[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel "Trade should work for America, not rule it" "The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP" "How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap" ‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’ Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible" "Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!" "If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think" "Ending EPA Overreach" Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED! Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing! Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy? Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia) "Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department" Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent "Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail" Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly "Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them" ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson! "The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent" 7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza? What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225 EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start? "Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work" test "Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working" "Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly" "Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home" "The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity" "How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy" Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes "Greg Gutfeld Cooks Jessica Tarlov and Liberal Media in Brilliant Take on Trump's First Day" "They Gave Trump the Center, and He Took It" French doors America THEN and NOW in 65 FASCINATING Photos "CNN pundit Scott Jennings goes absolutely nuclear on Biden’s ‘farce’ of a farewell speech — and he’s not alone" Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: nolu chan contends an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amdt could be passed Source: LF URL Source: [None] Published: Jul 9, 2015 Author: tpaine Post Date: 2015-07-09 10:39:45 by tpaine Keywords: None Views: 83242 Comments: 255 The Congress proposes, and three-fourths of the states ratify the following amendment AMENDMENT 28. Section 1. The second article of amendment is hereby repealed. Section 2. The individual right to keep and bear, buy, make, and use arms is limited to .22 caliber handguns only. Section 3. All non-conforming guns must be surrendered to government authorities or destroyed within 30 days of ratification of this amendment. Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Poster Comment: During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Comments? Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 103. #3. To: tpaine (#0) During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Comments? Nolu Chan is legally correct. Through the amendment process the Constitution can be amended to say anything, except removing equal representation in the Senate. THAT requires unanimity of the states. The Constitution could be amended to require the sacrifice of first-born children. And if the sufficient majorities were found to vote for that, it would be "constitutional". Of course, then treason, and seeking the overthrow and destruction of the Constitution, and supporting foreign invasion and annihilation of the American government, would be the only morally correct thing to do. The Constitution does not guarantee MORAL content. The people have to do that. If the people become depraved and enact depraved laws, then "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed". America was always depraved. First there was slavery, then there was Indian genocide and segregation. Those things ended, but now we have abortion and the glorification of buggery. Most people think that those evils - slavery, segregation, abortion, gay marriage - are "sufferable evils" and don't rebel. And that would be the case with the Second Amendment abolition also, were it to pass. (Truth is, it could not pass in the current environment). Mandatory sacrifice of firstborn children would be bad enough to justify treason, and would swiftly result in its outbreak. Traitors who win are called "Founding Fathers" of the new order they usher in. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-09   10:49:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: Vicomte13, tomder 55, gatlin (#3) The Constitution could be amended to require the sacrifice of first-born children. And if the sufficient majorities were found to vote for that, it would be "constitutional". Of course, then treason, and seeking the overthrow and destruction of the Constitution, and supporting foreign invasion and annihilation of the American government, would be the only morally correct thing to do. You all contend that our only recourse from a majority passing amendments that take away our basic human rights is violence? - 'Treasonous' violence? - Civil war? tpaine  posted on  2015-07-09   11:10:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: tpaine, Vicomte13, tomder 55, Y'ALL (#5) You all contend that our only recourse from a majority passing amendments that take away our basic human rights is violence? - 'Treasonous' violence? - Civil war? Let's flip this; What is YOUR solution to reclaiming the constitution and re-establishing the Founders' REAL intent?? Liberator  posted on  2015-07-09   13:01:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: Liberator (#12) During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Comments? Yes, I have a comment (or two.) --- Chan is only the bearer of bad (obvious) news. Don't kill the messenger. No, Chan insists that the SCOTUS has the power to rule such an amendment valid, and that it must be obeyed.. He advocates SCOTUS as having the final say on what the Constitution means... "Unconstitutional" is now in the eye of the beholder of nine justices of SCOTUS. Not so. Every official at every level of gov't is honor bound to protect and defend the Constitution as written, not as interpreted by the SCOTUS. We now have a "living breathing" Constitution. Just five tyrants of SCOTUS have already interpreted the Founders intent any way they want (emotionally), and changed federal law (without Congressional or State consent.) -- What exactly would stop SCOTUS from repealing the 2A? Congress?? "Public outrage? HA! Precedence has been set. SCOTUS opinions can be ignored on constitutional grounds and officials can refuse to implement/fund any attempts at forcement. Paine, I admire your commitment to the Fairy Tale that is the "US Constitution," but recent Presidents have ignored it; Congress has ignored it; And SCOTUS ignores it.... Yep, just as 'we' can ignore scotus.. The concept of 'checks and balances' is built into our Constitution.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-09   16:00:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: tpaine (#40) Did the U.S. Supreme Court just legislate gay marriage for the fifty states? Isn't it the Constitutional limitation for that Court to interpret the laws in accordance with the Constitution, rather than make Federal law? Don  posted on  2015-07-09   16:12:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: Don, tpaine (#44) Did the U.S. Supreme Court just legislate gay marriage for the fifty states? Isn't it the Constitutional limitation for that Court to interpret the laws in accordance with the Constitution, rather than make Federal law? The Court majority found a fundamental right to same-sex marriage somewhere in the due process clause, in a manner similar to how it found a right to abortion. I disagree with their "interpretation" of the Constitution, but it is not legislation. Were it legislation, it could be overturned by Congress with more legislation. A Supreme Court holding on a constitutional issue can only be changed by a constitutional amendment or by the Court itself revisiting the issue in a subsequent case. There can be no appeal of the decided case. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-09   20:45:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #70. To: nolu chan (#63) Don (#44) --- Did the U.S. Supreme Court just legislate gay marriage for the fifty states? Some people have the opinion that the SCOTUS opinion meant that, but I'd bet 'we' don't comply, any more than we complied with prohibition, -- or would comply with an amendment to repeal the 2nd.. Isn't it the Constitutional limitation for that Court to interpret the laws in accordance with the Constitution, rather than make Federal law? Absolutely correct.. -- Only laws (or amendments) made "in pursuance thereof" (as the supremacy clause says) are part of our supreme law, the Constitution.. Nolu Chan -- The Court majority found a fundamental right to same-sex marriage somewhere in the due process clause, in a manner similar to how it found a right to abortion. --- I disagree with their "interpretation" of the Constitution, but it is not legislation. Were it legislation, it could be overturned by Congress with more legislation. We agree... A Supreme Court holding on a constitutional issue can only be changed by a constitutional amendment or by the Court itself revisiting the issue in a subsequent case. There can be no appeal of the decided case. We disagree. -- There is nothing in our constitution itself that supports your opinion. -- Your lengthy postings of opinions by other authorities are just that, --- opinions. They do not prove your case. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-09   21:19:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #73. To: tpaine (#70) Your lengthy postings of opinions by other authorities are just that, --- opinions. They do not prove your case. Your posting your wingnut nonsense certainly does not prove your point. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-09   21:27:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #79. To: nolu chan (#73) Nolu Chan -- The Court majority found a fundamental right to same-sex marriage somewhere in the due process clause, in a manner similar to how it found a right to abortion. --- I disagree with their "interpretation" of the Constitution, but it is not legislation. Were it legislation, it could be overturned by Congress with more legislation. We agree... A Supreme Court holding on a constitutional issue can only be changed by a constitutional amendment or by the Court itself revisiting the issue in a subsequent case. There can be no appeal of the decided case. We disagree. -- There is nothing in our constitution itself that supports your opinion. -- Your lengthy postings of opinions by other authorities are just that, --- opinions. They do not prove your case. Your posting your wingnut nonsense certainly does not prove your point. Your pejorative comments lead me to believe you want to end this discussion in a flame war. -- No thanks... tpaine  posted on  2015-07-09   21:45:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #83. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#79) Supreme Court holding on a constitutional issue can only be changed by a constitutional amendment or by the Court itself revisiting the issue in a subsequent case. There can be no appeal of the decided case. We disagree. -- There is nothing in our constitution itself that supports your opinion. -- Who has ever successfully defied a Supreme Court ruling on a consitutional issue? What is the avenue of appeal other than what nolu has identified? SOSO  posted on  2015-07-09   21:56:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #86. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#83) BTW, what does the Consitution say about the involuntary removal of a Supreme Court judge? SOSO  posted on  2015-07-09   21:59:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #91. To: SOSO, tpaine (#86) BTW, what does the Consitution say about the involuntary removal of a Supreme Court judge? Article 2, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. In 1804, the Senate held an impeachment trial for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. He was not convicted. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-09   22:10:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #93. To: nolu chan (#91) In 1804, the Senate held an impeachment trial for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. He was not convicted. Who presided? SOSO  posted on  2015-07-09   22:19:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #100. To: SOSO (#93) (Edited) Who presided? Aaron Burr. The House impeached in 1804 and the trial was in 1805. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-09   22:57:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #103. To: nolu chan (#100) Who presided? Aaron Burr. I thought impeachment hearings had to be presided over by the Chief Justice. Was that not always the case? Aaron Burr, you say. Wasn't he the man that shot Liberty Valance? SOSO  posted on  2015-07-09   23:09:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 103. #108. To: SOSO (#103) I thought impeachment hearings had to be presided over by the Chief Justice. Was that not always the case? No. Aaron Burr was Vice President at the time, which made him President of the Senate. This was not a presidential impeachment. Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 provides: The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-10 02:05:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 103. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com