Seconding this request.
I personally think setting low estimations of what is appropriate compensation would work to make that acceptable, but sure.
-[] Citizenship by residence, with minimum length of stay decided by legislation; right to due process.
You mean any resident is automatically a citizen? Would that include, say, a foreign ambassador? Or issues with other countries not allowing dual citizenship making someone not want to automatically get citizenship.
The bill of rights is taken as a block.
X0.22 voting modifierLet's keep the bill of rights limited to what's truly important.
[][bill] The bill of rights should include
-[] The right to bear arms and form a militia. +1 constitutionalist, +1 anarchist.
There, a nice conservative libertarian bill of rights!
Guaranteeing various rights to residents regardless of alienage is something the USA already did, and we've expanded suffrage to non-citizens already. All that remains is to extend the guarantees of all enumerated and unenumerated rights to all residents. Even given all that, however, citizenship remains a useful construct for assigning liabilities (for instance, to militia service and jury service; one wanting to avoid these obligations might remain a resident indefinitely, while one wanting to take part could take citizenship) and for guaranteeing the rights of Americans abroad. Statelessness is a bad status to have in a comprehensive state system.
What rights are due in consideration for militia or jury service? If we believe that all people are due certain rights under all circumstances (and we demonstrably do), then these rights cannot be consideration for any duties. Do we believe that all people are liable for American militia or jury service? Surely not.
We've already determined what due process for state seizure of property must include (the government must show that workers were employed to work on it; if the government cannot due so, the property is exempt from seizure), a just compensation requirement on top of that is anywhere from unnecessary to counterproductive. Property protections should be generally weak.
Another way to think about this transactional model of rights and duties (as contrasted with a model of rights where they are inherent and do not require justification, which I favor) is in terms of appropriate remedies for failure to do one's duties. Is the appropriate remedy for failure to attend jury service denial of suffrage? That seems out of all proportion to me, considering the harm to the system is minimal -- more veniremen can always be found -- while the harm to you is extreme, amounting to exclusion from the political community, a sort of internal exile or ostracism. Rather, the appropriate remedy is more like a small fine, sufficient to cover the nominal cost of finding your replacement. Further, we don't deny suffrage based on very serious crimes like murder. Is failure to attend jury service a more serious social wrong that willful homicide?
I tried looking for it but I couldn't actually find what the due process for seizure of either personal or private property is. We decided that private property is legal so long as it is run as a cooperative if any additional workers are using it and I believe not adding a just compensation clause to that to give us a free hand is fine, but I believe personal property should be given the protection of just compensation. It is not unthinkable that there may be cases involving personal property where eminent domain is needed for the construction of public utilities and infrastructure given the existing laws passed mandating its use in several states.
The purpose of just compensation is twofold. First and most important, it is to put an expense on the government's balance sheet when it seizes property, to make it look like the sanctity of property is being respected; second, it is to in theory give the person whose property is seized an opportunity to buy a replacement (in practice the price of property is driven in large part by speculation and when property is slated for eminent domain its speculative value drops to zero while replacement properties' prices remain buoyed, so just compensation is manifestly inadequate to this purpose). We don't care about respecting or making it look like we respect the sanctity of property, we want property-holders to fear and tremble. And if, as seems likely, we are guaranteeing a "right to food, clothes, healthcare, shelter, education, and secure retirement at the expense of society, not the individual; to a job; and to an adequate income," then we have already provided for the replacement of all the value of seized property that is not sentimental. Just compensation would only amount to a windfall in money for the owners of property.
I still don't think this is coherent, but it doesn't matter. Assuming we're guaranteeing all enumerated rights to all residents, and I have to assume we are, right to sit on juries is among them in the option as drafted. "-[] Equal rights: guaranteeing public accommodation, non-legal disability, wage, employment, right to serve on a jury, and suffrage rights for adults 21 years or more regardless of race, color, sex, or creed, as well as designating election day as a state holiday. +1 revolutionary socialist, +1 social democrat" Only the question of who is obligated to serve remains up in the air.
The personal/private distinction doesn't matter (and is stupid anyway, these aren't real theoretic terms). You have an enumerated right to shelter and armament at public expense regardless of if you own it.
It would be all to easy for such to end up being narrowed to create a monopoly of force. After all, it's kinda dumb for the govt to arm groups dedicated to tear down the govt. So some sort of qualifier is inevitable, and with it, opportunity to erode the opposition via enforcing some form of monopoly over power. 😅
It could also be used to enforce inequity by masking it with equality if a particular provincial government decides it doesn't particularly like a certain group of people. Taking a disliked man's assault rifle and replacing it with a single shot zipgun, then giving other people around him Assault rifles. It is perfectly in line with the letter of the enumerated rights. As well, a provincial government can "expropriate" his home and forcibly displace him into a ramshackle lean-to while providing that house to a favored party official. This is perfectly in line with the letter of the enumerated rights.
