Talk:Uniting Amendment
(test edit) |
(→Congress' power to declare war: edit and sign) |
||
Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
== Congress' power to declare war == | == Congress' power to declare war == | ||
− | We should add something to the last paragraph of Section 13, ''Defense'', to prevent Congress from declaring war against people | + | We should add something to the last paragraph of Section 13, ''Defense'', to prevent Congress from declaring war against people within the U.S. It looks like there is already a prohibition against using the Army against the people, but a declaration of war in and of itself has consequences. Maybe add something like, "Congress may not make a declaration of war against, or declare as an aggressor, any person, group or entity under the jurisdiction of the United States." [[User:Paul Robinson|Paul Robinson]] ([[User talk:Paul Robinson|talk]]) 05:10, 2 June 2014 (EDT) |
Revision as of 05:10, 2 June 2014
- Suggest and discuss proposed changes to the Amendment here. Changes which have gained concensus will be applied to the periodic revisions of the document.
Language in Citizenship section
It says, "The term of the Office of Citizen shall be for life and no Citizen may be removed from office until demise or abdication."
I think it should say, "The term of the Office of Citizen shall be for life and no Citizen may be removed from that office until demise or abdication."
The change is necessary because the phrase "removal from office" may refer to any office that the Citizen may hold, not just the office of Citizen. Darin (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2014 (EST)
Grammar in Taxes section
It says, "No other tax, shall be imposed or collected by the government of the United States except those specified in this Amendment..."
Better is "No other tax, may be imposed or collected by the government of the United States except those specified in this Amendment..."
The latter is more grammatically correct. Darin (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2014 (EST)
- Throughout the document, the words "shall", "may", and "can" might be used inappropiately. The entire document should be checked (by someone who completely understands the legal difference between these three words) and the proper word substituted, or the sentence rephrased, where appropriate. Ronald Smith (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2014 (EDT)
Judicial person creating a natural person
I think the following should be added to "Section 4 - Rights":
- A judidcial person may not create a natural person."
Add it towards the end of the section, about 7-8 paragraphs from the end of the section. Ronald Smith (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2014 (EST)
Typos:
In Section 6, Equity: it says, "All expenditures from the Treasury that are not from the Basis Assistance Fund..."; The word "Basis" should be "Basic".
Also, in Section 19, Basic Assistance Fund: it says, "The care of those in need being a concern of a civil society, Congress shall establish a Basis Assistance Fund."; The word "Basis" should be "Basic".
Tanya (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2014 (EST)
In Section 4, Rights: it says, "The right to a speedy and fair trail for those accused..."; "trail" should be "trial"
Ronald Smith (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2014 (EDT)
Congressional power to remove President and VP
In Section 10, Powers, it says, "Congress has no power to impeach, however, the President, Vice President, or any civil officer of the United States may be removed from office upon a vote of three-fourths of both houses of Congress. A simple majority in each House shall be required to call a proceeding of the removal of a civil Officer."
I don't think Congress should have the power to remove both the President and VP of a single administration. Because of the the order of succession, if a party or other cohesive group gained significant power in the House and Senate, they could select a Speaker of the House and then remove the President and Vice President, which makes the Speaker the new President. They'd effectively have the power to select a new president and have control over the Senate, House and Presidency. Perhaps if Congress only had the power to remove the President and not the VP, and could only exercise that power once per Presidential term, that would prevent a power grab of that type. Also, with the power to remove the President, there is no need for Congress to have the ability to directly remove civil officers as they could effectively compel the President to fire anybody under threat of his own removal. (Note that in this case the power to compel action from the President is limited – they could likely get her to remove a cabinet member but perhaps not make her change a firmly held policy position shared by both her and the VP.) Ronald Smith (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2014 (EST)
Grammatical error in Section 13
Mismatched number: people and her
- "The right of self-defense shall not be infringed; the right of the people to lawfully possess, use, transport, transfer, sell, buy, or otherwise own or control any weapon or defensive device for the purpose of the defense of her life, liberty, family, community and property from criminals, aggressors, usurpers or tyrants shall not be abridged, infringed, licensed, or regulated."
Change to:
- The right of self-defense shall not be infringed; the right of the people to lawfully possess, use, transport, transfer, sell, buy, or otherwise own or control any weapon or defensive device for the purpose of the defense of life, liberty, family, community and property from criminals, aggressors, usurpers or tyrants shall not be abridged, infringed, licensed, or regulated.
Ronald Smith (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2014 (EST)
Explicitly limit distributions from the Basic Assistance Fund to it's stated purpose
Perhaps Section 19, Basic Assistance, should explicitly say that money in the Basic Assistance Fund may only be used to directly pay requesters. It's implied, but better to say so explicitly to prevent polititians from robbing the fund.
Also, it says, "...each request is limited to maximum amount of...". I think it should say, "...each request is limited to a maximum amount of...". Pamela DELGADO (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2014 (EST)
Grammatical error, Section 18
Paragraph four begins, "The government of United States,...". It should be "The government of the United States,..." Brenda PATTON (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2014 (EDT)
Integrity of all government workers
The second paragraph of Section 18 refers to Congress members recusing themselves from certain votes:
- Any member of Congress, having a conflict of interest or having accepted any benefit to herself or to any entity on her behalf or otherwise to have come under influence other than her own conscience or the will of the people, shall recuse herself from voting on any legislation effecting any such benefactor or source of influence.
The third paragraph refers to vendors influencing government workers:
- No vendor to the United States may be shown preference to any other and no award of sale may be made which favors an incumbent vendor. Vendors may not contribute to the benefit of any President, Senator, Representative, or any Official or government worker in a position to influence or effect the award of any sale to the vendor.
However, there are situations where a person who is not a vendor could attempt to influence policy by performing an act that benefits a government worker who has influence over a policy. I propose changing the second paragraph to read:
- Any President, Senator, Representative, Official or government worker in a position to influence or effect policy and having a conflict of interest or having accepted any benefit to herself or to any entity on her behalf or otherwise to have come under influence other than her own conscience or the will of the people, shall recuse herself from participating, deliberating, voting, or otherwise influencing any policy or legislation effecting any such benefactor or source of influence.
.Brenda PATTON (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2014 (EDT)
That/Which Grammar issues
Throughout the document, the word "which" is used in situations where the word "that" should have been used. For example, in the Taxes section, it says, "No State may tax or regulate any activity or property which partially or in whole occurs or is located outside the State."
The word "which" should be be changed to "that" because its operative clause is restrictive. This issue also occurs in:
- Rights section, paragraph 11 - "Property which has the potential to create..."
- Ibid., paragraph 15 - "Any proceeding which could result in deprivation shall include..."
- Ibid., paragraph 17 (2 occurrences) - "No person or entity involved in a prosecution which could result in deprivation, or in the application of such deprivation, may be compensated based upon a quota or rate which could influence prosecution, application or rate of those deprivations."
- Ibid., paragraph 18 (2 occurrences), Ibid., paragraph 19 (1 occurrence), Ibid., paragraph 21 (1 occurrences), Ibid., paragraph 24 (1 occurrences), Ibid., paragraph 28 (2 occurrences), Ibid., paragraph 32 (1 occurrences)
- Commerce section - "For purposes of this Section, markets which are growing..."
- Commerce section - "...and any potential harm which may result from the agreement..."
- Commerce section - "...content or material which, by its unique qualities..."
- Section 9, Respect for Life and Nature - 2 occurrences
- Section 10, Powers - 6 occurrences
- Section 12, The Treasury and the Central Bank - 2 occurrences
- Section 13, 2 occurrences
- Section 16, Supreme Court - "No person may enforce any law or order which conflicts with this Constitution."
- Section 16, Supreme Court - "The courts may invalidate any legislation which is vague..."
- Section 16, Supreme Court - "...cancel any decision or opinion of the Supreme Court or any part thereof which infringes..."
- Section 16, Supreme Court - "Any decision or opinion which is not cancelled by the..."
- Section 18, Integrity - "Such restrictions shall also apply to their spouses and to anyone or any entity which they hold interest or control, or voluntarily share a residence." (In this case, "which" should be changed to "with which" or the sentence s/b reworded)
- Section 18, Integrity - paragraph 3
- Section 22, paragraph 2
- Section 23, 3 occurrences
That's all I could find, however, a search should be done for the word "which" on the whole document periodically to catch this type of error. Elizabeth REYES (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2014 (EDT)
Privacy, Section 14 issues
The definition of privacy in the section says,
- "Information is private if it is: not lawfully and generally known or knowable to the public using ordinary, natural, unpalpitating, unmodified, unaided human senses, or transmitted as light in the visible spectrum to a public place; reasonably expected to be private; or is not intentionally and lawfully transmitted to the public by any means."
The phrase, "transmitted as light in the visible spectrum to a public place" is somewhat ambiguous as to "public place". I think a better phrasing would be "openly transmitted as light in the visible spectrum to a place beyond its immediate private or public source". (The word "openly" is added to differentiate fiberoptic transmissions from ordinary visual percepts.)
Also, it might be cleaner to describe public information and then define private information as all other information:
- "Information is public if it: is lawfully and generally known or knowable to the public using ordinary, natural, unpalpitating, unmodified, unaided human senses, or is openly transmitted as light in the visible spectrum to a place beyond its immediate private or public source; is not reasonably expected to be private; or is intentionally and lawfully transmitted to the public by any means. All other information is private."
Sherry HOLLOWAY (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2014 (EDT)
Pardons (end of Section 10)
I propose rewording the paragraph about pardons as follows:
- "The Executive power to reprieve or pardon shall not be used for anyone whose crime: has benefited the President or a Department Head, has expanded the power of the state, or was committed with the expectation of pardon or reprieve. Nor may pardons or reprieves apply to future acts, or be used for anyone who has provided a significant donation or other benefit to the Executive or a Department Head. No law may provide criminal or civil immunity to any specific natural or judicial person or group of persons."
This wording corrects the grammar. It removes the clause about crimes at the direction of Officials/Department Heads and instead expands the clause about crimes that have benefited the President to also cover Department Heads. Also, the words "significant donation" replace the word "financial".
Ronald Smith (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2014 (EDT)
Executive statements not law
Currently, the Amendment clarifies that Executive signing statements have no force of law:
- "Statements of the Executive in connection with the approval of bills of Congress shall have no effect of law. "
I think it should further clarify that the Executive has no law-making authority and that nothing she says creates law. Perhaps replace that sentence with:
- Legislative authority is reserved only to the Congress or to the States; no statement, order, or proclamation of the Executive has any force of law.
Ronald Smith (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2014 (EDT)
Jury of Citizens
The Amendment currently refers to the "Citizens' Jury", which is part of the Supreme Court. The Justices are usually referred to as the Justices of the Supreme Court, not the "Supreme Court's Justices" or "'Justices' Supreme Court"; so for symmetry and aesthetics of language, it's probable better to refer to the Jury as the Supreme Court Jury of Citizens, rather than as the “Citizens' Jury”.
Ronald Smith (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2014 (EDT)
States, territories, and other political divisions of the U.S.
Maybe the Amendment should include a list all of the current states, territories etc. and give a definition for each of types of political divisions; perhaps in the definitions section. Ronald Smith (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2014 (EDT)
Congress' power to declare war
We should add something to the last paragraph of Section 13, Defense, to prevent Congress from declaring war against people within the U.S. It looks like there is already a prohibition against using the Army against the people, but a declaration of war in and of itself has consequences. Maybe add something like, "Congress may not make a declaration of war against, or declare as an aggressor, any person, group or entity under the jurisdiction of the United States." Paul Robinson (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2014 (EDT)