The Constitutional Amendment Thread.

[Ishmael]

Amendments I think are necessary?

1. The affirmation of the right to vote.
2. Repeal of Citizens United.

Well, it didn't take long for some one to want to stomp on the first amendment.

Ishmael

 

[Sean]

Well, it didn't take long for some one to want to stomp on the first amendment.

Ishmael

Citizens United has fuck all to do with the first amendment. If CU was reversed tomorrow, not one person's first amendment rights would be impinged upon.

 

[phrodeau]

Many of the founding fathers and thus the writers of the Constitution were Deists.

Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world but rather allows it to function according to the laws of nature.

I ask again, what did Jehovah have to do with the founding of the USA?

 

[eyer]

I ask again, what did Jehovah have to do with the founding of the USA?

Fuck yourself with you childish disingenuousness, playdeau.

.....

 

[Colonel Hogan]

What Hogan is referring to is that it cannot be done under the constitution as it exists today. only by the amendment process can that occur. I'm certain he'll clarify as well.

Even so there are those that would argue that even should the second amendment be repealed that repeal would be null and void. That that right exists extra-constitutionally. The same argument would apply equally to the first amendment along with most of the others in what we refer to as the "Bill of Rights." A careful reading of those amendments will make it clear that they are NOT rights granted to the citizenry, they are prohibitions against the government interfering with those rights.

Ishmael

Absolutely correct, Ish, and thank you. I can see how you misunderstood me, Des, but, as Ish points out, I was referring quite specifically to our Constitutional amendment process.

Having said that, I am less aligned with Ish and others with regard to the existence and sanctity of "unalienable" rights as referenced in the Declaration of Independence. Of the three most notable unalienable rights declared in that document, ALL THREE (not to mention the host of Constitutional and statutory protections throughout federal law) were categorically denied to those men and women held as slaves within this country for the majority of the 19th century, and even with passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments, one could argue how well those rights were truly secured and protected in subsequent decades as compared to white citizens.

More to the point, our law has ample methods for denying the "life" and "liberty" (not to mention the myriad of ways we may restrict the "pursuit of happiness") of our citizens, so I'm not too impressed by the concept of "unalienable" rights.

By my way of thinking, our Constitution may literally sanction and protect ANY individual or collective behavior. Its coexistence with slavery for so many years PROVES my assertion.

We apparently attempted to make amends for that moral transgression by denying people the right to consume alcoholic beverages for a time, but when that experiment was less than satisfying, we were nonetheless REQUIRED by our Constitution to pass yet another Amendment to undo the one we passed making the manufacture and sale of alcohol illegal.

So if there is anything close to an unalienable right in this country it would be, in my opinion, the probable sole right to adopt any law whatsoever by enacting it as a Constitutional Amendment by the process which the Constitution itself stipulates.

And, yes, that would include repealing the Second Amendment.

 

[eyer]

...I'm not too impressed by the concept of "unalienable" rights.

By my way of thinking...

You've always been one to favor your interpretation of the how others interpret constitutional law...

...and never one to be impressed with the founders'/framers' concepts of natural law and inalienable rights which literally inspired them to craft the Constitution itself.

Big surprise:

Corporal RINO Butthurt...

...is really a socialist democrat who favors the collective state and mob rule.

Next...

...you'll be asking Laurel to change your username to Ms. Hogan.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

This message is hidden because eyer is on your ignore list.

RIP

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSu7u8xgpp4UPwpSIqPnYek5zSV41Z7NQFg-kYu7-_ZEacTH65a

 

[eyer]

This message is hidden because eyer is on your ignore list.

RIP

.....

What's your old pal the Judge writing about these days, Ms. Hogan?

Or...

...are you ignoring him, too, because he's regularly showing you your democrat ass due to your socialist "way of thinking" and your interpretation of others' interpretations of constitutional law, rather than revering literal concepts of natural law and inalienable rights.

[Notice the intentional lack of a question mark...

...Ms. Hogan.].

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/see+no+evil.jpg
...................The Hogan Tribe



BTW, Ms. Hogan:

Have you considered running for office?

Just asking.

Cause then you can be just another lying bozo who swears to defend and uphold the Constitution...

...while pussily concealing holding your own "way of thinking" about it, too.

 

[eyer]

And, yes, that would include repealing the Second Amendment.

And, then following logically...

...the First, Third through Twenty-Seventh, and the Constitution itself, too, if the mob...sorry...majority rules.

Yep, to Ms. Hogan's socialist democrat "way of thinking"...

...free speech isn't an inalienable, natural right of all men - it's only a right if a tyrant or mob rules it to be so.

You champion mob rule to form any government the most votes garner...

...why can't you just come out of your closet and admit you're a traitor to the republican form of government that Constitution dictates?

You know all your progressive fans here will only adore you more...

 

[eyer]

Yep, to Ms. Hogan's socialist democrat "way of thinking"...

...free speech isn't an inalienable, natural right of all men - it's only a right if a tyrant or mob rules it to be so.

You're no American, Ms. Hogan...

...you're nothing but a fucking lemming.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Thank you for asking Des.

The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 is unconstitutional. This is the law that sets the number of representative in the House of Representatives at 435. The constitution calls for 1 representative per 30,000 citizens. OK - so I understand that 10,600 member of congress would be unwieldy. However 1 per 735,000 is to few.

Also 2 senators per state is absurd.

Since I believe that most of this country's ills stem from a lack of representation I would argue that the first and most important amendments would open the house of representatives to at least 871 members of congress and 3 senators per State. And even that may be too few.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Thank you for asking Des.

The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 is unconstitutional. This is the law that sets the number of representative in the House of Representatives at 435. The constitution calls for 1 representative per 30,000 citizens. OK - so I understand that 10,600 member of congress would be unwieldy. However 1 per 735,000 is to few.

Also 2 senators per state is absurd.

Since I believe that most of this country's ills stem from a lack of representation I would argue that the first and most important amendments would open the house of representatives to at least 871 members of congress and 3 senators per State. And even that may be too few.

You want more of the blood sucking, corrupt, liars!!!!!!

 

[BoyNextDoor]

You want more of the blood sucking, corrupt, liars!!!!!!

You are right. What was I thinking? In fact, let's reduce the number of representatives we have in a republic. That will make for a real improvement.

 

[Ishmael]

Absolutely correct, Ish, and thank you. I can see how you misunderstood me, Des, but, as Ish points out, I was referring quite specifically to our Constitutional amendment process.

Having said that, I am less aligned with Ish and others with regard to the existence and sanctity of "unalienable" rights as referenced in the Declaration of Independence. Of the three most notable unalienable rights declared in that document, ALL THREE (not to mention the host of Constitutional and statutory protections throughout federal law) were categorically denied to those men and women held as slaves within this country for the majority of the 19th century, and even with passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments, one could argue how well those rights were truly secured and protected in subsequent decades as compared to white citizens.

More to the point, our law has ample methods for denying the "life" and "liberty" (not to mention the myriad of ways we may restrict the "pursuit of happiness") of our citizens, so I'm not too impressed by the concept of "unalienable" rights.

By my way of thinking, our Constitution may literally sanction and protect ANY individual or collective behavior. Its coexistence with slavery for so many years PROVES my assertion.

We apparently attempted to make amends for that moral transgression by denying people the right to consume alcoholic beverages for a time, but when that experiment was less than satisfying, we were nonetheless REQUIRED by our Constitution to pass yet another Amendment to undo the one we passed making the manufacture and sale of alcohol illegal.

So if there is anything close to an unalienable right in this country it would be, in my opinion, the probable sole right to adopt any law whatsoever by enacting it as a Constitutional Amendment by the process which the Constitution itself stipulates.

And, yes, that would include repealing the Second Amendment.

That is obviously true, but making it stick is an altogether different proposition. You mention of the failed 18th amendment (alcohol) is evidence of that and that particular amendment didn't come close to touching any of the amendments enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Ishmael

 

[DesEsseintes]

I'm intrigued by something I read about amendments passed by both Houses with a 2/3 majority but still not law - is that because they also have to be ratified by a majority of states? Or another supermajority? And then what happens - do they hang around the statute books and try again later, or are such efforts merely written off, even if being passed with a 2/3 majority indicates pretty widespread support?

 

[toubab]

You are right. What was I thinking? In fact, let's reduce the number of representatives we have in a republic. That will make for a real improvement.

Increasing the number of Senators from two per state to three would have no practical effect whatsoever. All states would still be equal in the Senate. As far as doubling the number of Representatives in the House is concerned, that would have a little effect, but not much. The balance would remain approximately the same.

 

[Ishmael]

I'm intrigued by something I read about amendments passed by both Houses with a 2/3 majority but still not law - is that because they also have to be ratified by a majority of states? Or another supermajority? And then what happens - do they hang around the statute books and try again later, or are such efforts merely written off, even if being passed with a 2/3 majority indicates pretty widespread support?

3/4 of the states also have to ratify the amendment. As I said, it's not an easy process. Both processes are laid out in Article V.

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 no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

The purpose of the process is to prevent 'heat of the moment' populist stampedes that might, and often do, yield ill advised amendments.

Ishmael

 

[DesEsseintes]

3/4 of the states also have to ratify the amendment. As I said, it's not an easy process. Both processes are laid out in Article V.



The purpose of the process is to prevent 'heat of the moment' populist stampedes that might, and often do, yield ill advised amendments.

Ishmael

I see - thank you. Do such amendments then simply fail, or is there provision for them to be taken to the states again a few years later?

 

[Ishmael]

I see - thank you. Do such amendments then simply fail, or is there provision for them to be taken to the states again a few years later?

That gets into grey areas. Usually the proposed amendments have a time limit set for ratification. I believe the failed "Equal Rights" amendment had a five year clock. There is nothing that would block the re-introduction of a failed amendment at a later date.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

Just checked, the Equal Rights amendment had a 7 year clock. There are currently 4 amendments pending with no ratification window that date back to 1789. One, the Corwin Amendment, would have enshrined slavery into the Constitution.

Ishmael

 

[DesEsseintes]

Just checked, the Equal Rights amendment had a 7 year clock. There are currently 4 amendments pending with no ratification window that date back to 1789. One, the Corwin Amendment, would have enshrined slavery into the Constitution.

Ishmael

Blimey! So if 3/4 of states ratified the Corwin Amendment it would become law?

This thread is proving very educational. Thank you.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Increasing the number of Senators from two per state to three would have no practical effect whatsoever. All states would still be equal in the Senate. As far as doubling the number of Representatives in the House is concerned, that would have a little effect, but not much. The balance would remain approximately the same.

The third senator would be useful in having 1/3 of the senate up for reelection every 2 years.

OK, so how many representatives?

 

[Ishmael]

Blimey! So if 3/4 of states ratified the Corwin Amendment it would become law?

This thread is proving very educational. Thank you.

Essentially. Three states did ratify the amendment, Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois. Ohio rescinded ratification in 1864, Maryland in 2014. The Illinois ratification was of questionable validity.

Ishmael

 

[toubab]

The third senator would be useful in having 1/3 of the senate up for reelection every 2 years.

OK, so how many representatives?

True, but it would almost certainly result in Vermont and Massachusetts having three Democrats in the Senate instead of two, and Wyoming and Mississippi having three Republicans instead of two, etc. No real difference in the end.

No matter how many Representatives you have in the House, the balance will be about the same. Districts represented currently by a Democrat will generally be represented by by two, or three, or more, and those represented by a Republican will be represented by more, as well. There would be some net gain one way or the other, most likely, but it wouldn't be great. I would say the more the districts are divided the more it would favor the Democratic Party, but only slightly.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

That is obviously true, but making it stick is an altogether different proposition. You mention of the failed 18th amendment (alcohol) is evidence of that and that particular amendment didn't come close to touching any of the amendments enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Ishmael

But I am troubled by and take exception to your implication that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution enshrine individual rights that enjoy an exalted status of "unalienable" as compared to rights or legal sanctions stipulated by subsequent amendments or any addressed in the main articles of the Constitution itself. Do you mean to suggest that Amendments XI - XXVII and those yet to come are somehow "lesser law"? If so, I cannot accept that, nor is their anything in the language of the Constitution that would support it.

What human right could be more unalienable in the eyes of God than to be free of enslavement to another man as literally analogous to an inanimate piece of property? And would someone argue to me that such a right is less unalienable simply because we waited to embrace it in the 13th Amendment rather than three or more amendments sooner?

And would someone else argue to me that the process does not exist within our law by which the 13th Amendment could be repealed?

Speaking of "altogether different proposition," making something "stick" is an altogether different proposition legally than an "unalienable" right. That which does or does not "stick" is usually a matter of sufficient or insufficient strength of public opinion. That which is truly "unalienable" legally stands ABOVE public opinion. To argue that slavery was a long suffering violation of an unalienable right is a distinction that made scant difference to those who lived their lives under it.

Better to simply recognize that ALL rights are defined by the governments that regulate them, and to defend, as most morally legitimate, those governments which are most democratic in their structure.