The Alexander Hamilton Amendment

[Nic Casálmac'h]

THE ALEXANDER HAMILTON AMENDMENT

WHEREAS in a constitutional monarchy it is primarily the people who rule, they have not surrendered their power and therefore have no need of specific reservations to protect themselves against laws infringing upon their rights, for they would in effect be protecting themselves from themselves (which is both impossible and illogical, not to say bordering on the insane);

WHEREAS in such circumstances a list of rights is unnecessary and there is no reason to have something unnecessary for the sake of clarity;

WHEREAS being unnecessary it may, rather than being of benefit, cause detriment through abuse, by some claiming more than is granted therein (e.g. claiming the right to insult others as the right of free speech);

WHEREAS tyranny of our king is far less likely than tyranny of the majority;

WHEREAS not all rights may be listed at length (e.g. the right to breathe) and despite the clause “The enumeration of rights and freedoms in these Covenants shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people” it can not guarantee that other rights not listed might not be abridged through not being considered by some to actually be rights;

WHEREAS those who tend to usurp power are likely to do so despite whatever laws regulate against it;

WHEREAS we should not feel it necessary to copy other constitutions and some of the Covenants are highly reminiscent, if not word-for-word, from the U.S. Bill of Rights; and

WHEREAS there is improper grammar in the covenants anyway:

THEREFORE we hereby repeal Section XIX The Covenant of Rights of the Organic Law.

Noi urent q'estadra så:

Nic Casálmac’h, MC
Sevastáin Casálmac’h, MC

[Deleted]

Wait what?

Those rights are needed, clairty and understanding as well as the gurantee in our law is what enables us to live carefree lives under the Talossan crown without fear of any person exerting themselves above the law... The love of freedom and liberty is being called into question, without it written down there is no right we have to claim such rights...


Some cov.s are a it to much, and probably shouldn't be in the Org law, but basic rights should always be written down as national law.

[Bleic'h Ianescu]

This seems a very, very drastic step! Maybe you should name specifically any of the covenants you feel are inappropriate.

Just because they are similar to the US Bill of rights is not a bad thing by any means. Infact I think they cover some things that the US BOR does not, and I'm glad the framers of the OrgLaw chose to tackle those issues early.

The fact that it does not protect all rights of the people is also no reason to take them away. The Covenants create a backbone for the Talossan culture of respect and understanding, and I feel the OrgLaw would be 'naked' without them.

I stand strongly for the Government's statement of what it will do to protect its citizens, if anything the Covenants could be expanded!

Bleic'h Spenséir Iánescu, MC

[Nic Casálmac'h]

These are reactions I expected. People in this day and age are used to--and expect to have--such lists of rights. However I think that in Talossa, which is very close to being a true democracy, it is unnecessary.

Could you explain exactly what purpose you think they serve?

I think that we all agree that there are basic rights that belong to all. I do not think, however, that listing a few of these rights accomplishes very much. Perhaps we might consider something more along the lines of a general statement toward the rights of life and liberty and whatnot.

-Nic

(Drastic? Aye...I thought it a fitting manner in which to celebrate the first anniversary of my citizenship.)

[Deleted]

Well... based on histories of other nations, where citizens felt safe, their rights were taken away. Can you tell me that you can honestly say that if those rights were not guranteed, we would not have someone trying to take them away, what do we do as talossa grows and the government power becomes larger. It is better to have our basic rights written down and an foundational part of our government then it is to simply say "well it's assumed."

[Prince Patrick]

vitooliver said:

Well... based on histories of other nations, where citizens felt safe, their rights were taken away.

Like the United States, for example. Shortly after the Federalsists' Constitution was passed, a 'Bill of Rights' amended the original document enumerating certain rights. There are many reasons for their addition in 1791 and exclusion four years before.
What we do know for certain is that the federal Congress, over time, has used the enumeration of several rights to strip the states and the people of their reserved rights that were not expressly enumerated. The Congress in the United States today controls aspects of life never thought possible by the nation's founders.
Like Talossa's Organic Law, the U.S. Bill of Rights takes note that other rights, not mentioned by the article are also reserved. The Ninth Amendment supposedly retains the rights not enumerated, and the Tenth Amendment reserves 'powers not delegated' to the Federal Government to the states and the people. Not even the sacred 'police powers' have actually been reserved to the states. The history of Constitutional Law in the United States is the history of the Federal government seizing supra-constitutional power from the states and from the people respectively.
Although from time to time some defenders of the document have succeeded in protecting some of the rights of the people, most Americans (the Congress most certainly included) are under the impression that the Congress can do anything that doesn't expressly violate the first eight Amendments. The United State's enumeration of certain rights has done little to protect the natural rights of the citizenry, but that enumeration has certainly played a role in their rights' dismissal.

[Nic Casálmac'h]

On another tangent...

What tends to happen with a list of rights is that it inclines people to be more individualistic rather than working for the common good. Rather than looking at the government as something in which they have a part, it becomes this tyrannical institution they must protect themselves from.

I think a good citizen should be thinking what he can do to promote the common good, for in doing so his own rights will be protected, and also those of others. If instead a citizen is thinking about what things he has a right to do, he will be more likely to infringe upon the rights of others.

[Deleted]

Nic, the problem with what you're saying is individualism? What is wrong with that? If the majority of the citizens do work together for some things, that's fine, however, the rights do exist the minority citizen from the majority. 51 shouldn't tell 49 what to do. If those rights are taken out, and the majority of the citizens say "I do not want women to have a right to freedom of speech" then they are not protected, they are, essentially, thinking for the better of the nation, they think that will make talossa a better place, in reality, it denies people their natural rights.

So I think it is the opposite of what you say, a government that does not clearly define the rights of each citizen, opens up the field for government sponsored discrimiantion as well as the possibility of a second class citizen.

[Nic Casálmac'h]

Well said, Patrick!

the problem with what you're saying is individualism?

I am not saying individualism is a problem--(I am just not expressing myself very clearly)--although if not in moderation it can be, just like everything else, even dihydrogen monoxide, but I digress.

The government can not guarantee all these rights without discrimination anyway. For instance, to guarantee the right to have an abortion is to take away the rights of the unborn.

I would be nice if we could have some more people commenting upon this issue, especially some of our more experienced lawmakers. (Yes, I admit it, I am hinting, and more than hinting.)

I should do some research and see if there are any countries where a list of rights of some sort or other has actually protected all people from infringement on their rights. That would be interesting to see.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

While I respect what appears to be an effort at sanity and clarity, and have read and (I believe) understood all of the above arguments, I remain unconvinced that there is simply any need to deliberately eliminate the list of rights to which we are guaranteed. I see that there is at least one specific right you have a problem with, if your comment about unborn children is any example (I am here thinking of the 11th Cov. guaranteeing up to fifth month abortions) and as such I can only point to this as a specific example of why the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms is necessary. Absent the Covenant, it would be a simple matter to simply pass a law which banned abortion in Talossa. Accordingly, we would be immediately and explicitly violating a right guaranteed by the OrgLaw because that specific listing in the Covenant had been removed.

In short, we must follow the Hippocratic Oath when it comes to adjusting the OrgLaw: first, do no harm. We need not wield the scalpel unless there is pressing need to do so.

I would, however, gladly support the legislative commission of a committee to examine the Covenant. Some of the Covenants do indeed have poor grammar or phrasing, and the presence of some of them (13, 14, 15) are clearly well-meaning but not appropriate.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Not to harp on the point, but just to indicate the need for explicity in OrgLaw, not just in the Covenant:
The Republic's constitution (www.talossa.com/const.html) does not seem to specifically list anywhere that citizens cannot be members of micronations beyond Talossa. It just lets this go unsaid (or maybe inexplicably does not prohibit this bizarre practice). Thus they get citizens such as Ian Txaglh (talossa.proboards32.com/index.cgi?action=viewprofile&user=txaglh), who might well be a model citizen (I have no notion of his virtue) but is also a member of "The NSK" (www.nskstate.com/state/index.php) and "Ark Maramia" (ark.wz.cz/ark/ark.html). Thus, even though it is not very Talossan to have multiple allegiances (what if the NSK went to war against the Republic?), due to the weakness of the constitution there, they must permit it. We cannot be so tolerant.

[Nic Casálmac'h]

If I merely wished to get rid of certain rights because I had a problem with them, I would go about doing that. However, my arguments here are not about specific rights, but about the nonexistence of a need for a list of rights.

In a country that includes many of such varying beliefs it is difficult to explain everything in a way that will mean something to everyone. All of us--at least I hope so--believe that each person has dignity that ought to be respected and has rights that should not be curtailed. Now those who believe in God--or at least most of those--believe that these rights come from God. As to those who do not believe in God, where do they believe these rights come from? Do they believe these rights are inherited? That point is only relevant in that I do not think there is anyone that believes that our rights come from the government. To me it almost seems that having a list of rights is like saying our rights come from the government.

If we have a list of rights, we will expect the government to be protecting our rights. Correct? If we do not, citizens will be more likely to look after their own rights.

We have to protect our rights. We cannot expect the government to do it for us. It will not happen. Ever.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

My dear friend Nic,

Since you brought it up, I would like to specifically address why we DO need a Covenant of Rights and Freedoms.

Specifically, you mention "God" (I use quotes not to offend, but to explain).

I am Buddhist. I have been for the last 40 years. I do not worship a greater being, a omnipotent being, etc, etc. I do not believe that there is a "God". I am protected from laws, Statues, and general not-niceties by this:

"Third Covenant. The government shall not restrict the free exercise of religion or conscience in worship or conduct, nor shall any preference be given by the Cosâ to any religious establishment. Religious services and rituals not in conflict with law or public order are authorized."

If this was not in place, stipulations could be enacted that might adversely affect my standing in Talossa. Without this Covenant, what would prevent the Cosâ from passing a Statue stipulating that "Any Minister, Secretary, or Office holder must proclaim Faith and Allegiance to God, or will be barred from holding above mentioned position" If I was required to take a "Test Oath". I would have to refuse, because I would be perjuring myself by swearing '"So Help Me God". Without the Third Covenant, I could be excluded from even participating in Taolossian politics, because I do not believe in a 'God'.

Do I believe that Rights come FROM the Government? No. I do believe that rights are granted by society. Society says, I have no right to kill another person. Society states that I cannot steal from another. Some societies say I can practice any (or no) religion I want.

Government exists to protect those Societal rights, and enforce them. And, in the balance, protection is need FROM Government from not protecting Societal rights.

With the Covenants, my voice can be heard. Without the Covenants, I can be silenced.

[Nic Casálmac'h]

I am protected from laws, Statues, and general not-niceties by this:

"Third Covenant. The government shall not restrict the free exercise of religion or conscience in worship or conduct, nor shall any preference be given by the Cosâ to any religious establishment. Religious services and rituals not in conflict with law or public order are authorized."

In the U.S. Constitution there is a similar right listed: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yet this has not succeeded in fulfilling its promises. Even students are having to fight for their rights for something as insignificant as wearing t-shirts with messages they believe in.

If this was not in place, stipulations could be enacted that might adversely affect my standing in Talossa. Without this Covenant, what would prevent the Cosâ from passing a Statue stipulating that "Any Minister, Secretary, or Office holder must proclaim Faith and Allegiance to God, or will be barred from holding above mentioned position" If I was required to take a "Test Oath". I would have to refuse, because I would be perjuring myself by swearing '"So Help Me God". Without the Third Covenant, I could be excluded from even participating in Taolossian politics, because I do not believe in a 'God'.

As of now, common sense and respect for others of different beliefs would prevent this. In the future it is possible these things would no longer remain. There are ways and means around said covenants though: laws could be enacted that would not explicitly violate the covenants, but would restrict the rights of some, perhaps without many knowing it.

I do believe that rights are granted by society. Society says, I have no right to kill another person. Society states that I cannot steal from another. Some societies say I can practice any (or no) religion I want.

So, if society decided that it was okay to kill another person would you consider that a right? I'm just trying to understand your viewpoint, which, I must admit, is rather foreign to me.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

captainblaknar said:

In the U.S. Constitution there is a similar right listed: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yet this has not succeeded in fulfilling its promises. Even students are having to fight for their rights for something as insignificant as wearing t-shirts with messages they believe in.

You're setting up a straw man- a phrasing of the problem which can only lead to your conclusion. In fact, the first amendment has been a ceaseless bulwark in our sister country of America. The argument has always been over the extent of the amendment, since indeed it has limits. The well-known SCOTUS example of "fire in a crowded building" is familiar to everyone as an example.

We may still have to fight for our rights, but we need weapons like the Covenant to succeed in that fight as much as possible. Should King John become a tyrant, perhaps due to a brain injury, we will need every weapon available. Don't try to disarm us, Capitan!

captainblaknar said:

As of now, common sense and respect for others of different beliefs would prevent this. In the future it is possible these things would no longer remain. There are ways and means around said covenants though: laws could be enacted that would not explicitly violate the covenants, but would restrict the rights of some, perhaps without many knowing it.

But restricting these rights WOULD be a violation of the Covenant's Rights. They protect all, not just some. And how could a law be enacted that everyone did not know about?

captainblaknar said:

So, if society decided that it was okay to kill another person would you consider that a right? I'm just trying to understand your viewpoint, which, I must admit, is rather foreign to me.

Societies often decide to kill people. We don't have the death penalty in Talossa, but most other countries do. That is exactly what execution is: society deciding to kill another person.