Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of any individual to engage in any activity which does not harm another.
UPDATE: There seems to be some confusion over this, so let me add some points here. “Harm” is a generally understood term; we don’t need to quibble over its definition. Also, this would not allow any additional laws, it would just nullify existing laws against consensual activities that do not harm others, e.g. recreational drug use or prostitution in the privacy of one’s own home.
This kind of liberalization has been the trend of the last 50 years or so; sodomy and anti-homosexuality laws used to be common, but are now rare and even less rarely enforced. I am proposing this trend toward freedom be extended and codified as the law of the land.
{ 17 comments }
Define "harm".
TexasAg03′s last blog post..Obama Is Anti-Gun
Which will soon turn into a government aid program to support anyone who wants to do anything, as long as it does not "harm anyone." And also allow the government to regulate anything where someone (else) can be harmed by your actions.
TA3,
Injury; hurt; damage; detriment; misfortune; That which causes injury, damage, or loss; To cause injury to another; to hurt; to cause damage to something
P Mike,
This is explicitly a negative right — "Congress shall make no law."
“And also allow the government to regulate anything where someone (else) can be harmed by your actions.”
That is already the case today. That is, in fact, government’s only legitimate purpose.
Ah, but there are so many who are ‘harmed’ (well, at least offended) by so little, that this amendment would be a nullity. There is always someone there to cry ‘harm’, thus anything and everything can be regulated.
This amendment would empower the state beyond the current, already deplorable situation.
John_B’s last blog post..Blogs and the Saudi Woman
agreed, TexasAg. also, let’s define "abridging"
certainly, gay marriage would seem to qualify as covered under the 28th. My marriage certainly isn’t harmed by the existence of it, so I dont see any harm.
And when I am "harmed" by my property value going down because you haven’t mowed your lawn?
If you think your local home owner’s association is bad, wait until Congress get’s it’s grubby little paws on it.
My personal 28th amendment preference would be "All legislation shall cite the provision of the Constitution granting congress the power to enact it".
Well Aziz, this is because you (like myself) are not on the margin on marriage.
There are those people who will adamantly want to marry and there are those people who adamantly refuse to get married.
By way of analogy, you could raise the price of a bottle of Coke 5 cents and I (and many others) will buy the exact same amount of it as before. I also doubt many people will say "That last nickel is why I stopped buying as many Cokes". However, with a 5 cent increase, sales of Coke *will* go down. That’s just simple economics. There *are* people on the margin and while they can’t necessarily point to the exact cause of the change in behavior, it, nevertheless, still happens.
There are also those on the margin on Marriage. It’s those who aren’t sure whether they should get married or just live together that are affected, not the die-hards either way.  Just as no one will point to "That nickle" being the deciding factor for buying a Coke, I doubt any one would say that Gay Marriage was *the straw* that broke the camel’s back for them.
Consequently, it does seem legitimate that those who support traditional marriage to not want to add yet another straw to an already heavy load of "disposable marriage".
While I like the sentiment, "harm" is to nondescript to be workable due to socialization effects.
jodyneel’s last blog post..Update from the Other Side
Harm has a specific and generally-accepted legal meaning.
And when I am "harmed" by my property value going down because you haven’t mowed your lawn?
Most municipalities already have laws covering this. You can generally be fined for that. Also, this doesn’t grant Congress any additional powers; rather, it limits Congress’ existing powers.
Ah, hell – nevermind.
I’m just not sure that type of an amendment would be a good thing.
TexasAg03′s last blog post..Another Good Summary
Except that by implication it will be taken that if Congress shall make no law unless harm is done they can then make any law where harm is done.
And while I disagree with laws on property value protection, the local municipality is the right place for it. I hesitate giving the federal gov’t the power to make those decisions.
By implying those laws can be made at the federal level, you expand rather than contract federal power.
I believe the better option is the one I stated earlier as my proposed 28th amendment. Require all legislation to cite the power granted within the Constitution that authorizes it.
certainly, gay marriage would seem to qualify as covered under the 28th. My marriage certainly isn’t harmed by the existence of it, so I dont see any harm.
I also don’t see where my marriage would be harmed either, but I think there are other reasons that "gay marriage" is a bad idea.
There is the case, in New Mexico, of Elane Photography being sued because she turned down a job shooting a same-sex commitment ceremony. The New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled against the owners of Elane Photography and ordered them to pay $6,600 in fees. That kind of thing is what I fear.
Where does it end?
TexasAg03′s last blog post..Another Good Summary
Actually civil lawsuits almost always end up in the favor of the plaintiff. You can sue anyone for little to no reason. In fact you can sue for no reason at all. Giving people more freedom to engage in activities that others have right now will not affect lawsuits in anyway. Our system already allows frivolous lawsuits. Adding more freedom or equality does not change this.
Also, this is concerning congress, the states still have the power to do as they please.
jrogge: while it certainly feels that way, can you provide a cite that shows that plaintiffs ‘almost always win’ civil suits? I’m not at all sure that’s the case. I’d be interested, too, in how many victories are overturned on appeal.
I definitely agree that there’s far too much and too easy litigation, but I question whether the majority of verdicts are that slanted. If they are, then I’ve found a new source of income.
John_B’s last blog post..Blogs and the Saudi Woman
Your proposed amendment sounds good to me. It’d save the Supreme Court a lot of trouble looking for penumbras and emanations.
It seems to me that this would negate, among other things, and immigration legislation.Â
Dave Justus’s last blog post..Election Day
Dave —
"Congress shall make no law" — please show me the Consitutional reference to the right of privacy. Not judicial reference, Constitutional reference. Then tell me again how your language clarifies the situation.
Once upon a time if there was some right that needed to be addressed but wasn’t in the Consitution, we amended the Consitution. Now we get a convoluted judicial ruling interpreting the "right" to be in the Constitution.
Regarding the idea tht the govs only legit purpose is to "regulate anything where someone (else) can be harmed by your actions," suppose for a minute that there is a practice that introduces and promotes significant health risks into society and either (1) directly impacts the cost of health care in such a way as to affect me and mine, or (2) actually (or statistically) ends up killing a lot of (fairly innocent) people? Does the government have the responsiblity to regulate such practice? (There is certainly more than one example which will offend libertarian sensibilities, so don’t read anything overly specific into the question).
Comments on this entry are closed.