Bill Of Contract: Fill & Download for Free

There will be a legal backlash against them if they do that.For Congress to pass a resolution declaring Trump guilty of having engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, without his having been convicted of such in a court of law, will not be upheld in the courts.There is a term for such a resolution. They used to do this in England and Great Britain long before the Mayflower arrived on these shores. They still did it occasionally even in our colonial era. It’s called a bill of attainder—a law declaring someone guilty of an offense without their having a trial or hearing on the matter. (Trump’s impeachment wouldn’t count—it’s not a judicial proceeding.)Our Constitution has something to say about this despicable perversion of justice that was often used by some of the worst rulers of the British Isles:Article 1, Section 12No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, nor any law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed, and no conviction shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate.The language is as plain as day. You can’t do this in the United States.The next step is NOT to pass an unlawful bill of attainder that would be struck down by the court in five seconds. The next step is to actually prosecute Trump in a court of law, get a conviction against him for seditious conspiracy and/or insurrection, and then pass a resolution invoking the provisions of the 14th Amendment to bar him from public office for life. Once he is convicted in a court of law, there is no attainder.

I'll gladly pay exactly what I owe. My calculations are based on the following:US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9 - Limits on Congress -- No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.US Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States -- No State shall [… ] pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.US Constitution, Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislationThe slavery in question was legal in most of the world including in the states in which it was occurring at the time. The amendment which outlawed slavery occurred after slavery had already stopped virtually everywhere in this country. Since slavery was legal, any attempt at reparations would violate the Constitution's very clear restrictions on ex post facto laws for both the federal and state governments. Therefore, I owe nothing.The idea and concept of reparations goes against basic precepts of law that have existed for thousands of years. Because of this, the movers and shakers pushing reparations know it will never happen. To them it is simply a tool to gin up hatred among blacks for whites. It works but only in reference to blacks and whites in general. The blacks and whites who actually know each other get along just fine when they're not facing off against each other over manufactured topics like this one.

Mostly I’d just clean them up a bit for clarity, as “plain English” of 240 years ago seems very hard for some modern readers to understand.(Note to Moderation-All Quotes are from the US Constitution.)Amendment ICongress shall make no law regarding 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.I really can’t think of a better, clearer way to write this one. Every variation I try ends up being more cumbersome.Amendment IIA well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.The right of the people, individually and collectively, to keep and bear arms, ammunition, munitions, and their accouterments, shall not be infringed by any level of government.Twenty seven words that seem to really confuse some people, so let’s get rid of that dependent clause. Further, “the people” seems to confuse folks as to whether it’s an individual or collective right. Fuck it. We’ll go for both, and be explicit about it.Amendment IIINo soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.No soldier shall be quartered in in any house without the consent of the owner.We really don’t need to quarter troops in private homes anymore, and frankly I don’t see how being at war makes quartering troops suddenly okay, even if prescribed by law.Edit: Anthony has convinced me of the necessity to let it stand as is. You can see why in the comments. https://www.quora.com/If-you-could-edit-the-Bill-of-Rights-what-would-you-change-and-why/answer/Murphy-Barrett/comment/85238736?__filter__=1&__nsrc__=1&__snid3__=3880267152Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, electronic media, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.This makes electronic media explicitly protected.Amendment VNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land and naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the armed forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use.Here I’m just knocking off the last bit. I really take umbrage with the practice of eminent domain[1][1][1][1].Amendment VIIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.-Amendment VIIIn suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.-Amendment VIIIExcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.There’s not really anything to be improved with the previous three.Amendment IXThe enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.The Constitution does not grant rights, but protects rights presupposed to exist. Therefore, the omission of explicit mention of rights within the Constitution shall not be used to deny or infringe upon those rights of the people.While I find the original phrasing clear and elegant, this may make things clearer for the modern reader.Amendment XThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The United States has only the powers and authority explicitly delegated to it by the Constitution.Again, just trying to clarify the meaning for the modern reader.Amendment XINo person may claim rights [2][2][2][2]that obligate action of another but by mutual contract.This seems to confuse many people, so I would like to make the distinction between negative and positive rights clear in the Constitution, and deny positive rights as legally actionable unless all parties involved agree. That is, you may claim negative rights, that someone must leave you alone, but you cannot claim positive rights, that someone must do something for you, unless you both agree. Like contracting a gardener. He is obligated to do yardwork for you, but you are obligated to give him money, but only because you both agree. You could not demand a “right to a pretty lawn”, nor could he demand a “right to pay” without mutual contract. Further, he could not, say, mow your lawn, and then afterwards demand payment.Eric Lowe and Anthony Zarrella, I’d appreciate your input on this one.Original question-If you could edit the Bill of Rights, what would you change and why?Footnotes[1] Eminent domain in the United States - Wikipedia[1] Eminent domain in the United States - Wikipedia[1] Eminent domain in the United States - Wikipedia[1] Eminent domain in the United States - Wikipedia[2] Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia[2] Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia[2] Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia[2] Negative and positive rights - Wikipedia