HLS Library Book Talk | The Broken Constitution

[@eileenmulhall218]

Very interesting and enlightening discussion. I think what Mr. Bowie is presenting, is a circular argument.

[@ernestoeliasalvarado-melen6284]

Kind regards. I’m a foreign lawyer (Venezuela) who is living in the United States of America. I love learning about the history of this great country and its Constitution. If possible, I’d like you to recommend even more books on the subject, since I’d love to be able to study and obtain a Juris Doctor in this country, but it’s difficult for me from an economic point of view. in the meantime, I’ll learn as much as I can on my own. Until next time.

[@pverdone]

I've listened to Noah describe this in several venues recently and I believe the entire premise is false. The Constitution is not broken. We are. The document is designed to be amended and revised. That we choose not to is not a fault of it but us. How about we place the blame where it belongs?

[@Whoo_Boy]

You are correct that "we are" broken. The US Constitution, however, was not made to be revised or amended, we just have the ability to do so. With that said, the United States Constitution maybe needs only on more amendment ratified to it (I'll get to it). But, even without this other amendment that I refer to, the US Constitution is complete. And, the single amendment that makes it so complete is the Ninth Amendment. It, in essence, states that it is simply impossible to pen every human right in existence and is a waste to even try. The Ninth Amendment actually makes the violation of any and every State law, a federal issue. My proposal for a 28th Amendment would, in effect, abolish most of the 11th Amendment, except for the "subjects of any Foreign State" clause. I believe that three-fourths of the States would indeed ratify this proposed amendment. AMENDMENT XXVIII IMMUNITY, DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND LITIGATION STANDARD (a) No citizen, agent or agency of the United States or any of its States shall have any degree of immunity from judicial or Congressional prosecution, under any circumstance. Any sitting President of the United States may avoid appearing before a tribunal during pretrial proceedings, unless they are self-represented, and may be required to appear at trial in all proceedings. (b) Any proceeding under this Amendment may originate in State or Federal court. Any proceeding originating in State court under this Amendment may be removed or appealed to the federal circuit by any party to the case. (c) Any proceeding under this Amendment is criminal in nature, but may have a resolution in criminal and/or civil proceedings. (d) This Amendment creates a private right of action for criminal and civil proceedings under it. (e) Trials for all actions under this Amendment must commence within 90 days of the filing of the action, and must be completed within 90 days after the start of trial, in all circumstances except verifiable illness(es) of self-represented parties. Any violation of this Amendment by the tribunal shall be considered misconduct and a dereliction of duty, remedied by a public censure, at minimum. (f) The removal of justices from the United States Supreme Court, for disciplinary action, shall be regulated and performed by the United States Congress. If it is discovered that any of the justices of the United States Supreme Court has bribed any of the members of Congress, removal of those justices shall be by vote by the citizens of the United States, within 100 days of the discovery. (g) Self-represented parties under this amendment or any other law, shall not be held to the same standard as certified attorneys, even if the self-represented party is an attorney. The litigation standard for self-represented parties, in any court, State or Federal, shall only require a cause-of-action upon which relief may be granted. A case under any law, State or Federal, shall not be terminated if a party requests or demands the improper or unavailable relief. For the reviewing court, the litigation standard for self-represented parties shall be the points argued at in the lower court, the applicable case law and how the lower court erred. (h) A cause-of-action is defined as all of the following: an allegation of, (1) a violation of any law(s) or the conduct that causes the belief that a law(s) was violated; (2) the person, people or agency(ies) who violated the law(s); (3) the dates in which the alleged violation(s) occurred; and, (4) the location(s) of each alleged violation.

[@paulwarren796]

HAVEN'T ANY OF THE HARVARD LAW PROFESSORS CONSIDERING MERGIN THIS COUNTRUY WITH CANADA , AUSTRALIA , & NEW ZEALAND ???