Equal Rights Amendment
To make the policy on discrimination, that is currently part of state
and federal law, an amendment.
Examples of application: This amendment would apply to housing discrimination
(landlords must rent to people with children, young tenants who have the
ability to pay, etc. This amendment would also apply to young people who
apply for loans.
Statement of Purpose
The intention of the proposed amendment is to grant honest-law abiding citizens equal rights to protect themselves against criminals who obtain firearms illegally. The amendment places certain restraints on who can obtain firearms, but the amendment does not attempt to make firearms disappear.
It is our belief that guns are a prominent part of our society, and passing any law which flat out bans firearms will have the effect of driving all existing firearms into the underground markets where they can not be monitored. Making firearms illegal will not make them disappear as there are far too many firearms in existence. It is important to keep existing firearms in the open, rather than make them illegal and force them underground.
Furthermore not everyone is a criminal and the majority of people are responsible enough to use a firearm in a safe manner. The majority of the population should not be penalized because the criminal element has misused firearms. Under this amendment anyone with a criminal record is not permitted to own a firearm and anyone with a criminal record found with a firearm is subject to arrest.
The problem with firearms exists in the criminal sector. Therefore it is the criminals who must be targeted while law abiding citizens should be able to own firearms should they choose. The United States is a nation of equal rights, and banning firearms deprives honest citizens from the most basic right to defend their life or property. This amendment clarifies the second amendment, but in no way attempts to keep guns out of the hands of responsible citizens.
Voluntary Euthanasia Amendment
Rational: Whose life is it, anyway? A Proposal to Legalize Euthanasia
The Constitution tells us that "+AIU-nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"(Amendment XIV Sec. 1). When a person requests physician assisted suicide, he asks for it himself. The state does not suggest it, encourage it, and will not carry it out. Therefore, the state stays within its limitations by not depriving anyone of life. There is also a due process of law that must occur before a person is allowed assisted suicide. A panel of three(3) licensed physicians who have knowledge of the patient's medical condition(s) will make the prognosis of less than one year to live, during which the patient's quality of life would be less than acceptable, and diagnose the patient's condition(s) as terminal.
Precedents for the legalization of euthanasia have already been set. Michigan proposed a Medically Assisted Suicide Law in November of 1998. If passed, this law would give terminally ill patients the right to seek medically assisted suicide and to use their option to receive it, should they find it to be their only reasonable choice. Oregon is the only state in the U.S.A. which has an active law legalizing mercy killing. In 1994, the state of Oregon put into action the Death with Dignity Act, which allows a terminally ill patient to request and receive euthanasia. The Netherlands passed a similar law, which legalized voluntary positive euthanasia, or physician assisted suicide, in 1993, with great success.
We are proposing voluntary euthanasia only, which means that patients who are unable to communicate because of mental illness, brain damage, a catatonic state, or any like circumstances, will not be allowed legal access to physician assisted suicide. The patient must make an oral or written request for physician assisted suicide and sign two(2) documents affirming their desire to die. This amendment will keep people from suffering undue pain and humiliation at the loss of their physical faculties. Euthanasia is indeed a way to insure death with dignity. The word Euthanasia itself can be broken down to demonstrate this insurance: Eu is the Greek word for good and thanatas means death. Literally, euthanasia means "good death".
When considering this amendment, one should not think about whether he or she would choose to utilize the option of physician assisted suicide if he or she were in such a position; rather, one should merely consider whether or not he or she thinks it should be a legal option. To parallel this consideration, think of abortion. You may never encourage anyone, be that person your spouse, your lover, or yourself, to get an abortion, no matter what the situation may be. You can still, however, hold the belief that abortion can be the right choice for some people, and support it objectively as an option that should be available legally, painlessly, and safely for those who find reason to seek it. Though you may not agree with it for yourself or people in your life, we hope that you still are able to see that it is the most reasonable option for some people, and should be available, painless, and legal.
Elderly Americans aged 75-84 have the highest suicide rate of any age group, topping off at 23.5 suicides per 100,000 people a year. Three leading causes of elderly suicide are physical illness, uncontrollable pain, and the fear of dying a prolonged death (www.suicide.org). With euthanasia, physical illness will cease, pain that is unable to be controlled by any modern means will end, and the fear and worry that come with dying a long, drawn out death will be erased by the knowledge that the end of one's life can come quickly, gently, painlessly, and legally. Medication administered to the terminally ill consenting patient will slowly take him or her into a state of unconsciousness, then gradually cause his or her heart to slow and stop beating. Attempts at suicide might involve firearms, hanging, or overdosing. Overdosing is the most common attempt, but it is by far the most unsuccessful method among common methods used in America. Medically assisted suicide will prevent failed attempts by desperate people; interestingly, it will also prevent desperate people from losing their lives. It will draw them in as a final option, and, if they do not pass the mandatory psychiatric tests, they will be denied assisted suicide and encouraged to seek or provided with therapy. It is also interesting to note that, even though medically assisted suicide is legal in Oregon, only fifteen(15) people have chosen to utilize this right(Finalexit). This demonstrates that very few individuals will seek and allowed access to assisted suicide. The few that are allowed to die gently and painlessly will benefit greatly from assisted suicide without tempting or provoking many people to seek it.
In 1993, 73% of Americans favored legalizing physician's aid in dying and since then, the numbers have constantly been on the rise (The Hemlock Society USA). Our great country is a representative democracy - an overwhelming majority of the American public is in favor of our proposed amendment. It is only fair that, by the laws of our country, our amendment be passed into law. Everyone has a right to life and, as logic and dignity dictate, everyone should have a right to death. The time and manner of a human being's death are two things over which even the government should have no control.
Single Presidential Term Amendment
Rationale to Amendment XXVIII
Every four years a major commotion sweeps across America with the election of the President of the United States. Candidates spend months raising money, participating in debates, and meeting their fellow Americans in hopes of securing the highest office in the nation. Modern candidates are known to retire from positions they hold in order to run in the election, yet the current President with hopes for re-election must continue honoring his responsibilities as "Leader of the free world" while campaigning. Therefore, he must divide his time between the two tasks, sometimes putting his own career before the well being of the country. With a year of a President's term being devoted to campaigning, the country is often left to run itself. The American people are not getting the full four years of leadership that are promised, expected, and paid for. Consequently, a single, six year term for the President of the United States would be more beneficial for the American people and the state of the Union.
Throughout the history of this nation there have 270 proposals brought before Congress to institute a single term for the office of the Executive. In fact, in the original Virginia Plan of 1781, it was suggested that the President should serve one single, six-year term. This was because some delegates feared that the separation of powers would be undermined if the President attempted to bargain with legislators to gain re-election. In the Constitution Convention this idea was eventually overturned, but the original document called for a single, seven-year term, which was supported by many delegates, including the famed Thomas Jefferson. On these 270 proposals the Senate approved one in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt attempted to run for office again, by the proposed amendment died before reaching the House of Representative at the request of President Wilson. Recent issues have shown that as campaigning becomes more large scale with the birth of new technology, candidates spend more time concentrating on their individual campaigns. Looking to the election of 2000, prospective candidate Elizabeth Dole retired form her position as chairman of the International Red Cross in order to devote the incredible amount of time a campaign requires. In light of this information, it is incomprehensible that the current President can also dedicate an equal amount of time, and yet to win the election he must do this. History shows that this is the case; Presidents John Adams and John Quincy Adams refused to yield time from their duties as President to their re-election campaigns. Consequently, they lost the elections. Clearly, incumbent presidents have to choose between their present and future jobs. This is a choice with serious consequences, and it is not one the president should have to make. Presidents cannot afford to waste their precious time attempting to win the votes of the people.
A single term of six years would allow a President to implement his ideas without short changing the American people through a bid for re-election. Most recently, Senator Strom Thurmond of South Caroline supported the "single term." If a President could concentrate wholly on the issues and conflicts at hand rather than on his personal future, perhaps the country would function with greater ease. Not only would the President have more time to devote to the difficulties of the nation, but he would also not be swayed as easily by the opinions of his critics. The office of the Executive would become a more productive, focused, and honest position.
Amendment XXVIII: Longer Terms in the House of Representatives
Problem:
The current terms of two years in the House of Representatives, as mandated in article 1, section 2 of the United States Constitution, are no longer practical in foundation and practice.
The term was set in place so that the representatives would be made to interact frequently with their electors. This is no longer an issue because of advances in communications technology. Currently, every house member has a telephone, fax, and email address as well as mailing address by which he or she may be reached. The community which elected him is not in danger of losing contact. A longer term would not restrict, inhibit or change the population proportional representation, either.
In addition, the rising cost of elections is making the short term impractical and wasteful of money. The average election cost for the House is on the rise, as proven by the new attempts at legislation to control campaign finance. This makes it so the average citizen could not maintain a position in the House of Representatives without intense fund raising, thus discriminating based on economic stature. (Cushman)
The short term limits, further shortened by the time required to run a successful reelection campaign, are not sufficient to fulfill the goal for which one was elected to meet. It is necessary to spend time to become accustomed to the inner-workings of the house, including standard procedures and create support for one's bills.
Background:
At the Constitutional Convention, the issue of term limits was debated and came out of committee with a three year recommendation. Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer and James Madison were the main supporters of this longer term. As Madison argued, with a country of this size, one year would be, "'+AIU-almost consumed in preparing for and traveling to and from the seat of national business.'" (Bowen 99) This was refuted by delegate John Adams, who vehemently insisted, "'Where the annual election ends, slavery begins.'" (Bowen 100) He believed that every man in power is subject to corruption and the only check for corruption would be brief terms.
Currently, there is a group of people in Maine attempting to rid the country of career politicians. They claim to be having a "banner year" with the Maine legislature doing great things. (http://www.termlimits.org/research.htm) Our proposition would not hinder the "new blood" in the house, but allow these newly elected to serve longer terms, putting their energy to work. Since we would be rotating every two years, there would be a constant supply of new blood every shift.
In the past few years, "term limits" has been a buzz phrase. The Missouri legislature has created a committee to study the effects of term limits. (http://www.house .state.mo.us/bills99/bilcom99/bic017.htm) This shows that even at the state level people are unsatisfied with the current situation. Instead of setting limitation on the amount of work people can do, we are proposing to expand each individual term so that more quality work shall be done.
Remedy:
We propose Amendment XXVIII, increasing the term of representatives
from two to six year terms with one third of the representatives vacating
seats every second year. Upon the enactment of this amendment, the House
shall be divided into three equal sections. The seats of the first section
shall be vacated after the second year, the seats of the second section
shall be vacated after the fourth year, and the seats of the third shall
be vacated after the sixth year thus establishing a rotation for representatives
to be elected every second year for six year terms. In order that three
groups may be chosen fairly, each state shall spread their representatives
as equally as possible. The House Ways and Means Committee shall have final
say on the assignment of all members into sections. This will solve all
aforesaid dilemmas and enforce the original purpose as created by our forefathers.
Rights For Crime Victims
Crimes occur everyday, and in turn, innocent people become victims. The victims of crime are entitled to many rights. The first state to recognize this was California. In 1982, California amended their state constitution to include a portion on the rights of crime victims, named the victim's Bill of Rights. This started a trend throughout the United States and four years later, Rhode Island adopted the policy. By 1992, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, and New Mexico had all amended their state constitutions to include the rights of victims. While laws can vary throughout states, an amendment would force consistency upon the matter of crime victims' rights.
This year, April 14-17, is national crime victim's week. It seems as though this would be the perfect time to propose amending the United States Constitution to include rights for crime victims. Without support, however, it is hard to amend a state Constitution, let alone the united States Constitution. Through surveys, Americans can be assured that there is NO lack of support for this cause. In 1991, a national public opinion sponsored by the Victim Center concluded that 89% of Americans would probably or definitely support an amendment that would increase victims' rights protection.
Presently, there are 21 states that have provided crime victims' rights in their constitutions. This is an amazing number and just under half of the United States. By amending the United States Constitution, all states would have to obey the new amendment. Also, by changing the United States Constitution, it would help to speed up the process because no state constitution can contradict the United States Constitution.
By increasing crime victims' rights, the United States will help many individuals. The difficulty of losing a relative, or being victimized is great enough. A victim should not have to add the stress of worrying about lawyers, trials, and bills. Currently, the United States Constitution fails to address this matter in the Bill of Rights, or Amendment XIV. With no apparent flaws in the system, it seems perfectly natural to amend the United States Constitution to include crime victims' rights.
It is imperative that while focusing on the
decrease of crime in the United States, the victims are not forgotten.
And while reducing crime is essential to reducing victims, no current plan
has been successful. It is inherent that no "perfect" plan to eliminate
crime is coming in the near future. It is our group's belief that the victims
should always come first. The United States must amend the Constitution
to increase crime victims' rights to make sure that, in all cases the victims
are the priority.
Religious Freedom
Protection Amendment
Justification for Religious Freedom Protection Amendment
The first amendment added to the United States Constitution says that, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (Harrison 214). Clarification is needed for the clause called the, "free exercise" clause because court cases have failed to protect the rights of American citizens to practice whatever religion they profess freely and without interference from the government. Part of free exercise must be a lack of burdening by the government. Presently, neutral laws may be applied to everyone, even if they limit a person+AJI-s freedom of religion.
There is a very specific origin of this proposed amendment; it is drawn from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by Congress in 1993. It was formulated to restore the need for the government to justify burdens that it placed on religious freedom that was taken away in the 1990 Supreme Court case of Employment Division v. Smith ("RFRA+AJI-s Significance"). Before Employment Division v. Smith, the test used to decide whether government was violating free exercise of religion was from Sherbert v. Verner ("City of Boerne v. Flores (95-2074) 73"). This precedent stated that for the person or religious group to object in court, the burden placed by the government on religion had to be a "substantial" burden and not one that was legitimized by the interests of the government (Ibid). However, in Employment Division v. Smith, the majority opinion stated that the "compelling interest test" could not be applied to allow individuals to be exempt from laws ( Irons, Peter 97). RFRA was Congress+AJI- mode of restoring this compelling interest to protect religious freedom. If RFRA were still in place, no amendment to the constitution would be necessary, but in 1997 the Supreme Court ruled in City of Boerne, Petitioner v. P.F. Flores that RFRA was an unconstitutional law ("City of Boerne v. Flores (95-2074) 73"). Their ruling was largely based on their opinion that Congress had overstepped its bounds of constitutional authority in making a law that interpreted the first amendment (Hastings, Dwayne).
Without the protection offered in RFRA or the twenty-eighth amendment as drafted above, a general law or rule forbidding wearing hats in a school could force people such as Mennonite women or Jews to remove their religious head coverings because the school does not have to show any compelling interest in enforcing the rule of no hats (Shelby, Karl). While this kind of issue may seem minor, it is a definite limitation on religious freedom which in the past, was assumed to be covered under the First Amendment. With the Supreme Court decision of Employment Division v. Smith renders the First Amendment helpless to aid in the protection of religious practices when they break a law governing the general public. According to Mark Stern of the American Jewish Congress, the overturning of RFRA, "means, for example, that a city or a town could pass a law saying that no non-residential or non-business use will be permitted, and that would exclude totally churches, synagogues, or mosques" ("Comments on Supreme Court Decisions"). Refusing to allow religious groups to purchase land on which to meet is a clear limitation of their freedom of religion. Through the protection of RFRA, a Jewish prisoner in Luckette v. Lewis was permitted to try to keep a kosher diet and to maintain longer hair than normally permitted, both important to Orthodox Jews (Jaroslawicz, Isaac). Without additional protection for religious freedom, people+AJI-s ability to worship freely will be prevented or hindered. Clarification of the First Amendment is needed.
An amendment is really the only way to fully address the problem. The Supreme Court decided that Congress did not have the authority to introduce a law that defined the First Amendment (Hastings, Dwayne), but an amendment should do just that. Presently, some states, including Rhode Island and Connecticut, have state RFRA+AJI-s but state legislation is not appropriate ("The Status of RFRA"). Religious freedom is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment and no state should be allowed to deny its residents their Constitutional Rights. Clearly, however, religion does not come before government, so if the government+AJI-s function may only be fulfilled by imposing restrictions, than it shall be allowed to do so. The amendment takes into account the rights of the government to govern but protects the right of the people to freely practice their religion except where it hinders the government extremely.
Direct Presidential Election Amendment
Justification for the amendment to change the system for election the chief executive
The constitutionally prescribed system for
electing the president, namely the Electoral College, is innately flawed.
It is a useless relic that is a danger to our way of life. It has in the
past and could in the future serve to destroy both the separation of power
and the tradition of democracy in our nation.
The demise of the whole electoral system would not impress me as a disaster. At its best it is a mystifying and distorting factor in presidential elections which may resolve a popular defeat into an electoral victory. At its worst it is open to local corruption and manipulation, once so flagrant as to threaten the stability of the country. To abolish it and substitute direct election of the President, so that every vote wherever cast would have equal weight in calculating the result, would seem to me a gain for simplicity and integrity of our governmental processes.