What it is wrong to do.

I’ve previously prepared a set of rights which restricts what Congress should not be permitted to do.

These restrictions, of course, extend thusly to any individual that would be known as good.

1. A good individual shall not violate the right to life of a second individual, except as consequence of a violation or attempted or credibly threatened violation of the right to life by that second individual of the good or any other individual.

2. A good individual shall not violate the right to liberty of a second individual, except as consequence of a violation or attempted or credibly threatened violation of the rights to life or liberty by that second individual of the good or any other individual.

3. A good individual shall not violate the right to pursuit of happiness of a second individual, except as consequence of a violation or attempted or credibly threatened violation of the rights to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of the good or any other individual.

In depth descriptions of these rights can be found in preious posts, and of course, in order to qualify as good, an individual must be capable of establishing facts objectively. If an individual steals from you in a dream or vision, you are evil if you act as if that is a violation of your rights by that individual. Similarly, if you accept the claims of othersin the abscence of confirming evidence in regards to violations of rights, then attempting to remain within these guidelines can still leave you acting evil.

Arguments for my Replacement Bill of Rights: The Rights Part 7

The 7th, 8th, and 9th amendments to the US constitution which are to be replaced by my proposal are as follows:

Article [VII]
In 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 re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article [VIII]
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article [IX]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The seventh amendment extends the right to trial by jury to civil cases, and makes the results of civil cases immutable except in accordance with a law.  What are currently civil cases, under my proposal, can only reasonably occur when a violation of rights has occured.  Therefore, civil cases will be handled as criminal cases under my proposal.  These cases will typically involve witting or unwitting violations of individuals’ rights to pursuit of happiness including damage to property, negligence, fraud.  Under my proposal, the punishment for such violations can only be a temporary or permanent revocation or suspension of the criminal’s right to the pursuit of happiness.  This revocation or suspension will often take the form of a fine and/or additional behavioral restrictions not otherwise applicable to other individuals and/or some form of labor in lieu of a fine.  As I have previously stated in parts 5 and 6 of these arguments, trial by jury is the most reasonable way known to insure objectivity in criminal trials and therefore perserve the rights of the individuals involved.  Therefore, under my proposal, the right to trial by jury for what are currently considered civil trials would be gauranteed by reason at least until such time as reason dictates it must be better otherwise.

The eighth amendment, under my proposal, is managed by the mandate to Congress to determine the consequences of violations of rights and to enumerate them in law.  Since Congress must outline specific consequences and write them into law, they will be known by the people, and the people can communicate to their representatives before and after the passing of such law that the consequences contained therein are believed to be unwarranted and cruel.  If the Congress should attempt to make a law outlining consequences to be determined later by say a judge, or in a manner which must naturally permit unreasonable punishments, then that law can be constitutionally challenged on the grounds that it did not meet the requirements of the mandate.

The ninth amendment under my proposal, is gauranteed under the right to the pursuit of happiness.  Because the right to pursue happiness is the right to determine one’s own values and pursue them, it is also the right for one to determine additional rights.

Arguments for my Replacement Bill of Rights: The Rights Part 6

The sixth amendment to be replaced by my proposal is as follows:

In 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 defence.

All of the rights of the sixth amendment are readily derivable from the rights guaranteed in my proposal, except the right to a jury from the district in which the crime was committed and the right to compel witnesses.  The accused must have a swift and speedy trial because to wait too long before a trial or to make a trial last an unnecesarily long amount of time is a violation of the accused’ right to liberty on whim (whereas imprisonment after a conviction is acceptable because the convict’s right to liberty would have been suspended or revoked as a consequence of a violation by the accused of the rights of another).

The jury which decides the case must be impartial because to try the accused with a partial jury would be equivalent to deciding the result of the trial as the jury is selected rather than by the jury’s reason after the objective processes of presenting evidence and arguments for and against the guilt of the accused.  This would make the result of the trial, and thus the violation of the accused rights a whim of whomever selects the jury.  Thus, in order for the accused rights to be preserved until such time as they may be rightfully revoked, the jury must be impartial.

As for the jury being from the district in which the crime was committed, this requirement has been otherwise rendered unnecessary by my proposal.  It is necessary under the original system, because it was the states and districts which decided what the criminal laws were, such that it was possible for an act to be a crime in one district and not in another, which meant that the jury would have to be from the district in which the act is known to be crime so that they can be capable of comprehending the issues of the trial.  Under my proposal, however, criminal law is determined by the federal governement and is therefore constant across all states and districts.  An act which is a crime in Alabama is a crime in New York, and Alabamans can understand that as well as New Yorkers.  Thus, under my proposal, if it is necessary to attain impartiality, then a jury can be selected from outside of the district in which the crime occurred.

The accused must be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations because such information is neccesary in order to establish and effectively argue a defense.  If the prosecutor knew the accusation and had time to plan and strategize arguments for the guilt of the accused, but the accussed was kept in the dark about the nature of the accusations and thus was robbed of the ability to plan and strategize arguments for innocence, then the trial would be biased for the prosecution because the defense would be unprepared.  Thus to deny the accused knowledge of the cause and accusations would be to attempt to violate the rights of the accused based upon whim.

The accused must be confronted with the witnesses against them, because there is no other means by which the accused can prepare any form of defense from the testimony of the witness.  If the accussed were merely informed by transcript that a witness had provided testimony to the jury, then the accussed would be denied knowledge of how the testimony was presented in terms of tones and inflections which can provide crucial information regarding the intended meaning of words, and the accused would be denied the ability to question the witness.  Thus to deny the accused the right to be confronted by witnesses, is to attempt to violate the rights of the accused based upon whim.

Under my proposal there is no right for the accused to be able to compel witnesses to appear in their defense, because such would be a violation of the rights of those witnesses.  However this is balanced because the prosecution also cannot compel witnesses to appear, because such would be a violation of the rights of the witnesses.

The accused must have the right to counsel in the preparation and execution of a defence because it is unreasonable to assume that all citizens that should otherwise be engaged in their pursuits of happiness should all decide to memorize all of the laws, rules, an regulations of a trial process as well as mastering the art of persuasive argument all in preparation for someday possibly being accused of a crime.  Since knowledge of the rules and regulations and persuasive skill contribute to an effective defense, to deny the accused the right to counsel is to attempt to violate the rights of the accused based upon whim.

 

Current laws rendered unconstitutional by my proposal: Oregon Statute 480.330

The text of Oregon Statute 480.330 is as follows:

480.330 Operation of gasoline dispensing device by public prohibited; aviation fuel exception. An owner, operator or employee of a filling station, service station, garage or other dispensary where Class 1 flammable liquids, except aviation fuels, are dispensed at retail may not permit any person other than the owner, operator or employee to use or manipulate any pump, hose, pipe or other device for dispensing the liquids into the fuel tank of a motor vehicle or other retail container. [Amended by 2001 c.285 §1]

This law forces the owners of fueling stations to hire and train employees or use their own time to monitor and operate all of their fuel pumps.  Since the wages of these extra employees or the time commitment are an unnecessary expense in that the customers can easily pump their own fuel, this law is a violation of the fuel station owner’s rights to their pursuit of happiness.

The Oregon legislature that passed the bill claimed that they had found that untrained self-service at fueling stations creates risk of spills, fires, and exposure to the toxic fumes of fuel.  However, these claims have been and are being objectively refuted every day by hundreds of thousands of motorists in the 48 states that permit self-service as those motorists safely pump their own gas without incident or health concern.  Thus, allowing customers to pump their own gas at fuel stations is not a violation of the right to life of any individual, and by allowing self-service the owners of fuel stations’ rights to their pursuit of happiness is not superceding the rights to life of other individuals, and thus the violation of the owner’s rights by prohibiting self-service is not constitutional under my proposal because of the 14th rights and privileges clause of the 14th amendment.

The Oregon legislature also claimed that allowing self-service forces the elderly or disabled to pay higher costs for full service, whereas if everyone has to pay for full service, then the costs for full service are spread to all customers.  This claim states that the right to pursuit of happiness of the elderly and the disabled supercedes the right to the pursuit of happiness of all of the able people that want cheaper self-service.  Thus, this claim by the Oregon legislature only serves to further demonstrate the unconstitutionality of the law under my proposal.

So in this case we have a law that might seem reasonable, prohibiting the handling of a dangerously flammable fluid by untrained people, but we find that the objective evidence for the safety of the unregulated act in question refutes the existence of a real danger, at least when certain safety standards in the design of the pumping systems are adhered to by their manufacturers and the eventual owners.  Regulations to protect against potential dangers should be carefully considered and frequently reconsidered so as not interfere with advancements in technologies and practices which can reduce the dangers comparably or better than the restrictions enforced by the regulation.  Thus, a regulation should not say:  Owners of fuel station shall not permit customers to pump their own fuel.  But should rather say something like:  Any one who pumps fuel at a fueling station must do so in a way which does not create a hazard to the lives of other individuals or in any other way violates their right to liberty or their pursuit of happiness.  The first can be found to be unconstitutional under my proposal, and the second can not.

Current laws that are rendered unconstitutional by my proposed replacement bill of rights: Portions of Wisconsin Statute Chapter 287

Wisconsin State Statute 287.07 subsection 4 is as follows:

(4) General disposal restrictions. Beginning on January 1, 1995, no person may dispose of in a solid waste disposal facility, convert into fuel, or burn at a solid waste treatment facility in this state any of the following:
(a) An aluminum container.
(b) Corrugated paper or other container board.
(c) Foam polystyrene packaging.
(d) A glass container.
(f) A magazine or other material printed on similar paper.
(g) A newspaper or other material printed on newsprint.
(h) Office paper.
(i) A plastic container.
(j) A steel container.
(k) A container for carbonated or malt beverages that is primarily made of a combination of steel and aluminum.

In this statute, “dispose of in a solid waste disposal facility” is to mix these items in with regular trash for collection by a municipal or private waste management concern.  Thus it is illegal to throw an aluminum can into a garbage can and then set that garbage out next to the street for pick up, and it is illegal to throw an aluminum can into a managed dumpster.

Under my proposed bill of rights, wanting to throw an aluminum can into the trash would fall under one’s right to the pursuit of happiness.  In accordance with my bill of rights, an individuals right to the pursuit of happiness shall not be superceded by any other individual’s right to the pursuit of happiness, but can be superceded by another individual’s right to life or right to liberty.  This matters because of the 14th amendment, which states that no state can make any law which abridges the rights and priveleges granted by the federal constitution.  Thus, in order for Wisconsin statute 287.07 to be constitutional, the ban on throwing aluminum cans into the trash would have to somehow protect against some unwitting violation (or superceding) of an individual’s right to life, right to liberty, or right to the pursuit of happiness.

However, there is no logical way in which the singular act of throwing an aluminum can into the trash could result in an unwitting violation of another individual’s right to life, right to liberty, or right to pursuit of happiness.  I suspect that some would argue that by not recycling, one is costing the State or municipality extra money, which must inevitably be passed on to the taxpayers as new taxes which results in a violation of many individuals’ rights to the pursuit of happiness if one individual decides to throw away a large number of aluminum cans.  However, that argument does not stand up to scrutiny because it assumes that it is necessary for the State or any municipality to provide waste managment, and that it must pay for the service of waste managment with taxes rather than actual service charges.  If the State or municpality were to charge individuals for the actual waste managment services that it provides, then there could be no violation of the rights of others when throwing an aluminum can into the trash, the can thrower would simply be charged more for not recycling, or more accurately, the can thrower would save less by not recycling.

The ban on burning of some of these items, specifically polystyrene and plastics would be constitutional under my proposal, because the burning of such items can produce toxic fumes which could unwittingly violate the right to life of other individuals.

Arguments for my Replacement Bil of Rights: The Rights Part 5

The fifth amendment to be replaced by my proposed bill of rights is:

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 land or 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 offence 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.

This amendments contains several specific protections which are readily derivable from my proposal.  In my proposal, Congress is forbidden from making any law which permits or compels an individual to violate the right to liberty of any other individual except as a consequence of that other individual violating or threatening to violate the rights to life or rights to liberty of any other individual.  This ban applies to all aspects of the judicial process, and means at least the following for the legal process:

  1. Police and other such officials cannot be permitted by law to arrest an individual without reasonable evidence that a violation or rights has occurred, because to do otherwise would be to violate that individuals rights on whim.
  2. The courts and/or law enforcement cannot hold individuals indefinitely during or before a trial without objectively proving to a sampling of reasonable individuals (a grand jury) in a timely fashion that a crime has occurred, and that sufficient evidence exists to put the suspect on trial for said crime, because to do otherwise would be to violate that individual’s rights on whim.
  3. The courts cannot repeatedly try an individual for the same crime over and over again, thereby effectively imprisoning the individual and therefore violating that individual’s rights on whim.
  4. The courts cannot punish in any way, an individual for refusing to provide the testimony that the Court desires because to do so would be to violate that individual’s rights on a whim.  Note that this does not mean that a court cannot punish an individual for lying in testimony, because the action of giving false testimony is a violation of the rights of the individuals which make up the jury and the court.
  5. The courts, law enforcement, and other individuals cannot violate an individual’s rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness except by a process in accordance with these rules and others with exist but I have not listed or except when there is a reasonbly credible and persistent threat to the rights of the individuals making up the courts, law enforcement, or other individuals.  To put it more plainly, the due process of the law shall be gauranteed in all situations except those in which an individual is actively engaged in a violation or credible threat of violation of the rights of another and therefore must be stopped and only to the extent reasonably required to gaurantee that stoppage.
  6. The courts shall not seize private property for public use without providing full and just compensation because to do otherwise would be pure theft and thus a violation of an individual’s right to the pursuit of happiness.
  7. And many, many more such rules that are derivable from what is already known from the practice of law in the United States and from the three simple limitations of Congressional power made in my proposal.  New and/or improved rules or versions of these rules may well exist, and my proposal allows for those to be forced to be discovered by permitting any aspect of the legal process which seems to be violating individual rights on whim to be challenged on grounds of constitutionality, thus forcing its reconsideration.

Thus, my proposal reasonably gaurantees all of the same protections provided by the original amendment, but since my amendment makes no exclusions for individuals in the military, the rights of a non-soldier are extended to all soldiers within reason within my proposal.  Furthermore, the due process clause of the fifth amendment would be improved by my proposal.  Currently, the due process clause only requires that a law exist in order to deny an individual their rights, which means that an unjust law can be made to take away individual rights.  Under my proposal, no individual can be denied their rights except as a consequence of their own violation of the rights of others.

Finally, removing the due process clause by replacing the fifth with my proposal does not entirely remove the requirement for due process from the constitution, because the due process clause is repeated in the 14th amendment which is unmodified by my proposal.

Arguments For My Replacement Bill of Rights: The Rights Part 4

The fourth amendment to be replaced by my proposal is as follows:

The 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.

This amendment rightfully and laudably gaurantees a certain amount of objectivity in the legal process.  If there was no prohibition of unreasonable searches, then any officer of the government could subject an individual to weekly, daily, or even hourly searches until such individual capitulates to whatever that criminal official wants.  Under my proposal, unreasonable searches and seizures are violations of individuals’ rights to the pursuit of happiness and/or right to liberty because they deny the individual their right to the use of their property or potentially to the use of their body for the duration of the search.  Since, under my proposal, such violations of rights are forbidden except as consequence of an individual’s violation or credible threat of violation of another individual’s rights it is necessary to first prove the violation or credible threat before the search can take place.  Other reasonable and objective methods than warrants issued based upon probable cause, supported by oath, with specific descriptions of items to be searched which do not violate the rights I have proposed may very well exist, but since the US has had a long history of applying that methodology and has therefore in theory honed its application, it is most reasonable to continue that practice unchanged, even though my proposal doesn’t specifically require it.  Whatever the exact process for searches and seizures that Congress would legislate under my proposal would end up being, it would have to conform to the requirements that it does not result in compelling or permitting any individual to violate the rights of another individual, except as consequence of a violation of rights by that second individual, and it will face constitutionality challenges if it does not.

Arguments for my Replacement Bill of Rights: The Rights Part 3

The Third Amendment of the Bill of Rights is:

No 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.

This amendment prevents the federal government from forcing people to house soldiers without the passing of a law which specifically permits it.   Being able to deny soldiers or any other person the use of one’s own property falls under the right to pursue happiness.  As such, with my proposal the federal government will be forbidden from quartering soldiers in the home of an unwilling individual except theoretically as a consequence of some violation of someone else’s rights by the home owner.  This provides the same protections or greater protections than the third amendment.  The third amendment allows the federal government to quarter soldiers in people’s homes if the representatives in congress pass a law which permits it.  Under my proposal, if the congress passes any law permitting or compelling soldiers to quarter in the homes of unwilling individuals, then the constitutionality of that law can be challenged to determine if it is a result of a credible threat to the rights of life of others for one individual to deny a soldier quarter.  In other words, the law can be challenged to test if the situation is really dire enough such that the mere action of denying a soldier quarter directly results in the credible threat of harm or death to others.  The law could not survive the constitutionality test except in the worst situations such as an invasion by a foreign force that uses the strategy of total war (the complete destruction of enemy infrastructure and civilians).

Arguments for my replacement Bill of Rights: The Rights Part 2

The second amendment, more controversial today with the increasing potential deadliness of weapons and certain tactics, was intended to prevent the goverrnment from stripping its citizens of weapons and then establishing against their will a dictatorship or oligarchy of one form or another.  In effect, the amendment has been interpreted to mean that use and in some cases possession of weapons can be regulated but not banned.  Under the rights I have defined the rightful possession or use of weapons would fall under the right to pursue happiness or in some cases of self defense, the use of a weapon would fall under the rights to life and liberty.

Let us consider the possession of a simple rifle.  The rifle itself is comprised of a mechanism to strike a primer and a rifled tube which constrains the expanding gases such that they must accelerate the projectile, and also sets the projectile spinning such that its angular momentum will prevent tumbling in transit and thus improve accuracy.  This mechanism and tube, if only kept in a person’s possession within their home creates no violation nor threat of violation to the rights of anyone, and as such, cannot be outlawed.  Ammunition for the rifle, on the other hand, contains a potentially hazardous quantity of high energy explosives.  As long as such are manufactured properly, and stored properly, and not loaded into a weapon, then keeping ammunition in a person’s possession within their home creates no violation or threat of violation to the rights of anyone.  As such, keeping of ammunition cannot be outlawed, but certain regulations regarding the safe and reliable manufacture, transport, and storage of ammunition to prevent unwitting violations of the rights of others (in case of a fire, for instance) may be imposed.  I could go through and list all of the possible usages and means of carrying or transporting guns and explain which constitute a direct violation of the rights of others and which should be regulated due to having the potential to trigger unwitting violations of the rights of others, but you will find that my reasoning on such matters tracks closely with that of existing gun laws and regulations where such are reasonable.

Now let us consider the possession of a less standard weapon:  a multi-megaton thermonuclear warhead.  Setting aside any consideration of how such a device was obtained, there are many potential issues with the mere possession of such a device which must reasonably require regulation in order to prevent the unwitting violation of the rights of a potentially large number of people in the surrounding area.  For instance, it is reasonable to make it a crime to be in possession of a nuclear warhead if the possessor has not been trained, tested, and fully certified in the maintenance, storage, transport, and safe operation of the device, because any possessor that could otherwise decide to perform some exploratory tinkering or unsafely transport the device could unwittingly violate the rights of a large number of people in the surrounding area.  Furthermore, since an assemble-able and detonateable nuclear warhead, poses a credible threat to the lives of any proximal individuals that are aware of it, it is reasonable to make it a crime to be in possession of an assembled and detonatable or a combination of parts that could be assembled and made into a detonatable nuclear warhead except where such is done with the full and documented consent of any and all proximal individuals, and where once such consent has been obtained, signage has been erected all around the area to warn off individuals that do not wish to consent to the presence of such a device.  Or alternatively, in large population centers, it could be reasonably presumed in law that such consent would never be obtainable, and as such possession of nuclear warhead could be presumed to be a violation of the right to life of others.

In summation , with my proposal gun and in a greater sense “arms” rights will be gauranteed by reason and therefore within reason.

 

 

Arguments for my replacement Bill of Rights: The Rights, Part 1

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.