Talk:Uniting Amendment

Suggest and discuss proposed changes to the Amendment here. Changes which have gained concensus will be applied to the periodic revisions of the document. You may want to review the Guideline for changes prior to posting your comments.

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)

Done. Revision 4725 Admin (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

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)

Done. Revision 4725 Admin (talk) 18:10, 15 July 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)

Done. Revision 4725 Admin (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

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)

Done. Revision 4725 Admin (talk) 18:10, 15 July 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)

Done. Revision 4725 Admin (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

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)

Done. Revision 4725 Admin (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

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)

Done. Revision 4725 Admin (talk) 18:10, 15 July 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)

Done (Revision 6442) with corrections to grammar and preservation of suffrage:

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 any participation, deliberation, vote, or other activity that influences any policy or legislation effecting any such benefactor or source of influence. However, the right of suffrage as an ordinary citizen shall not be abridged in any situation. Admin (talk) 16:52, 16 September 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)

Done. Revision 4725 Admin (talk) 18:10, 15 July 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)

Done. Revision 4725 Admin (talk) 18:10, 15 July 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)

Done. Revision 4725 Admin (talk) 18:10, 15 July 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)

Done. Revision 4725 Admin (talk) 18:10, 15 July 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)

Done. Revision 4725 Admin (talk) 18:10, 15 July 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)

Done. Revision 4725 Admin (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

Common resources and the environment

In Section 4, "Rights", it says, "...the use of a common resource may be regulated by permit when the use would likely conflict with the rights of others to use the common resource."

It should specify some criterion as to exactly when a conflict exists. Examples:

• Multiple groups want to use the same baseball field in a park.
• A factory wants to release a chemical into the air.
• Someone wants to divert a stream that flows through others' properies.

Exactly when is someone's rights violated by the use of a common resource. In the first example, it's pretty clear that one party's use prevents another from using the resource, and therefore it's use can be regulated. But in the second example, it depends on many things: What is the chemical? How much is released? How does it effect the air? If it makes the air unhealthy to breathe, then that violates someone else's right to "use the common resource". But what if the chemical in the air causes some other effect, for example, causes the paint on somebody's house to peel off. That doesn't effect the homeowner's right to "use the common resource", but it still violates her rights.

The third example brings up an issue about who, exactly, shares the resource. In Section 6, Equity, it says, "Whenever the use or alteration of public land or any other common resource must be limited, the right of use or alteration shall be distributed equally among all the people and any person may freely trade such right with any other entity without restriction."

The phrase, "distributed equally among all the people" doesn't make sense for the third example above. Fairness would dictate that only the people who had water rights in the stream could share that common resource, not "all the people". And maybe the landowners further upstream would have greater use of the flow of water because there is more water flowing through their property. (Although the unit of "use" could be specified in terms relative to the amount of flow, and those units divided equally.)

And of course the biggy is the international use of common resources, like the release of CO2 into the air. How is the evidence weighed for the effects of that use? Who decides? What about other counrties who overuse the resource?

There is still a lot to be fleshed out in this area. Jerry Lee (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2014 (EDT)

Done, but still needs work. Revision 4725 Admin (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

Congress' power to define words used in commerce

This clause (in Section 10, Powers) seems to prevent people from the freedom to define contractual terms and phrases as they want. I think the intent of the clause was to provide some kind of standard for ambiguous terms to help facilitate commerce, but as written, it restricts people's ability to define words differently among themselves it they want.

Maybe the clause should be restricted to words and phrases used in offers of goods and services to the public or in situations where the words are not otherwise defined. Perhaps add to the clause that people are still free to define words and phrases differently in private transactions? Darin (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

Done as to the last suggestion. Revision 4725 Admin (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

Grammatical/spelling errors in Section 4, Rights

It says, "Rights and powers not addressed by this Constitution belong solely to the Citizens and other individuals under jusidicion of the United States."

It should say: "Rights and powers not addressed by this Constitution belong solely to the Citizens and other individuals who are under the jurisdiction of the United States. Darin (talk) 06:25, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

Done. Revision 4725 Admin (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2014 (EDT)

Misplaced clause on the powers of local governments

There is a paragraph near the end of the "Rights" section that says, "State and local governments may regulate noise, artificial lighting or shade, odors, and other nuisances which cross property lines or effect those in public places. Other restrictions may be imposed via consensual deed restrictions and voluntary associations."

This should probably be in the "Powers" section and maybe it should be expanded and made more specific to include language specifying that the states have the power to run elections, enforce the law, and establish the state courts. Also, the "Powers" section should specify which powers may be delegated by the federal government to the states, and by the states to local government. Darin (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2014 (EDT)

Privacy, a possible exception

There is a specific exception to the right of privacy that is not accommodated by the amendment. When someone loses a personal item, like a cell phone or a purse, and the item is found, generally the object is searched to determine who owns it so it can be returned. Technically, that search would be a violation of privacy, according to a strict interpretation of the amendment. Perhaps a provision could be included for such circumstances, or generally in any case where an intrusion of privacy would be to the benefit of the person. I don't know if an exception could be worded in a way so that it doesn't open up a huge loophole ("We listen to everyone's phone calls because they benefit from our searching for terrorists.") Mattie Powell (talk) 11:17, 19 August 2014 (EDT)

Done (Revision 6442) as:

The states may provide for the conditions and manner by which lost or abandoned property may be searched or seized solely for the purpose of facilitating the disposition of the property and only when no crime is suspected. Admin (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2014 (EDT)

Vigilantism?

The final paragraph of Section 4 says, "Whenever those who are entrusted with the enforcement of law become unwilling or incapable of prosecuting violators, and the timely and established avenues of petition to redress by the people have been exhausted, the Citizens may organize themselves to enforce law, prosecute criminals, and protect their rights following due process."

The word "following" is ambiguous. Does it means the people can act "after the completion of due process", or does it mean the people can act only "in accordance with due process"?

Also, the whole concept is kind of vague. Exactly when can the people act on their own? What does "organize themselves" mean? What are the limits? What are the checks against vigilante vengeance? Daniel Morales (talk) 09:02, 26 August 2014 (EDT)

Changed "following" to "in accordance with". Revision 6442 Needs more work. Admin (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2014 (EDT)

Juries in appellate cases

The amendment implies that appeals of civil cases are to be reviewed by a jury:

The unalienable right of the people to sue for actual or punitive damages shall not be denied or limited and no award may be altered except upon review of a jury of citizens.

Should a jury be involved in all appellate cases? All cases that reach the Supreme Court are subject to the review of the SCOTUS jury of citizens, so why not have them in the lower appellate courts, too? Also, shouldn't the parties be able to wave the right to a jury? Micheal Avokato (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2014 (EDT)

Done. Revision 6442 Added:

Any party to an appellate proceeding may, at the onset of the proceeding, request that the issue be reviewed by a jury of citizens acting in consultation with the presiding justice or judge. Also, explicitly stated that the parties to an award can alter it with mutual consent (because the jury review requirement could possibly be interpreted as restricting the rights of the parties to do that). Admin (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2014 (EDT)

War powers

Section 13 talks about how Congress can declare war. It has time limits on notifications and duration, however, it doesn't require specificity in the scope of the Congressional declaration of war. I think there should be a requirement that Congress specify exactly who, what, where, when and how force may be exercised by the Commander-in-Chief. Also, it might be better to just forget about speaking in terms of a formal declaration of war and just say that the President can only use force with permission from Congress except when the counrty is being attacked or an attack is imminent and it is impossible for the President to ask Congress and get approval in time to deter an attack. (And be specific about how "attack" and "imminent" are defined so there is no wiggle room for the President to get around the requirement for Congressional approval.) Bobrary (talk) 10:53, 25 September 2014 (EDT)

Foreign relations

Under Congressional powers it says that Congress has the power to, "Declare war and peace, allies and aggressors." Maybe it should just say that Congress has the power to authorize the use of force by the Commander-in-cheif. Also, to allow a more finely-grained scale of relations with foreign states, maybe it should allow a spectrum of statuses or labels to apply to other states; like "neutral partner", "trade parner", "defense ally", "hostile state", etc. This would allow for levels of escalation rather than just having to declare war or peace. Bobrary (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2014 (EDT)

Codify Stare Decisis

It might make sense to actually codify the tradition of Stare Decisis, i.e., respecting precedents set by previous court decisions. One possibility is to require a 2/3 majority to overrule a previous decision made by the same court. (Similar to overriding a veto). Of course this could present a problem if there is disagreement among the justices or jury as to whether a contemplated decision will overrule a previous decision or simply further hone it. A proceedure would need to be in place to handle that situation. Louis Caoches (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2015 (EST)

Consent to medical procedures

The clause about not being compelled to participate in medical procedures seems to imply that someone could be compelled if the procedure is in their benefit. Better to reword it as:

"No one who is capable of giving informed consent may be compelled to participate in any medical procedure, research study or scientific experiment; those who are incapable of giving informed consent may not be compelled to participate in a manner that is not for their own benefit; nor shall anyone be subjected to the intentional, nonconsensual, infliction of pain, suffering, or inhumane or degrading treatment." William Noble (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2015 (EST)

What to do if a textual interpretation of the Constitution is untenable?

The amendment requires SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution exactly as written. But what if an exact literal interpretation turns out to be untenable? Currently, even the textualists give leeway for some interpretation for such situations. Could a provision be made that allows for a temporary interpretation to stand until the law can be changed? Or just instruct SCOTUS to inform Congress and the people about the issue and let them handle it with legislation or amendment?

Also, the current wording, "The Constitution shall be interpreted exactly as written" could leave a door open for the court. There is a movement right now to use some rhetorical gymnastics to get around ANY restriction on interpretation by saying that the courts may be restricted in how they "interpret" law but that they can "apply" that interpretation any way they want. It's ridiculous, I know, but there are some who are promoting that nonsense. Maybe the amendment could be reworded to head that off, like: "The Constitution shall be interpreted and applied exactly as written". Or maybe "The Constitution shall be interpreted exactly as written and the effect of the interpretation shall be in accordance to the exact meaning of the text." William Noble (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2015 (EST)

Indiscriminate weapons

An alert attendee at the NH Liberty Forum found that the paragraph on indiscriminate weapons (like nuclear weapons) can be read in a way such that it could be interpreted too broadly. That paragraph needs to be rewritten so that it only applies to weapons like nuclear weapons that kill innocent non-aggressors when they are used against an enemy. (The amendment generally allows people to possess any weapon that could be used for self-defense. The purpose of this paragraph in the amendment is to address the arguement that says, "Well, if I can possess any weapon then can I possess a nuclear bomb?" The amendment has to address that issue. Rather than specify a specific technology to prohibit (like nuclear weapons), we need to define the attributes of a weapon that would fit into a category of indiscriminate weapons without prohibiting other weapons that people could use for self-defense.) NHLF Guest (talk) 14:49, 11 March 2015 (EDT)