On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, Steve Schear wrote:
> At 09:31 AM 2/9/2002 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
> >On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, proffr11 wrote:
> >
> > > SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - In a serious blow to California's three-strikes
> > law, a
> > > federal appeals court has ruled that life in prison for shoplifting is
> > > cruel and unusual punishment.
> >
> >All 3-strike type laws are unconstitutional and need to be removed.
>
> Except for one's which still need passage: removing office holders who
> demonstrate their violation of their sworn oath to preserve, protect and
> defend the Constitution (e.g., by legislators affirming three laws in which
> any part is later ruled unconstitutional).
That should be a 1-Strike, they took an oath to uphold and defend the
Constitution. Actually, I believe a saner answer is an Amendment [1] that
directs Congress to require a 'Constiutionality Review' of all
legislation prior to key votes with respect to that legislation becoming
law.
There are some acts which don't deserve a 'second chance',
let alone a third.
No, at each incident the question should be asked as to whether that
person represents a clear and consistent(!) danger in some way. In which
case they should be monitored for life. This sort of issue must be handled
on a case by case basis to retain any sense of 'democratic fairness' with
respect to 'equal representation', 'community need', and 'self defence'.
Whatever system you put in place can never be 'fair'. What you can do is
attempt to minimize those losses.
You have a right to engage in whatever activity you want, until you
interfere with another. Then some sort of arbitration mechanism must be
put in place.
[1] This segues into the question of 'How?'. Clearly Congress will not
pass such a significant limit on its operating proceedure without
a mighty big stick. In addition, it isn't likely that a
Constitutional Convention would be of any real positive value in
todays political, military, and business environment. So how?
My answer is to create a new style of political group. The group
would exist in each state with a central group in the capital,
ancillary groups in other communities as needed. They would be
involved in state and local elections to promote specific amendments
to the Constitution. The specific goal being to get elected
officials who see the amendments in a positive light. These
groups would take their direction from a national group who
acted within the confines of specific 'party platforms'. The
ultimate goal would be to elect state legislators and executives
who would be inclined to ratify a proposed amendment. Such an
amendment would go into effect with no federal intervention.
In other words, if a proposed amendment were to be on the
necessary number of state legislators calendars at the same
time. And the vote could be influenced in a particular way
the Amendment would go into full force. At no stage of this
process there be federal oversight or review.
--
____________________________________________________________________
James Choate - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ssz.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------
