HemlockGrey wrote:My take. This will be updated as I feel like it. Add your own views, comment on mine, etc. It's all good.
THE IDEAL POLICIES AND POLITICS OF THE UNITED STATE OF AMERICA
Amendments
The Equality Amendment- No law existing in the United States or any of it's territories will discriminate against any people regardless of sexual orientation or theistic/non-theistic beliefs. No oath of any sort, theistic or atheistic in nature, will be rendered upon the achievement of any public offce, save an oath to serve and uphold the Constitution. No institution, free from taxation or recieving government funding, shall discriminate against any person, on basis of sexual orientation, religion, race, or any other differation thereof.
The Effect: Strike all those stupid anti-sodomy laws and end the 'homosexuals in jail' laws. Deprive religious organizations of their tax-free status. Basicly cleaning house where government endorsement of religion is involved.
The Sancity of Privacy Amendment- No branch of the government shall conduct electronic surveillence, of any sort, without a warrant, supportd by evidence, probable cause, and oath or affirmation, according to the detail laid out by the Fourth Amendment. Any attempts to pursue such surveillence without a warrant shall be considered a felony.
It's Effect: Limit the powers of the government to spy on people in their homes. Whilst 'Enemy of the State' and 'Minority Report' were enjoyable movies, I do not wish them to become reality.
The Sexual Freedom Amendment- No law existing in the United States or any of it's territories will prohibit the free excercise of any sexual practice, provided that the practice in question
A) Involves only consenting adults
B) Does not take place in a public area
C) Does not render any physical or mental anguish onto the parties taking part in the act in question
It's Effect: Completely end any anti-homosexual laws, strike those old Puritan laws regarding sexuality.
Have you ever heard of States Rights? First of all, the XVth and XIXth Amendments and the Civil Rights Act already cover all effective concerns from your first proposed amendment. All you would be doing is destroying traditional implements of office which are part of our national heritage. There's
absolutely no point in such a reform.
An Amendment on sexual freedom is, honestly, a very crass thing to put in a constitution of a nation. The judiciary has already interpeted the right of two consenting adults to engage in sexual activity to be effectively a matter of Freedom of Expression and beyond that we don't need anything specific. Natural cultural development will take care of the rest.
As for a privacy amendment, we would have to define the limitations of electronic surveillence, the government's right in public places, and how it applies to the sanctity of the home. Perhaps it would be an elaboration?
Laws, Bills, Acts, and Legislations
The War Limitations Act- No active members of the United States military shall be deployed to any foreign country for a span longer than six months unless
A) The foreign government in question requests or otherwise permits the deployment
B) A motion for extended deployment is made in either the House or the Senate and wins a majority vote in both, to be brought up for reconsideration in another six months.
If, at any time, 2/3rds of the assembled Congress passes a declaration of war, troops may be deployed to the nation in question for a term not exceeding 36 months. At the end of 36 months, the issue may be brought up for another vote, at which point the Congress may either decide to withdraw troops, approve another 6 months of deployment, or to uphold the declaration of war.
It's Effect: Limits the President's power to send troops wherever the hell he feels like it. Note that the President may still deploy troops at will; his ability to keep them there is simply diminished. I'm a bit unsure about this and would like some comments on it.
How can you put a time limit on deployments? If a major war starts and you are required by law to withdraw your troops, the result could be far worse than sending them over in the first place, or keeping them there. Considerably worse. Especially for the troops themselves.
Furthermore, we already have a mechanism for Declarations of War which is laid out in the constitution. Why change it? The President's duties are clearly laid out - He receives Congressional authority, and then he wages War with it.
This has happened both after 9/11, and with Iraq, even if the declaration of war was not a literal one but implied (And interpeted as such by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in a recent case).
There's simply nothing wrong with the system here that needs fixing.
Foreign Policy
General Foreign Policy- The United States will take an active role in world affairs to protect it's interests and the interests of democracy the world over. The age of isolationism passed away when the dust settled on the burning remains of Pearl Harbor, and it is now an obsolete concept. Input from our trusted allies and the United Nations is always welcome, however, if the United States feels it or it's allies is under threat it will not hesitate to act. Further, American soldiers can and will be used to meditate conflicts detrimental to America or the ideals of democracy.
Israel and Palestine- Israel will be told, in no uncertain terms, to withdraw from the Occupied Territories or face a complete severance of economic and military aid, followed by embargoes. Further, they will immediatly address all human right's issues existing within their borders. They will not, in the future, take any aggressive action against their neighbors unless the very dogs of war are upon them, and, in that instance, no territory is to be taken.
The PLA will be disbanded. Hopefully UN peacekeepers can be deployed to the area; if not, American soldiers may have to spearhead the effort. Hamas and other organizations will also be disbanded; if any more bombings or other terrorist activities continue, they will suffer the fate of al-Queda. Palestine will recieve a healthy flow of economic aid to usher in a new era of rebuilding. A national government will be set up, complete with actual elections. I suspect that there is the slight possiblity of guerilla activity waged against American soldiers; I believe a healthy injection of lethal force and education can be used to combat the indigenous hatred that has infused the area for so long.
Look, you're not going to solve Israel and Palestine like that by infringing upon the rights of a Sovereign State which
is a nuclear power. Israel can survive on its own every without American support, its done so before and can do so again, and two hundred atomic bombs make them one of the most powerful countries in the
world.
The only way to bring peace to that region is to
ignore the Palestinians, who are totally fanaticized, and work through the governments of established States, which at least have some sane people represented in them (And, yes, in Israel. Did you ignore the results of the elect and the gains made by Shinui?).
Obviously the interests of the Palestinian people cannot be ignored, but they must be represented by the Arab States of the Levant, as the Palestinians have proven themselves incapable of self government and incapable of reasonable negotiation. For them to become reasonable participators in the global market, they must be detached from their process and their society rebuild in the context of the surrounding Arab States, their interests protected by their fellows therein. Only then will the fanaticism die - and only after much blood.
In conclusion, though: Why the heck do we need this kind of societal engineering when most European countries still have a State Church? Or even, why does Israel need to be fully secular, end exemptions to the very religious, and so on, when the Queen of England is the head of the Anglican Church, when there's a State Church of Norway, or Lutheranism is the official religion of Denmark, or so on,
ad infinitum?
Israel is a rational State operating on rational dictates, which like most modern States still has a religious conservative element in it. The EU just proved it did if you look in the morality section.
But this board is overrun with people demanding a wholly secular American society, or a wholly secular Israeli one, while these other elements in western civilization are utterly ignored. It's the height of a completely disgusting anti-American hypocrisy that one may find quite prevalent here.
