PDA

View Full Version : someone in Ohio for Rand Paul FB group proposed this Constit. Amend.




Tod
08-29-2013, 09:30 AM
Proposal for the BILL OF RIGHTS PROTECTION AMENDMENT to the US Constitution:

"It shall be a federal crime for any member of government, from the highest federal level to the local level, to propose, vote in the affirmative, sign into law by executive order, or to render a judicial decision in any court of law, anything that violates any of the ten Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, as it is plainly stated and intended by the founders of this country in 1789. Any violation of this Amendment will carry a penalty of life imprisonment and forfeiture of all assets of the violator. The only judicial venue for this high crime to be heard in, will be by a federal jury of 12 people, and no member of the government, past or present is allowed to be a member of this jury. No pardon by any executive branch will overturn this conviction and no other court will be allowed to overturn a conviction of this Grand Jury. Upon ratification, all laws, statutes, ordinances, executive orders, and judicial decisions that violate this Amendment are stricken down as if they are null, void, unenforceable and retroactive back to the 1789 time of the Bill of Rights becoming a part of the US Constitution."

3/4ths of the states must ratify, after a US Senator and a US House member sponsors the Amendment and both bodies of Congress pass with a 2/3ds vote.


Clearly it is too easy now for politicians to push unconstitutional legislation, but what is the best mechanism for stifling it outside of an educated and active electorate that supports the form of government originally envisioned.

Cleaner44
08-29-2013, 09:33 AM
I like it.

Christian Liberty
08-29-2013, 09:34 AM
That's awesome. Although I see no reason why we should pay for the parasites to be locked up for life. I'd switch it for a special death penalty that cannot be appealed.

limequat
08-29-2013, 10:22 AM
It's already against the law. The problem is that the fox is guarding the hen house. The reason why Clapper can lie to congress is the same reason why this amendment is redundant.

KEEF
08-29-2013, 10:26 AM
I like it.

otherone
08-29-2013, 10:32 AM
I propose a fourth branch of government (that has the power to nix anything the other three branches do), that instead of representing the people, represents the individual.

Seraphim
08-29-2013, 10:33 AM
The legal ramifications would be beyond immense. The amount of litigation against current and past lawmakers would stretch from here to the moon as the number of violations against individuals as per the stated Rights in the Bills of Rights is....well....inumerable.

I agree with the Amendment. The only problem is - do you think the lawmaking SOB's who are guilty of crimes will litigate into existence their own (further) culpability?

Christian Liberty
08-29-2013, 10:40 AM
The legal ramifications would be beyond immense. The amount of litigation against current and past lawmakers would stretch from here to the moon as the number of violations against individuals as per the stated Rights in the Bills of Rights is....well....inumerable.

I agree with the Amendment. The only problem is - do you think the lawmaking SOB's who are guilty of crimes will litigate into existence their own (further) culpability?

Give immunity to anyone who votes yes, force them too vote without consulting with anyone else, and have the amendment state that anyone who votes no will be executed.

Sola_Fide
08-29-2013, 10:41 AM
Won't work. The slave masters will never let the slaves enact controls on them.

Sonny Tufts
08-29-2013, 10:45 AM
An unbelievably stupid idea.

1. No one would ever choose to serve as a legislator, judge, or President with such a draconian amendment in place.
2. How would the jury be selected? Eliminating anyone who's ever been a member of the government (e.g., a member of the armed forces) is especially inane.
3. Different juries would come to different conclusions on the same set of facts, so that one guy would be in the slammer for life without any assets, while another guy who did the same thing walks.
4. It's incredibly naive to think that the Bill of Rights was "plainly stated". What is cruel and unusual punishment? What is freedom of speech or press? What is an unreasonable search? If you're honest enough to admit that reasonable people might have different opinions on these issues, you'd see how bad the proposed amendment is.

Christian Liberty
08-29-2013, 10:47 AM
Won't work. The slave masters will never let the slaves enact controls on them.

Its still a good idea though.


An unbelievably stupid idea.

1. No one would ever choose to serve as a legislator, judge, or President with such a draconian amendment in place.
2. How would the jury be selected? Eliminating anyone who's ever been a member of the government (e.g., a member of the armed forces) is especially inane.
3. Different juries would come to different conclusions on the same set of facts, so that one guy would be in the slammer for life without any assets, while another guy who did the same thing walks.
4. It's incredibly naive to think that the Bill of Rights was "plainly stated". What is cruel and unusual punishment? What is freedom of speech or press? What is an unreasonable search? If you're honest enough to admit that reasonable people might have different opinions on these issues, you'd see how bad the proposed amendment is.

Do you really think 12 people, at least 11 of which are moderate to hardcore statists, would all vote "Guilty" if it wasn't clear cut?

Sonny Tufts
08-29-2013, 11:03 AM
Do you really think 12 people, at least 11 of which are moderate to hardcore statists, would all vote "Guilty" if it wasn't clear cut?

What makes you think at least 11 jurors would be "moderate to hardcore statists"?

Matthew5
08-29-2013, 11:05 AM
"A" for effort at least...fail otherwise.

Christian Liberty
08-29-2013, 11:06 AM
What makes you think at least 11 jurors would be "moderate to hardcore statists"?

Because at least 11 out of 12 people are "moderate to hardcore statists".