U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: GOP Platform Calls for Multiple Amendments to the Constitution (Retrofit - BandAids)
Source:
The New American
URL Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew ... amendments-to-the-constitution
Published: Jul 20, 2016
Author: Warren Mass
Post Date: 2016-07-20 21:24:56 by Hondo68
Ping List: *Bill of Rights-Constitution* Subscribe to *Bill of Rights-Constitution*
Keywords: Republicans, Democrats, the wrong direction, failure 3 branches of governme
Views: 4133
Comments: 58
Amid all of the fanfare and speechmaking at this year’s Republican National Convention in Cleveland, the party’s “Committee on Arrangements” (as the GOP’s platform committee is now called) unveiled the Republican Platform for 2016. Following a preamble that summarized the party’s basic principles in language that does justice to the work of America’s founding fathers, the platform then goes on to advocate a remedy for several of today’s national problems that some strict constitutionalists will find troubling: the passage of amendments to our Constitution. The platform starts off with lofty, unobjectionable language. Among its most praiseworthy statements are: We affirm — as did the Declaration of Independence: that all are created equal, endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We believe in the Constitution as our founding document. We believe the Constitution was written not as a flexible document, but as our enduring covenant. We believe our constitutional system — limited government, separation of powers, federalism, and the rights of the people — must be preserved uncompromised for future generations. Unfortunately, the committee’s partisanship was also revealed in statements such as “For the past 8 years America has been led in the wrong direction.” As true as the latter part of that statement is, its timing is about 80 years off. During those eight decades, Republican, as well as Democratic, presidents have led America in the wrong direction — namely, toward bigger government, usurpation of states’ rights, and an interventionist foreign policy. Where the platform goes off course, as far as the strict constitutionalist is concerned, is in proposing new amendments to the Constitution to solve problems that were not caused by flaws in the Constitution but by the failure of those in all three branches of government to adhere to the principles found in the document. The first proposed amendment in the platform is a “right to life” amendment, which reads: We assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth. While those of us who are firmly pro-life agree with the need to protect the right to life of children before birth, the remedy offered by this proposed amendment ignores the history behind the problem and how the deterioration of states’ rights contributed to it. Since the above language pointedly mentioned the 14th Amendment, it is critical to recognize that in its 7-2 decision in the case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court stated that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the “due process clause” of the 14th Amendment. The Due Process Clause reads that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” Though this amendment was originally passed to protect the citizenship rights of former slaves, over time, the clause has been cited in a series of Supreme Court decisions to extend restrictions — that the Bill of Rights originally imposed only on the federal government’s power to violate citizens' rights — to the states, as well. Such an interpretation has had a damaging effect on adherence to the intent of the 10th Amendment over the years. That amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” An immediate conflict between strict adherence to the 10th Amendment and the Supreme Court’s citation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment as justification to overrule the states’ right to restrict abortion is apparent. Since the Constitution does not give the federal government the right to govern crimes against persons (such as murder, assault, and abortion) then this power obviously rests with the states. However, over time, the Supreme Court has established a precedent for using the due process clause as carte blanche to usurp states’ rights in this and many other areas. The Republican platform’s reliance on “the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections” to protect the right to life of unborn children is fraught with irony, therefore. The platform seeks to use another amendment to “retrofit” the 14th Amendment in order to undo the harm done though (an admittedly faulty) interpretation of part of that very amendment. There is a lesson to be learned from this. It is unwise to attempt to remedy social ills by amending the Constitution to address them at the federal level. A better remedy is to adhere strictly to the 10th Amendment, enforce states’ rights, and address social ills at the state or local level. Keeping this principle in mind, let’s look at the other amendments proposed by the platform committee, some of which impact states’ rights, while others deal only with federal matters. The platform proposes: We will fight for Congress to adopt, and for the states to ratify, a Balanced Budget Amendment which imposes a cap limiting spending to the appropriate historical average percentage of our nation’s gross domestic product while requiring a super-majority for any tax increase, with exceptions only for war or legitimate emergencies. Only a constitutional safeguard such as this can prevent deficits from mounting to government default. In an article published by The New American in January, John McManus, president emeritus of The John Birch Society, outlined some of the flaws of most proposed balanced budget amendments. Among these were: 1. Expecting government officials to honor an amendment — however well intentioned such an expectation might be — when they currently refuse to honor the existing Constitution is an absurdity. 2. Some BBAs allow 60 percent in Congress to override the requirement for balancing the budget. Getting 60 percent for other outrageous measures is a regular occurrence. 3. Various BBAs make no mention of the growing problem resulting from declaring some huge expenditures “off budget.” Use of this tactic makes a joke of a balanced budget mandate. 4. Some BBAs call for increasing taxes as a way to balance the budget, even steering taxing authority to the Executive branch. 5. Proponents of some BBAs want a stipulation that the budget need not be balanced if there’s a war, or a real or cleverly contrived national emergency. 6. Various proponents say that a BBA won’t have to take effect for five years or more — thereby sanctioning the addition of more trillions to the nation’s already enormous indebtedness. 7. Finally, balancing the budget ignores already accumulated indebtedness requiring billions annually for interest payments. As McManus observes: What’s lost in all of this discussion is that an amendment should be considered if the Constitution is found deficient or in error. But the U.S. Constitution isn’t at fault; the fault lies with government officials who ignore the Constitution’s existing limitations. The best way to ensure government officials’ observance of the Constitution’s existing limitations is to insist on strict compliance with the aforementioned 10th Amendment. The next amendment proposed by the committee is one to set term limits for members of Congress. This sounds appealing to many citizens tired of seeing the same tax-and-spend professional politicians elected year in and year out. However, such proposals ignore the fact that under our existing Constitution we already have term limits. They are found in the power of the people not to reelect politicians who are performing in an unsatisfactory manner. A term-limits amendment takes that power away from the people and punishes legislators who are performing well, along with those who are performing poorly. Another amendment proposed by the committee appears to limit federal power and advocates reversing the Supreme Court’s Windsor and Obergefell decisions. “In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent,” the platform states. While that much is true, we must stop and reconsider the platform’s remedy: “We do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states.” While there is nothing wrong with the above sentiment, the radical step of amending the Constitution — which says nothing about marriage — is totally unnecessary. A much better solution could be effected though the legislative route, an easier task to accomplish than amending the Constitution. Just such a legislative remedy to the federal courts’ overreach on matters such as abortion and marriage was proposed by former Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) when he introduced the “We the People Act” (“To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts”) when he was in Congress. The bill introduced by Paul sought to remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts to strike down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion and charged that the courts had “wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” Rather than proposing an amendment to the Constitution, it would be better if the Republican platform included a proposal to support something like Paul’s “We the People Act.” Another proposed amendment is not intrinsically bad, but would be redundant if the Constitution as written were followed. The platform proposes a constitutional amendment protecting the ability of parents to direct their children’s education and care without “interference by states, the federal government, or international bodies such as the United Nations.” None of the above-named bodies should interfere with children’s education. However, stopping the states from so interfering should be a matter that the citizens of each state take up with their state government and empowering the federal government to intervene would only compound the problem. Since the Constitution does not delegate any powers related to education to the federal government, all federal participation in education, including federal aid to the states, must be eliminated. As for the United Nations, stopping interference by the UN is as simple as withdrawing the United States from that world body. We contacted Larry Greenley, director of missions of The John Birch Society (with which The New American is affiliated) for a statement about the general concept of amending the Constitution to solve national problems that could better be addressed by less drastic methods. He said: It is the longtime policy of The John Birch Society to oppose adding amendments to the current Constitution on the basis that they usually provide the federal government with additional powers not granted to it by the original Constitution. However, we would welcome amendments that repeal certain of the harmful amendments, such as the 16th (income tax) and 17th (direct election of senators). With regard to the Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) supported by the 2016 GOP platform, one of the reasons that the JBS opposes a BBA is that it would tend to legitimize the largely unconstitutional federal spending authorized by Congress each year. It would have this effect by focusing attention on whether a specific spending bill would fit within a balanced budget based on political considerations (rule of men, democracy) rather than on whether the power to legislate regarding this activity has been granted to Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (rule of law, republic). Poster Comment: The Republicans and Democrats have screwed up the Constitution so badly with their Amendments, that they need a few band-aid amendments to patch things up? They need a few impeachments and treason trials, IMO. They never even tried obeying the original Constitution. Hang 'em high!
Subscribe to *Bill of Rights-Constitution*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
If the constitution is screwed up you should repeal it and start again with a new constitution
That's very hard to do, so if that advice were really followed, we would have decades of paralysis as the system did not work, but couldn't be amended either. This is what Poland did historically. They had a bad constitution, effectively requiring unanimity for every decision. A few holdouts could always be found, or bought, and so Poland was completely paralyzed politically, unable to move and unable to change. Meanwhile, the Russians, Austrians and Prussians took turns carving pieces out Poland, until finally there was no Poland left.
That's very hard to do, so if that advice were really followed, we would have decades of paralysis as the system did not work, but couldn't be amended either. we suffer from paralysis now because we insist on using only one of the amending tools the founders gave us.
We're not really paralyzed. Since FDR we've been moving in fits and starts in the same general direction. Sometimes change happens fast, sometimes slow, but it is perceptible and always in the same direction. There has been a little bit of amending the Constitution, but not much,, The easiest way to amend it is the Rule of 5. If 5 Supreme Court Justices rule that the Constitution says thus and so, then that's what it says. You can't amend the document through the standard amendment process on anything that is not popular with a large majority of the people. So every change you want do to that is unpopular merely requires a majority opinion by the Supreme Court. That's the way our system works.
True. -- The SCOTUS is using both the due process and the commerce clause to subvert the Constitution. No, it's not working that way, -- as we see in this election Trump probably won't be able to change much, but if more constitutionalists are placed in the SCOTUS, at least we will be on the road to restoring the Republic.
No, it's not working that way, -- as we see in this election Trump probably won't be able to change much, but if more constitutionalists are placed in the SCOTUS, at least we will be on the road to restoring the Republic. Actually, you're saying the same thing I was saying, just looking down the other end of the telescope.
--- every change you want do to that is unpopular merely requires a majority opinion by the Supreme Court. ---' That's the way our system works. No, it's not working that way, -- as we see in this election, - --And, --- majority rule was never meant to substitute for the rule of (constitutional) law in our system.. Trump probably won't be able to change much, but if more constitutionalists are placed in the SCOTUS, at least we will be on the road to restoring the Republic. Nope, we have a BIG difference. -- You approve of majority rule, -- I consider it a form of mob rule, and our system of checks and balances was intended to prevent its excesses.
We DO have a big difference, but it's not the one you say. I approve of MORALITY rule, and deny the power even of the constituent people to rightly enact constitutions that override it. There is a law above the Constitution. I merely observe that majority rule is the way that things are, more or less, and I am more or less ok with that. The history of minority rule has not given me any particular reason to think that that is any BETTER than majority rule. So, really, I'm indifferent to how the laws are made, or who gets to make them. The only thing I really care about is that the laws are correct and proper. Bad laws have no business being enacted, regardless of the process. And given the obsession people have with process, when bad laws are enacted anyway, I want the authorities and everybody to simply break them, not obey them. I believe in the rule of GOOD law, but GOOD trumps law, and I do not believe in the rule of law at all when the law is bad. I believe that bad laws should be flouted and ignored, so that they fall into desuetude. When officials enforce bad laws, I consider those officials "evil". "Just doing their job" doesn't cut it with me at all, because I don't believe in the rule of law as such, I believe in the rule of GOOD law only. Men who enforce bad laws are themselves bad. The Constitution is a mixed bag. It doesn't work well. It's just a document. It's not holy. It is largely respected in the breach. It's not the answer to our problems, because it is so flexible that it need never be broken. When it WAS broken, to defeat the slave power, that was a GOOD thing.
--- We have a BIG difference. -- You approve of majority rule, -- I consider it a form of mob rule, and our system of checks and balances was intended to prevent its excesses. That is your religious opinion, and religious opinions, --- under our Constitution, -- cannot be the basis for public office. --As you well know.
I am not enthusiastic about majority rule. But minority rule has been the norm in human history, and it is a very crappy system also. The key words you used there are that we have to prevent the EXCESSES of majority rule. Democracy is majority rule. Even the jury box is a place of majority rule. The key limits are to try to limit the majority from just doing anything it wants to. The risks of majority rule do not mean that minority rule is better.
That is your religious opinion, and religious opinions, --- under our Constitution, -- cannot be the basis for public office, OR CONSTITUTIONA LAW. --As you well know. That is exactly the opinion Muslims have about enacting Shiria 'law'; -- this type of thinking is not compatible with our Constitution. You approve of majority rule, -- I consider it a form of mob rule, and our system of checks and balances was intended to prevent its excesses. There is an alternative system, -- a constitutional republic. 'Democratic' majority rule IS the problem. The checks and balances in our constitutional republic even affect jury box majority rule. You need to learn live with republicanism.
You will learn to live in a republic that is democratic socialist. You'll hate it. I won't mind it. Sorry.
That is your religious opinion, and religious opinions, --- under our Constitution, -- cannot be the basis for public office, OR CONSTITUTIONA LAW. --As you well know. That is exactly the opinion Muslims have about enacting Shiria 'law'; -- this type of thinking is not compatible with our Constitution. You need to learn live within a,constitutional republic, with republicanism. A constitutional republic cannot encompass democratic socialism. -- If necessary, we may need to fight over that principle. You won't like that. Sorry.
You won't like that. Sorry. You want a fight? Bring it. The victors will slaughter the losers, and we'll be done with the gridlock.
Our constitutional republic cannot encompass democratic socialism. -- If necessary, we may need to fight over that principle. Nothing wrong with political gridlock that a little slaughter can't fix, aye comrade?
You seem to think so. 'Twas you who said that we may need to fight over a principle. If the people decide on Democratic socialism, then that is what we will have. You said that we won't - that instead your side will fight. It is you, not me, who made the call to arms. All I said was "Bring it." If you really want to fight, with arms, against the express will of the people, you can go ahead and try. There will be a thinning of the herd, and it will be the same as it was with the confederates. Having lost the political process, the defeated minority took to arms and fought. That made it possible to slaughter them by the hundreds of thousands, which made the politics of reconstruction much easier, because the political opposition wiped itself out charging the guns. You want to fight, then let's fight. At the end of it, the weaker side will be dead, and the victors will have a freer hand to reform things more fully, one way or the other.
Damn right. We both took the oath to defend our Constitution. Our constitutional system will not work as intended under a 'democratic socialistic' regime; -- indeed, it is not. It is your side, not mine, who wants to subvert our republic, and turn it into a socialistic nightmare. We founded a constitutional republic over two hundred years ago; now you socialists want to change that. You can try, but you won't succeed.
The oath we took was an oath of office, not a lifetime vow. Neither of us are any longer in that office.
#36. To: Vicomte13, -- The oath we took was an oath of office, not a lifetime vow. --- to defend the Constitution (#35)
We both took the oath to defend our Constitution. Our constitutional system will not work as intended under a 'democratic socialistic' regime; -- indeed, it is not working, as is evident. As citizens we all have an obligation to defend our Constitution. You should consider renouncing your citizenship, and moving elsewhere.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: paraclete (#1)
If the constitution is screwed up you should repeal it and start again with a new constitution
#5. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
If the constitution is screwed up you should repeal it and start again with a new constitution
#6. To: tomder55 (#5)
we suffer from paralysis now because we insist on using only one of the amending tools the founders gave us.
#15. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#6)
Since the Constitution does not give the federal government the right to govern crimes against persons (such as murder, assault, and abortion) then this power obviously rests with the states. However, over time, the Supreme Court has established a precedent for using the due process clause as carte blanche to usurp states’ rights in this and many other areas.
Vic --- You can't amend the document through the standard amendment process on anything that is not popular with a large majority of the people. So every change you want do to that is unpopular merely requires a majority opinion by the Supreme Court. ---' That's the way our system works.
#18. To: tpaine (#15)
Vic --- You can't amend the document through the standard amendment process on anything that is not popular with a large majority of the people. So every change you want do to that is unpopular merely requires a majority opinion by the Supreme Court. ---' That's the way our system works.
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
Actually, you're saying the same thing I was saying, just looking down the other end of the telescope.
#20. To: tpaine (#19)
Nope, we have a BIG difference. -- You approve of majority rule,
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
We DO have a big difference, but it's not the one you say. - - I approve of MORALITY rule, and deny the power even of the constituent people to rightly enact constitutions that override it. There is a law above the Constitution.
#23. To: tpaine (#21)
You approve of majority rule, -- I consider it a form of mob rule, and our system of checks and balances was intended to prevent its excesses.
#26. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#23)
There is a law above the Constitution.
It can be. The Constitution doesn't say it can't. It merely says that the federal government cannot impose a religious test for officeholding. That doesn't mean that the people cannot enforce a moral law as a condition for receiving their vote.
I am not enthusiastic about majority rule. But minority rule has been the norm in human history, and it is a very crappy system also...
The key words you used there are that we have to prevent the EXCESSES of majority rule. Democracy is majority rule. Even the jury box is a place of majority rule. The key limits are to try to limit the majority from just doing anything it wants to. --- The risks of majority rule do not mean that minority rule is better.
#27. To: tpaine (#26)
You need to learn live with republicanism.
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
There is a law above the Constitution.
It can be. The Constitution doesn't say it can't. It merely says that the federal government cannot impose a religious test for officeholding. That doesn't mean that the people cannot enforce a moral law as a condition for receiving their vote.
You will learn to live in a republic that is democratic socialist. You'll hate it. I won't mind it. Sorry.
#31. To: tpaine (#28)
If necessary, we may need to fight over that principle.
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
You want a fight? Bring it. -- The victors will slaughter the losers, and we'll be done with the gridlock.
#33. To: tpaine (#32)
Nothing wrong with political gridlock that a little slaughter can't fix, aye comrade?
#34. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#33)
If the people decide on Democratic socialism, then that is what we will have. You said that we won't - that instead your side will fight.
It is you, not me, who made the call to arms.
All I said was "Bring it." If you really want to fight, with arms, against the express will of the people, you can go ahead and try.
#35. To: tpaine (#34)
Replies to Comment # 35. The oath we took was an oath of office, not a lifetime vow. Neither of us are any longer in that office.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]