PDA

View Full Version : Rights bill.


nicki
01-26-2009, 12:29 AM
Our legislatures keep proposing new laws to screw with not just us, but everybody in one way or another.

This got me to thinking, what if the California Constitution was modified to allow any law to be challenged in court and that the law had to do the following:

1. State the problem(s) and the legislative intent.
2. Require the state to show that their are problems, that the law is justified, and that the law is designed so that if it does infringe on rights, it is done so in the least intrusive manner possible.
3. All challenged laws would be reviewed for constitutionality under "strict scrutiny".
4. All residents of Califorinia have standing.
5. Laws and regulations must be clear and understandable for people whom the laws apply to. If a law is vague, it is void.
6. All license and permit applicants on all government licenses will be treated equally under the law. Licenses may be denied only if their is a compelling state interest.
7. Laws that are in conflict with either the US or California Constitution are void.

Nicki

bulgron
01-26-2009, 12:40 AM
I prefer a state constitutional amendment requiring the legislature to renew every law ten years after it is passed, and to continually renew every ten years after that. That should keep them busy.

FS00008
01-26-2009, 1:17 AM
I say every year, not every ten years. Keeps it more difficult to introduce new bullcrap legislation..

Dark&Good
01-26-2009, 1:20 AM
So, how would you go about achieving this?

Seesm
01-26-2009, 1:54 AM
good luck

motorhead
01-26-2009, 9:29 AM
i woul rather see our laws reviewed by the voters themselves. our legislators and the courts in particular, have developed too superior of an attitude, thinking they must decide what's "best" for us regardless of what we want.

bulgron
01-26-2009, 10:02 AM
i woul rather see our laws reviewed by the voters themselves. our legislators and the courts in particular, have developed too superior of an attitude, thinking they must decide what's "best" for us regardless of what we want.

Yeah, because California voters are a paradigm of good sense and deep intellect. :rolleyes:

Remember that one of the reasons why (they say) we don't have shall-issue CCW in this state is because the voters don't want it. If true, then if the voters were asked about our CCW legislation, we probably wouldn't have ANY CCW allowed in this state.

And that's just one issue I can bring up here without getting a bunch of people jumping all over me.

Asking the voters to consider legislation turns California into a true democracy. And if you've read any history at all, you know that true democracies fail, quickly and brutally.

Dark&Good
01-26-2009, 10:10 AM
Yeah, I can't match the lawmaking that's going on, with "what's good for our people"... Used to get surprised about new laws, asking "who voted on this???" Then, since it always turned out to just had been pushed onto the people of the country, I had to learn that "what's good for our people" is not a major consideration up there. The minimum research our leaders should do before introducing a new law is honestly surveying random 10000 people per county about it - then asking us ALL to vote. Even this would be 1000 times better than what they do instead...

My "idealist" days are gone, but more importantly, our leaders' idealist days are long gone - very few of them dream about the same country that the Founding Fathers dreamt about.

CAL.BAR
01-26-2009, 10:17 AM
i woul rather see our laws reviewed by the voters themselves. our legislators and the courts in particular, have developed too superior of an attitude, thinking they must decide what's "best" for us regardless of what we want.

That is what the California proposition system was supposed to be for. It has made a mess of the budget. The next time you think it's a good idea to let the masses legislate for themselves ask a room of 50 people where they want to go for lunch. See how long that one takes you.. Now think of a room with 35-38 MILLION people. That's CA.

JDay
01-26-2009, 12:22 PM
2. Require the state to show that their are problems, that the law is justified, and that the law is designed so that if it does not infringe on rights.

Laws should never infringe on rights.

Shotgun Man
01-26-2009, 4:47 PM
Our legislatures keep proposing new laws to screw with not just us, but everybody in one way or another.

This got me to thinking, what if the California Constitution was modified to allow any law to be challenged in court and that the law had to do the following:

1. State the problem(s) and the legislative intent.
2. Require the state to show that their are problems, that the law is justified, and that the law is designed so that if it does infringe on rights, it is done so in the least intrusive manner possible.
3. All challenged laws would be reviewed for constitutionality under "strict scrutiny".
4. All residents of Califorinia have standing.
5. Laws and regulations must be clear and understandable for people whom the laws apply to. If a law is vague, it is void.
6. All license and permit applicants on all government licenses will be treated equally under the law. Licenses may be denied only if their is a compelling state interest.
7. Laws that are in conflict with either the US or California Constitution are void.

Nicki

It wouldn't do much good. Almost everything you mention can and is done now.

#1 is done when a law is passed.
#2 and #3, and #6 regarding the level of scrutiny, basically demanding strict scrutiny to every law, is novel.

But do you really want to place Barber Regulations on the level of RKBA? One sort of dilutes the other.

#4 standing is not that a big of an issue. most people can achieve standing one way or the other. But do you really want someone whose interest to the issue is so remote that they could not normally achieve standing litigating the issue?

#5 is true now. The "void for vagueness" doctrine.

Certainly, #7 is true now.

nicki
01-26-2009, 10:21 PM
I agree with Bulgron that we should also put a 10 year sunset on all laws.

The 10 year sunset would sound reasonable to the sheeple of California, would work well with the term limits.

Nice benefit is most of the guys who voted for a law would be gone by the time it came up for renewal.

The term limits does weed out alot of officials.

Nicki

jacques
01-26-2009, 10:25 PM
I
The term limits does weed out alot of officials.

Nicki

Sometimes it doesn't seem quick enough.