A US CONSTITUTIONAL or Looking Back to a Way Forward

December 17, 2015

Source: A US CONSTITUTIONAL or Looking Back to a Way Forward

hello

October 19, 2009

Hello, is anybody out there?

October 18, 2009
Hello world. This is my first attempt at establishing a blog so please bear with any initial awkwardness that this may engender.
My interests are quite broad, but are probably most accurately subsumed under the rubric of philosophy, whether it be political, metaphysical, legal, aesthetic or linguistic.
I would like to start with the concept of a metalinguistic orientation of communication. This simply means that, unlike ordinary language, where a word can, and often does have multiple meanings (polysemy), each term I use will be strictly and exclusively defined. For example, ‘freedom’ can have a wide variety of interpretations depending on context or impressionistic, subjective understanding. My use of the term, however, exclusively denotes the right to take any action which does not preclude that same right for anyone else.
In this vein, I would like to make a radical suggestion which would directly address many of the conflicts, inefficiencies and frustrations that seem so endemic in our society.
The US Supreme Court had asserted a ‘penumbra of privacy’ implicit in the 9th amendment to the US Constitution. This had been a point of controversy between ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ around certain issues such as abortion.
My suggestion,audacious as it may be, is a relatively simple (but hopefully not simplistic) one: a constitutional amendment that would clearly define the line of demarcation between the two fundamental constituents of what our form of government is supposed to be, namely liberal democracy.
The possible text of such as an amendment might be as follows:
Congress shall make no law abridging the right of consent, such consent to be defined by the following parameters:
1)Competence-the power of informed consent.
2)Completeness-All persons involved in any activity must give express or implicit consent to said activity or interaction.
3)Primacy-an action which if initial would be properly considered a violation of consent may be justified in the context of retaliation for a de facto previous violation.
4)Privacy-the majority of a community may, through legal political channels, restrict certain activities in sight of the general public or on public property, but shall not have the legal right to do so in a private context.
Discussion:
The 1st parameter protects children, who are (properly) presumed to be legally incompetent, while supporting the legal presumption of competency for adults.
The 2nd parameter allows the government to prosecute activities that it can prove implicitly violate consent, such as an individual or group constructing a bomb or other WMD, that can have no purpose except to damage or destroy life or property.
The 3rd parameter explicitly supports the right to self defense and of the government to pursue and prosecute violators without reference to sovereignty or other arbitrary or nebulous ’state interests’.
The 4th parameter protects the proper autonomy of the individual while allowing the community to protect its public standards.
Among other benefits, such an amendment would simplify the legal process, reduce police discretion while increasing their efficiency, reduce prison population, increase citizen respect fo the law and obviate the necessity of the distinction between the legal concepts of ‘mala prohibita’ and ‘mala per se’.

Hello world. This is my first attempt at establishing a blog so please bear with any initial awkwardness that this may engender. My interests are quite broad, but are probably most accurately subsumed under the rubric of philosophy, whether it be political, metaphysical, legal, aesthetic or linguistic. I would like to start with the concept of a metalinguistic orientation of communication. This simply means that, unlike ordinary language, where a word can, and often does have multiple meanings (polysemy), each term I use will be strictly and exclusively defined. For example, ‘freedom’ can have a wide variety of interpretations depending on context or impressionistic, subjective understanding. My use of the term, however, exclusively denotes the right to take any action which does not preclude that same right for anyone else. In this vain, I would like to make a radical suggestion which would directly address many of the conflicts, inefficiencies and frustrations that seem so endemic in our society. The US Supreme Court had asserted a ‘penumbra of privacy’ implicit in the 9th amendment to the US Constitution. This had been a point of controversy between ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ around certain issues such as abortion. My suggestion,audacious as it may be, is a relatively simple (but hopefully not simplistic) one: a constitutional amendment that would clearly define the line of demarcation between the two fundamental constituents of what our form of government is supposed to be, namely liberal democracy. The possible text of such as an amendment might be as follows: Congress shall make no law abridging the right of consent, such consent to be defined by the following parameters: 1)Competence-the power of informed consent. 2)Completeness-All persons involved in any activity must give express or implicit consent to said activity or interaction. 3)Primacy-an action which if initial would be properly considered a violation of consent may be justified in the context of retaliation for a de facto previous violation. 4)Privacy-the majority of a community may, through legal political channels, restrict certain activities in sight of the general public or on public property, but shall not have the legal right to do so in a private context. Discussion: The 1st parameter protects children, who are (properly) presumed to be legally incompetent, while supporting the legal presumption of competency for adults. The 2nd parameter allows the government to prosecute activities that it can prove implicitly violate consent, such as an individual or group constructing a bomb or other WMD, that can have no purpose except to damage or destroy life or property. The 3rd parameter explicitly supports the right to self defense and of the government to pursue and prosecute violators without reference to sovereignty or other arbitrary or nebulous ‘state interests’. The 4th parameter protects the proper autonomy of the individual while allowing the community to protect its public standards. Among other benefits, such an amendment would simplify the legal process, reduce police discretion while increasing their efficiency, reduce prison population, increase citizen respect fo the law and obviate the necessity of the distinction between the legal concepts of ‘mala prohibita’ and ‘mala per se’.

rtwx@yahoo.com
rtwx
0
Bulk Actions Unapprove Approve Mark as Spam Delete
Check for Spam