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: 79937
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 The second article of amendment is hereby repealed.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
Comments (1-26) not displayed.
.
.
.
#27. To: TooConservative (#18)
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..
I'm sure he did. But my point stands. We cannot all go work for our daily bread alone in the modern world, and we cannot all go hunt it. It is impossible. There are too many people, now, and too little land, now, and all of that land belongs to somebody. There are too many mouths to feed. Higher levels of organization are absolutely REQUIRED for people to survive. It's a fundamental reality of nature. Also, the air has to be clean enough to breathe and the water clean enough to drink and use to water crops. Excessive environmentalism and regulation are a curse, but land and environmental regulation are also a NECESSITY for human survival. It's not a matter of either/or. We cannot live without the regulations. There will be mass death and mass illness, starvation and disease. We MUST have it, and "all experience hath shewn" that it must come from government. So we should not be resisting the reality of those needs. Instead of generally opposing government and environmental and land regulation as violating a primitive form of absolute liberty of property that we cannot permit today and live, we have to instead accept the reality that such regulation is necessary for survival, and then set the regulation at the level that is really needed for optimal survival - and not allow it to become a vehicle by which those who control the government can control everything and every one. The PROBLEM with people who deny reality, who deny that we need rather robust land controls and environmental regulations and social safety nets, is that they are unreasonable idiots who do not deal in reality. Because they don't deal in reality, they can't be reasoned with. There's no point in trying. It's a waste of time, because they won't accept things necessary for life. Their unreasonableness leaves us without the necessary strength of numbers to be able to resist the excessive encroachments of the social engineers and environmentalists who use the necessary as a means to obtain a whip for the compulsion of all over everything. The answer to "too much" isn't "none", because "none" means death and disease. The answer is "enough", and that requires reason. The Founders don't help us with that at all. We can say "thanks for the system" to them, but they're dead and don't hear anyway. Then we're back dealing with each other - which is what we need to do.
"honor bound"? What is this thing, "honor"? Define it. What are its parameters? Who says? Who enforces it?
Sure, we can ignore SCOTUS. But the authorities, the guys with guns and radios and barracks and prisons and courts and cop cars - those guys are not going to ignore SCOTUS, and if in the process of our "ignoring SCOTUS" we do the ignoring in front of one the uniformed (or un-uniformed) agents of SCOTUS at any level (i.e.: the State), then our "ignoring" will take a decidedly unpleasant turn for us. And the guy who bashes in our head and tazes us will get a good salary and benefits to do it. So yes, we can ignore away. Until there's a counterparty and it matters, then we will either be force-marched down the SCOTUS-delineated path, or frog- marched. Either way, we will go that way, because we will be forced to. Or we can choose to die, I suppose. I won't choose to die rather than comply. I'd rather comply, or lie about complying and do as I please. Standing in defiance and getting my head blown off seems unprofitable.
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?
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. I appreciate your addressing "fish" -- it's supply and demand and were it the context of my "Societies that thrive learn to fish" observation -- but it was a metaphor. People need to learn skills and crafts that allow them the self-respect and nobility of making their own living rather than relying on Uncle Sugar-Daddy Sam -- who thru its confiscated taxes which are supposed to maintain the infrastructure instead only help maintain their power over a voting constituency. Actually, fish-farming IS under-utilized source of food, don't you think? It seems easy enough to establish. Fisheries around the world -- specifically within the US's *former* 200 mile limit -- has been abused by *foreign* fisheries, which is yet more abuse of our sovereignty. As an aside, I do like your concept for management of domesticating deer for milk...but also could apply as meat. 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. And THAT is exactly the way the elites want it in America. On the plantation. Lazy, entitled, but 100% dependent upon the State for a FREE ride. They are "kept" voters. Like whores. Votes bought with the blood, sweat, and sacrifice of the producers and risk-takers. NOBODY is holding these people prison in America... As to the other billions, their corrupt governments (without a Founders' established American Bill of Rights/Constitution to un-bind them) keeps most of them in various states of economic slavery and serfdom. 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. I am devoted to the principles and convictions of the American founders, much as I am to the Bible. The wise learn from the past and apply those principles to the present as well as future. NOT doing so is foolish. I also acknowledge and reject the lack of personal and national responsibly of those who embrace a herd mentality of entitlement, and those corrupt nations whose governments are ruled by tyranny and the elite few. THIS is why people have migrated to America -- some at great risk in the past and present. It is the Founders' fundamental concepts and laws steep in Judeo-Christian principles that created a standard of living and liberty that has been utterly unique in the annal of history. I expect the eventual famines and epidemics of disease. Why? Because America and her government no longer operate within the law and standards of moral and ethics it once did. And because we have rejected God, ergo we are no longer under His blessing. 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. Can we both acknowledge that even the Founders were not perfect? That they sinned like every before and after them? CHALLENGE: Find me a better crop of men dedicated to the most noble ideals of man in history. CHALLENGE: Find group of leaders -- many Christian, God-fearing men -- more successful at creating a system dedicated to personal freedom and economic freedom, AND freedom to worship. WITHOUT COMPULSION to worship a man, a statue, an animal, several "gods" or the stars. Btw, I do not "dislike" Catholics; I do not dislike you, friend, and family are are Catholic. I dislike the notion that somehow the Popes are ANY such "Vicar of Christ." In my opinion, many Catholics are deceived. But that doesn't mean I dislike them necessarily. The Vatican and it's machination are a different story. 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. Dunno exactly what you mean; Are you suggesting that we need MORE heavy-handed government regs and bureaucratic control over our lives? Or by "infrastructure" do you mean maintenance and expansion of roads, bridges, water conduits, etc? 40 million uninvited illegal invaders have helped destroy our infrastructure. What do you propose about addressing the damage caused by the undocumented illegal invasion? 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. Your options are the same as mine, aren't they? :-) Except the principles AND convictions of the America, 1787, are ideals for a governance that STILL work in the year 2015. Instead, on what do you hang your ideological hat? A Monarchy?
IF this the case -- that the majority believe in NOTHING but a narcissistic vision straight out of lying lips of the asp -- then the Republic shall die ignominiously, and with it soul of the nation as well. 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." ? Yes. Ecclesiastics sez there is a "time for all seasons." This is the first brick for building consensus....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.
Yup. Thank you. 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. +100. Moral relativist hippies, anarchists, the militant God-less, and the homofascists hijacked key positions in gubmint and our institutions, warped the USCON, and here we are -- living in the Twilight Zone where the Founders = Olde Dead White Guys, Up = Down, Evil = Good, and God = "Mean + Intolerant."
I have a feeling that this amendment will be heard and denied. The language concerning the limitations on "non-conforming" guns will be struck down on the argument that such conform infringes on that basic right.
Yes. And Chan is proven right. SCOTUS indeed does not only have the power to tell you how to crap, but when AND what color. Chan only reported what he already notes from SCOTUS -- not that he necessarily "advocates" the majority consensus; that 9 Justices are the only people in a nation of 320 million authorized to interpret the constitution any way they see fit. On this point he agrees with Justice Alito in his opinion. 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. Theories are great, aren't they? Look -- the USCON is a fairy tale. You just happen to believe the fairy tale that gubmint actually executes "honor-bound" acts. IF they were "duty-bound" or "honor-bound" NONE of the 40 million illegal invaders would be in the country -- never mind their criminality aided and abetted in "Sanctuary Cities." MOREOVER, many officials would have already been Impeached or arrested for High Crimes. SCOTUS opinions can be ignored on constitutional grounds and officials can refuse to implement/fund any attempts at forcement. The keyword, "can" can be applied a million difference ways. In the context you presume, "enforcement" ain't never happenin', bud. Yep, just as 'we' can ignore scotus.. The concept of 'checks and balances' is built into our Constitution.. Funny how those supposed 'checks and balances' are built in, yet, ignored. TOTALLY.
Ummm....YEP. States Rights is dead. DING-DONG. Wadda constitution, eh? Isn't it the Constitutional limitation for that Court to interpret the laws in accordance with the Constitution, rather than make Federal law? Yes, again. You see how those "Checks and Balances" are NOT working? Congress is tasked with making law. Since they've refuse to act (thank you again, Boehner AND McConnell), they are grossly negligent and derelict in their duty. This entire supposed "Three Co-Equal Branches of Government" crock is a mockery of the constitution; That we have a working constitution is....a charade.
Except the principles AND convictions of the America, 1787, are ideals for a governance that STILL work in the year 2015. Instead, on what do you hang your ideological hat? A Monarchy? No, those ideas for governance don't work in 2015. I hang my ideological hat on direct reason from a handful of postulates, the first of which is the sanctity of life. Once that is acknowledged, then a whole lot of things necessarily follow, things that limit war and police power, and abortion and euthanasia. And things that require tending to matters of food, shelter, medicine and education. Monarchy? No. "...not tawdry rule of kings, but toil of serf and sweeper, the tale of lesser things." Yes, people need to learn skills and crafts and earn their own living. But the process of that learning requires many things, and most people cannot provide for them on their own. Literacy requires schooling. If schooling were all private, and based upon the resources of the parents, that would mean what it means every single place in the world, including America before universal public schooling was introduced in Massachusetts by the Puritans in the 1640s: 60-70% illiteracy rates overall, with double or triple the illiteracy rate among girls as boys. That's what it means. That's a fact of nature. Most people are not wealthy enough to provide a full private education to all of their children. Nowhere in the world have they ever been able to. In Colonial Puritan Massachusetts, the belief in Sola Scriptura meant that everybody needed to be able to read Scriptura, and that meant universal education. It was paid for by the people who could afford it. But for the poor who could not, it was paid for by taxes. And we have the records of people grousing about the taxes, and the colonial and religious leaders replying that it is MORE IMPORTANT that people read and know the Bible than that the people grousing about tithing for taxes to enable people to know the Scripture keep their money. It's an old fight. Net result: by 1650, THE most educated, most literate population in the world was Massachusetts Bay colony, a bunch of pioneers on a forest fringe. Universal public education, paid for by involuntary taxation, specifically to ensure that EVERYBODY, of both sexes, got an education and could be literate (and read the Bible), rapidly produced the best educated population in the world. By contrast, in the American South, there was no universal public education until the end of the 19th Century. Former slaves and poor whites had no schooling, and they were literally barefoot, dirty and barely getting by. In the modern industrial world, illiteracy means the inability to learn any useful skills. And THEREFORE, BECAUSE each child has to grow into adulthood, and 50-60% of parents are too poor to provide a full education to their children. We MUST HAVE universal public education, paid for by mandatory taxes. This is infrastructure in its purest form. It is a prerequisite for modern society, and for anybody getting any sort of job. It's not a luxury. It is as vital as clean water. It's not debatable. In truth, when local, state and federal expenditures on education are considered, education is THE single greatest expense of government - more than the military, more than Social Security. It is massively expensive, and it is vital. I would say that we need to regain control of the schools and return rationality to the process of hiring and paying teachers. There are vast administrative staffs who should be laid off: they do nothing productive. They create problems. That should end. But in ending that, we would not be cutting educational costs so as to reduce taxes. Nope. That money saved on useless administration should be poured back into getting more teachers, to bring down class sizes and make education better. Is universal public education "relying on Uncle Sugar-Daddy"? Well, it's paid for by taxes, it's really expensive, it's a permanent cost, and it's a huge gift to each child, so yes it is. And it is necessary infrastructure, the most expensive piece of all. It's not the only piece.
The Constitution and the Republic is dead.
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? 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. 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?
First off, creating a vanity thread to call out another poster is bad manners. Second, I looked at comments so far and one of two possibilities are evident: 1. Chan is showing restraint and dignity in not responding to your carnival barking. or 2. His response is forthcoming and no doubt he will hand you your 4th point of contact (for the civilians in the room the 4th point of contact is what you sit on; for paratroopers it is the 'fourth point' of the body hitting the ground in a 'dynamite' parachute landing fall [PLF]) They are doing it.
Every official at every level of gov't is honor bound - (by their oath of office), to support and defend our Constitution. Our various govts should enforce it. --- But as to the rest, perhaps you should consult your mental/moral health advisor.
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.. Absolutely correct.. -- Only laws (or amendments) made "in pursuance thereof" (as the supremacy clause says) are part of our supreme law, the Constitution..
Below is the actual exchange on another thread, in context. One may readily recognize that tpaine's espoused blather therein is meritless. This highlights tpaine's ignorance of the law and amendments. Amendments are not enactments. Common legislation of Congress is enacted into law. He erroneously misconstrues the Supremacy Clause to imagine that a constitutional Amendment equates with common legislation. Amendments are ratified by the people acting in their sovereign capacity. The Congress does not have a yea or nay on ratification, and the President does not sign it into law. In a ministerial action, the ratification is certified as having happened. From that point forward, any amendment is considered a part of the Constitution, equal with all other parts of the Constitution. The imaginary world of tpaine: It has the power to issue an opinion that such an amendment is unconstitutional.. ... No entity in the government created by the will of the people, as expressed in the Constitution, may lawfully act contrary to the Constitution or with a purpose to subvert any part of the Constitution. The Constitution is the paramount and expresses those powers which the people chose to delegate to the Federal government. Congress has no lawful power to subvert any part of the Constitution by defunding. Congress does not have any lawful power to strike down any part of the Constitution. Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has any lawful authority to issue an opinion that any part of the Constitution is unconstitutional or null and void. The new, revised and better Declaration of Independence. An amendment to the constitution, made by the people in their sovereign capacity, with the permission and approval of tpaine, to delegate to the government the power to regulate the newfound inalienable right to buy, make, or use guns, may be enacted only in accordance with the new, revised and better Article 5, as enacted by the tpaine court of the imagination. The new, revised and better Article 5: The Congress proposes, and three-fourths of the states ratify the following amendment in tpaineworld. 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. Other than soiling yourself and bleating about it, what is to be done in tpaineworld? Does the Congress pass contrary legislation, telling the people that they have abused their sovereign right to amend their constitution? Does the Court strike down this part of the Constitution as unconstitutional? Does the Deemer of tpaineworld deem this part of the Constitution null and void? Does the tpaine court of the imagination tell the people that they can't infringe the right to buy, make, and use arms; deemed an unalienable right by the tpaine imaginary revised, new and improved Declaration of Independence. - - - - - I asked you if this means you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? Your last post indicates you think this would be possible, and you even outline such an 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. Congress has the power to refuse to fund any efforts to implement the unconstitutional amendment, and to tell the people why. It has the power to issue an opinion that such an amendment is unconstitutional.. Dream on that in Nolu Chan's world such an amendment could be valid. It would violate every principle inherent in our constitution, and thus would be null and void from its enactment. - - - - -
The conversation was in the context of my repeatedly citing the actual law and legal precedent. In wingnut world, wingnuttery rules. In the real world, saying the court is erroneous does not change the fact that their holding is the law. No power of the government can deem any part of the Constitution to be null and void. The matter of ratification is a political question and the courts have no jurisdiction over political questions. Coleman v Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 440 (1939) The Supreme Court said it — "the official notice to the Secretary of State, duly authenticated … was conclusive upon the courts." LaVergne v Bryson, Secretary of Commerce, 3rd Cir 12-1171 (20 Sep 2012) And in tpaine's court of the imagination, "amendments to the constitution can be deemed unconstitutional." All you need to do is believe that when the court held Jane Roe has a constitutional right to an abortion, it only applied to Jane Roe. And when the court held that Obergefell had a constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex, it only applied to Obergefell. In wingnutworld, the legislature and the executive can give the holdings due consideration and choose whether to ignore them or not. Asserting the Supremacy Clause somehow supports the absurd claim that constitutional amendments can be deemed unconstitutional: Demonstrating a delusion about what the Supremacy Clause does, and explaining why his legal logic is so dicked up. The Supremacy Clause at Article 6, states, tpaine labors under the delusion that this clause sets the Constitution at equivalency with ordinary legislated laws and United States treaties. As legislation can be struck down by the court as unconstitutional, this brain fart entices him to imagine that the Constititution can be struck down by the court, or that amendments may be deemed unconstitutional, or that amendments pronounced ratified may be struck down by the courts — this only works if laws made by the legislature are equal to the Constitution, and that is so only in some imaginary world. Ignoring the holding in Coleman, (1939), not to mention the recitation of precedents in LaVergne v. Bryson (2012). What the Supremacy Clause actually states is that any form of Federal law takes precedence over any form of State law, whether the State law be statutory or constitutional. Note that the clause in the 6th Amendment only applied to "judges in every state." Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 3rd Ed., Vol. 1 (2000), pg. 255. In tpaine's court of the imagination, the court and Laurence Tribe are erroneous, along with anyone that does not adopt the absurd notions that flow from his imagination. Everyone in America knows that laws are struck down by the court when they are found to conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution is the paramount law and takes precedence over all other American law. Treaties and federal statutes are equal (but below the Constitution), with the most recently adopted controlling. * * * Treaties, however, cannot violate the Constitution. Constitutional Law, Principles and Policies, 2 Ed., Erwin Chemerinsky, 2002 at 361 This particular idiocy relates to the National Prohibition Cases in 1920, which was several prohibition cases heard together at the SCOTUS level. 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: 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 argument was characterized in W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, V1 XXX, No. 4, February 1921, p. 333. [...] 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.
Congress can vote to propose an Amendment. The States that have ratified the Constitution are parties to the Constitution, not the Federal government. Congress gets no vote on ratification. That is by the State legislatures or State conventions. An amendment is ratified rather than passed, and it is adopted when three-fourths of the States have ratified. It is a sovereign act of the people, as was the adoption of the original Constitution before the constitutional government existed.
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? That's your opinion, and I see you've pinged AKA Stone to give us his, --- but I think we're here to discuss the issues of the day, and Chan has certainly raised one by insisting the 2nd could be repealed. I served a couple of years in the 503rd and 502nd regiments, so your attempts to instruct me about 'PLF' is as silly as your "carnival barking" about this thread. By all means, come back when you have a real point to discuss..
I said to you before that you need to listen to nolu chan. I now say to you that you need to also listen to redleghunter. It will be to your advantage to learn from them.
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.
I now say to you that you need to also listen to redleghunter. It will be to your advantage to learn from them. Never fear my boy, I'm learning a lot from all you authoritarians. -- And I'm sure others here are. Probably, they're learning more about your politics than you want them to know..
What you state is true. My comments would apply to those proposing said amendment ( Congress ) and those voting to ratify ( states )
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Nolu chan is right on this one. It wouldn't be right morally. But it would follow the process laid out in the constitution. Remember the constitution isn't perfect. It is man made and contains flaws. It is worth protecting.
Comments (67 - 255) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestJust 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....
#41. To: nativist nationalist (#38)
(Edited)
I believe that used fishing as a metaphor, as an example of working for your daily bread rather than bread and circuses.
#42. To: tpaine (#40)
Every official at every level of gov't is honor bound
#43. To: tpaine (#40)
Yep, just as 'we' can ignore scotus.
#44. To: tpaine (#40)
#45. To: Vicomte13 (#35)
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.
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
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.
#47. To: nativist nationalist, Vicomte13 (#38)
believe that used fishing as a metaphor, as an example of working for your daily bread rather than bread and circuses.
#48. To: tpaine (#0)
#49. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#40)
(Edited)
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...
#50. To: Don, tpaine (#44)
Did the U.S. Supreme Court just legislate gay marriage for the fifty states?
#51. To: Liberator (#45)
People need to learn skills and crafts that allow them the self-respect and nobility of making their own living rather than relying on Uncle Sugar-Daddy Sam -- who thru its confiscated taxes which are supposed to maintain the infrastructure
#52. To: Liberator (#50)
#53. To: tomder55, Y'ALL (#11)
The 18th amendment outlawed alcohol . The 21st amendment repealed the 18th . Yes it can be done. -- tomder
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 ). 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."
#54. To: tpaine, Nolu Chan, liberator, A K A Stone (#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?
#55. To: tpaine (#53)
#56. To: Vicomte13 (#42)
"honor bound"?
What is this thing, "honor"? -- Define it.--- What are its parameters? ---- Who says? ---- Who enforces it?
#57. To: Don (#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?
#58. To: tpaine, Gatlin, Vicomte13, tomder55, TooConservative, Liberator, Stoner, Don, goldilucky (#0)
Dream on that in Nolu Chan's world such an amendment could be valid. It would violate every principle inherent in our constitution, and thus would be null and void from its enactment.
Congress has the power to refuse to fund any efforts to implement the unconstitutional amendment, and to tell the people why. ...
#134. To: tpaine (#123)
Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and to buy, make, or use guns.
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 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 the amendment may be considered common legislation; and provided further that tpaine approves the content; and provided further that the amendment may be deemed unconstitutional; and provided further that the courts may strike down the amendment; and 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.
AMENDMENT 28.
#136. To: nolu chan, proposes an amendment to repeal the 2nd !! (#134)
The Congress proposes, and three-fourths of the states ratify the following amendment in Nolu Chan's world.
Other than soiling yourself and bleating about it, what is to be done in tpaineworld? --- Does the Congress pass contrary legislation, telling the people that they have abused their sovereign right to amend their constitution?
Does the Court strike down this part of the Constitution as unconstitutional?
Does the Deemer of tpaineworld deem this part of the Constitution null and void? ----- Does the tpaine court of the imagination tell the people that they can't infringe the right to buy, make, and use arms; deemed an unalienable right by the tpaine imaginary revised, new and improved Declaration of Independence.
#59. To: tpaine, Gatlin, Vicomte13, tomder55, TooConservative, Liberator, Stoner, Don, goldilucky (#58)
Your opinion, and that of the court, is erroneous.
amendments to the constitution can be deemed unconstitutional.
holding that the official notice to the Secretary of State, duly authenticated, of the action of the legislatures of the States, whose alleged ratifications were assailed, was conclusive upon the Secretary of State, and that his proclamation accordingly of ratification was conclusive upon the courts, we affirmed the judgment of the state court.
LaVergne’s claims also fail on other grounds, including lack of justiciability. LaVergne’s constitutional challenge to § 2a is primarily based on his argument that the apportionment method violates Article the First. He alleges that this proposed constitutional amendment was ratified by the states in November 1791 or June 1792. Putting aside the considerable factual and historical problems with his argument, “[t]he issue of whether a constitutional amendment has been properly ratified is a political question.” United States v. McDonald, 919 F.2d 146, 1990 WL 186103 (table), at *3 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (citing Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 450 (1939)). In Coleman, the Supreme Court held that “the question of the efficacy of ratifications by state legislatures . . . should be regarded as a political question pertaining to 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.” 307 U.S. at 450. See also Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1, 39 (1849) (holding that “the political department has always determined whether the proposed constitution or amendment was ratified or not by the people of the State, and the judicial power has followed its decision”); United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d 457, 463 n.6 (7th Cir. 1986) (holding that the issue of “the validity of an amendment’s ratification [is] a non-justiciable political question” and citing, among other cases, Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137 (1922), and Coleman, 307 U.S. at 450).
SCOTUS opinions apply to the case at hand and are given due consideration by the other branches of govt, and by the people.
But you can't refute the fact of the supremacy clause.
Legislation (or amendments) passed contrary to the constitution, are null and void.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Read narrowly, the Supremacy Clause binds only state judges. But other provisions of the Constitution, most notably the Fourteenth Amendment, directly constrain the action of all state officials, often without regard to whether state courts have ruled on the validity of those officials' acts; moreover, Article VI declares that "the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers . . . of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. ... " Accordingly, the Court has not limited to state judges its demand for compliance with the federal Constitution. In Cooper v. Aaron, a school desegregation case decided against the background of Governor Faubus's resistance to the desegregation of public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, the Supreme Court asserted what is probably its broadest definition of its own power: "Marbury v. Madison ... declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land.... Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath ... 'to support this Constitution.'"
Treaties, agreements between the United States and a foreign country that are negotiated by the president and ratified by the Senate, are permitted unless they violate the Constitution. It is firmly established that if there is a conflict between a treaty and a federal statute, the one adopted last in time controls.
The quote below proves that the SCOTUS heard and considered the constitutionality of the new amendment.. -- Your opinion is wrong...
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 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.
This argument might be termed somewhat ridiculous, had it not appeared under the distinguished name of Mr. Elihu Root.
#60. To: Stoner, tpaine (#20)
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!
#61. To: redleghunter (#54)
First off, creating a vanity thread to call out another poster is bad manners.
Second, I looked at comments so far and one of two possibilities are evident: - -- 1. Chan is showing restraint and dignity in not responding to your carnival barking. --- or ---- 2. His response is forthcoming and no doubt he will hand you your 4th point of contact (for the civilians in the room the 4th point of contact is what you sit on; for paratroopers it is the 'fourth point' of the body hitting the ground in a 'dynamite' parachute landing fall [PLF])
#62. To: tpaine, redleghunter, nolu chan (#61)
#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?
#64. To: Gatlin (#62)
I said to you before that you need to listen to nolu chan.
#65. To: nolu chan (#60)
#66. To: tpaine (#64)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]