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: 79900
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 The second article of amendment is hereby repealed.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
#1. To: All (#0)
libertysflame.com/cgi- bin...rtNum=40620&Disp=136#C136 Link to our discussion....
Yea, since you asked... You are making more of a ass of yourself than ever seemed possible. But, it is your constitutional right to do so....I think that is in there somewhere, maybe in other words. You should listen to Chan....
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.
The 18th amendment outlawed alcohol . The 21st amendment repealed the 18th . Yes it can be done.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
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?
True to form, you contend that by posting Nolu Chan's unconstitutional dreams, - I've somehow made an ass of myself? You and Chan should look in a mirror..
I can speak for nobody else. The only time I can envision going straight to violence myself is to protect against an immediate threat. If the country were going berserk, I'd emigrate before it got too terribly bad.
Nolu is correct. Every portion of the Constitution can be amended. Or it could be abolished entirely. What a silly clickbait vanity thread.
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. "Unconstitutional" is now in the eye of the beholder of nine justices of 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. 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....In other words: "It's dead, Jim." that SCOTUS
Five. It's the "Rule of Five".
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. " Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Let's flip this; What is YOUR solution to reclaiming the constitution and re-establishing the Founders' REAL intent??
The text of the Seventeenth: When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect that the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. I see nothing requiring unanimity nor do I recall any other such unanimous requirements for amendments.
Yup. Five rogue SC justices, and VOILA! We are ALL held hostage by the whims of FIVE partisan, unqualified political HACKS. NEVER has this much power been handed to so few partisan HACKS. Tack on the unchallenged EOs of a rogue, treasonous President, and a ball-less, negligent Congress, and now we can officially consider the USA a Banana Republic.
Hasn't Roe v Wade pretty much already succeeded in amending what's "constitutional" by sanctioning the "sacrifice" of babies -- without the consent of Congress? And gee -- a "sufficient majority" WAS found in supporting abortion's constitutionality: "The Rule of Five" said so. (or was it Six in this case?) The Constitution does not guarantee MORAL content. The people have to do that. Correct of course. The Constitution now guarantees that ONLY the whims of FIVE rogue justices become the "Law of the Land." Even were 300 million citizens were to object to those FIVE. Houston, we've got a problem. A HUGE one. Even IF the 14A was eliminated.
It's in Article V: "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."
At the root of it all are about three garden variety sins: greed, lust and pride.
Just amend the Article. Given how the Court is just wiping its ass with the Constitution in recent years, how much difference would it make?
I did a "mirror, mirron on the wall....who is the intelligent and handsome? The mirror responded, to no surprise: You are, Gatlin. You should listen to Chan.
Well, I guess they could propose and vote on such an amendment. But I would suspect that anyone & everyone that tried to get it passed, would soon seriously regret their participation!
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Disagree wholeheartedly on the above, Vic. In the relative scheme of things, the America of yore was NOT fundamentally evil OR depraved. Its leadership and citizenry by and large WERE a moral people. Contemporary America's standards teach a moral relativity. TOTALLY unlike the days of yore -- and even as recently as 50 years ago. Immorality and depravity are now glorified and sanctioned by America's leaders and institutions -- as well as an appreciable number citizenry. The morality as in the days of yore and defined by Biblical principles are now declared the new verboten. "Always depraved"? Not by a million miles. America was founded and governed fundamentally and extraordinarily morally and ethically. You can't just cherry-pick the way you have. Its few moral shortcomings were indeed addressed eventually and relatively rapidly -- unlike ANY civilization during the 5,000 prior years of history. American became immoral and depraved since the regime of Bill Klintoon, accelerated at the speed of light under the anti-Christ, 0blabla, and his minions.
Did you want MINE? Or just tpaine's?
Of course. But then that is always man's challenge and burden. However, in certain eras the degree of "greed, lust, and pride" are moderated. Simply compare Reagan's Years to 0blabla's. People take their cues from their leaders. Reagan's humility, optimism, generosity, and righteousness were contagious; So are 0blabla's current narcissism, hate, ill-will and spite.
I originally asked for paine's solution, but yes, I'd also be interested in yours as well. Thanks.
Well, this is where traditional conservatives and I part ways. I dislike the American Founders and do not hold them in any particular esteem. Therefore, I don't care what their intent was. What I care about are the wants and needs of 21st Century Americans in 2015. The structure of government we have underperforms and both under- and over- delivers on many things. To be reasonably free, we need to get society into the sweet spot, which lies above the threshold of enough social infrastructure to provide for the needs of an urbanized society, and below the threshold of overregulation and overcontrol. Going back to the 1700s will not achieve that. We need sewers, and that means eminent domain, taxation, and greater government imposition on private property than the Founders would have accepted. Traditional conservatives are 20% of the electorate. There are not enough of you to win. You need allies. Pragmatic libertarians and pragmatic modern religious moralists - people like me - are the natural allies, and we need allies too. But there have to be terms of agreement. Alliance has to be rooted in the present, without an a priori acceptance of either the Founders' desires, or Christianity or Judaism. A respect for human life and the desire to be as free as is reasonably possible, to not be ruled over and bullied, has to suffice.
None. There aren't enough fingers and toes in China to plug up this dike. This statist/liberal ideological war of attrition has been won. UNLESS conservatives have yet to unleash their ideological version of the 'Samson Option'.
Why bother? Just do as you please and have your judges on the Federal Circuit refuse to hear the case as a political question, and the Supremes refuse to grant cert, then VOILA!, you have the authority to do as you please. Judicial ratification is not required. Mere judicial abdication suffices.
Nicely done... Your allusion to Eden with the use of 'garden variety' with regards to sins, greed, lust and pride. A classical education pays off now and then:) Good analogies. I hope 'our' Samson 'option' is not the same as what Israel (modern) has in mind:) When the executive is feckless and the courts and Congress tolerate (or encourage) a lawless executive, nothing written in law or Constitution provides any real guarantee. The Constitution becomes pointless. Amend it, don't amend it. No difference.
The mirror responded, to no surprise: You are, Gatlin. " Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. And it was right after you had consumed massive amount of hallucinogenics. LOL! Si vis pacem, para bellum
Here was your question: "What is YOUR solution to reclaiming the constitution and re-establishing the Founders' REAL intent??" I've already said that I don't care about their intent. I am not aiming to get to some constitutional answer. What I am aiming at is getting to the RIGHT answer, and then having the Constitution interpreted, or amended, to support that right answer. The logic of the right answer should pervade the system, and be taught through the schools. In other words, the Progressives, Liberals and Communists are not wrong in their APPROACH, of seeking to structure society using control of institutions and education, to achieve a better society. What they are wrong about are the goals themselves. They seek maximalist solutions that govern all aspects of human life, and THAT rapidly becomes an oppressive corset, because it intrudes on everything. I recognize the truth: in modern urban society, unlike in old rural society, there is a fundamental need for universal public education, universal public health care, a universal public system for unemployment, poverty and disability relief, and a universal public pension system. These things are structural necessities. Without them, people will be illiterate, destitute, and literally dying in the street, as they do in parts of India. Without public sewers, there were outbreaks of cholera in all of the major cities of the 19th Century, and there will be again. We need sewers to sustain life, and sustaining life is more important, by far, than abstract philosophical ideas about property rights and the right to not be taxed. Arguing from legalism is not the answer, and that is what any argument from the Constitution, or the Bible, or the Koran, or the Talmud, descends into: legalism. Legalism leads to jail time for a woman who was late in paying a $10 dog licensing fee. And that's dumb. It's upholding the "dignity" of a legal system at the expense of rational common sense, and at the expense of financial prudence. (All you do in such a case is simply levy her bank account and take the money for the license, through a simplified procedure. If she has no bank account, you garnish her wages. Currently, the process of putting a person in jail is actually simpler than taking some of their money to pay a fine, and that is precisely backwards. Physical liberty is more important than the respect for petty rules or petty pocket change. The Saudis would cut off a hand over a stolen dollar. A civilized society takes $4 back for the stolen dollar (restitution plus treble damages), and does it in a simple, automated way that is easy to do, and easy to appeal. We make law hard, because it is in the interest of lawyers and those who control the legal system to do so. We need to chop that away.) Instead, we have to find common principles upon which people in a pluralistic society, Christian and secular, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Shinto and Wiccan, male and female, gay and straight, introverted and extroverted, can agree. I think the alpha thing to sort out is this: When is it acceptable to kill other people or physically harm them? Under what circumstances. This goes to the question of coercion and when force may be offered, by the state. When may force be offered in DEFENSE, and when may defense become so active that it is, in effect, legitimate offense? This forces us to grapple with the question of when life begins, and when we are going to protect it. How much force the state can use to enforce its laws and when the lawbreaking simply has to be tolerated (or the law removed) because the amount of force used would exceed reason. Legalists will say that NO amount of force is too excessive to uphold the concept of the Rule of Law. I disagree. That is where I will begin, because it's the only place that people of all or no religions, races, sexes and sexualities have a necessary common interest. Live and let live does require the let live part, and that's where the foundations should be laid.
I dislike the American Founders and do not hold them in any particular esteem. Therefore, I don't care what their intent was. That saddens me, Vic. I realize mankind disappoints you -- as they do me. Heck -- *I* disappoint *myself.* By as imperfect as man is, or the Founders were, they chose the option of We-The-People over We-Your-Lords. They rejected man's fundamental instinct to be King of the Hill and narcissism, for a humble governance and personal sovereignty superseding that of "Rulers." When in history has THAT ever been the case? How do you not respect that?? Those Founders pledged and sacrificed EVERYTHING. What I care about are the wants and needs of 21st Century Americans in 2015. If ONLY 21st Century narcissism of the ruling elite followed the template of the Founders we wouldn't be in this position of tyranny, pseudo-slavery, and a near-dictatorship. The structure of government we have underperforms and both under- and over- delivers on many things. To be reasonably free, we need to get society into the sweet spot, which lies above the threshold of enough social infrastructure to provide for the needs of an urbanized society, and below the threshold of overregulation and overcontrol. Foisting socialism and the 'Great Plantation Society' aka "urban society" RUINED the black family and made generations of blacks fatherless, penniless, and moral-less. Coerced socialism is NOT an American ideal, so I don't know how you can base such a "solution" or responsibility on any moral mooring. Societies that thrive learn to fish. NOT to be confused with a state-mandated obligation to subsidize the lazy and the irresponsible. The truly needy and lame are a different case, as a measure of Christian charity. The "sweet spot" is a matter of individual motivation and planning -- NOT a bureaucratic "Village" holding gun to the head of the rest of us. Going back to the 1700s will not achieve that [enough social infrastructure.] We need sewers, and that means eminent domain, taxation, and greater government imposition on private property than the Founders would have accepted. Pure conjecture. The Founders were wise, and they placed a huge priority on independence, liberty, and commerce and innovation -- but they were also pragmatists. The society of the Founders already pitched in together and helped build infrastructure for the common good of all -- ports, roads, water/sewerage conduits, achieved in large part by free market capitalists by necessity. IF you d like to point at FDR's "workfare" programs as a matter of state-mandated socialist "success stories," THEY were indeed successful because they took the idle and used them to built roads, bridges, sewers, tunnels, etc, for a population never imagined, BUT were necessary. Why can't we (as a compromise) put all those unemployed to work on THESE days for public infrastructure projects? Is it because "Workfare" = "slavery" in some minds? OR it it because Union-Commies have made "workfare" a political hot potato? Traditional conservatives are 20% of the electorate. There are not enough of you to win. You need allies. Pragmatic libertarians and pragmatic modern religious moralists - people like me - are the natural allies, and we need allies too. But there have to be terms of agreement. Yes, yes....I understand the conservative 20% number....and the necessity to aly with those which we disagree to various degrees. So what shall be THE common thread which binds us? Alliance has to be rooted in the present, without an a priori acceptance of either the Founders' desires, or Christianity or Judaism....A respect for human life and the desire to be as free as is reasonably possible, to not be ruled over and bullied, has to suffice. If not bound by traditional embracement of standards of wisdom, liberty, OR the Founders' insistence on personal nd economic sovereignty, than what common cause then binds ANY Americans as allies? ONLY the private sector
True. Look at how the war declaration clause was ignored, because the American electorate was not as interested in empire and overseas adventure as the ruling classes. So we went to war without formally declaring it. That became a precedent. And we've spent about $3.5 trillion in 2015 dollars, since 1946 - on a series of imperial wars we haven't won. Now it's a habit. Nobody cares about the war declaration clause anymore. That's $3.5 billion in DIRECT expenses. Add in the costs of operation and military retirements from a permanently expanded military maintained to have the option of war-on-demand, and the costs of permanent wounds, disability, welfare for destroyed lives, and those direct expenses probably triple. That's the cost of ignoring the need to declare war: $10 trillion and counting, most of the national debt.
Small societies. In a world of 6 billion, if everybody went fishing, the fish stocks in the rivers and lakes and oceans would be gone in a couple of years, and everybody would starve. In the modern, big, industrialized world with billions of people in it, merely learning to fish is NOT ENOUGH. It will certainly result in the end of fishing if everybody who wants or needs to fish just goes out fishing. We MUST have management of fisheries, that say when people can go fishing, and when they can't, and that intervene and stop people from fishing when the fisheries need to recover. Otherwise there will be no fish. That's not a theoretical. That is what has HAPPENED to key fisheries, and still is happening. And it is true across the board. A world with 6 billion people in it where people live in cities, not on farms, is a fundamentally different place that cannot operate on the same principles as a world where people could, and did, simple walk across a line of settlement to go live in the plains or the forests. There's no frontier anymore, and there are too many people to live every-man-for-himself. It saddens me that folks like you refuse to acknowledge this fundamental reality of an industrialized, heavily populated family. If we all live as though it were 1799, we will have epidemics and famines that will make the Black Death look modest. Philosophically, you are devoted to that past. I cannot follow you there. You're willing to look over the sins of the Founders, because you like them. You won't overlook the sins of, say, the Catholics, of any era, because you don't like them. That's nice for you. But no cooperation can be built on it. In realityville, we must have a heavy government infrastructure. And we will. We can make its footprint lighter upon our backs and foreheads, but we cannot will it away. I am willing to work with traditionalist conservatives to make things better. But going back to 1787 doesn't make anything better. So if that's the price, then there's no ability to deal, and that means that the Progressives, Liberals and Communists rule and run the state THEIR way.
I hope not either. But should this hijacked nation look more like Germany, 1938, and *some* of its citizenry scapegoated as the new "Jew," who knows how some will react.
If not bound by traditional embracement of standards of wisdom, liberty, OR the Founders' insistence on personal nd economic sovereignty, than what common cause then binds ANY Americans as allies? ONLY the private sector No, not "the private sector". Life itself. A respect for life itself. First, foremost, we have to decide how sacred life is, and why that is so, and what are its parameters, when can it be taken, and when not. This provides a template for military affairs, law enforcement, abortion, euthanasia, suicide, etc. For the religious, life is sacred because of a commandment of God. For the secular, the "sacredness" of life is a matter of what people value. It's finding the article of common interest, for different reasons, where cooperation is possible, because the subject of life itself moves a great deal of freight. Then we expand out from life to consider other liberties, including financial liberty. In the process, we find pragmatic agreement based on different personal beliefs. This is the approach that can work between seculars and Christians, and between Republicans and Democrats, or so-called "liberals", "libertarians" and "conservatives". Insisting on crucifying the country to the opinions of the Founders won't fly for the simple reason that the vast majority of the people don't care what the Founders thought, and won't. More and more people don't care what Jesus thought either. And Catholics and Protestants think that Jesus thought very different things. Nobody is going to accept anybody else's doctrine. So IF the basis of building anything must be that we all accept somebody else's fundamental doctrine, that means that we all lose, and those who have the largest modern doctrines win. But if we find common moral ground on key issues, and accept and understand that others who do not share our philosophical convictions will go no farther with us than that, we can form quite an immense group. There's no better place to start than you and me. You're a Protestant Christian. I'm a sloppdox Catholic whose reasoning is not based on Scripture but on my own intuitions of right and wrong. I think there is PLENTY of common ground between us, if we try to find it. It's a cinch that we'll never find it by talking about Thomas Jefferson, because I will focus on his hypocrisy. Nor will we find it by discussing St. Paul and Jesus, because our respective Churches actually believe that those men meant different things by what they said. So, instead of refighting the Reformation, the Revolution, the Civil War, the New Deal, the Great Society and all of the rest, and losing the moment, let's seize the moment. Here's a proposition: Human life is fundamental to all of our discussions. As a general rule, people should not kill other people, but sometimes we recognize that they may have to. I would think that every rational person would accept this statement as true: "As a general rule, we all agree that people should not kill other people, but we recognize that sometimes we may have to." Follow me here. Do you agree with this statement: "As a general rule, people should not kill other people, but we recognize that sometimes they may have to." ? This is the first brick for building consensus. It doesn't matter WHY you think it - Christ, YHWH, ahimsa, the Bhudda, your own personal ethics, secular reasoning. The key question is not WHY you agree with the statement, but that you agree with it. Because if you do, then we've found complete common ground, and we can try to take a second step.
Small societies. In a world of 6 billion, if everybody went fishing, the fish stocks in the rivers and lakes and oceans would be gone in a couple of years, and everybody would starve. I believe that used fishing as a metaphor, as an example of working for your daily bread rather than bread and circuses. The thing I see is that our fathers were able to take the Constitution that was handed down to us and make it work. But with the influx of the cultural Marxists to America from Russia by way of Germany, and the metastasizing of the cancer through the hippy ethos, all of the sudden our fathers were totally wrong. I do not buy that, the empirical evidence does not support that, it argues that our fathers were correct. They built the United States, the hippy generation has destroyed it.
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, and that officials of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our various levels of gov'ts could give their opinions to that effect, and refuse to implement such and act, as per their oaths of office Do you contend that our only recourse from a majority passing amendments that take away our basic human rights is violence? - 'Treasonous' violence? - Civil war? What a silly, click-baiting reply. -- Take your attempts to start a flame war elsewhere.
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? 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... 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. SCOTUS opinions can be ignored on constitutional grounds and officials can refuse to implement/fund any attempts at forcement. Yep, just as 'we' can ignore scotus.. The concept of 'checks and balances' is built into our Constitution..
Comments (41 - 255) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: tpaine (#0)
(Edited)
Comments?
#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?
#4. To: tpaine (#0)
#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".
#6. To: Gatlin, Nolu Chan, Y'ALL (#2)
(Edited)
You are making more of a ass of yourself than ever seemed possible.
#7. 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?
#8. 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?
#9. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#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.
#10. To: Liberator (#9)
"Unconstitutional" is now in the eye of the beholder of nine justices of SCOTUS.
#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?
#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?
#13. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#3)
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
(Edited)
Five. It's the "Rule of Five".
#15. To: Vicomte13, tpaine, nolu chan (#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"....
#16. To: TooConservative (#13)
I see nothing requiring unanimity nor do I recall any other such unanimous requirements for amendments.
#17. To: Liberator (#15)
Houston, we've got a problem. A HUGE one. Even IF the 14A was eliminated.
#18. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
"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."
#19. To: tpaine (#6)
(Edited)
You....should look in a mirror..
#20. To: tpaine (#0)
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
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.
#22. To: Liberator (#12)
Let's flip this; What is YOUR solution to reclaiming the constitution and re-establishing the Founders' REAL intent??
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
At the root of it all are about three garden variety sins: greed, lust and pride.
#24. To: Vicomte13, tpaine (#22)
#25. To: Liberator (#21)
#26. To: TooConservative, Vicomte13 (#18)
Given how the Court is just wiping its ass with the Constitution in recent years, how much difference would it make?
#27. To: TooConservative (#18)
Just amend the Article. Given how the Court is just wiping its ass with the Constitution in recent years, how much difference would it make?
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
At the root of it all are about three garden variety sins: greed, lust and pride.
#29. To: Liberator (#26)
There aren't enough fingers and toes in China to plug up this dike. This statist/liberal ideological war of attrition has been won. UNLESS conservatives have yet to unleash their ideological version of the 'Samson Option'.
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
Judicial ratification is not required. Mere judicial abdication suffices.
#31. To: Gatlin (#19)
" I did a "mirror, mirron on the wall....who is the intelligent and handsome?
#32. To: Liberator (#24)
I originally asked for paine's solution, but yes, I'd also be interested in yours as well.
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
Well, this is where traditional conservatives and I part ways.
#34. To: TooConservative (#30)
When the executive is feckless and the courts and Congress tolerate (or encourage) a lawless executive, nothing written in law or Constitution provides any real guarantee. The Constitution becomes pointless. Amend it, don't amend it. No difference.
#35. To: Liberator (#33)
Societies that thrive learn to fish.
#36. To: redleghunter (#29)
I hope 'our' Samson 'option' is not the same as what Israel (modern) has in mind:)
#37. To: Liberator (#33)
(Edited)
Yes, yes....I understand the conservative 20% number....and the necessity to aly with those which we disagree to various degrees. So what shall be THE common thread which binds us?
#38. To: Vicomte13, Liberator (#35)
Societies that thrive learn to fish.
#39. To: TooConservative, Y'ALL (#8)
Nolu is correct. Every portion of the Constitution can be amended. Or it could be abolished entirely.
What a silly clickbait vanity thread.
#40. To: Liberator (#12)
Yes, I have a comment (or two.) --- Chan is only the bearer of bad (obvious) news. Don't kill the messenger.
"Unconstitutional" is now in the eye of the beholder of nine justices of 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.
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....
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]