NationStates Jolt Archive

Well would you support this (or some modified version of it) as an amendment to the US constitution?

"Congress shall pass no law that in effect discriminates between Citizens of the United States on the bases of race, gender, religion, personal belief, lifestyle, or affiliation. Nor stall the executive officer uphold any law that does the same."

If you would change anything post your own version. After all, our current constitution went through countless rewrites until it was settled.

Erm... you mean to say there is no such amendment yet? *scary

Erm... you mean to say there is no such amendment yet? *scary

Sadly, no, there's not. Of course I'd support it.

Is serial killing a "lifestyle"?

Is being a member of a terrorist group an "affiliation"?

Too vague at the moment.

Sexual orientation is lacking.

Is serial killing a "lifestyle"?

Is being a member of a terrorist group an "affiliation"?

Too vague at the moment.
Precisely the reason I voted to support a modified version of the ammendment.

Well write it how you would support it.

Congress shall pass no law which discriminates between citizens of the US based on race, ethnicity, religion, or political affiliation provided that the political group or religion works entirely within the law and does not engage in criminal or terrorist acts.

I'm no lawyer, this is crude, but I think it closes the loophole that would potentially shield organized criminals and terrorists who might try to masquerade as political parties or religions.

Well would you support this (or some modified version of it) as an amendment to the US constitution?

"Congress shall pass no law that in effect discriminates between Citizens of the United States on the bases of race, gender, religion, personal belief, lifestyle, or affiliation. Nor stall the executive officer uphold any law that does the same."

If you would change anything post your own version. After all, our current constitution went through countless rewrites until it was settled.
Is this not basically the 14th Amendment?

It's a little too broad, you need to specify what you mean by "lifestyle" and "affiliation."

It would need to be more defined, because "lifestyle" invites a lot of problems; a person could easily claim their "lifestyle" condones pedophilia or something equally vile, and there would be no grounds to punish them. Other than that, I support its general idea.

Basically, it the 14th broadened to include more people. Pass it? In the current administration? ARE YOU DAFT? ( :) )

Sexual orientation is lacking.

To some that may fall under "lifestyle", but that's always under debate.

And to answer your question: Hell yes I'd support an amendment like this! It would tie up every loose end and we would finally have a solid "civil rights" amendment.

No, everything here is already directly implied by the 14th amendment. Equal protection under the law means that no one can be discriminated against on an irrelevent basis.

The 14th and 15th actually don't cover that. They state:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

There WAS a civil rights amendment and a equality of the sexes amendment, but both were never ratified (guess why).

How about:
Section 1
Congress shall make no law or restriction that discriminates against any citizen, born or naturalized, or permanent resident of the United States on the basis of race, color, creed, disability, gender, lifestyle or sexual orientation.

Section 2
Congress and the several states shall make no law, restriction, or prohibit any non monetary act between consenting adults, as defined within the several states, within the privacy of their place of dwelling or other areas of reasonable privacy.

Section 3
Congress shall have the power to pass such laws and ordinances it deems necessary to support this amendment.

Isn't this covered in the Civil Rights Amendment and the equal protection clause? Adding to the constitution is a bad idea and opens up a whole can of worms.

Isn't this covered in the Civil Rights Amendment and the equal protection clause? Adding to the constitution is a bad idea and opens up a whole can of worms.
There is no Civil Rights Amendment, it was never ratified, nor is there an Equal Rights one for gender, agaain, not ratified by the states.

There is no Civil Rights Amendment, it was never ratified, nor is there an Equal Rights one for gender, agaain, not ratified by the states.
Mea culpa. I meant to say Civil Rights Act.

Mea culpa. I meant to say Civil Rights Act.
Oh, ok. :)

The problem with the Act is that:

1. The act ONLY refers to acts of discrimnitation upon the base of color/race/national origin and not of gender, disability, lifestyle or sexual orentation.

2. Discrimination is defined mainly as any laws prohibiting voting, equal access to jobs, housing, and gathering at public places. *I think though if Cat-Tribes wanders in here I'm going to get yelled at for missing something or lack of knowledge of this*

3. Any act of Congress can be either overturned by the SCOTUS or Congress itself.

An amendment (though, yes, I hate to amend because it does open a can of worms) would remove the uncertanties of application and scope and would be much, much harder to overide as it wouldn't be subjected to the whims the Congress, President or whoever was apointed to SCOTUS.

Well would you support this (or some modified version of it) as an amendment to the US constitution?

"Congress shall pass no law that in effect discriminates between Citizens of the United States on the bases of race, gender, religion, personal belief, lifestyle, or affiliation. Nor stall the executive officer uphold any law that does the same."

If you would change anything post your own version. After all, our current constitution went through countless rewrites until it was settled.
We have the 14th amendment, already. And the Civil Rights Act of '64

No, everything here is already directly implied by the 14th amendment. Equal protection under the law means that no one can be discriminated against on an irrelevent basis.

And we all know how well that turned out. :rolleyes: I mean my Lord, we haven't had a single civil rights movement since it passed!

To some that may fall under "lifestyle", but that's always under debate.

And to answer your question: Hell yes I'd support an amendment like this! It would tie up every loose end and we would finally have a solid "civil rights" amendment.

Homosexuality as an issue falls under both gender and lifestyle. In the instance of marriage, the "a union between a man and a woman" definition would be unconstitutional and most likely be replaced by "a union between two citizens" or something to that effect. This would of course cut any "slippery slope" arguments off at the knees. As for "lifestyle" I never really saw homosexuals as a minority in the sense that the word is commonly used today. I mean really, who you fuck, or more accurately and more abstractly who you LIKE to fuck, should not by any means have any legal relevance at all. Should a married man be legally "gay" if naked men give him a hardon? Think about it.

On the flip side, two men living together, sexually or asexually (Why? Fuck if I know but it could happen) IS a choice of lifestyle and in the issue of marriage, adoption, and that sort of thing it would be protected.

And yes, the whole point of my bringing this up was to tie up loose ends caused by past and present civil rights movements.

isnt this already covered in the Bill of Rights.
(i am young so i dont know everything)

The 14th and 15th actually don't cover that. They state:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

As I said. Equal protection of the laws directly implies nondiscriminatory protection of the laws. This has been referenced in many, many USSC cases.

And we all know how well that turned out. :rolleyes: I mean my Lord, we haven't had a single civil rights movement since it passed!

So, since it didn't work the first time try the exact same thing again and expect it to work? We had a voting rights movement too, despite the fact that the cons very explicitely gives everyone the right to vote!

I would vote for the amended one, the one Drunk Commies did up. And sadly the way the constitution is done up now it is seriously open to interpretation. To many people aren't covered sadly.

Oh, ok. :)

The problem with the Act is that:

1. The act ONLY refers to acts of discrimnitation upon the base of color/race/national origin and not of gender, disability, lifestyle or sexual orentation.

2. Discrimination is defined mainly as any laws prohibiting voting, equal access to jobs, housing, and gathering at public places. *I think though if Cat-Tribes wanders in here I'm going to get yelled at for missing something or lack of knowledge of this*

3. Any act of Congress can be either overturned by the SCOTUS or Congress itself.

An amendment (though, yes, I hate to amend because it does open a can of worms) would remove the uncertanties of application and scope and would be much, much harder to overide as it wouldn't be subjected to the whims the Congress, President or whoever was apointed to SCOTUS.


Gender is covered under the Civil Rights Act. And employment is covered. Disabilities are covered under the Americans With Disabilities Act. Sexual Orientation is a point, but I think the best way to deal with that would be to get an act of Congress passed before we start worrying about changing the constitution. I don't want to mess with the constution because (a) the constution is intended to set out the basic methods of making laws, not the particulars, and (b) every amendment to the constitution has unintended consequences through the operation of the courts and a lot of huge messes could be created by making changes like this.

myself, all who endorse me and our alliances have all refused to apporve a proposal/resolution that is not in proper resolution form. the end. yours is way to vague anyway. so if you were submitting this to the un it would definitley be shot down. and in real life you would have to go about defining each term, where to draw the line ect.

This is, in effect, the 14th amendment all over again. Equal protection of the law is the legal equivilant of what you propose. The biggest problem with your proposal (besides the fact that it's totallly useless in light of the fourteenth amendment) is that it doesn't clarify what you mean by descrimination.

Now, honestly, since the Civil Rights act of '64 was passed, has there been any law (that was upheld) where a group was descriminated against? I can't think of any, and if they were, the 14th amendment would cover it.

Congress shall pass no law which discriminates between citizens of the US based on race, ethnicity, religion, or political affiliation provided that the political group or religion works entirely within the law and does not engage in criminal or terrorist acts.

I'm no lawyer, this is crude, but I think it closes the loophole that would potentially shield organized criminals and terrorists who might try to masquerade as political parties or religions.


what if I'm with a group that utilizes direct action (sit-ins, etc.) as a form of political leverage. Technically laws might be broken and that language seems like the group could be repressed, even though there would be no intent to injure any living thing.

i think a better idea would be to push freedom of association instead--you can't be discriminated against purely because of who you know or have at one time talked to. it's one of the foundations of the fight against sweatshops, and sadly we don't even have it here.


Erm... you mean to say there is no such amendment yet? *scary

God bless America!

Well would you support this (or some modified version of it) as an amendment to the US constitution?

"Congress shall pass no law that in effect discriminates between Citizens of the United States on the bases of race, gender, religion, personal belief, lifestyle, or affiliation. Nor stall the executive officer uphold any law that does the same."

If you would change anything post your own version. After all, our current constitution went through countless rewrites until it was settled.

I'd leave out the word citizen. The whole point of rights is that they apply to everyone. The US government just isn't supposed to be in a position to defend the rights of people in other countries. Once you get here your rights are to be respected, even if you're going to be sent back to the country that you came from.