Comments for My Illinois Constitution

Comment on ART. I, SECTION 19. NO DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND THE SALE OR RENTAL OF PROPERTY by rockdalian

rockdalian — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:26:29 +0000

I am aware of the slippery slope here.
There was a recent case in New Mexico where a photographer was found guilty, I believe it was in a Human Rights Commission, for not wanting to photograph a gay wedding due to religious convictions.
What recourse is there for legitimate religious beliefs?
I am also reminded of pharmacists that did not want to fill prescriptions for the morning after drug, due to religious convictions.
What about the doctor that refuses to perform abortions?

Comment on ART. I, SECTION 18. EX POST FACTO LAWS AND IMPAIRING CONTRACTS by rockdalian

rockdalian — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:18:33 +0000

Does this prevent the state from deciding, say, a class of weapons should be banned and then banning the prior legal weapons?

This actually occurred in California.

Comment on ART. I, SECTION 3. RIGHT TO ARMS by rockdalian

rockdalian — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 02:05:21 +0000

Is there a way to limit the fee imposed for a FOID card ? The card should be affordable for all and not subject to a back door means of control through excessive costs.

What about other back door methods for control, such as location of gun stores or so called ballistic fingerprinting ?

These are some of the methods being used around the country as de facto bans.

Are these types of questions for this section or or will they be covered in another section?

Comment on ART. I, SECTION 5. FREEDOM OF SPEECH by John Bambenek

John Bambenek — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:25:58 +0000

This is another case where I repeated what was in the old constitution, but my first thought is what about say, publishing “voyeurism”. If porn is speech and truth is a defense, how could you prevent someone from publishing involuntarily taken nude pictures? Maybe consent, but then that’s an addition and makes truth not an absolute defense.

It’s a good thought, will think about it more. I’m thinking particularly the libel suit against a paper from a justice in this state and would specifically want to parse that to see if additional protections are needed.

Comment on ART. I, SECTION 13. SELF-INCRIMINATION AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY by John Bambenek

John Bambenek — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:23:24 +0000

I think the biggest problem with changing to “act” would be those acts that involve the breaking of a number of laws. For instance, say you have an armed robbery that turns into a hostage situation in which the perpetrator kills one of the hostages. If you define it by “act”, you may limit the prosecution to only one charge. You’d have to use razor sharp language to prevent that problem.

As far as federal / state crimes, a state constitution couldn’t prevent the feds from acting, but in theory you could prevent the state from acting after the feds did. In the end, you’d simply have state trials and then federal trials (much like you usually have now). I’m not sure of a good way to fix it.

Comment on ART. I, SECTION 3. RIGHT TO ARMS by John Bambenek

John Bambenek — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:20:38 +0000

This section I took straight from the old constitution, but I do understand the concerns. I guess the million dollar question is what the Supreme Court comes back with on the DC gun control ban that there are deliberating on as we speak. At this point, it would probably be advantageous to wait and see what they do to understand the parameters in which we could operate.

Comment on ART. I, SECTION 13. SELF-INCRIMINATION AND DOUBLE JEOPARDY by Ralf Seiffe

Ralf Seiffe — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:23:41 +0000

As I understand it, the original V Amendment provision was in response to the king’s agents taking any number of attempts to convict. This is a worthy goal we should strengthen.

Now, we allow persons to be put into double jeopardy by redefining crimes and by allowing the feds to indict for the very same act. I do not know how to fix this but why not change the wording from “offense” to “act”.

Also, because justice is best served locally and quickly, any Illinois conviction should be set aside if a federal indictment eventuates for the same act. In this way, the feds would have an interest in seeing the best, most just outcome, rather than simply piling on.

Comment on ART. I, SECTION 5. FREEDOM OF SPEECH by Ralf Seiffe

Ralf Seiffe — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:10:54 +0000

Why shouldn’t truth be an absolute defense? What would be the purpose of the qualifiers “good motives” or “justifiable ends”?

Comment on ART. I, SECTION 3. RIGHT TO ARMS by Ralf Seiffe

Ralf Seiffe — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:07:10 +0000

“Reasonable” is what all gun grabbers use as their mantra. Would a Morton Grove or Wilmette handgun ban be “reasonable”? What does “shall not be infringed” really mean? Does Chicago’s licensing scheme meet the definition?

Why not disqualify persons from possessing guns when they show themselves to be a danger to themselves or society. This is an argument similar to the first Amendment’s prohibition of prior restraint. Persons versus inanimate objects would create a check against the tyrants in Wilmette or Morton Grove by making them declare all their constituents either felonious or crazy to get blanket gun laws. Not likely.

Another complimentary approach would be to reserve the power to make gun laws to the state legislature.