What about a Liberal Amendment?

They had the flag burning amendment, and the gay marriage amendment, so what will the Liberals offer in return when they take back Congress?

How 'bout a Bill of Rights Amendment? Something like this:

We the People of the United States of America find that slavery in all its guises has corrupted the Constitution since the Founding of our great Nation.

Slavery here means ownership of African-Americans. It means denying women the right to vote. It means the practice of indentured servants. It means the practice of the renting out of convicts to private business until literally worked to death.

Addressing these and every other type of slavery, always insidious be it subtle or flagrant, was the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. We the People find that the intent was to apply the Bill of Rights in their entirety to all the various states, and that no state shall deny to any citizen those rights.

It is hereby declared by the People of the United States of America, that from this day forward no state shall have the right to ever again deny the full Bill of Rights to any legal citizen not lawfully in custody due to a felony crime. And the Fourteenth Amendment shall apply to all the states and shall herewith enforce the Bill of Rights in their totality on all the states.

Inspired by http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/faculty/gertz/hugoblack.htm

Edited: see below :)

Do you mean "democratic?"

:shrug:

but a law legalizing gay marriage in any state that wants to receive federal funding of any kind.

Basically, we don't need Amendments, because we can actually operate within the Constitution just fine.

Didn't know that. :)

I can't think of any Amendments we need.

For example, there is no need for an amendment guaranteeing full constitutional rights to everyone, since they should already have them, as expressed in the Constitution. And having it expressed in an Amendment would do nothing, since people like Bush step all over the Constitution anyway.

Maybe I am overlooking something, but most issues where people feel we might need to have an Amendment are more likely issues where we need to bust Republicans for violating the Constitution and taking rights from people.

After the civil war, the 14th amendment was passed with the purpose of preventing the states from violating the Bill of Rights guaranteed to every citizen.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Slaughterhouse Cases four years later that the Bill of Rights did NOT apply to the states through the 14th Amendment. Gradually, mostly in the 60s, more and more rights were granted by the Supreme Court under the Bill of Rights despite what the states said, but we are a long way from enforcing the intentions of the 14th Amendment.

I have a long explanation here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1994896&mesg_id=2012948

See, a lot of people think because we have a federal Bill of Rights that the states must enforce them, but they don't always have to, and often don't, and more often try to do so less and less. It's all about power, and they want as much as they can take.

Black's speech explains it better than I can.

its something Conservatives pride themselves on: State's Rights.

And that's why we should pass it. Can they really argue that the Bill of Rights is bad for the states?

granted, Bush has done more to increase the size, power, and scope of the central federal government than anyone prior could have imagined possible (or legal)...

But he still doesn't get tagged with a "big government" image.


But we would.


I think a better approach might be some sort of campaign to pressure all the states into adopting into their constitiutions (even if they already have it) a version of the US Bill of Rights.

With enough states passing it, and enough grassroots action, red states could probably be shamed into doing it.


Even the RW mainstream media would run stories like, say, "Alabama is the only state that has yet to pass legislation adopting the US Bill of Rights"

That's what the Framers of the 14th intended: that the states SHALL enforce the Bill of Rights. Them activist judges limited it to almost nothing. Some still wanted to pass Jim Crow laws and all that bull. They got nearly free labor from prison camps. They rigged it.

Calling it Big Government is only a ruse.

But don't you think people would wake up to the spin they've been living?

How many people don't know that the federal Bill of Rights does not apply to the states unless the Supreme Court says so? Most wouldn't know that, I bet.

Everyone thinks they have the federal Bill of Rights protecting them, and they may have if their state Constitution says they do, but that can be changed at any time, for better or for worse. And it is not uniform. Some states are better than others.

And how many would be surprised to learn of the limits of the 14th Amendment, and how it was intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the states but the Supreme Court stopped it?

I don't think the Right would like going down that road. Which is all the more reason to discuss state's rights in a raging debate.

See, "States rights means no Bill of Rights" doesn't sound good. What kind of "by the people, for the people" is that?

you are gonna be waiting a while.

Look around, LOL

Kind of sad, really, really sad.

Every throw a revolution and nobody came?

It's like no one going to a kid's birthday party.

"I can't believe how right you are"


LOL

So there.

I think this Bill of Rights idea went over like a lead balloon. What are lead balloons worth, anyway? Ever seen one on Ebay?

inflated a few too many lead ballons as a child, if you catch my drift....


To paraphrase Tommy Boy:


"Did you eat paint chips as a kid?"

"Hehehe, yeah, why?"


:rofl:

And who cares what "a lot of people here think"? If you catch my drift.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Someone has a post like this, and your response, right away, is "you're an idiot"????


:WTF: is wrong with you

First, the person asks for something that happened decades ago, then wants to deny Constitutional rights to those imprisoned for felonies?

You cannot be serious.

I just got here.

That's why its prison.

Otherwise, it would be against the law to even lock them up in the first place, wouldn't it?


ON EDIT: They have human rights, yes. But they can't posess firearms or vote, for example.

Or do you think they should be able to?

They can't go to McDonald's either.

no McDonalds

And they might even get a Big Mac smuggled in now and then.

:cry:

I'm never going to prison.

too bad its just you

:evilgrin:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

To the states?

;)

Have you heard about the NSA spying?

Have you heard about Guantanamo Bay and citizens arrested and detained without counsel or trial?

Have you heard about election fraud in certain states?

Have you heard anything about torture of prisoners?

Have you heard about state gay marriage amendments passed by the tyranny of the majority?

Man, I could go on and on, but just visit the ACLU. They are constantly battling to keep what we have, and we don't have all we should have.

Have you heard about the NSA spying?

HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS APPLIED TO THE STATES.

Have you heard about Guantanamo Bay and citizens arrested and detained without counsel or trial?

HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS APPLIED TO THE STATES.

Have you heard about election fraud in certain states?

HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS APPLIED TO THE STATES.

Have you heard anything about torture of prisoners?

HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS APPLIED TO THE STATES.

Have you heard about state gay marriage amendments passed by the tyranny of the majority?

HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS APPLIED TO THE STATES.

Man, I could go on and on, but just visit the ACLU. They are constantly battling to keep what we have, and we don't have all we should have.

HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS APPLIED TO THE STATES.

That doesn't spy, that always give a defendant effective counsel equal to the power and resources of the prosecution, that never abuses prisoners, that hasn't passed a STATE amendment revealing a tyranny of the majority, and what makes you thank the ACLU only fights federal cases? In fact, many of them are within the various states.

So what perfect state do you live in?

To the states?

:shrug:

And can't know what we are talking about, but try this:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=332&invol=46

That is just one case out of thousands.

Name one right, guaranteed by the Constitution, that has not been applied to the states.

It really is a simple fucking question.

Read it or Justice Black's speech, or not. I don't care.

. . . I suggest that it is a hobby you should seriously pursue:

"I shall speak to you about the Bill of Rights only as it bears on powers of the Federal Government. Originally, the first ten amendments were not intended to apply to the states but, as the Supreme Court held in 1833 in Barron v. Baltimore,(4) were adopted to quiet fears extensively entertained that the powers of the big new national government "might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty." I believe that by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, the first ten amendments are now applicable to the state, a view I stated in Adamson v. California.(5) I adhere to that view. In this talk, however, I want to discuss only the extent to which the Bill of Rights limits the Federal Government."

From Hugo Black's speech.

:eyes:

He lost that one, meaning his view in Adamson v. California did NOT become the law of the land. The opposite view did.

That's the case I linked to when you said you didn't want to "read all that shit."

Speaking of reading...

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Read Black's speech.

:)

Through the 14th Amendment.

To the states.

;)

If the states say they should be. That in some cases is free speech, search and seizure, the right to privacy, the right to counsel, the right to bear arms, due process, writ of habeas corpus, blah, blah, blah.

So if a state has a reasonable reason the deny the Bill of Rights, they can. If they are or not depends on the case, and depends on the state, and that is the problem.

That is Justice Black's point. He says the Bill of Rights should be absolute and no state, after the 14th Amendment, should be able to repress them for any reason, reasonable or not.

The Bill Of Rights provides minimum standards. This is the law. States can provide more protection than the BOR, but not less. You have it backwards.

:)

On the subways? You know, more so if they are darker than some others.

Without trial or conviction?

But serious problems remain. As the Justice Department found, in its 2000 report (in pdf format), Improving Criminal Justice Systems Through Expanded Strategies and Innovative Collaborations:

Standards are frequently not implemented, contracts are often awarded to the lowest bidder without regard to the scope or quality of services, organizational structures are weak, workloads are high, and funding has not kept pace with other components of the criminal justice system. The effects can be severe, including legal representation of such low quality to amount to no representation at all, delays, overturned convictions, and convictions of the innocent. Ultimately, as Attorney General Janet Reno states, the lack of competent, vigorous legal representation for indigent defendants calls into question the legitimacy of criminal convictions and the integrity of the criminal justice system as a whole.

http://www.nlada.org/About/About_HistoryDefender

Try to focus.

:)

Did you click the link? Read the context? Can't tell by the posted context? Here's a hint: "the lack of competent, vigorous legal representation for indigent defendants calls into question the legitimacy of criminal convictions and the integrity of the criminal justice system as a whole."

So it's obviously the 1st Amendment and the right to bear arms.