Constitutional Amendment Proposal

MigraineMan · Feb 13, 2013

I was going to call this "A Modest Proposal," but I believe that title has already been taken (back in 1729.) I'm left wondering why we don't have this wording in our state constitution. It would certainly cut down on "spray and pray" legislation efforts, like the ones we're seeing now. I would be concerned that legislators would attempt to submit bills by proxy, but I don't believe Joe Citizen may submit a bill to the General Assembly.

Maryland Shooters Bill 0001

-----------------------------------------
By: MigraineMan
Introduced and read first time: February 13, 2013
Assigned to: Rules and Executive Nominations
-----------------------------------------

A BILL ENTITLED

Maryland Constitutionality Act

FOR the purpose of ensuring that the elected and appointed representatives of the people of Maryland, having sworn or affirmed an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and to be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland, and support the Constitution and Laws thereof, meet that sworn or affirmed obligation. Creation of laws that, in a court of law, are determined to be unconstitutional with respect to either the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Maryland shall be considered to be a violation of the oath of office, and the authors and sponsors of the original Bill submitted to the Maryland General Assembly shall be held accountable, pursuant to the Maryland State Constitution, Article 1 - Elective Franchise, Section 11.

BY ammending

Constitution of Maryland
(Article 1 - Elective Franchise, Section 11)

SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, That the Constitution of Maryland be ammended as follows:

SEC. 11. Every person, hereafter elected, or appointed, to office, in this State, who shall refuse, or neglect, to take the oath, or affirmation of office, provided for in the ninth section of this Article, shall be considered as having refused to accept the said office; and a new election, or appointment, shall be made, as in case of refusal to accept, or resignation of an office; and any person violating said oath, shall, on conviction thereof, in a Court of Law, in addition to the penalties now, or hereafter, to be imposed by Law, be thereafter incapable of holding any office of profit or trust in this State (originally Article I, sec. 7. Thus renumbered and amended by Chapter 681, Acts of 1977, ratified Nov. 7, 1978). Creation of laws that, in a court of law, are determined to be unconstitutional with respect to either the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Maryland shall be considered a violation of said oath by the authors and sponsors of the law.

N3YMY · Feb 13, 2013

I like it!

Now, how do we make it happen?

I fear that most folk here in MD; don't understand/don't care.

Some said before, that they believed most folk here in MD are just trying to get by day to day, and therefore don't have much left over for peripheral vision of what's going on around them beyond their immediate family.

However, that said, I feel your proposal has great merit and I would love to see it happen. However, I don't think we should divide our attention just yet with the challenges we currently face...

MigraineMan said:
I was going to call this "A Modest Proposal," but I believe that title has already been taken (back in 1729.) I'm left wondering why we don't have this wording in our state constitution. It would certainly cut down on "spray and pray" legislation efforts, like the ones we're seeing now. I would be concerned that legislators would attempt to submit bills by proxy, but I don't believe Joe Citizen may submit a bill to the General Assembly.

Maryland Shooters Bill 0001

-----------------------------------------
By: MigraineMan
Introduced and read first time: February 13, 2013
Assigned to: Rules and Executive Nominations
-----------------------------------------

A BILL ENTITLED

Maryland Constitutionality Act

FOR the purpose of ensuring that the elected and appointed representatives of the people of Maryland, having sworn or affirmed an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and to be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland, and support the Constitution and Laws thereof, meet that sworn or affirmed obligation. Creation of laws that, in a court of law, are determined to be unconstitutional with respect to either the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Maryland shall be considered to be a violation of the oath of office, and the authors and sponsors of the original Bill submitted to the Maryland General Assembly shall be held accountable, pursuant to the Maryland State Constitution, Article 1 - Elective Franchise, Section 11.

BY ammending

Constitution of Maryland
(Article 1 - Elective Franchise, Section 11)

SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, That the Constitution of Maryland be ammended as follows:

SEC. 11. Every person, hereafter elected, or appointed, to office, in this State, who shall refuse, or neglect, to take the oath, or affirmation of office, provided for in the ninth section of this Article, shall be considered as having refused to accept the said office; and a new election, or appointment, shall be made, as in case of refusal to accept, or resignation of an office; and any person violating said oath, shall, on conviction thereof, in a Court of Law, in addition to the penalties now, or hereafter, to be imposed by Law, be thereafter incapable of holding any office of profit or trust in this State (originally Article I, sec. 7. Thus renumbered and amended by Chapter 681, Acts of 1977, ratified Nov. 7, 1978). Creation of laws that, in a court of law, are determined to be unconstitutional with respect to either the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Maryland shall be considered a violation of said oath by the authors and sponsors of the law.

StickerLT · Feb 13, 2013

MigraineMan said:
I was going to call this "A Modest Proposal," but I believe that title has already been taken (back in 1729.) I'm left wondering why we don't have this wording in our state constitution. It would certainly cut down on "spray and pray" legislation efforts, like the ones we're seeing now. I would be concerned that legislators would attempt to submit bills by proxy, but I don't believe Joe Citizen may submit a bill to the General Assembly.

Maryland Shooters Bill 0001

-----------------------------------------
By: MigraineMan
Introduced and read first time: February 13, 2013
Assigned to: Rules and Executive Nominations
-----------------------------------------

A BILL ENTITLED

Maryland Constitutionality Act

FOR the purpose of ensuring that the elected and appointed representatives of the people of Maryland, having sworn or affirmed an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and to be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of Maryland, and support the Constitution and Laws thereof, meet that sworn or affirmed obligation. Creation of laws that, in a court of law, are determined to be unconstitutional with respect to either the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Maryland shall be considered to be a violation of the oath of office, and the authors and sponsors of the original Bill submitted to the Maryland General Assembly shall be held accountable, pursuant to the Maryland State Constitution, Article 1 - Elective Franchise, Section 11.

BY ammending

Constitution of Maryland
(Article 1 - Elective Franchise, Section 11)

SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, That the Constitution of Maryland be ammended as follows:

SEC. 11. Every person, hereafter elected, or appointed, to office, in this State, who shall refuse, or neglect, to take the oath, or affirmation of office, provided for in the ninth section of this Article, shall be considered as having refused to accept the said office; and a new election, or appointment, shall be made, as in case of refusal to accept, or resignation of an office; and any person violating said oath, shall, on conviction thereof, in a Court of Law, in addition to the penalties now, or hereafter, to be imposed by Law, be thereafter incapable of holding any office of profit or trust in this State (originally Article I, sec. 7. Thus renumbered and amended by Chapter 681, Acts of 1977, ratified Nov. 7, 1978). Creation of laws that, in a court of law, are determined to be unconstitutional with respect to either the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Maryland shall be considered a violation of said oath by the authors and sponsors of the law.

Nice work!

Maybe add that any of them violating their oath of office would get a severe ass beating also....

Kilroy · Feb 13, 2013

Outstanding idea! That would cut down on a lot of the crap they put out every session.

dlmarion · Feb 13, 2013

I like it

I was just thinking this morning of a similar idea, but with a different approach. Take the same language that they are using for SB281, licensing, restrictions on transport, banning of certains categories, and then propose a different amendment for each type of item that kills people: drugs, knives, alcohol, cars, hammers, baseball bats, etc. In addition, much like the "Firearm Safety Act", don't mandate any type of help for alcohol and drug addiction, in fact ban spending money on it.

Of course, I'm not being serious, but do it to show them how ludicrous their bill is.

Sportstud4891 · Feb 13, 2013

And the author and sponsors of any law, that shall be found unconsitutional by the supreme court, shall be held financially responsible.

That might stop them from using taxpayer money for their own agenda.

Glaug-Eldare · Feb 13, 2013

Nooope. I would be very alarmed by a law that makes any speech or vote on the floor of the General Assembly a punishable act. Courts provide injunctive relief, elections provide democratic relief.

MigraineMan · Feb 13, 2013

This isn't about restricting speech or votes on the GA floor. Note that a bill would have to be enacted into law, and then overturned due to unconstitutionality. There's no punishment for the discussion, nor for the votes. Our representatives should know what is constitutional, as they have sworn an oath to support the constitution(s). They are chartered with legislative duties and responsibilities, and they should be held to a higher level of scrutiny than Joe Citizen, because the legislators' actions affect everyone in the state.

Laws that are unconstitutional deprive citizens of their rights. I don't see how a legislator can create laws that deprive rights while meeting an oath requirement to the constitution that protects rights.

Glaug-Eldare · Feb 13, 2013

MigraineMan said:
This isn't about restricting speech or votes on the GA floor. Note that a bill would have to be enacted into law, and then overturned due to unconstitutionality. There's no punishment for the discussion, nor for the votes. Our representatives should know what is constitutional, as they have sworn an oath to support the constitution(s). They are chartered with legislative duties and responsibilities, and they should be held to a higher level of scrutiny than Joe Citizen, because the legislators' actions affect everyone in the state.

Laws that are unconstitutional deprive citizens of their rights. I don't see how a legislator can create laws that deprive rights while meeting an oath requirement to the constitution that protects rights.

There are a few problems with this. For one, it's a very short-sighted and politically-motivated solution. Your opinion of this measure will depend entirely on the composition of the courts (i.e., historical political party strength) and the issues of the day. I suspect your desire is to see lawmakers expelled for introducing and voting for gun control measures. Would you be so enthusiastic if Republicans were expelled for denying civil rights to gays and transsexuals? Would you be so enthusiastic if Republicans were expelled for creating a paid voter ID requirement? Would you be so enthusiastic if a Republican immigration enforcement bill was deemed unconstitutional?

Secondly, this is ultimately intended to create a chilling effect on any legislation that isn't well inside established Constitutional boundaries. That means your representatives will not be able to listen to you unless they are assured the Courts will agree with your personal interpretation of the Constitution for years to come. This sword cuts both ways, and definitely penalizes speech and votes -- just not until political appointees decide they're punishable.

NOTE: If voting against HB 438 (or rather, restoring marriage segregation) was ruled a violation of the constitution, the Republican delegation to the General Assembly would consist of Senator Allan Kittleman and Delegates Robert Costa and Wade Kach. That's it. I'd sure be laughing, but only for a little bit. Is that your idea of good government?

MigraineMan · Feb 13, 2013

Would you be so enthusiastic if Republicans were expelled for denying civil rights to gays and transsexuals? Would you be so enthusiastic if Republicans were expelled for creating a paid voter ID requirement? Would you be so enthusiastic if a Republican immigration enforcement bill was deemed unconstitutional?

Wow, I don't know where you got the Republican/Democrat bias from. I didn't express any.

And yes, I would be enthusiastic to see *any* politician expelled for creating a law that was declared unconstitutional. That declaration needs to come from a court of law, and the appeals process needs to be exhausted. The politicians get the full benefit of due process, just like everyone else.

If there's any emotional motivation from me, it has to do with legislators burdening me witih civil and criminal penalties while the unconstitutional law is in effect. And after the law is overturned, the legislator suffers no consequences - he simply shrugs his shoulders and goes back to enacting more bad laws. If I am jailed, how would I get my time back?

Ideally, the electoral process would correct these situations. Ideally ...

Constitutional interpretations and the opinions of SCOTUS are the difficult piece. I concur that they're tremendously variable and subject to partisan politics based on who's sitting on the bench at any given point in time.

Glaug-Eldare · Feb 13, 2013

MigraineMan said:
Wow, I don't know where you got the Republican/Democrat bias from. I didn't express any.

Please pardon my assumption! The context suggested to me that this would be desired as way to remove political opposition, and I clearly read too much into it. Simply put, this measure would have severe unintended consequences, and stifle lawmakers from acting without prior approval from the federal courts.

Sportstud4891 · Feb 14, 2013

Nope, not about prior approval from courts. It's about doing actually making them do the research beforehand instead of trying to find ways around court rulings. Let's pose it this way:

If a court ruling states that the government is not allowed to ban AR-15's but then a legislator decides to put a bill in that makes you pay a $500.00 fee on any AR-15 (essentially pricing it out of reach for many people). Should this legislator not be punished? Especially because taxpayer money will have to be used to fight against what is considered (and ruled upon in this hypothetical situation) as a consitutional right. Then taxpayer money will be used to pay the plaintiff at the end.

What is your take on this? What would your solution be, since personally I think our system is not working like it should due to legislators trying to find ways around instead of abiding by court rulings?

Vic · Feb 14, 2013

I understand the intent of this passage. You are trying to prevent frivilous laws from becoming law. Just as there are penalties for frivilous law suits. I like the concept but don't know enough about the law to have an opinion that way. Maybe you could have it introduced then they can edit it and make it right.

Will have to ponder it.

Vic

Glaug-Eldare · Feb 14, 2013

Sportstud4891 said:
Nope, not about prior approval from courts. It's about doing actually making them do the research beforehand instead of trying to find ways around court rulings. Let's pose it this way:

If a court ruling states that the government is not allowed to ban AR-15's but then a legislator decides to put a bill in that makes you pay a $500.00 fee on any AR-15 (essentially pricing it out of reach for many people). Should this legislator not be punished? Especially because taxpayer money will have to be used to fight against what is considered (and ruled upon in this hypothetical situation) as a consitutional right. Then taxpayer money will be used to pay the plaintiff at the end.

What is your take on this? What would your solution be, since personally I think our system is not working like it should due to legislators trying to find ways around instead of abiding by court rulings?

That "research" means trying to make a subjective judgement call on whether the legislation might be struck down. It means the exact same actions (voting yea or nay) might be punishable, or it might not, depending on some political appointees in robes. Have you heard the suggestion that every gun owner should have to get a psych doctor's permission slip before buying a gun? The problem is that no doctor will want to accept pointless liability, and will decline to act out of fear of future prosecution. This is what would happen to your delegate when he or she is supposed to be representing you. They'll have to weigh the demands of their constituents against whether they might get in trouble for communicating them on the floor, and even if they are acting with earnest belief in the Constitutionality of their measures, they could still get punished. It's not just ex post facto -- it's completely variable depending on the year.

My solution is joining SAF and MSI, and paying attention during elections. Creating chilling restraints on legislative discourse is not a solution to me -- it's a problem. Some people will still get hurt by unconstitutional laws -- that's not fair. That's life, and that's the republic.

MigraineMan · Feb 14, 2013

Have you heard the suggestion that every gun owner should have to get a psych doctor's permission slip before buying a gun?

I don't think that's a good example. First, it infringes the Second Amendment because it requires permission to exercise your enumerated right. Second, it violates the "due process of law" component in the Fifth Amendment - you are automatically prohibited until you can prove your competence, and that proof comes from a doctor, not a judge. Third, doctors are being asked to accept responsibility and accountability for something that is completely out of their control. The physicians could be punished for the actions of others; the legislators' punishment comes at their own hands.

They'll have to weigh the demands of their constituents against whether they might get in trouble for communicating them on the floor,

Considering that our representatives swore an oath to the Constitutions, I would expect them to consider that in everything they do. If a district's constituents are clamoring to prohibit home sales to people of Romanian descent (and yes, I have some Romanian blood in me,) the legislators should know that doing so would be a gross Constitutional violation, and should not issue a bill to the GA simply on the merits of "my constituents told me to."

I think I understand the ex-post-facto comment. I would certainly consider adding some verbage that makes the new text conditional to bills submitted to the GA after a particular date. That would set the expectations properly.

Sportstud4891 · Feb 15, 2013

Glaug-Eldare said:
That "research" means trying to make a subjective judgement call on whether the legislation might be struck down. It means the exact same actions (voting yea or nay) might be punishable, or it might not,

My solution is joining SAF and MSI, and paying attention during elections. Creating chilling restraints on legislative discourse is not a solution to me -- it's a problem. Some people will still get hurt by unconstitutional laws -- that's not fair. That's life, and that's the republic.

I guess your first two sentences is where we differ. In my mind these people swear to uphold the constitution and they should be punished if they cross it. Especially those that are knowingly crossing the line.

Without constraints the corrupt politicians will become even more so. And not just some people will get hurt by unconstitutional laws, a lot of people will get hurt by and have been hurt by unconstitutional laws. Most of our politicians are lawyers who benefit from the very laws they create. Personally I think this is an issue.

If I am punished for taking someone's life, liberty and happines I believe that politicians should be punished as well. A politicians job should not be a playground of which people benefit. A politicians job should be a serious matter with serious consequences when they screw up.

My two cents, I know we will disagree.

Rack&Roll · Feb 15, 2013

Mr. MigraineMan ... This is giving me a headache. The simple answer is that anything you propose is "prior restraint " on speech and that would be a ... Wait for it... A First Amendment issue.

pcfixer · Feb 15, 2013

sounds good to me. I sent to delegates and senator in Frederick county.

hvymax · Feb 15, 2013

The Domestic Enemies Bill.

MigraineMan · Feb 15, 2013

I'm not following the "prior restraint" potential. There is no prohibition to discussion of any topics. Legislators are free to discuss proposals, no matter how controversial. They may seek expert review. They may solicit public comment. They may consult with other legislators. They may submit the bill to the GA for a vote, and vote on it. Only after the action, having exhausted the full due-process ... process, is punishment rendered. Sounds like any other situation where punishment is rendered after the commission of a crime.

If you're concerned that legislators would be hesitant to discuss and support bills, for example, that restrict home ownership to people of Romanian descent because it would be ultimately ruled unconstitutional, well, maybe that's not such a bad thing.

Constitutional Amendment Proposal

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Defenestration Specialist

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Resident SMIB

Senior Member

Defenestration Specialist

Senior Member

Defenestration Specialist

Senior Member

Resident SMIB

Ultimate Member

Senior Member

Defenestration Specialist

Resident SMIB

R.I.P

Ultimate Member

Banned

Defenestration Specialist

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics