United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: The GOP Is Dying Off. Literally.
Source:
Politico
URL Source: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st ... 8035.html?hp=t2_r#.VVnQK_lVhHx
Published: May 17, 2015
Author: DANIEL J. MCGRAW
Post Date: 2015-05-18 07:50:21 by Jameson
Keywords: Old Angry, White, Guys
Views: 26938
Comments: 128
It turns out that one of the Grand Old Party’s biggest—and least discussed—challenges going into 2016 is lying in plain sight, written right into the party’s own nickname. The Republican Party voter is old—and getting older, and as the adage goes, there are two certainties in life: Death and taxes. Right now, both are enemies of the GOP and they might want to worry more about the former than the latter. There’s been much written about how millennials are becoming a reliable voting bloc for Democrats, but there’s been much less attention paid to one of the biggest get-out-the-vote challenges for the Republican Party heading into the next presidential election: Hundreds of thousands of their traditional core supporters won’t be able to turn out to vote at all. The party’s core is dying off by the day. Read more: www.politico.com/magazine...118035.html#ixzz3aURTGXqk
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-56) not displayed.
.
.
.
#57. To: TooConservative (#55)
Almost got sprayed by a skunk one night that had gotten into my garage when I was stationed in the U.P. of Michigan. The wife said she thought she had heard an animal in the garage and so I went to investigate, figured it was one of the neighbors cats. So went out and raised the garage door and looked around with the flashlight. At first I didn't see anything until I looked right at my feet and there he was, so I just stood still until he finally decided to leave. The neighbor down the street had dogs and he would let them go running skunks at night. When you don't have A/C and have to leave the windows open you tend to get very pissed off when stuff like that happens. You would go out in the morning and even the interior of the car still stunk from the night before.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Don't know if you have armadillos where you live. They can do some real damage. Pic below is not mine but once had the same problem with armadillos when living in southern OK some time back. Interesting that I have not seen armadillos in our residential area since living in Central Texas this go around (not even dead on the side of the highway). But out in the Fort Hood training area they are all over the place. Remember as a 2LT at night running over one with my track. Went back with night vision googles to make sure I did not run over someone's leg.
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
Good grief. I can imagine the stink from those mutts. I'd think his wife would raise total hell over having such stinky hounds on the property.
Nope. They're just an armored possum so my first thought would be to kill 'em before they breed.
Rodents deserve lead poisoning... injected 165 grains at a time.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
I don't ever remember seeing one other than when we would go quail hunting, would have to watch so you wouldn't step into a hole. I remember one morning I was headed to Lake Ivie and it was still fairly dark out. Was cruising along about 65 or so when I seen this dark spot in the road, then it grew a big pair of eyeballs. Didn't have time to hit the brakes so just kept going, it was big enough that it make a heck of a racket hitting all 3 axels as I went over it. On the way home that night slowed down to see what I had hit but didn't see anything other than a blood spot on the road. Whatever it was managed to crawl away or something else found it and carried it off.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
He used to keep them outside year round so doubt if he really cared, he was kinda odd if you know what I mean. Truthfully I don't think I ever seen his wife even though he only lived 4 houses down on the other side of the street. He eventually got kicked out of base housing because of his dogs, everybody was raising hell about them to the Housing Office and SP.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Then you make exceptions for some people and not others. You are anti science. By your own words you must think that baby killing is a sport protected by the government.
Baby killing must be a sport for you. Because there is no one sending any cases to any juries. So what fantasy are you talking about here?
I can't believe you agree with this guy.
He probably just couldn't figure out why. LOL Some guys just don't get it.
Is that your best argument to defend hating capitalism? I point out your hypocrisy. You live off the socialism you hate. And by the way, that is not socialism where we have publically funded projects. But for stupid Americans it is close enough. Even during WW2 the economy was not socialist because ownership remained in private hands.
Funding military, LE and highway by taxes isn't socialistic at all... and just because I support that doesn't mean your love for socialism doesn't ring true.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Ding...ding....ding....We have a winner!!!!
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Yeah I hit an armadillo too or should I say one hit my car. Late night at work two weeks from going on OIF 1, driving home to rural OK. No one on the country road but me when I hear (and feel) a thud hit my rear tire. I then see something curl up like a rollie pollie and roll to the side of the road, pop back up and moves on. Stop the car and the hub spokes snapped in two pieces. The critter survived that:)
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
You sound like a filthy commie
Animals are tough, a lot tougher than us. I once hit a buzzard with the truck it left a blood streak and feathers all up the hood and windshield. Last thing I seen was it flying away and disappear into a stand of trees about a mile away. I would have to assume it died (maybe) but that was a hard hit and to watch it fly that far is amazing. In England you had to watch for pheasants, they would fly parallel to the road behind the hedges outlining the fields. When they would find an opening in the hedges they would dart across the road into the next field, sometimes right into your windshield. Here that's no big deal because we have safety glass over there at that time they didn't. Don't know how many cars I see with the windshield busted out and a dead pheasant inside the car. I was lucky I hit 3 or 4 but only at glancing blows or I managed to brake somewhat and lessen the impact so never lost a windshield. One of the funniest/scariest moments in a car was also in England. Me the wife and oldest daughter were going to RAF Feltwell to the furniture store to shop for a new bedroom suit. Just as we got to the top of this one hill a British Tornado fighter/bomber flew right over the roof of the car about 30' up and about 350-400 knots or so. (I actually felt the car start to come off the ground)!! Well needless to say I locked up the brakes, the wife ended up in the back seat screaming "What the hell was that" and the daughter was still asleep in her car seat. LOL.... I looked out the window just in time to see him disappear into the trees in the valley behind me, and I'd bet he was laughing his ass off. Those Brits were daring when it came to flying but you have to remember over there the overcast gets so low you have to fly at 100' or less to see anything and they practice flying that low all the time. On the other hand the deck for our pilots was 500', at least over land.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
Those Brits were daring when it came to flying but you have to remember over there the overcast gets so low you have to fly at 100' or less to see anything and they practice flying that low all the time. On the other hand the deck for our pilots was 500', at least over land. LOL great story.
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
Armadillo: possum on the half shell.
Like the commie Founders? To the Founders, law enforcement was a state matter but provision is made in the Constitution for provision of a common defense and authority for interstate bridge/road construction. In practice, that was mostly (literally) interstate, where bridges crossed a state border along a river on a major trade/postal road.
Am I to rely on you to keep the peace, defend our borders... or fix my roads? If so, you're doing a shitty job. You've made no arrests, 30 million illegals are here AND... I still see potholes in the road. You are fired.
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
You all know full well that for the Republican base - anything the govt does with tax dollars is communist and socialist.
Unless authorized explicitly by the Constitution. Then we have to tone down the Red-baiting catcalls. It's kind of annoying.
LOL. WTF do you think Penny Pritzker [Secretary of Commerce] was representing when her Chicago Family owned Superior bank went kapudt from its innovations in subprime ACORN farming? "There's only one Party in DC - the fundraiser" -- I don't remember who said that but it's right on target.
It would probably require a revolt to obtain one. In theory, upon the application of ¾ths of the state legislatures, the Federal Congress shall call a Convention. In practice, what could the States do if the Federal Congress slow walks the issue into the next millenium?
As phrased, the amendment might accomplish nothing. Abortion as interpreted by Roe depends on competing interests of the State and the individual at various stages of development, and whether the fetus is viable. For the purpose you appear to desire, an amendment may be preferred holding that a fetus, from conception, is a person under the 14th Amendment. (If the Union Pacific RR Corp can do it, why not a fetus?) You might want to change the citizenship clause to confer citizenship at conception. This raises a few other issues:
Yes, the rape victim must carry the baby. She cannot murder the child. No, she cannot be compelled to provide child support out of the gate. She has the right to give up the child to the state for orphanage or adoption, if she does so at once. However, if she keeps the child, she loses this right. Long-term optionality does not remain. The mother must bear the child, but she either keeps the newborn or hands it over for adoption. In this way, the child is affected least. Of course the abolition of abortion means that there will have to be a larger and more effective social safety net, because without abortion there would be 1.5 million more kids in the country every year, and probably 1,3 million of them would be poor.
You might want to change the citizenship clause to confer citizenship at conception. Can the mother, impregnated and forced to give birth against her will, be held responsible for the child or to pay child support? ---- nolu chan No, she cannot be compelled to provide child support out of the gate. She has the right to give up the child to the state for orphanage or adoption, if she does so at once. However, if she keeps the child, she loses this right. Long-term optionality does not remain. The mother must bear the child, but she either keeps the newborn or hands it over for adoption. In this way, the child is affected least. Of course the abolition of abortion means that there will have to be a larger and more effective social safety net, because without abortion there would be 1.5 million more kids in the country every year, and probably 1,3 million of them would be poor. Vicomte13 A better question is: --- Can the impregnated woman be forced to give birth against her will, under the present constitution? -- And would an amendment giving that power to government be valid?
Nobody can be forced to do anything against their will other than die. Most people prefer to obey laws rather than be imprisoned or shot. So yes, most women can be forced to not murder the baby in their womb, because they fear the punishment if they do more than they want to get rid of the baby. Those who care more about killing the baby will do so, and then should be prosecuted as killers. If they want to avoid that, they can flee the country to somewhere without extradition and not come back.
Would that work as a defense against a rape charge?
As currently interpreted under Roe, even a voluntarily impregnated woman cannot be forced to continue the pregnancy against her will. The court found a constitutional right to an abortion emanating from an uncertain penumbra. I do not see why not. There is no such thing as a legal challenge to the validity of a constitutional provision. SCOTUS could not rule a part of the Constitution invalid. Once the Secretary of State certifies an amendment as having been ratified, the amendment and the process by which it was ratified is beyond judicial review. An amendment saying booze was unconstitutional was valid. Enough people chose to ignore that amendment that it was not enforceable. An anti-abortion amendment would not end abortion. Neither Democrats nor Republicans will touch upon proposing a constitutional amendment. Do nothing, feel good legislation is fair game.
No, she cannot be compelled to provide child support out of the gate. She has the right to give up the child to the state for orphanage or adoption, if she does so at once. However, if she keeps the child, she loses this right. Long-term optionality does not remain. The mother must bear the child, but she either keeps the newborn or hands it over for adoption. In this way, the child is affected least. I believe this is truly the only possible moral position consistent with the religious belief that all life is sacred and life begins at conception. The real elephant in the room is the health and welfare of the mother exception. Who gets to decide what is necessary for said health and welfare? Even in a case where continuing the pregnancy would result in the death of both mother and child, or endanger the life of the mother, someone must make the determination if an exception to the abortion ban is to be permitted. Is it her doctor, or does she need a permission slip from a government doctor or committee? It might spawn a burgeoning business in selling permission slips. Giving it to government control would require a nation-wide network of government physicians. All decisions, including appeals, would need to be resolved quickly. This exception is a great moral dilemma that seems particularly ill-suited to any legal solution. When a law is adopted against the will of a significant portion of the people, many will choose to disregard the law. It can generate general disregard for the law and the government that made the law, whether the law be excessive taxation, 55 MPH maximum speed, alcohol prohibition, marijuana prohibition, or abortion prohibition.
A better question is: --- Can the impregnated woman be forced to give birth against her will, under the present constitution? -- No, the court opined that a woman has the same rights against involuntary servitude as a man. Call it a penumba if you must. And would an amendment giving that power to government be valid? Not true. The prohibition amendment was so challenged, and the SCOTUS refused to make an opinion on the issue. It remains unresolved.. No, the issue was unresolved. True. We agree, again.
No law is respected. We have murders, rapes, robberies, thefts, drug trafficking, tax evasion, perjury, etc. No law is respected, and no law has ever been respected, if by respected we mean that everybody follows it. People always break the law when it is convenient to do so. We all do. This does not mean that law is useless, for it sets the standards and it allows for the punishment, often quite brutal, of those brazen enough to break it in the open, or stupid or unfortunate enough to get themselves caught. One of the strong reasons for having a Fourth Amendment type right of privacy with real teeth is that what people do on private property behind closed doors is practically impossible to track without intrusion. Police forces are always seeking ways to tear down every barrier to surveillance precisely because crime flourishes in private. But that is an important point of privacy: to act as a place where people can do as they please, crime, immorality, or otherwise, because it's private and nobody's business. The laws are enforceable in PUBLIC, but in private the inability to surveil EFFECTIVELY makes many of them unenforceable. And that's the way it ought to be. Finding ways to penetrate the veil of secrecy in private lives in order to "enforce the law" is a disastrous error that ought to be snuffed out. Confucius observed that one must not make the water too pure or the trees growing alongside the stream will cease to grow, and so it is likewise with the morals of the common people. He understood that if you get too obsessed with purifying individual morals, you'll kill society. You'll kill it because people are not moral, they don't actually follow the law and the moral codes, and society would collapse if they did. Society actually NEEDS the grease of immoral, illegal activity, the black market in some things, in order to provide both the grease for the wheels, at the margins of legal business, and to allow the people to blow off steam so they don't explode. Consider what happened when the Puritans won the English Civil War. They chopped off the King's head, they drove the surviving leaders of the Cavalier opposition over to the wilds of Virginia. They invaded Ireland and slaughtered a lot of Catholics in their righteous ire. They shut down all the playhouses, most of the brothels and taverns, stopped dancing and singing, and imposed the moral police everywhere. This was the English Commonwealth, the experiment of a Republic of sorts under Cromwell. And it was SO ODIOUS to the English people that as soon as Cromwell died, the Puritans were out, all of those activities were reopened, and the dead king's son was put on the Throne, the monarchy restored for good measure. And HE was permitted to root out the leaders who had executed his father and hang or behead them. Nobody stood up for the victorious Puritan leaders as they were arrested and executed. In other words, thanks to imposing moral purity, the Puritans actually LOST the English Civil War a decade after it ended, and ended up getting executed or driven off to America - even though they had won the battles - because the people had had enough of them and brought the King back.
No, the court opined that a woman has the same rights against involuntary servitude as a man. Call it a penumba if you must. No, the court did not opine about involuntary servitude. It opined about a constitutional right to privacy. It is a right that emanates from a penumbra of the 9th or 14th Amendment. The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); id., at 460 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring). 410 U.S. 113, 153 This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The right is somewhere in the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, either in the 9th Amendment or the 14th Amendment, and wherever it is, it "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." I must use the word penumbra as SCOTUS explicitly used that word in locating the constitutional right of privacy. Not true. The prohibition amendment was so challenged, and the SCOTUS refused to make an opinion on the issue. It remains unresolved.. You're wrong. SCOTUS lacks jurisidiction to issue such an opinion. It has similarly refused to review the process by which the 14th Amendment was ratified. It is non-justiciable. It is a political question given by the constitution to the Legislative Branch to decide. You do not identify a court decision. In 1920, SCOTUS emphatically held of the 18th Amendment, "That Amendment, by lawful proposal and ratification, has become a part of the Constitution, and must be respected and given effect the same as other provisions of that instrument." https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/253/350/case.html National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350 (1920) National Prohibition Cases No. 29, 30, Original, and No. 696, 762, 788, 794, 837 Argued March 8, 9, 10, 29, 30, 1920 Decided June 7, 1920 253 U.S. 350 ORIGINAL, AND APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY, THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY, THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN, AND THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Syllabus The adoption by both houses of Congress, each by a two-thirds vote, of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution sufficiently shows that the proposal was deemed necessary by all who voted for it. An express declaration that they regarded it as necessary is not essential. P. 253 U. S. 386. The two-thirds vote in each house which is required in proposing an amendment is a vote of two-thirds of the members present -- assuming the presence of a quorum -- and not a vote of two-thirds of the entire membership, present and absent. Id. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Kansas, 248 U. S. 276. The referendum provisions of state constitutions and statutes cannot be applied, consistently with the Constitution of the United States, in the ratification or rejection of amendments to it. Id. Hawke v. Smith, ante, 253 U. S. 221. The prohibition of the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation and exportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, as embodied in the Eighteenth Amendment, is within the power to amend reserved by Article V of the Constitution. Id. That Amendment, by lawful proposal and ratification, has become a part of the Constitution, and must be respected and given effect the same as other provisions of that instrument. Id. [...] See also Coleman v. Miller. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/433/case.html Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) Coleman v. Miller No. 7 Argued October 10, 1938 Reargued April 17, 18, 1939 Decided June 5, 1939 307 U.S. 433 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF KANSAS Syllabus 1. Upon submission of a resolution for ratification of a proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution, known as the Child Labor Amendment, twenty of the forty senators of the State of Kansas voted in favor of its adoption and twenty voted against it. The Lieutenant Governor, the presiding officer of the Senate, then cast his vote in favor of the resolution, and later it was adopted by the other house of the legislature on a vote of a majority of its members. The twenty senators who had voted against ratification, challenging the right of the Lieutenant Governor to cast the deciding vote in the Senate, and alleging that the proposed amendment had lost its vitality because of previous rejection by Kansas and other States and failure of ratification within a reasonable time, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary of the Senate to erase an endorsement on the resolution, to the effect that it had been adopted by the Senate, and to endorse thereon the words "was not passed," and to restrain the officers of the Senate and House of Representatives from signing the resolution and the Secretary of Kansas from authenticating it and delivering it to the Governor. The State entered its appearance, and the State Supreme Court entertained the action, sustained the right of the plaintiffs to maintain it, but overruled their contentions, upheld the ratification, and denied the writ. Held: (1) The questions decided were federal questions, arising under. Article V of the Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 437. (2) The complaining senators, whose votes against ratification have been overridden and virtually held for naught, although, if they are right in their contentions, their votes would have been sufficient to defeat ratification, have a plain, direct and adequate interest in maintaining the effectiveness of their votes. They have set up and claimed a right and privilege under the Constitution of the United States to have their votes given effect, and the state court has denied that right and privilege. P. 307 U. S. 438. (3) This Court has jurisdiction to review the decision of the state court by certiorari, under Jud.Code § 237(b). P. 307 U. S. 438. Page 307 U. S. 434 2. The Court, being equally divided in opinion as to whether the question presents a justiciable controversy, or is a political question, expresses no opinion upon a contention that the Lieutenant Governor of Kansas was not a part of the "legislature," and, under Article V of the Federal Constitution, could not be permitted a deciding vote on the ratification of the proposed amendment. P. 307 U. S. 446. 3. In accordance with the precedent of the Fourteenth Amendment, the efficacy of ratification of a proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution by a state legislature which had previously rejected the proposal is held a question for the political departments, with the ultimate authority in the Congress in the exercise of its control over the promulgation of the adoption of the amendment. P. 307 U. S. 447. 4. The legislature of Kansas having actually ratified the proposed Child Labor Amendment, this Court should not restrain the state officers from certifying the ratification to the Secretary of State because of an earlier rejection, and thus prevent the question from coming before the political departments. There is found no basis in either Constitution or statute for such judicial action. P. 307 U. S. 450. 5. R.S. § 205; 5 U.S.C. 160, presupposes official notice to the Secretary of State when a state legislature has adopted a resolution of ratification. No warrant is seen for judicial interference with the performance of that duty. P. 307 U. S. 450. 6. The Congress, in controlling the promulgation of the adoption of a constitutional amendment, has the final determination of the question whether, by lapse of time, its proposal of the amendment had lost its vitality before being adopted by the requisite number of legislatures. P. 307 U. S. 451. 7. In determining whether a question falls within the category of political nonjusticiable questions, the appropriateness under our system of government of attributing finality to the action of the political departments, and also the lack of satisfactory criteria for a judicial determination, are dominant considerations. P. 307 U. S. 454. 146 Kan. 390; 71 P.2d 518, reversed.
No law is respected, and no law has ever been respected, if by respected we mean that everybody follows it. People always break the law when it is convenient to do so. We all do. I spoke to generating a general disregard for the law. While perfect conformance will never be acquired, general disregard can and has been acquired. The Declaration of Independence and the Ordinances of Secession come to mind. People do not always break or ignore the law when it is convenient to do so, and American conformance spawned an old European joke. Picture approaching a red light at a crossroads with clear vision in all directions and no other vehicles in sight. The American stops and waits for the light to turn green. The Brit stops, looks both ways, and goes. The Frenchman sees no traffic is coming and just continues. Most Americans comply with all nature of laws when it is not convenient to do so. When the law becomes sufficiently oppressive, it can cause massive resistance, either through ignoring the law, civil disobedience by massive public violation of the law, or violent resistence. If the drugs laws were enforced to the fullest extent possible, half the country might be in prison — but there are not enough cops, courts, or prisons. People today do not see pot as a crime any more than people of the prohibition era saw alcohol as a crime. Laws that criminalize the behavior of a majority of the citizenry are self-defeating.
Which is why the tax laws cannot be enforced in Greece or Italy.
The Supreme Court issued its most sweeping decision concerning the Eighteenth Amendment in June 1920. Seven cases, each raising fundamental questions concerning the constitutionality of the amendment, were consolidated by the Court and labeled the National Prohibition Cases. A host of highly regarded attorneys, including Elihu Root, William D. Guthrie, and Levy Mayer, as well as Herbert A. Rice and Thomas F. McCran, attorneys general for Rhode Island and New Jersey respectively, represented the appellants. The oral arguments lasted for five days, an unusually long time for even the most important cases. Attorney General Rice began by arguing that the amendment invaded the sovereignty of Rhode Island and her people, an invasion not contemplated by the amending clause of the Constitution. Rhode Island had not ratified the Eighteenth Amendment. The amending power, Rice contended, was provided to allow for the correction of errors in the fundamental instrument of government. The first ten amendments were adopted to insure against the encroachment by the federal government upon state functions and powers. If the amending power were to be construed as to allow any type of amendment, the boundary between federal and state authority could be shifted at will, and the people of a state would be at the mercy of others in matters of political institutions and personal rights. Attorney General McCran, arguing along the same lines, stressed tha4 the Tenth Amendment reserved all unenumerated powers to the states and to the people. The right to surrender such rights and powers, McCran contended, belonged exclusively to the people themselves and not their legislative representatives." The argument of Elihu Root attracted the most attention. The former Secretary of War, Secretary of State, and senator represented a New Jersey brewer. Drys jested that "Hires Root Beer" had been changed to "Beer Hires Root," but they were clearly worried about the impact this distinguished attorney might have on the Court. Root asserted that the Eighteenth Amendment was simply unconstitutional. The substantive portion of the so-called Eighteenth Amendment, he said, did not relate to the powers or organization of government, as constitutional provisions ordinarily do. Rather, it was a direct act of legislation. He denied that the amending provision of the Constitution, Article V, authorized this type of amendment. Root pointed out that if the validity of the prohibition amendment were to be upheld, its repeal could perpetually be prevented by a minority. Repeal could be accomplished only by the passage of another constitutional amendment which, of course, would require the approval of three-fourths of the states. He distinguished between a constitutional amendment which granted the Congress power to prohibit the use of intoxicating liquors and an amendment which required such a prohibition. An amendment of the former sort would leave the question within the control of a majority of the people, but one of the latter type, such as the current amendment, thwarted the democratic process. Finally, Root contended, the Eighteenth Amendment undermined a fundamental principle of the federal system by directly invading the police powers of the states and encroaching upon the right of local self-government. If the amendment were upheld, he told the Court, the states would no longer be indestructible and the federal system of government could be completely subverted. " Root from the outset opposed the form, spirit, purpose, and effect of the Eighteenth Amendment. He told friends that its denial of personal liberty, its potential for eroding respect for law, and its alteration of the balance between local and national government alarmed him." Most members of the bar, however, did not share Root's belief that the amendment was unconstitutional. Even his colleague William D. Guthrie thought his argument weak." But Root gave a memorable peroration: If your Honors shall find a way to declare this so-called Amendment to the Federal Constitution valid, then the Government of the United States as it has been known to us and to our forefathers will have ceased to exist. Your Honors will have discovered a new legislative authority hitherto unknown to the Constitution and quite untrammelled by any of its limitations. You will have declared that two thirds of a quorum of each House of the Congress, plus a majority of a quorum of each of the two Houses of the Legislatures of three fourths of the States, may enact any legislation they please without any reference to the limitations of the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights itself. In that case, Your Honors, John Marshall need never have sat upon that bench." Neither Root's reasoning nor his emotional oratory moved the Court. On June 7, 1920, it rejected every argument of the appellants in the National Prohibition Cases. Unanimously upholding the constitutionality of the Eighteenth Amendment, the justices also approved the method by which the state legislatures had ratified it. They held that the prohibition embodied in the amendment was within the power to amend reserved by Article V of the Constitution, and that therefore the amendment must be respected and observed. Commenting upon the role of the states under the amendment, the Court declared that the phrase 'concurrent power to enforce" did not include the power to defeat or frustrate prohibition. Concurrent power did not mean joint power or divided power, nor did it require that congressional legislation to enforce the amendment be approved by the states. The power to prohibit granted to Congress was not exclusive; it could be exercised by the states as well, but the law did embrace the entire territory of the United States and could not be avoided by any state. " The National Prohibition Cases decision, therefore, resoundingly endorsed the new and untried law. The announcement of the Supreme Court decisions of June 1920 completed the process of embedding national prohibition in the law of the United States. Drys, as they won victory after victory in the Congress, in the state legislatures, and in the Supreme Court, easily brushed all opposition aside with compelling arguments about the benefits to be obtained from the reform. The prohibitionist success seemed total and permanent. Elihu Root had pointed out to the Supreme Court that once the amendment was emplanted in the Constitution, removing it would probably be impossible. No amendment to the Constitution, once adopted, had ever been repealed. Both supporters and critics of the law recognized this. To its advocates, the reform brought joy. Their arguments appeared to have the support of legislatures, courts, and the masses. To opponents of prohibition, the loss seemed irrevocable. Their objections had been ignored; their influence appeared nonexistent. National prohibition took effect at midnight, January 16, 1920, one year after ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment. America entered the new age quietly, accepting the law as a great step forward or as a fait accompli and in either case believing that its reversal was quite out of the question. The following morning the New York Times reported, "John Barleycorn Died Peacefully At The Toll of 12. " Had Mr. Barleycorn been in a position to reply, he might have chosen Mark Twain's famous response, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated."
Not true. The prohibition amendment was so challenged, and the SCOTUS refused to make an opinion on the issue. It remains unresolved.. That's your opinion. Just above I posted Roots opinion, -- and the court refused to issue an opinion on the constitutional issues HE raised. -- They remain unresolved..
There is no Root opinion. Courts issue opinions. “No. 788. Argued March 29 and 30, 1920: Messrs. Elihu Root and William D. Guthrie, both of New York City, for appellant.” Root presented an argument for the Appellant in one of seven cases. It was a LOSING argument. With a resounding slam dunk, SCOTUS posterized the constitutional argument. The Court REJECTED every argument of appellants. You posted that at #94. I quoted from the actual opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, captioned National Prohibition Cases, or State of Rhode Island v. Palmer, 253 U.S. 350 (1920). The issues were resolved. The constitutional argument was held contrary to the Constitution. The 18th Amendment was held to be in force throughout the United States. The Volstead Act was upheld. No injunction was granted. Here is the opinion of the court: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/253/350.html State of Rhode Island v. Palmer, 253 U.S. 350 (1920), National Prohibition Cases 253 U.S. 350 STATE OF RHODE ISLAND v. PALMER, Atty. Gen., et al. STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. SAME. DEMPSEY v. BOYNTON, U. S. Atty., et al. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES & WAREHOUSE CO. v. GREGORY, U. S. Atty., et al. CHRISTIAN FEIGENSPAN v. BODINE, U. S. Atty., et al. SAWYER, U. S. Atty., et al. v. MANITOWOC PRODUCTS CO. ST. LOUIS BREWING ASS’N v. MOORE, Collector, et al. No. 29, Original. No. 30, Original. No. 696. No. 752. No. 788. No. 794. No. 837. Decided June 7, 1920. [253 U.S. 350, 353] [No. 29. Argued March 8 and 9, 1920: Mr. Herbert A. Rice, of Providence, R. I., for complainant. Mr. Solicitor General King and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, for respondents. No. 30. Argued March 29, 1920: Mr. Thomas F. McCran, of Paterson, N. J., for complainant. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, for respondents. No. 696. Argued March 9, 1920: Mr. Patrick Henry Kelley, of Boston, Mass., for appellant. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, for appellees. No. 752. Argued March 9 and 10, 1920: Messrs. Levy Mayer, of Chicago, Ill., and William Marshall Bullitt, of Louisville, Ky., for appellant. Mr. Solicitor General King and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, for appellees. No. 788. Argued March 29 and 30, 1920: Messrs. Elihu Root and William D. Guthrie, both of New York City, for appellant. Mr. Solicitor General King and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, for appellees. No. 794. Argued March 30, 1920: Mr. Solicitor General King and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, for appellants. Mr. Ralph W. Jackman, of Madison, Wis., for appellee. No. 837. Submitted March 29, 1920: Messrs. Charles A. Houts, John T. Fitzsimmons, and Edward C. Crow, all of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant. Mr. Solicitor General King and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Frierson, for appellees. [253 U.S. 350, 384] Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER announced the conclusions of the Court. Power to amend the Constitution was reserved by article 5, which reads: ‘The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures [253 U.S. 350, 385] of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.’ The text of the Eighteenth Amendment, proposed by Congress in 1917 and proclaimed as ratified in 1919 (40 Stat. 1050, 1941), is as follows: ‘Sec. 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’ We here are concerned with seven cases involving the validity of that amendment and of certain general features of the National Prohibition Law, known as the Volstead Act, c. 85, Acts 66th Cong., 1st Sess. (41 Stat. 305 ), which was adopted to enforce the amendment. The relief sought in each case is an injunction against the execution of that act. Two of the cases — Nos. 29 and 30, original, —were brought in this court, and the others in District Courts. Nos. 696, 752, 788, and 837 are here on appeals from decrees refusing injunctions, and No. 794 from a decree granting an injunction. The cases have been elaborately argued at the bar and in [253 U.S. 350, 386] printed briefs; and the arguments have been attentively considered, with the result that we reach and announce the following conclusions on the questions involved: 1. The adoption by both houses of Congress, each by a two-thirds vote, of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution sufficiently shows that the proposal was deemed necessary by all who voted for it. An express declaration that they regarded it as necessary is not essential. None of the resolutions whereby prior amendments were proposed contained such a declaration. 2. The two-thirds vote in each house which is required in proposing an amendment is a vote of two-thirds of the members present-assuming the presence of a quorum-and not a vote of two-thirds of the entire membership, present and absent. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Kansas, 248 U.S. 276 , 39 Sup. Ct. 93, 2 A. L. R. 1589 3. The referendum provisions of state Constitutions and statutes cannot be applied, consistently with the Constitution of the United States, in the ratification or rejection of amendments to it. Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 , 40 Sup. Ct. 495, 64 L. Ed. --, decided June 1, 1920. 4. The prohibition of the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation and exportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, as embodied in the Eighteenth Amendment, is within the power to amend reserved by article 5 of the Constitution. 5. That amendment, by lawful proposal and ratification, has become a part of the Constitution, and must be respected and given effect the same as other provisions of that instrument. 6. The first section of the amendment — the one embodying the prohibition — is operative throughout the entire territorial limits of the United States, binds all legislative bodies, courts, public officers and individuals within those limits, and of its own force invalidates every [253 U.S. 350, 387] legislative act, whether by Congress, by a state Legislature, or by a territorial assembly, which authorizes or sanctions what the section prohibits. 7. The second section of the amendment — the one declaring ‘The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation’ — does not enable Congress or the several states to defeat or thwart the prohibition, but only to enforce it by appropriate means. 8. The words ‘concurrent power,’ in that section, do not mean joint power, or require that legislation thereunder by Congress, to be effective, shall be approved or sanctioned by the several states or any of them; nor do they mean that the power to enforce is divided between Congress and the several states along the lines which separate or distinguish foreign and interstate commerce from intrastate affairs. 9. The power confided to Congress by that section, while not exclusive, is territorially coextensive with the prohibition of the first section, embraces manufacture and other intrastate transactions as well as importation, exportation and interstate traffic, and is in no wise dependent on or affected by action or inaction on the part of the several states or any of them. 10. That power may be exerted against the disposal for beverage purposes of liquors manufactured before the amendment became effective just as it may be against subsequent manufacture for those purposes. In either case it is a constitutional mandate or prohibition that is being enforced. 11. While recognizing that there are limits beyond which Congress cannot go in treating beverages as within its power of enforcement, we think those limits are not transcended by the provision of the Volstead Act (title 2, 1), wherein liquors containing as much as one-half of 1 percent. of alcohol by volume and fit for use for beverage [253 U.S. 350, 388] purposes are treated as within that power. Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U.S. 264 , 40 Sup. Ct. 141, 64 L. Ed. --. Giving effect to these conclusions, we dispose of the cases as follows: In Nos. 29 and 30, original, the bills are dismissed. In No. 794, the decree is reversed. In Nos. 696, 752, 788 and 837, the decrees are affirmed. See also, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/282/716 282 U.S. 716 (51 S.Ct. 220, 75 L.Ed. 640) UNITED STATES v. SPRAGUE et al. No. 606. Argued: Jan. 21, 1931. Decided: Feb. 24, 1931. [...] The United States asserts that article 5 is clear in statement and in meaning, contains no ambiguity, and calls for no resort to rules of construction. A mere reading demonstrates that this is true. It provides two methods for proposing amendments. Congress may propose them by a vote of two-thirds of both houses; or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States, must call a convention to propose them. Amendments proposed in either way become a part of the Constitution, ‘when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress. * * *’ The choice, therefore, of the mode of ratification, lies in the sole discretion of Congress. [...] This Court has repeatedly and consistently declared that the choice of mode rests solely in the discretion of Congress. Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331, 348, 15 L. Ed. 401; Hawke v. Smith (No. 1), 253 U. S. 221, 40 S. Ct. 495, 64 L. Ed. 871, 10 A. L. R. 1504; Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U. S. 368, 41 S. Ct. 510, 65 L. Ed. 994; National Prohibition Cases, 253 U. S. 350, 40 S. Ct. 486, 488, 64 L. Ed. 946. Appellees urge that what was said on the subject in the first three cases cited is dictum. And they argue that although in the last mentioned it was said the ‘Amendment, by lawful proposal and ratification, has become a part of the Constitution,’ the proposition they now present was not before the Court. While the language used in the earlier cases was not in the strict sense necessary to a decision, it is evident that article 5 was carefully examined and that the Court’s statements with respect to the power of Congress in proposing the mode of ratification were not idly or lightly made. In the National Prohibition Cases, as shown by the briefs, the contentions now argued were made-the only difference between the presentation there and here being one of form rather than of substance. [...] The United States relies upon the fact that every amendment has been adopted by the method pursued in respect of the Eighteenth. Appellees reply that all these save the Eighteenth dealt solely with governmental means and machinery rather than with the rights of the individual citizen. But we think that several amendments touch rights of the citizens, notably the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth and Nineteenth, and in view of this, weight is to be given to the fact that these were adopted by the method now attacked. The Pocket Veto Case, supra. For these reasons we reiterate what was said in the National Prohibition Cases, supra, that the ‘Amendment, by lawful proposal and ratification, has become a part of the Constitution.’ The order of the court below is reversed.
Nice post. I would say that poverty is a less bad condition than a condition of being rich. Rich have to work much harder on their salvation, key part of that work is helping the poor and distributing their wealth.
Comments (98 - 128) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#58. To: TooConservative, CZ82 (#55)
I really hate possums. Even more, porcupines and skunks and badgers and coons. I'll put up with a few rabbits and squirrels.
#59. To: CZ82 (#57)
The neighbor down the street had dogs and he would let them go running skunks at night.
#60. To: redleghunter (#58)
Don't know if you have armadillos where you live.
#61. To: TooConservative (#60)
Nope. They're just an armored possum so my first thought would be to kill 'em before they breed.
#62. To: redleghunter (#58)
Interesting that I have not seen armadillos in our residential area since living in Central Texas this go around (not even dead on the side of the highway).
#63. To: TooConservative (#59)
#64. To: tpaine (#38)
No, I don't think rape should be legal. Those who commit it, burglary or murder, should be tried by a jury.
#65. To: tpaine (#38)
Juries are empowered to decide when murder has been committed. It's the American/constitutional way, and let's leave it that way..
#66. To: tpaine (#38)
#67. To: CZ82 (#63)
He eventually got kicked out of base housing because of his dogs, everybody was raising hell about them to the Housing Office and SP.
#68. To: GrandIsland (#53)
You won't find one non socialist country were the police and military aren't funded by some kind of tax.
#69. To: Pericles (#68)
#70. To: TooConservative (#6)
It's mostly a problem because Republican voters, unlike Democrats, stop voting after they're dead.
#71. To: CZ82 (#62)
#72. To: GrandIsland (#69)
Funding military, LE and highway by taxes isn't socialistic at all... and just because I support that doesn't mean your love for socialism doesn't ring true.
#73. To: redleghunter (#71)
#74. To: CZ82 (#73)
One of the funniest/scariest moments in a car was also in England. Me the wife and oldest daughter were going to RAF Feltwell to the furniture store to shop for a new bedroom suit. Just as we got to the top of this one hill a British Tornado fighter/bomber flew right over the roof of the car about 30' up and about 350-400 knots or so. (I actually felt the car start to come off the ground)!! Well needless to say I locked up the brakes, the wife ended up in the back seat screaming "What the hell was that" and the daughter was still asleep in her car seat. LOL.... I looked out the window just in time to see him disappear into the trees in the valley behind me, and I'd bet he was laughing his ass off.
#75. To: TooConservative (#60)
They're just an armored possum
#76. To: Gatlin, Deckard, Pericles, GrandIsland (#72)
You sound like a filthy commie
#77. To: Pericles (#72)
You sound like a filthy commie
#78. To: TooConservative, Gatlin, Deckard, GrandIsland (#76)
#79. To: Pericles (#78)
You all know full well that for the Republican base - anything the govt does with tax dollars is communist and socialist.
#80. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
The GOP represents crony capitalists.
#81. To: Jameson, Vicomte13 (#12)
[Jameson #12] What are your thoughts on a constitutional convention?
#82. To: Vicomte13, Jameson (#14)
[Vicomte13] A constitutional amendment that stated that life began at conception and (therefore) banned abortion outright would be good.
#83. To: nolu chan (#82)
#84. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#83)
For the purpose you appear to desire, an amendment may be preferred holding that a fetus, from conception, is a person under the 14th Amendment.
#85. To: tpaine (#84)
#86. To: Vicomte13, tpaine (#85)
Nobody can be forced to do anything against their will other than die.
#87. To: tpaine, Vicomte13 (#84)
A better question is: --- Can the impregnated woman be forced to give birth against her will, under the present constitution? --
And would an amendment giving that power to government be valid?
#88. To: Vicomte13 (#83)
Yes, the rape victim must carry the baby. She cannot murder the child.
#89. To: nolu chan (#87)
As currently interpreted under Roe, even a voluntarily impregnated woman cannot be forced to continue the pregnancy against her will. The court found a constitutional right to an abortion emanating from an uncertain penumbra.
Ido not see why not. There is no such thing as a legal challenge to the validity of a constitutional provision. SCOTUS could not rule a part of the Constitution invalid. Once the Secretary of State certifies an amendment as having been ratified, the amendment and the process by which it was ratified is beyond judicial review.
An amendment saying booze was unconstitutional was valid.
Enough people chose to ignore that amendment that it was not enforceable.
An anti-abortion amendment would not end abortion. Neither Democrats nor Republicans will touch upon proposing a constitutional amendment. Do nothing, feel good legislation is fair game.
#90. To: nolu chan (#88)
#91. To: tpaine (#89)
As currently interpreted under Roe, even a voluntarily impregnated woman cannot be forced to continue the pregnancy against her will. The court found a constitutional right to an abortion emanating from an uncertain penumbra.
410 U.S. 113, 129
There is no such thing as a legal challenge to the validity of a constitutional provision. SCOTUS could not rule a part of the Constitution invalid. Once the Secretary of State certifies an amendment as having been ratified, the amendment and the process by which it was ratified is beyond judicial review.
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
#92. To: Vicomte13 (#90)
When a law is adopted against the will of a significant portion of the people, many will choose to disregard the law. It can generate general disregard for the law and the government that made the law....
No law is respected. We have murders, rapes, robberies, thefts, drug trafficking, tax evasion, perjury, etc.
#93. To: nolu chan (#92)
Laws that criminalize the behavior of a majority of the citizenry are self-defeating.
#94. To: nolu chan (#92)
(Edited)
#95. To: nolu chan (#91)
There is no such thing as a legal challenge to the validity of a constitutional provision. SCOTUS could not rule a part of the Constitution invalid. Once the Secretary of State certifies an amendment as having been ratified, the amendment and the process by which it was ratified is beyond judicial review.
You're wrong. SCOTUS lacks jurisidiction to issue such an opinion. It has similarly refused to review the process by which the 14th Amendment was ratified. It is non-justiciable. It is a political question given by the constitution to the Legislative Branch to decide.
#96. To: tpaine (#95)
[tpaine #95] The prohibition amendment was so challenged, and the SCOTUS refused to make an opinion on the issue. It remains unresolved..
[tpaine #95] That’s your opinion. Just above I posted Roots opinion -- and the court refused to issue an opinion on the constitutional issues HE raised. -- They remain unresolved..
[tpaine #94] Neither Root’s reasoning nor his emotional oratory moved the Court. On June 7, 1920, it rejected every argument of the appellants in the National Prohibition Cases. Unanimously upholding the constitutionality of the Eighteenth Amendment, the justices also approved the method by which the state legislatures had ratified it. They held that the prohibition embodied in the amendment was within the power to amend reserved by Article V of the Constitution, and that therefore the amendment must be respected and observed.
‘Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931)
#97. To: Vicomte13 (#13)
According to Catholics, poverty is an indication of societal evil
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]