June 9, 2015

I agree, disqualifications and revocations of civil rights/liberties could be

more nuanced. There are non-violent felonies that really shouldn't affect RKBA, and some violent (or other) misdemeanors that should.

I'm also not in favor of life-time bans; IMO there should be a pre-determined sliding scale for restoring rights after a period of 'good behavior,' although I'd let judges over-ride that (in either direction) with a clear and articulated reason.

Nobody should ever lose the right to vote; even while incarcerated I think citizens should be able to vote absentee in their home precincts...

June 8, 2015

Amendment XYZ: Well-nourished children being essential for the productivity

of a modern state, the right of the people to plant and maintain backyard gardens shall not be infringed.

Queries for linguists, grammarians, syntacticians, high school and university English instructors: based on the phrasing of Amendment XYZ above,

1. Is the right to plant and maintain gardens limited to those people who have children, or even to children themselves?
2. Is the right to garden protected only when that garden is being specifically used for the feeding of children?
3. Is the right to garden one which is held by individuals, or is it a right of the modern state (to be exercised through state-administered gardening programs, perhaps)?
4. If a state-run system for the nourishment of children came into being (a really effective school lunch program for example), would the right to backyard gardening then evaporate?
5. Does the right to plant and maintain a backyard garden come into being with Amendment XYZ, or does the phrasing of XYZ acknowledge an existing right and provide one (perhaps of many) reason to prevent infringement on that right?

Poll for entertainment purposes only, it doesn't relate to any of the above discussion prompts...