Replies

>The details about software (6. D. i. - iv.) appear to be overly specific for this type of document.

>I disagree with 8. a. ii.

While you disagree with 8-ii, I believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the “embryo” is another discrete human being as it is genetically distinct from its parents at the time of fertilization (biology def); brain-waves have been detected at 6 weeks (current medical def for “vegetative states”); the heart begins beating at 3 weeks.

Furthermore, the USSC disregarded state sovereignty when it unilaterally disallowed legal-bars on abortion and made abortion a “Constitutional right”... to undo that decision needs a Constitutional Amendment.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point.

>8. a. v. seems a bit harsh.

Ah, but I like the cruelty here: consider it revenge for the legal system ignoring the right to a *SPEEDY* and public trial.

>8. b. overall seems redundant. Why differentiate between forcible rape regardless of when/where/how it was performed? I understand that the interstate part might be “required” for it to elevate to a federal issue, but I don’t think that requirement is sound - especially in light of the example of 8. a.

The interstate issue IS required to make it a Federal issue.

>Punishment for 8. e. (Conspiracy against rights) seems a bit lenient.

By defining what a Dollar is in Gold weight $1 would be worth about $55.

>For 8. f. punishments should be extended to and defined for employers or others who harbor illegals.

That wouldn’t need to be a Constitutional Amendment, I think... besides which, Interstate Fraud may come into play.

>For 8. g. (Perjury) additional punishment should be extended to those in the public trust who perjure themselves (police, politicians, prosecutors, judges, etc.)

I was thinking about that, but I thought that the ‘mirroring’ of whatever punishment was at the perjured trial was a more Just sentence overall. (Besides which, if a policeman were to perjure himself, by say lying about someone shooting him [in self-defense] then the penalty of that assault charge he leveled at that person would come right back at him.)

About the software details: I’m a programmer so that explains that.. somewhat. Another thing to consider is the current “Software Piracy”/copyright laws are such that legal backups... are questionable.

I'm in software as well but I don't think this level of detail or control is required at the federal level.

The smaller and less intrusive the federal government is (or any government, really) the better.

While you disagree with 8-ii, I believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the “embryo” is another discrete human being as it is genetically distinct from its parents at the time of fertilization (biology def); brain-waves have been detected at 6 weeks (current medical def for “vegetative states”); the heart begins beating at 3 weeks.

No argument there.

Furthermore, the USSC disregarded state sovereignty when it unilaterally disallowed legal-bars on abortion and made abortion a “Constitutional right”... to undo that decision needs a Constitutional Amendment.

Nor there. Roe was a horrible abuse of the judicial system.

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Still true.

Don't get me wrong, I abhor abortion but I don't want the government involved, especially not at the federal level.

There are too many problems, immediate and potential, with allowing that level of intrusion.

You've defined life liberally at an early stage. How much earlier are you willing to go?

Reproductive cells are, after all, alive. Could the government, once satisfied that abortion is outlawed, go after masturbators and women who menstruate? I, for one, wouldn't put it past them.

And how about leaving the reproductive arena altogether? When the government is concerned with life at that intimate a level where do they stop? Can they outlaw smoking, eating fatty foods, failing to exercise? They already think they can to an extent - give them this additional power and who knows where it'll end.

Ah, but I like the cruelty here: consider it revenge for the legal system ignoring the right to a *SPEEDY* and public trial.

Agreed but it ignores the reasons for the slower trials not the least of which is that too much is illegal which is clogging the courts.

The interstate issue IS required to make it a Federal issue.

Then why is the Federal government allowed jurisdiction over murder?

By defining what a Dollar is in Gold weight $1 would be worth about $55.

Yeah, but conspiracy against our rights is tantamount to treason. I don't see why the firing squad shouldn't apply equally to those who sell nuclear secrets to Al Qaeda and those who run the Brady Campaign. . .

That wouldn’t need to be a Constitutional Amendment, I think... besides which, Interstate Fraud may come into play.

Perhaps, but much of this amendment is simply strengthening what's already there. The best way to cut illegal immigration is at the source - why do they come? For jobs. Make it impossible to employ them and they won't come.

I was thinking about that, but I thought that the ‘mirroring’ of whatever punishment was at the perjured trial was a more Just sentence overall. (Besides which, if a policeman were to perjure himself, by say lying about someone shooting him [in self-defense] then the penalty of that assault charge he leveled at that person would come right back at him.)

I still think those in positions of "authority" should pay substantially higher penalties for violating the public trust.