Lorerunner's Forums

The Lorerunner's Forums

Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» We're all fine here, thanks. How are you? (Community thread for everything.)
Yesterday at 3:39 am by ZeroCool

» Turn 1-1069
Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:05 pm by Crensler

» Turn 2-1069
Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:23 am by The_Wanderer_In_Rags

» Mass Effect 3, Your Edition
Sat Sep 16, 2017 11:40 pm by Braigwen

» Turn 12-1068
Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:20 pm by wolfking2k

» Player Houses
Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:50 pm by SilverDragonRed

» Battle of Scales
Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:52 am by SilverDragonRed

» Good morning!
Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:41 pm by Galtori

» We started a Discord chatroom for the community. It's free to boot!
Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:14 am by Chatterbox1991

You are not connected. Please login or register

Committee for Democratic Constitution (Bradley2000, WhiskeyWhiskers, bingcrosby7, KarbinCry, grifinknight)

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19 ... 37  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 2 of 37]

We are not America. I hope after today the people will have recourse if they wish to change this constitution without the need for bloodshed.

View user profile
WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:I would have it noted somewhere that the government retains the right under instances in which public good can be shown empirically to outweigh a landowner's property rights that compensation be paid and ownership be forcibly turned over to the government. Nationalisation of strategic or essential resources, vital infrastructure etc.

In other words, extended Imminent domain.

In my opinion, any discussion of imminent domain should be reserved for laws, not Constitution. The right to property protects against specific, targeted tyranny, not general motions such as taxes, criminal code (and compensation for crimes therein) or imminent domain.

View user profile
WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:We are not America. I hope after today the people will have recourse if they wish to change this constitution without the need for bloodshed.

Dear Sir need I remind you that the Japanese forced us out of our homes including myself and that did not end well for them (I know I am one of the people who fought against the Japs).

View user profile
We have to assume, always assume, that a tyran is to be elected. In such case, the Constitution should stay stalwart against him, as the last bastion of our people.

This is my chief design principle.

View user profile
KarbinCry wrote:
WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:I would have it noted somewhere that the government retains the right under instances in which public good can be shown empirically to outweigh a landowner's property rights that compensation be paid and ownership be forcibly turned over to the government. Nationalisation of strategic or essential resources, vital infrastructure etc.

In other words, extended Imminent domain.

In my opinion, any discussion of imminent domain should be reserved for laws, not Constitution. The right to property protects against specific, targeted tyranny, not general motions such as taxes, criminal code (and compensation for crimes therein) or imminent domain.

If a government official possesses and exercises the power to control how an individual moves within the world, is that not the ultimate form of tyranny? If a man’s property, his livelihood is not placed in immediate danger (i.e. he can live off the land, he can live with a neighbor); however, if a man is forced into a concentration camp by a government official, his livelihood is placed in immediate danger. Have I made a logical mistake?

View user profile
KarbinCry wrote:We have to assume, always assume, that a tyran is to be elected. In such case, the Constitution should stay stalwart against him, as the last bastion of our people.

This is my chief design principle.

I completely agree.

Could someone compile a list of the rights we have proposed and we shall vote Yay or Nay.

View user profile
You, bingcrosby7, speak of targetting. That is exactly what I try to avoid in my vision of the right to ownership. If you cannot target your enemies, your steps will be moot.

However, I see the need for some sort of imminent domain in limited cases, and with compensation above market value of the property seized.

View user profile
bradley2000 wrote:
KarbinCry wrote:We have to assume, always assume, that a tyran is to be elected. In such case, the Constitution should stay stalwart against him, as the last bastion of our people.

This is my chief design principle.

I completely agree.

Could someone compile a list of the rights we have proposed and we shall vote Yay or Nay.

I also agree: the constitution is designed to limit the power of those who govern the governed.

One last right: all citizens, natural or naturalized, are entitled to purchase, possess, and carry firearms (pistols and rifles).

View user profile
The right to property is the right for the landowner to be a petty tyrant of his own domain. We are a developing island nation with a history of landed aristocracy, not a vast continent of settlers. We need the power to redistribute land to the peasants. A few upstart lordlings is nothing compared to the people's quest for bread! I suggest this not be an inalienable right and instead be legislated on.



Last edited by WhiskeyWhiskers on Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:06 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
First motion:
1. Free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion
2. Protection of a person from being compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case (as in the 5th amendment to the US constitution)
3. No man can own another (no slavery)
4. Right on ownership of property
5. Right for equal representation in government, regardless of gender, race or religion
6. Habeas corpus
8. The government, barring incarceration, cannot prohibit movement within or without the country.

Second motion:
Imminent domain is moved to non-constitutional issues.

I vote Yay on both.

View user profile
I have two more rights.

1. Freedom of the press
2. Right to an Attourney.

View user profile
WhiskeyWhiskers wrote:The right to property is the right for the landowner to be a petty tyrant of his own domain. We are a developing island nation with a history of landed aristocracy, not a vast continent of settlers. We need the power to redistribute land to the peasants. A few upstart lordlings is nothing compared to the people's quest for bread!

We could make a provisional rule that land not used for some time be redistributed, but not land owned and ploughed; that would be nothing more than theft.

bradley2000 wrote:I have two more rights.

1. Freedom of the press
2. Right to an Attourney.

Freedom of the press is contained in freedom of speech.
Right to an attorney is not a good idea, just look at the system in the US. What about a rule for the maximal size of the compendium of laws, so that every man can be his own lawyer?



Last edited by KarbinCry on Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:09 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
As the saying goes, Property is Theft. But I agree with the amendment. And find the other rights completely unobjectionable.



Last edited by WhiskeyWhiskers on Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:09 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
The issue of guns has come up. I would like to amend the proposal to handguns and hunting rifles only.

View user profile
bradley2000 wrote:The issue of guns has come up. I would like to amend the proposal to handguns and hunting rifles only.

1) I edited my post above to answer your suggestion
2) If we are to have such amendment, I would like to phrase it not as right to bear arms, but right to not be unduly prohibited to bear arms, meaning some restrictions can be put in place by Law, but not too prohibitive.

View user profile
I will vote in favor of the current bill of rights under the condition that a) we protect the right to carry pistols and rifles, b) we explicitly add freedom of press to the first amendment, and c) we understand that freedom to an attorney is integral to the amendment regarding Habeas Corpus.

I will vote against imminent domain being a non-constitutional issue.

View user profile
KarbinCry wrote:
bradley2000 wrote:The issue of guns has come up. I would like to amend the proposal to handguns and hunting rifles only.

1) I edited my post above to answer your suggestion
2) If we are to have such amendment, I would like to phrase it not as right to bear arms, but right to not be unduly prohibited to bear arms, meaning some restrictions can be put in place by Law, but not too prohibitive.

I agree with your wording regarding the regulation of firearms.

View user profile
bingcrosby7 wrote:
KarbinCry wrote:
bradley2000 wrote:The issue of guns has come up. I would like to amend the proposal to handguns and hunting rifles only.

1) I edited my post above to answer your suggestion
2) If we are to have such amendment, I would like to phrase it not as right to bear arms, but right to not be unduly prohibited to bear arms, meaning some restrictions can be put in place by Law, but not too prohibitive.

I agree with your wording regarding the regulation of firearms.


I also agree

View user profile
bingcrosby7 wrote:
KarbinCry wrote:
bradley2000 wrote:The issue of guns has come up. I would like to amend the proposal to handguns and hunting rifles only.

1) I edited my post above to answer your suggestion
2) If we are to have such amendment, I would like to phrase it not as right to bear arms, but right to not be unduly prohibited to bear arms, meaning some restrictions can be put in place by Law, but not too prohibitive.

I agree with your wording regarding the regulation of firearms.

As do I.

View user profile
This has been agreed upon:

1. Free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press and freedom of religion
2. Protection of a person from being compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case (as in the 5th amendment to the US constitution)
3. No man can own another (no slavery)
4. Right on ownership of property
5. Right for equal representation in government, regardless of gender, race or religion
6. Habeas corpus, including right to an attorney
8. The government, barring incarceration, cannot prohibit movement within or without the country.
9. Right to not be unduly prohibited to bear arms, meaning some restrictions can be put in place by Law, but not too prohibitive.

This has been agreed upon and forms the cornerstone of Constitution. Wording may and will change, after the first draft is finished, so that it is all in one style.

View user profile
KarbinCry wrote:This has been agreed upon:

1. Free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press and freedom of religion
2. Protection of a person from being compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case (as in the 5th amendment to the US constitution)
3. No man can own another (no slavery)
4. Right on ownership of property
5. Right for equal representation in government, regardless of gender, race or religion
6. Habeas corpus, including right to an attorney
8. The government, barring incarceration, cannot prohibit movement within or without the country.
9. Right to not be unduly prohibited to bear arms, meaning some restrictions can be put in place by Law, but not too prohibitive.

This has been agreed upon and forms the cornerstone of Constitution. Wording may and will change, after the first draft is finished, so that it is all in one style.


I vote Yay

View user profile
I also have a proposition brought to me by another memeber of the Resistance:

No quartering of troops in people's houses without consent

He also brought up the issue of judiciary, whether we will have a jury-based system.

I myself am against trial by jury, except very limited cases.



Last edited by KarbinCry on Tue Jan 03, 2017 5:17 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile
KarbinCry wrote:This has been agreed upon:

1. Free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press and freedom of religion
2. Protection of a person from being compelled to be a witness against himself in a criminal case (as in the 5th amendment to the US constitution)
3. No man can own another (no slavery)
4. Right on ownership of property
5. Right for equal representation in government, regardless of gender, race or religion
6. Habeas corpus, including right to an attorney
8. The government, barring incarceration, cannot prohibit movement within or without the country.
9. Right to not be unduly prohibited to bear arms, meaning some restrictions can be put in place by Law, but not too prohibitive.

This has been agreed upon and forms the cornerstone of Constitution. Wording may and will change, after the first draft is finished, so that it is all in one style.

Well done, gentlemen; we now have a working Bill of Rights. From henceforth, the government will do all in its power to fully protect the rights of all natural born or naturalized citizens.

View user profile
I just found out a decent compromise: why not add imminent domain to the bill of rights, provided such confiscation be approved in a trial by jury?

View user profile
KarbinCry wrote:I also have a proposition brought to me by another memeber of the Resistance:

No quartering of troops in people's houses without consent

He also brought up the issue of judiciary, whether we will have a jury-based system.

I myself am against trial by jury, except very limited cases.

1) No quartering of troops should fall under the category of property ownership (the owner has autonomy and can dictate who can and cannot enter his residence).

2) In what instances do you think a juried trial would be appropriate?

View user profile

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 37]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19 ... 37  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum