Redstate

You can recommend this diary by clicking the "recommend this diary" button in the left column about four inches down from the top.

Pulling out specific phrases from the Constitution that "should be inserted into the Constitution".  'It is as if God on high spoke these words' - or something like that.

Very, very well done.

and well-used!

I used the same title line in two consecutive comments on two different threads.  It just fit.

Anyway, in all seriousness, what about an amendment enumerating most (but not all...I'm thinking XVI could be excluded) of the 27 current amendments which cannot be abridged, amended, modified, or revoked?  A two-century hence reaffirmation of sorts, similar to Amendment IX.

Consider the following:

I.  Freedom of speech, press, and assembly.

II.  Right to bear arms; regualted militia.

III.  No quartering of soldiers.

IV.  Unlawful search and seizure.

V.  "Double jeopardy"; inalienable right to life, liberty and property.

VI.  Due process with speedy public trial.

VII.  Lawsuits in excess of $20 tried by jury.

VIII.  Regarding excessive bail, fines, and cruel or unusual punishment.

IX.  Enumerated rights do not deny or disparage rights of others.

X.  Powers not delegated to the United States are reserved for the States.

XI.  Regarding U.S. Judicial authority in suits against the United States or one of its States.

XII.  Electoral college.

XIII.  Abolition of slavery and Congressional authority to enforce.

XIV.  Citizenship; apportionment of representatives; non-qualification for office by reason of insurrection, rebellion, or treason.

XV.  Equal protection.

XVI.  Authority to levy income tax.

XVII.  Appointment of Senators.

XVIII.  Prohibition.

XIX.  Equal protection regardless of gender.

XX.  Dates of office and succession.

XXI.  Prohibition repealed.

XXII.  Two-term limit for Presidents.

XXIII.  Apportionment of electoral votes to the States.

XXIV.  Poll tax.

XXV.  Succession of President and Vice-President.

XXVI.  Sets voting age at 18.

XXVII.  Regarding pay for Representatives and Senators.

I've summarized the existing Amendments to the Constitution.  Many are worth reaffirming, some are definitely not.  Of course, this is subject to the opinions of others, and I would expect some disagreement.

I get the impression that a periodic reaffirmation of Constitutional rights and protections is a noble idea in theory, but too cumbersome in practice, especially given the existence of Amendments IX and X.  

This was really, really good. I am somewhat surprised that no trolls from dKos came over into this thread and started telling us why those "new" amendments would be discriminatory or something.

I think your post is an excellent illustration of the need for justices who are original constructionists. The "public use" clause in the Fifth Amendment has clearly been misconstrued by the Supremes to mean "public benefit". Thus the private property of one party can be transferred to another private party by judicial fiat, especially if it brings in more tax revenue, etc.This reminds me of how Mark Levin described the way "the men in black" treat the Constitution. It's a humorous but apposite analogy: two men sign a business contract that clearly defines the terms. But one of the parties then says it's a "living contract" and proceeds to renegotiate it according to his personal subjective interpretations. How sad but how true!!

went scouring through my daughter's US History book, but was unable to find anything quite like these proposed Constitutional Amendments.  Perhaps they were lost among whole chapters devoted to Miranda v Arizona, the Great Society, King FDR, the (considerably less than) 1 million man march, 'women's lib', that meany Ronald Reagan who called those poor communists an 'evil empire', and Bob Byrd's poetry.

I note that your summary of Ammendment I left out religion and the right to petition.  Were you just saving space, did you forget about those, or is there something I'm missing?

As for the idea in general, I can see the point, but I don't think it'll do much of anything.  Most people in the government are very supportive of Ammendments 9 and 10; as long as their pet dislikes don't count.  The issues of assisted suicide and medical marijuana come to my mind, and I'm sure that you can think of things from the other side of the isle.  Joe Politician is a Federalist right up to the point where he wants to pass a law stopping something he doesn't like, then not so much.  I don't think ammending the Constitution will fix that.

I wouldn't mind seeing the First Ammendment split into five, one for each of the rights it protects, and clarified a bit.  For example, the language  "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" is poetic, but has been used by some politicians to claim that non-speaking, non-print media (usually radio and television, but also the net lately) doesn't enjoy Constitutional protection.  Guaranteeing "freedom of communication" doesn't have the same poetry, but since its more generic it clearly applies to any communication technology/methods that are invented in the future.

that led to the decisions you cite, what's needed is an actual amendment to the Constitution. I believe this one to Article III would solve the problem:

"... The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices [strike 'during good Behavior'] for a term of 10 years and be retained by election in a manner specified by the Congress ...."

And I thought the diary was very well written.  I'm new here, and I realize that this comment runs me the risk of being troll-rated, but, to be honest, this diary could have run on kos as well.  I'll spare you my opinion of the current administrations handling of the constitution, I'm sure you've already heard most of them anyway, but I just wanted you to know that both sides of the aisle value this document.

Sure, there are problems with how judges are selected, I'm sure we'll be seeing some of them soon, but I don't know that making judges run is the answer either.  Part of the problem with the supreme court is that justices often make decisions along party lines, elections would only encourage that behavior.

The Congress shall have Power ...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

In debating the 10th Amendment, the Founding Father's rejected the insertion of "expressly" before "delegated" because (in the words of Madison)

it was impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the Constitution descended to recount every minutia

The eminent domain case could be fixed by the federal government.  All they need to do is set jurisdiction (due process) to the federal level and mandate an extremely high level of proof required that the seized land that is not used for infrastructure or government buildings constitutes a public use.

I also believe you are overstating Eldred v Ashcroft.  The question there stated

Petitioners, whose products or services build on copyrighted works that have gone into the public domain, brought this suit seeking a de-termination that the CTEA fails constitutional review under both the Copyright Clause's "limited Times" prescription and the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. Petitioners do not challenge the CTEA's "life-plus-70-years" time span itself. They maintain that Congress went awry not with respect to newly created works, but in enlarging the term for published works with existing copyrights. The "limited Tim[e]" in effect when a copyright is secured, petitioners urge, becomes the constitutional boundary, a clear line beyond the power of Congress to extend. As to the First Amendment, petitioners contend that the CTEA is a content-neutral regulation of speech that fails inspection under the heightened judicial scrutiny appropriate for such regulations. The District Court entered judgment on the pleadings for the Attorney General (respondent here), holding that the CTEA does not violate the Copyright Clause's "limited Times" restriction because the CTEA's terms, though longer than the 1976 Act's terms, are still limited, not perpetual, and therefore fit within Congress' discretion.

While I agree intellectual property rights have been extended much too far, that is a legislative problem and not a judicial one.  

I'm a strong believer in property rights.  Our constitution doesn't really mention it explicityly, although other contemporary documents did (like the Declaration of the Rights of Man).

IP laws are tricky.  Right now there is a strong movement to make software, music and other digital media "free" to some degree or another.  My problem with those movements is they are not driven by successful creative people.  For example, as a highly skilled programmer, I look forward to the ability to earn an independent living, while "hackers" and academics marshall resources to fight my intellectual property rights or even forbid me to sell my products instead of giving them away for free.  Particularly annoying when I see millions of dollars of government money being diverted into that zealous quest (through national labs, supercomputer centers, universities, etc).

So why do people feel that IP rights have gone too far?  Because they want to get free music online?  Because they want the government to fund free software?  In the long run, where will creative new products come from if there are no property rights and no ability to profit from invention and creativity?

So why do people feel that IP rights have gone too far?  Because they want to get free music online?  Because they want the government to fund free software?  In the long run, where will creative new products come from if there are no property rights and no ability to profit from invention and creativity?

The granting of copyright/patents/trademarks was intended to encourage progress of science and culture:

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

However, while intellectual property rights encourage the innovation by providing an economic incentive, they can also retard progress by obscuring scientific fact, shackling technological advancements, or making exploration or extension of cultural works more difficult and expensive(or impossible).  In addition, holding IP rights for centuries places the private interest in making profit far in advance of the public good that releasing those works or inventions to the public.  

If Dr Salk had patented his vaccine he could not only have restricted its public use but that of derivative vaccines.  While that would, unfortunately in this case, be his right, it should not be the right of his descendants to the end of time to deny the public the benefit of the advancement.  If the entitlement to deny the benefit of the advancement is unlimited, or essentially unlimited, then there is no reason to protect scientific advancement.  

That is the crux of the clause.  In exchange for the current limited benefit of the advancement controlled by the patent/copyright holder and the future unlimited benefits, society allows certain rights to be protected.  The length of time of those benefits is held in the hands of Congress.  In 1790, in an era of (compared to today) slow technological/scientific development and slow cultural change, copyrights could be held for 14 years and extended for 1 additional 14 year period and IIRC patents were valid for a similar time.  Currently, this artificial benefit has been indefinitely extended for copyright.  The current duration is the life of the author + 70 years.  Nothing has passed into the public domain without the author's volunteering those rights since 1923(it would be 1910 under current rules).  If I published a book today, the copyright would not last 25, 30, even 50 years, it lasts until 70 years after my death.  My great-grandchildren could easily have died of old age by then.  IMHO thats a extension of IP rights that weights artificial property rights* (rights that do not exist in nature) far exceeds the public good of advancing cultural advancement.

*

nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

-Thomas Jefferson, one of the three original members of the Copyright Commission

The recorded music played in bars and restaurants is "free" to the customer. That's because there are organizations like ASCAP and BMI that collect a fee and compensate the rights holders. When recording and playback technology came along, the industry negotiated deals so they'd get paid.  There are probably similar business solutions that would work  to provide indirect compensation for music on the internet.

Here is an interesting discussion about why software patents encourage innovation:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4121587.stm

Patents do not obscure scientific fact.  Indeed, part of the intent of patent law was to encourage companies to publish their ideas instead of maintaining trade secrets.

Copyright does not protect software inventors sufficiently.  It may stop someone from must burning CDs and selling pirate copies, but it does not stop someone from writing a new program that duplicates all your ideas, functionality and interfaces that you worked hard to invent.

As for the Public Good -- and when I hear people say that I feel like checking if my wallet is missing -- I would argue that innovation is for the public good, and profit has proven to be a powerful engine of invention.

As I said, patents and copyrights do encourage innovation and cultural works.  However, the benefit of innovation to society is tied to the use of that innovation or cultural work.  The longer the period of exclusivity, the less the benefit.  A balance must be found between the interests of the inventor/author and society at large.  Having the length of time for copyrights exceed the original length of time by at least two and half times the original period of time (in a faster moving society) is excessive.  The extension of patents to 20 years is not prima facie burdensome, but when applied to software, it is sometimes excessive.

While there are some pieces of software that are reasonably patentable.  However, restricting independent implementation of similar or identical methods to perform the same or nearly the same result is excessive.  Also, the major software company's have agreements not to sue each other over patent infringment, creating a cabal of corporations that control the computer software industry excessively.  If competition is only possible amongst certain groups then you've effectively created a perpetual monopoly of a small group of companies.