If you could add one thing to the Bill of Rights...

[Thorgrim]

Strong state hand in property goes back in US law well before Marx was widely available in the US...the federal government may have been weaker but the state government was all-powerful...and in a state like Virginia it was the little guy versus a huge government...same complaints we hear today

BTW I don't think some people know what the term inalienable means...if they really were how could governments take them away? Unless you want to argue someone unjustly locked up in solitary confinement has all the liberties you do right now

[R-Type]

Some kind of right to privacy...in physicality, possessions/finances, and 'name' (ie life history). Without it, the other rights in the document are almost worthless because one has to give them up to meet basic life needs and because information is so easily/cheaply accessed today. Perhaps it would not stop the dissemination of such information where it is truly relevant, but it would give victims a shot at fighting back against blatant abuse. There are just too many people who want to be 'character' judges/juries/executioners instead of minding their own fucking businesses, and it's too easy for them these days. Right wingers are all for 'freedom' until the topic comes around to employer/employee relationships where they suddenly become authoritarians, left wingers tend to espouse it until the topic comes to ridiculous taxation, and BOTH abhor certain forms of expression and activity...Since all of this requires intimate knowledge of citizen life histories to maintain, limiting the information flow would help limit everyones' power.

[nbiggershaft]

Not sure how this would be worded, or what precisely it falls under. But there should be a personal body right. It should be a constitutionally guaranteed for a person to do whatever they want with their own person so long as that in no way interferes with the lives of others.

Things I would hope this would cover:

Alcohol, sodomy, some drugs, doctor assisted suicide, abortion (not trying to get into a huge debate on the lives of others thing with this one), type of medical treament, peircings/tatoos/hair/clothes/whatever, food you eat, ect.

All these things end up getting very questionably sorted into other amendments and rights and I think it's time the constitution just had a, 'it's your body, do whatever you want with it' clause.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Strong state hand in property goes back in US law well before Marx was widely available in the US...the federal government may have been weaker but the state government was all-powerful...and in a state like Virginia it was the little guy versus a huge government...same complaints we hear today

BTW I don't think some people know what the term inalienable means...if they really were how could governments take them away? Unless you want to argue someone unjustly locked up in solitary confinement has all the liberties you do right now

I don't think you know what unalienable means (note the Fathers purposely used "un-alienable" as opposed to "in-alienable" in the Declaration; the two words are not the same thing). The libertarian school of thought expresses that rights can be violated, but not taken away. People locked up in confinement have the same rights that I have. They are just not emancipated to the degree that I am, and the same goes for children.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Jas0n

Explicit property rights guarantees.

To add onto this, I would say that the United States has sovereignty to the extent of legal jurisdiction (so laws apply to private citizens), but real property is to be owned in limited allodium. Supercedure of this shall not be granted by State constitutions, treaties, etc.

That would solve so many problems right away.

But in addition, I would also like to make it unconstitutional to have a private central bank, and I would like to see this:

"...no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article..."

Seriously, that condition was one of the stupidest clauses added to the Constitution. It was put there in case the States had to integrate some sort of progressive tax system to pay back France and Spain for the money they loaned us during the Revolutionary War. They should have added something regarding war debts to it, but then some asshole would just find a loophole, so I say just get rid of the conditional all together.

[Diesel66]

Wouldnt add anything, just would make number 9 and 10 in giant freaking letters

[JSmythe]

I would just revise it to make the language clear. The same with the clause that gave the federal government the unreasonable power it has today: Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, [in order] to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare.

[Diamond Cross]

Right to privacy, reword the second ammendment so that it is more clear that you do not need to be in a militia, army or law enforcement to own a firearm and that civilians have the right to own firearms any kind of firearm they wish, and any law that seeks to control firearms anyway shape or form is a violation, and the right to freedom FROM religion as well as freedom OF religion, and of course acknowledge the real sources of the inspiration of the Constitution so there wouldn't be this huge argument f where the ideals come from.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Strong state hand in property goes back in US law well before Marx was widely available in the US...the federal government may have been weaker but the state government was all-powerful...and in a state like Virginia it was the little guy versus a huge government...same complaints we hear today

BTW I don't think some people know what the term inalienable means...if they really were how could governments take them away? Unless you want to argue someone unjustly locked up in solitary confinement has all the liberties you do right now

Some governments, just like thugs and looters, do many thing by force. There having a real party over their in North Korea! But perhaps when enough people can turn the tables on Gang Political Rule we can de-revolutionize the blockheads!


Oh, the Soviet Union will go on for ever and ever so we better learn to live with them in peace and harmony!

[Thorgrim]

You quoted the wrong post because nothing you said has anything to do with what i posted