Allow me to first state unequivocally, that this propsal is intended to be a broadening of individual rights and a constriction of the overall power of the government to interfere with those rights. As such, I contend that all of the original rights which are being replaced are still preserved in effect if this proposal is put into effect with the exception of the sixth amendment right to compel witnesses, that being said, I’ve no problem whatsoever editing the proposal to include the orginal text of all of those original rights. The new broader rights defined in the proposal are as follows:
1. An individual shall have the right to life. The right to life shall be the right to be free from death, injury, bodily harm, or ailment as afflicted by or as resulting from the actions of another individual. This right shall be limited such that the right to life of one individual shall not supersede the right to life of any other individual.
2. An individual shall have the right to liberty. The right to liberty shall be the right to be free from bondage, incapacitation, muting, slavery, and imprisonment as afflicted by or as resulting from the actions of another individual, and shall be the right of an individual to decide the action of that individual’s own body. This right shall be limited such that the right to liberty of one individual shall not supersede the right to life or right to liberty of any other individual.
3. An individual shall have the right to pursue happiness. The right to pursue happiness shall be the right of the individual to decide what to value and to determine and take a course of actions to achieve any such values. The right to pursue happiness is also the right to identify and hold additional rights. The right to pursue happiness shall be the right to be free from deception, coercion, intimidation, theft of property, and damage of property as afflicted by or as resulting from the actions of another individual. This right shall be limited such that the right to pursue happiness of one individual shall not supersede the right to life, right to liberty, or right to pursue happiness of any other individual.
The existing first amendment states:
Congress shall make no law respecting 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.
The first part of the first amendment prevents Congress from either favoring or placing restrictions on any religion, by effectively banning any mention of religion in law. In the fundamental rights that I have defined, the right to join a religion (or corporation, social club, political party) and to take part in its activities is included in the right to pursue happiness, and it is stated that the right to pursue happiness of one individual shall not supercede the right to pursue happiness of any other individual. Since no individual’s right to puruse happiness will supercede any other individual’s it must follow that this will remain true regardless of whether or not a given individual joins a religion or any other collective. Thus, no special rights can be awarded to any individual nor any special restrictions placed on any individual for joining a religion or other group. Since no special boons or restrictions can be placed on any individual member of the group, it follows that the group itself cannot receive any special boons or restrictions by congressional law because such would have to pass on to its individual members. Therefore the effect of the first part of the first amendment is preserved, and in fact, expanded to any type of organization instead of religions alone.
The next part of the first amendment prevents Congress from abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. This prevents prior censorship of spoken or printed word, but the supreme court has previously ruled that it does not necessarily prevent prior censorship of broadcasts such as radio or television. In the rights I have outlined, the actions of speaking or writing are included in the right to liberty, and the actions of using a printing press or broadcasting a signal are included in the right to pursue happiness. None of the fundamental rights that I have defined can be suspended or revoked except as consequence for the violation of the equivalent rights of another individual, thus there can be no prior censorship of speech, writing, printing, or broadcasting. However, if an individual uses their speech, writing, printing, or broadcasting for the purpose of violating the rights of another individual, then they may expect consequences up to and including temporary or permanent revocation of those rights. Thus, if a reporter does something like announce a monetary award for the murder of another individual on TV, then that reporter can expect revocation of rights, just as they can presently.
The final part of the first amendment forbids Congress from abridging the rights of people to peacably assemble or petition the government for redress of greivances. In the rights I have defined, these actions are included in the right to pursue happiness. None of the fundamental rights that I have defined can be suspended or revoked except as consequence for the violation of the equivalent rights of another individual, thus there can be no prior restrictions placed by Congress upon individuals to prevent them from gathering or petitioning the government. However, if the manner in which people assemble violates the rights of other individuals, or if they petition for the government to unjustly violate the rights of another individual, then they may be exposed to consequent revocation of their rights. For instance, if one calls for a large, peaceful assembly in someone elses home, but they do not have permission to use said home, then they can expect the consequences for trespassing. Or if an individual peacable offers a government official money for the purpose that that official should violate the rights of another individual, then that individual can expect the consequences for soliciting a crime.
