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

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. 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: 79507 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 # 89. #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   #11. To: tpaine (#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? I didn't say "only " I provided an example where an amendment was reversed by an amendment . But to answer this new question ......possibly. Let's look at the amendments that the "progressives" don't like . Clearly they don't like the 2nd . They have proven to me beyond a shadow of doubt that they don't like the 1st amendment free exercise clause ( Wisconsin's junior Senator Tammy Baldwin said on MSNBC that the free exercise of religion extends only to religious institutions ,and not to individuals outside the church).They clearly would put restrictions of the free speech provisions (ie the movement to amend the constitution to reverse the 'Citizens United' decision ). http://freespeechforpeople.org/the-amendment/democracy-for-all-amendment/#sj- res-5-114th-congress They are trying to control the internet to limit free speech .Before that they wanted to censor talk radio . They had a 'fairness doctrine ' that required the airing of opposing views at one time. They want to outlaw so called 'hate speech'. Now if they managed to amend the Constitution to strip provisions that the founders thought were so basic that some of them did not believe it necessary to include them in the Constitution originally, then what would the recourse be ? Perhaps amending the constitution again ,or in the extreme ,"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. " tomder55  posted on  2015-07-09   13:00:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: tomder55, Y'ALL (#11) The 18th amendment outlawed alcohol . The 21st amendment repealed the 18th . Yes it can be done. -- tomder 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? I didn't say "only " I provided an example where an amendment was reversed by an ( amendment . But to answer this new question ......possibly. The constitutionality of the 18th was challenged in 1920. The SCOTUS declined to issue an opinion on that specific issue, and left it at that, whereupon damn near everyone ignored the 'amendment, until it was repealed. Let's look at the amendments that the "progressives" don't like . --- Clearly they don't like the 2nd . They have proven to me beyond a shadow of doubt that they don't like the 1st amendment free exercise clause ( Wisconsin's junior Senator Tammy Baldwin said on MSNBC that the free exercise of religion extends only to religious institutions ,and not to individuals outside the church).They clearly would put restrictions of the free speech provisions (ie the movement to amend the constitution to reverse the 'Citizens United' decision ). freespeechforpeople.org/t...cy-for-all-amendment/#sj- res- 5-114th-congress ----- They are trying to control the internet to limit free speech .Before that they wanted to censor talk radio . They had a 'fairness doctrine ' that required the airing of opposing views at one time. They want to outlaw so called 'hate speech'. Now if they managed to amend the Constitution to strip provisions that the founders thought were so basic that some of them did not believe it necessary to include them in the Constitution originally, then what would the recourse be ? Perhaps amending the constitution again ,or in the extreme ,"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." What can I say? The question remains unanswered. -- Why would anyone want to give away, (to a super majority, as per the constitution) the power to repeal ANY of our bill of rights? -- ---- Do we, - our do we not, - have unalienable rights that cannot be infringed? tpaine  posted on  2015-07-09   17:25:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #75. To: tpaine, tomder55 (#53) The constitutionality of the 18th was challenged in 1920. The SCOTUS declined to issue an opinion on that specific issue, and left it at that, whereupon damn near everyone ignored the 'amendment, until it was repealed. This claim is false, as previously explained thoroughly on the other thread. The question was not before the court to determine the constitutionality of the 18th Amendment. An amendment cannot be unconstitutional. Counsel did not argue the the amendment was unconstitutional, he argued that, due to its content, it was ordinary legislation and not an amendment at all. And, as ordinary legislation, the court had the authority to strike it down, according to this creative argument. Trust tpaine to bloviate endlessly about crap he has not seen or read. On brief: In this respect a constitutional amendment granting to the government power to prohibit intoxicants would be quite different from an attempted amendment itself directly declaring the prohibition of intoxicants. The former would merely add to the powers of government and would, therefore, in this regard at least, be a proper form of constitutional amendment; while the latter in its essence neither would add nor withdraw powers of government, but would be direct legislation. The Eighteenth Amendment is, therefore, in substance and effect a statute, not a constitutional provision akin to any in the federal Constitution. The briefs were ridiculed in W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, Vl XXX, No. 4, February 1921, p. 322. This is the Yale Law Journal, not tpaine's court of the imagination. The briefs presented against the validity of the Eighteenth Amendment are addressed more to what the opposing interests thought ought to be, than to any issues which may properly be termed legal in character. When read, these briefs in many cases seem to be arguments of counsel who were employed to find arguments, and must, therefore, do so, even though they knew the arguments to be untenable. The most effective statements presented to the Court were those submitted in behalf of a number of states as amici curiae, in the cases of Kentucky Distilleries and Warehouse Co. v. Gregory and Rhode Island v. Palmer. These briefs bear the name of Mr. Charles E. Hughes. The argument was characterized in W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, V1 XXX, No. 4, February 1921, p. 333. This argument might be termed somewhat ridiculous, had it not appeared under the distinguished name of Mr. Elihu Root. [...] Mr. Hughes’ brief in the Kentucky Distilleries Case presents the situation even more vigorously: “And what is ‘legislation’ which is thus said to lie outside the scope of the amending power according to the theory presented? Is it that the amendment must not be self-executing? But the obvious answer is that the Thirteenth Amendment is self-executing and it has been so adjudged by this court.... “Is it that the amendment must not directly affect the rights of persons without the intervention of legislation? The Thirteenth Amendment did that, for it made free men out of slaves. “Is it that the amendment must not directly disturb without further legislation vested rights of property? But the Thirteenth Amendment destroyed property in slaves. “The attempt is made to explain in some way that the Thirteenth Amendment, which did all these things, was not legislation. It is impossible then to understand in what sense the term “legislation” is used. For that which establishes a rule of law which, being self-executing, determines without further legislation the rights and status of persons and rights of property manifestly has the direct operation and effect of legislation.” The 18th Amendment was an amendment, not common legislation. In 264 Federal Reporter 186, on the Feigenspan case, the headnotes read, 1. Eighteenth Amendment, with respect to its subject-matter, held within the power to amend given by article 5, and valid. 2. Every grant of power to the federal government, whether by the Constitution as orlglnally framed or by subsequent amendment, necessariy diminished powers of the several st.ates, and that an amendment takes away a pollce power previously In the state dpes not render It invalid. 3. That a constitutional amendment is in effect legislation controlling the conduct of private individuals, in that it ordains a final permanent law prohibiting certain acts, not alterable at the will of a majority, does not render it invalid. 4. The provision of Const. art. 5, authorizing Congress to propose amendments "whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary," does not require that a joint resolution proposing an amendment shall expressly declare that it is deemed necessary. 5. Congress alone, of all departments of the federal government, is intrusted with the power of proposing amendments to the Constitution, and the form of resolutions by which it proposes an amendment is not subject to judicial investigation. 6. In Const. art. 5, providing that a proposed amendment shall be valid "when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states," when that mode shall be proposed by Congress, the word "Legislature" means the then recognized representative law-making bodies of the states, and the validity of an amendment ratified by the requisite number of such Legislatures cannot be affected by state laws providing for, or permitting, a referendum vote on legislative acts. 7. Eighteenth Amendment, § 2, providing that "the Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislatlon," must be construed, in harmony with its purpose, to expressly authorize effective legislation for enforcement of section 1, which excludes a construction making concurrence of the states necessary to tbe effectiveness of congressional legislation, and such legislation, if enacted, is parramount, and, while it may be supplemented by state legislation, it cannot be defeated by any action or nonaction of the states. In the absence of action by Congress, any state may enact enforcement legislation effective within its borders. 8. National Prohibition Act Oct. 28, 1919, § 1, in providing that "intoxicating liquor" as used in the act, shall be construed to include all liquors, liquids, or compounds containing one-half of 1 per centum or more of alcohol by volume, does not make a definition which may be declared arbitrary and unconstitutional by the courts, but one which it was within the reasonable discretion of Congress to make for the purposes of the act. 9. National Prohibition Act Oct 28, 1919, held not invalid, as taking private property for public use without just compensution, in violation of Fifth Amendment, because, as incidental to the exercise of a lawful power, loss may result to certain species of property. 10. "Amendment" includes additions to, as well as corrections of, matters already treated, and there is nothing in the context of Const. art. 5, providing that Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments, which suggests that it was used in a restricted sense. The Decree in Feigenspan was affirmed by SCOTUS. 253 US 350, 40 Sup Ct 486. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-09   21:35:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #89. To: nolu chan (#75) The constitutionality of the 18th was challenged in 1920. The SCOTUS declined to issue an opinion on that specific issue, and left it at that, whereupon damn near everyone ignored the 'amendment, until it was repealed. This claim is false, as previously explained thoroughly on the other thread. Anyone can read the other thread, and see that you did not prove your claim. The question was not before the court to determine the constitutionality of the 18th Amendment. Root made that argument, among others. Your lengthy posts only cite the others, and the opinions about those other arguments.. An amendment cannot be unconstitutional. So you've been claiming, (without any constitutional basis) - for several days now. -- It's your opinion. Counsel did not argue the the amendment was unconstitutional, he argued that, due to its content, it was ordinary legislation and not an amendment at all. And, as ordinary legislation, the court had the authority to strike it down, according to this creative argument. Trust tpaine to bloviate endlessly about crap he has not seen or read. As I've noted before, you seem to want to end this discussion (because you realise you can't what - 'win'?) with a flame war. --- No sale.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-09   22:05:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 89. #97. To: tpaine (#89) The constitutionality of the 18th was challenged in 1920. The SCOTUS declined to issue an opinion on that specific issue, and left it at that, whereupon damn near everyone ignored the 'amendment, until it was repealed. Try reading the court opinions. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/253/350/case.html National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350 (1920) [385] Conclusions of the Court tares 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: "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. "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. 83,41 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 [386] Conclusions of the Court 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. 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, ante, 221. 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 V 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 [387] Conclusions of the Court legislative act—whether by Congress, by a state legisla­ture, or by a territorial assembly—which authorises 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 w$ll 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 recognising 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 II, § 1), wherein liquors containing as much as one-half of one per cent, of alcohol by volume and fit for use for beverage [388] purpose are treated as within that power. Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U. S. 264. 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, 762, 788 and 837 the decrees are affirmed. Feigenspan was case #788 as cited by SCOTUS in affirming the decree thereof. Feigenspan is found at 264 Federal Reporter 186 (1920), below is the first headnote of the holding. 1. Eighteenth Amendment, with respect to its subject-matter, held within the power to amend given by article 5, and valid. Feigenspan v Bodine, 264 Federal Reporter 188 (1920) nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-09 22:51:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 89. 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