The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Join Atheist Nexus
I have a book in which the US Constitution occupies 30 pages and the California Constitution occupies 259 pages.
I have for years been either the chair of, or a member of, the Rules Committee for a state body. Not while chairing the committee, but often while a member, I teased the Committee's conservatives about their penchant for describing in detail every relevant human failing and specifying a remedy for each.
Another point. When conditions are such that the members of a decision-making body trust each other, they require few rules. When the mission changes and especially when membership grows, distrust can grow and they adopt more rules. When they have adopted too many rules, the number of rules alone becomes the cause of distrust.
Do you want evidence?
Unless you are compulsive enough to read the entire current edition of Robert's Rules of Order, you will distrust members who have read more than you.
Et, il ne faut pas faire pour faire taire l'opposition loyale.
Much as I initially enthused about this thing, I will also admit that I wanted to hear Pat's opinion of it. I'm not trained as a lawyer, but I thought I had seen a wrong note or two. Pat, on the other hand, seems to have found a cacophonous symphony in it!The other thing, and I think I alluded to this before, is that it's trying to do too much in a single amendment. The major issues: religion, GLBT rights, women's rights, should probably be addressed individually, each in a separate amendment. Granted that drags out the process, but anything worth doing is worth doing properly.
Sorry, but I'd be one of those opposing it. This thing has more holes in it than giant wheel of Swiss Cheese. Allow me to point out only a few examples.
Article 1, Section 2. I can have free speech UNLESS someone claims my speech interferes with theirs. Can you say "blasphemy law?"
Article 1, Section 3. Assemblies and protests cannot be on private property. So, if I have an assembly and protest on my own property, I'm in violation of the Constitution. SCA-REW that! And, before you say that would only apply to other's private property, allow me to point I quoted it verbatim. No exceptions
Article 2, Section 4. So, if there's a building that has great historical significance, yet is no longer used for religious services, we let the thing crumble into the ground. So much for a sense of history. Thank goodness Notre Dame Cathedral and Westminster Abbey don't come under this. For that matter, the Parthenon at the Acropolis.
Article 2, Section 12. Does this also include atheists? And, if an elected person promotes religion at his/her church, without regard to or in any way affiliated with his/her official capacity, we silence his/her speech. So much for the principle of free expression.
I could go on and on, but this strikes me as nothing more than a politically correct, agenda driven set of rules to silence one side and promote the other. It has nothing to do with freedom, and everything to do with conformity to one position. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with that you may happen to agree with. It has everything to do with allowing expression of that with which you disagree.
Il faut qu'une constitution soit courte et obscure. Elle doit être faite de manière à ne pas gêner l'action du gouvernement.
I'd love to see it enacted also.
It's one hell of a concept. It's probably too broad and attempting to be too inclusive, but it hits all the notes. Fact is, though, with the current congress, it wouldn't have the chance of a snowball in hell of passing, never mind getting the requisite endorsement from the states.A damned shame, though - I'd genuinely LOVE to see it enacted.
Welcome toAtheist Nexus
Sign Upor Sign In
Or sign in with:
© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.