
 
SevenRoundMags,

Unfortunately, your proposed law itself infringes upon the constitutional rights of the people involvred.
 
How does it infringe on their rights?

Since when were the original amendments negotiable?

The first two amendments are the most important IMHO, and are never negotiable or subject to change.
 
Its simple - any person that holds any position in the government, and has the correct legislative authority, manages to vote on, or invent a bill infringing ANY of the original, say, 10 amendments in ANY way, automatically gets 25 to life! No parole, trial within 30 days and no appeal.

From the Fifth Amendment: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

Your proposed law deprives the accused of the right of due process, the same due process the lowliest criminal is entitled to.
 
A Constitutional amendment I've always thought would have solved a LOT of our problems :

Congress shall be required to spend no less than 2/3 of it's time in session debating and researching existing laws to be repealed.

If you could somehow work that into how state governments are required to work, we'd be in a much happier place these days.
 
Back
Top