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: 70934
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 The second article of amendment is hereby repealed.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 (1-104) not displayed.
.
.
.
#105. To: Vicomte13 (#104)
Let's see what happens to those Baltimore cops. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
At the end of the final appeal.
Yes the point is several posters have confirmed any Amendment can be amended. Perhaps a more accurate way of asking your question is: Can our enumerated rights, the Bill of Rights be amended? Short answer is yes. Long answer is if we do we scrap the philosophical founding of our nation, the DoI. It all goes back to the terms used by the founders of "self evident" and "endowed by their Creator." If our government decided to amend any of the enumerated rights, the response of freedom loving people should be similar to this: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.ht ml No. Aaron Burr was Vice President at the time, which made him President of the Senate. This was not a presidential impeachment. Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 provides:
Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked. Your arguments, if tried in court, would result in Rule 11 sanctions. "There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11." First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee (1993), 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502 Does Obama enjoy the power you espouse to ignore the Court and the laws? Does his interpretation of the Constitution and the laws supplant that of the Court for the Executive branch? Can Barack Obama lawfully deem that he is not required to comply with the immigration laws and can permit open borders, and take no action on illegal immigration? Can Obama lawfully deem 12-million illegal aliens to be citizens? Can Obama lawfully deem he can authorize the naturalization of an illegal alien?
Yep, ignore SCOTUS and focus on the tpaine court of the imagination, in your imaginary world. http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx U.S. Supreme Court website: The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - - - - - US v McDonald, 9th Cir 88-5239, 919 F.2d 146 (26 Nov 1990) Whenever official notice is received at the Department of State that any amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Secretary of State shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published in the newspapers authorized to promulgate the laws, with his certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States. Act of April 20, 1818, ch. 80, Sec. 2, Rev.Stat. Sec. 205 (2d ed. 1878) (amended version codified at 5 U.S.C. § 160 (1940) (repealed Oct. 31, 1951); current version, as amended, at 1 U.S.C. § 106b (Supp. II 1984)). Secretary of State Knox's certification of the adoption of the sixteenth amendment is conclusive upon the courts. United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253-54 (7th Cir. 1986); see also Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 137, 42 S. Ct. 217, 218, 66 L. Ed. 505 (1922). In Leser suit was brought to strike the names of two women from the list of qualified voters in Maryland on the ground that the constitution of Maryland limited suffrage to men. Maryland had refused to ratify the Nineteenth Amendment. The necessary minimum of thirty-six states had ratified the amendment. The Secretary of State of the United States had certified its adoption. It was contended, however, that the ratifying resolutions of Tennessee and West Virginia, two of the states that had ratified the amendment, were inoperative because the resolutions of those states had been adopted in violation of their rules of legislative procedure. In answer to that contention the Court ruled: The proclamation by the Secretary certified that from official documents on file in the Department of State it appeared that the proposed Amendment was ratified by the legislatures of thirty-six States, and that it "has become valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the United States." As the legislatures of Tennessee and of West Virginia had power to adopt the resolutions of ratification, official notice to the Secretary, duly authenticated, that they had done so was conclusive upon him, and, being certified to by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts. United States v. Stahl, 792 F.2d 1438, 1439 (9th Cir. 1986) - - - - -
Illegal immigration?
You started this thread to solicit support for your contention. You asked for comments and you received them. It is obvious this thread has now run its course. Will you therefore please post a summation of the comments you asked for and received....then state for everyone to view, the results of your effort and the conclusive finding.
Illegal immigration? LOL!
Fair enough. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Also, what happens if the Fed refuses to enforce a constitutional valid law...? Illegal immigration? Among other things. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I contend that an attempt to amend away our enumerated basic human rights would violate the basic principles inherent in our constitution, -- and therefore would be unconstitutional. So essentially, we agree. Thanks.. Here's one of my points: - If a super majority somehow ratifies an amendment to repeal the 2nd, -- the remaining minority has the constitutional right to use every non-violent means available to fight, before resorting to armed separation/rebellion..
I asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" And I read your example, and observed that it seemed you advocated the power of the people to pass such an unconstitutional act.. It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. You affirmed such a power, and provided an example of how such an amendment could be worded. You did not indicate that you would not advocate the power to so amend. It's unfortunate you didn't post that revision. Well, we're not in court, but I do have a pure heart. As for empty heads, I suggest you address gatlin, our empty head expert..
correct . There were many challenges to the prohibition laws . Any amendment that contradicts the text of the Constitution itself or an earlier amendment will nullify the earlier text. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
No need to address this, chan. It is quite obvious that everyone showed tpaine to be wrong. And tpaine will never man up to admit he was wrong. It is now quite evident that tpaine is no Constitutional expert. He is what he is....just an opinionated, bullheaded idiot.
It is now quite evident that tpaine is no Constitutional expert. He is what he is.. Yep, I'm a retired building contractor, who has never claimed to be a constitutional expert, -- but it's an easy to read document, and our common sense tell us that it did NOT give a moral super majority the power to amend away our inalienable rights, outlined in the Bill of Rights.
It most certainly did. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
If our government decided to amend any of the enumerated rights, the response of freedom loving people should be similar to this: Amen. (Are we there yet, Daddy??) ;-) We desperately need a bold leader who will echo your exactly post with absolute conviction.
--- it's an easy to read document, and our common sense tell us that it did NOT give a moralistic super majority the power to amend away our inalienable rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights. Thanks for your fiat opinion. - You've made big brownie points with gatlin and chan.
And I suppose unfortunately neither can an "interpretation" *of* the Constitution by any one of nine Justices be deemed "unconstitutional." We are all held hostage by ideologues until they surrender their lifetime appointments (can Congress rescind those "lifetime appointments"? Thus in a liberal-dominated court, aren't the USCON's principles severely compromised, as well as ALL justice, law, and the Bill of Rights itself? If Congress refuses to enact laws, and retain its status as co-equal branch of government, and remains derelict in its duty, what recourse have We The People in recalibrating the im-balance before its too late? Btw, I've enjoyed attending your "class."
Don't care. You may chose to continue to live in your fantasy world but most of us do understand what the Constitution means and fully understand that even the Bill of Rights can be modified or nullified if there are enough votes for that to happen. And there is not thing one that SOCTUS can do about it. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Why do 'most' of you WANT to give that power to a moralistic super majority, -- like the tea-totaling idiots that prohibited booze? To date, no one on this forum, LP, or FR, has ever been able to explain why such majority rule would be desirable. And I'd bet you can't either...
No one will ever be able to explain anything to you, tpaine. Some people are exactly who they are and despite being presented the truth, they will continue to believe what they want to believe….you are one of those people. Your have an inherent desire to be right. You have an overwhelmingly strong will to always be correct and to prove your are smart….to show that you “know” the Constitution. There is that little something inside you that refuses to see when your are “wrong”….it will forever hold you back from learning, growing, and ultimately having a correctly formed and educated opinion. I’m done here.
I wouldn't even waste my time starting with him. Why beat your head on the tpaine brick wall by arguing with someone that asks this... "Why do 'most' of you WANT to give that power to a moralistic super majority".... and willingly lives in a nazi state of Kookifornia... and paying that tyrannical state some of the highest taxes for the chains he wears. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
To date, no one on this forum, LP, or FR, has ever been able to explain why such majority rule would be desirable. I don't think some folks understand that they shouldn't just be accepting what is going on, that they should be fighting it instead. Oh wait never mind PC has taken over and they just want to "get along" so some dumbasses will like them. "SPIT"!!! “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
That's a cute one....I have copied it for future use, thanks.
I’m done here. I wouldn't even waste my time starting with him. Why beat your head on the tpaine brick wall by arguing with someone that asks this... "Why do 'most' of you WANT to give that power to a moralistic super majority".... and willingly lives in a nazi state of Kookifornia... and paying that tyrannical state some of the highest taxes for the chains he wears.
Yo, anyone at home in your head. Nobody made any claim about desireability. That has not been the issue being discussed. The issue is what the Consitution permits re: the giving or taking of so-called rights. And what the Constitution permits is that a super majority can change it without limits on what may or may not be changed. Further, as long as the process described in the Consitution is followed SCOTUS can't do thing one about it. The only recourse appears to be rebellion. What's the chances of that occuring? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Why do 'most' of you WANT to give that power to a moralistic super majority, -- like the tea-totaling idiots that prohibited booze? To date, no one on this forum, LP, or FR, has ever been able to explain why such majority rule would be desirable. (In a Constitutional sense) And typically, like gatlin and grandisland, they quit when challenged. - Pitiful little people..
Why do 'most' of you WANT to give that power to a moralistic super majority, -- like the tea-totaling idiots that prohibited booze? To date, no one on this forum, LP, or FR, has ever been able to explain why such majority rule would be desirable. (In a Constitutional sense) That's what you (prohibitionists?) claim, without constitutional proofs. Can you answer the question or not?
I've noted over the months I've been lurking that there are quite a few of you who too often don't.
When you boycott nazi occupied Kookifornia, buy moving out of that shithole state, I'll agree with everything you say. Until then, you are... H Y P O C R I T I C A L and have no room to even have a constitutional opinion. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Yes. The 17th amendment conflicted with a fundamental concept of the original constitutional government under which the House was the representative body of the people, elected by popular vote of the people, and the Senate was the representative body of the state governments, elected by the state legislatures. As revised, the state legislatures elect no representative to the Federal government, and the popularly elected senator may be a 20- or 30-year incumbent not representative of the majority party in the current state legislature. It's what the people chose to do.
I answered your question, i.e. - no-one made a claim as to desireability. I certainly didn't. What part of that answer don't you understand? All anyone said is that the Constitution allows itself to amended in away as long as the procedure described in the Consitution is followed Do you have another question? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Thus in a liberal-dominated court, aren't the USCON's principles severely compromised, as well as ALL justice, law, and the Bill of Rights itself? If Congress refuses to enact laws, and retain its status as co-equal branch of government, and remains derelict in its duty, what recourse have We The People in recalibrating the im-balance before its too late? Not by the Legislature or Executive. The Court can and has reversed itself on an interpretation, but it does not hold its prior holding unconstitutional. The people can amend the Constitution. Only a majority of the justices sitting on a case can issue a holding. A lifetime appointment (during good behavior) cannot be rescinded. A justice can be impeached. A politically dominated court had a profound effect on how our government and laws came to be viewed. At the outset, the capital in the southern location of D.C. was given to the southrons. The ability of the president to appoint the Supreme Court justices had a significant and lasting effect. SCOTUS had five justices early on. Between Washington and Adams, they appointed 13 justices. That would be 13 members of the Federalist party, the last of which was CJ John Marshall. Marshall remained CJ for over 30 years. Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and J.Q. Adams appointed members of the Dem.-Rep. party. Jackson, Van Buren, Tyler, and Polk appointed 11 straight members of the Democrat party. Jackson appointed Taney who remained CJ nearly 30 years. The driving force for congress critters today is to get reelected. The people of 435 districts vote for the guy who can deliver the pork to their district and complain about the other 434. Congress properly flexing its muscle vs. the Executive may not be popular at election time. The Prez has the bully pulpit and an endless supply of spokesholes. Delivering pork and not doing unpopular stuff works.
Your arguments, if tried in court, would result in Rule 11 sanctions. "There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11." First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee (1993), 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502 Does Obama enjoy the power you espouse to ignore the Court and the laws? Does his interpretation of the Constitution and the laws supplant that of the Court for the Executive branch? Can Barack Obama lawfully deem that he is not required to comply with the immigration laws and can permit open borders, and take no action on illegal immigration? Can Obama lawfully deem 12-million illegal aliens to be citizens? Can Obama lawfully deem he can authorize the naturalization of an illegal alien? Of course, you must run and hide from my questions as your dingbat legal theory emanating from the tpaine court of the imagination ineluctably deems that Barack Obama and the Executive branch can lawfully ignore the laws and the Constitution and lawfully authorize open borders, grant citizenship to millions of illegal aliens, and naturalize illegal aliens. I answered your question. Why must you hide from mine? Man up. Answer how your version of the law applies to Obama or how it selectively applies only according to your whims.
/sarc. The entire Constitution is unconstitutional, and null and void, as it was proposed and ratified in violation of then existing organic law, the Articles of Confederation. Article 13 clearly and explicitly stated: The Constitution was proposed to be effective upon the ratification of NINE states. The new constitutional government was formed and George Washington was inaugurated as its new President, after the ratification by ELEVEN states. See: Being the ELEVEN STATES that have Ratified the Constitution of the Government of the United States. Containing an Impartial Account of The most interesting Speeches and Motions; and accurate Copies of remarkable Papers laid before and offered to the House.. Taken in short hand by Thomas Lloyd. Volume I New-York, Printed for the Editor by Harrison and Purdy, M,DCC,LXXXIX North Carolina and Rhode Island had not ratified. Congressional Register Volume 1, aka Lloyd's Debates (1789) By what lawful authority or power was the "perpetual union" under the Articles of Confederation destroyed, and a new union of ELEVEN states formed? How could any alteration lawfully be done when the Articles provide that they will be inviolably observed by every state, and no alteration could be made unless confirmed by the legislature of every state? How was the Bill of Rights passed through Congress with only ELEVEN states in the union? Is the Constitution unlawful, null and void? If not, why not?
The Senate was the construct of the Connecticut compromise ;one of many such compromises that united the 13 states into a Federal Republic. I personally think we had some great statesmen in the Senate in the 19th century . But the people thought there was a legitimate reason for changing it. The principle argument was that state legislatures selecting led to corruption. But how can we say today that the current system is any less corrupt? We went from pols being corrupt to pols being corrupt AND states losing their representation in the Federal Government . So if you are asking me if I'd be in favor of a repeal amendment .My answer would be yes . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
then again ,the legislature of my state ;NY ,is one of the most dysfunctional ,and corrupt in the nation. then again ,the people of my state are pretty wacked too.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I was not really asking, but observing that an amendment can be odds with the existing system and take away the representation of state governments. The people have the power, whether the exercise of it was wise is debatable. The Framers had some wisdom in the room, and they may have had it right.
Comments (146 - 255) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestBut they are still bound by the rules of evidence, and if they ignore procedure in their rush to judgement, they are subject to multiple levels of review.
#106. To: SOSO (#105)
#107. To: tpaine (#61)
#108. To: SOSO (#103)
I thought impeachment hearings had to be presided over by the Chief Justice. Was that not always the case?
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
#109. To: tpaine (#101)
It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it..
#110. To: tpaine, Liberator (#40)
When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
Stahl argues that the sixteenth amendment was never ratified by the requisite number of states because of clerical errors in the ratifying resolutions of the various state legislatures and other errors in the ratification process. He further argues that Secretary of State Knox committed fraud by certifying the adoption of the amendment despite these alleged errors. Secretary of State Knox certified that the sixteenth amendment had been ratified by the legislatures of thirty-eight states, two more than the thirty-six then required for ratification. His certification of the adoption of the amendment was made pursuant to Section 205 of the Revised Statutes of the United States which provided:
#111. To: SOSO, buckeroo (#92)
Also, what happens if the Fed refuses to enforce a constitutional valid law...?
#112. To: tpaine, nolu chan, All (#0)
(Edited)
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?
#113. To: nolu chan (#111)
Also, what happens if the Fed refuses to enforce a constitutional valid law...?
#114. To: Vicomte13 (#106)
At the end of the final appeal.
#115. To: nolu chan, buckeroo (#111)
#116. To: redleghunter, nolu chan, y'all (#107)
-- the point is several posters have confirmed any Amendment can be amended. -- - Perhaps a more accurate way of asking your question is: ---- Can our enumerated rights, the Bill of Rights be amended? --- Short answer is yes.
Long answer is if we do we scrap the philosophical founding of our nation, the DoI.
It all goes back to the terms used by the founders of "self evident" and "endowed by their Creator." ----- If our government decided to amend any of the enumerated rights, the response of freedom loving people should be similar to this: ------- When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
#117. To: nolu chan, gatlin, Y'ALL (#109)
I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. ---- I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it.
I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. -- What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it.
Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked.
Your arguments, if tried in court, would result in Rule 11 sanctions. --- "There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11." First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee (1993), 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502>>
#118. To: nolu chan (#75)
(Edited)
The question was not before the court to determine the constitutionality of the 18th Amendment. An amendment cannot be unconstitutional
#119. To: tpaine, nolu chan, ALL (#117)
(Edited)
I suggest you address gatlin, our empty head expert..
#120. To: Gatlin, Nolu Chan, Y'ALL (#119)
#121. To: tpaine, Gatlin, Nolu Chan (#120)
but it's an easy to read document, and our common sense tell us that it did NOT give a moral super majority the power to amend away our inalienable rights, outlined in the Bill of Rights.
#122. To: redleghunter, tpaine (#107)
It all goes back to the terms used by the founders of "self evident" and "endowed by their Creator."
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
#123. To: SOSO, gatlin, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#121)
It most certainly did. --- SOSO
#124. To: nolu chan (#75)
The question was not before the court to determine the constitutionality of the 18th Amendment. An amendment cannot be unconstitutional.
#125. To: tpaine, gatlin, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#123)
You've made big brownie points with gatlin and chan.
#126. To: SOSO, gatlin, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#125)
--- most of us do understand what the Constitution means and fully understand that even the Bill of Rights can be modified or nullified if there are enough votes for that to happen.
#127. To: tpaine, SOSO, nolu chan, ALL (#126)
To date, no one on this forum, LP, or FR, has ever been able to explain why ...
I’ve seen many people who don’t change and they always get left behind. Smart people learn things, so they change their minds. Only stupid people never change their minds. ~ Those were the recent words spoken by Donald Trump.
The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions. ~ Leonardo da Vinci
#128. To: Gatlin (#127)
(Edited)
I’m done here.
#129. To: tpaine (#126)
Why do 'most' of you WANT to give that power to a moralistic super majority, -- like the tea-totaling idiots that prohibited booze?
#130. To: Gatlin (#127)
I’m done here.
#131. To: CZ82 (#130)
#132. To: GrandIsland (#128)
(Edited)
#133. To: tpaine (#126)
To date, no one on this forum, LP, or FR, has ever been able to explain why such majority rule would be desirable.
#134. To: CZ82, gatlin, grandisland, y'all (#129)
I don't think some folks understand that they shouldn't just be accepting what is going on, that they should be fighting it instead.
#135. To: SOSO, y'all (#133)
Yo, anyone at home in your head. Nobody made any claim about desireability. That has not been the issue being discussed. The issue is what the Consitution permits re: the giving or taking of so-called rights. And what the Constitution permits is that a super majority can change it without limits on what may or may not be changed.
#136. To: tpaine, CZ82 (#134)
I don't think
#137. To: tpaine (#134)
#138. To: tomder55 (#118)
Any amendment that contradicts the text of the Constitution itself or an earlier amendment will nullify the earlier text.
#139. To: tpaine (#135)
Can you answer the question or not?
#140. To: Liberator (#124)
And I suppose unfortunately neither can an "interpretation" *of* the Constitution by any one of nine Justices be deemed "unconstitutional." We are all held hostage by ideologues until they surrender their lifetime appointments (can Congress rescind those "lifetime appointments"?
#141. To: tpaine (#117)
Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked.
#142. To: tpaine, redleghunter (#116)
I contend that an attempt to amend away our enumerated basic human rights would violate the basic principles inherent in our constitution, -- and therefore would be unconstitutional.
Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.
The Congressional Register; or History of the Proceedings and Debates of the First House of Representatives of the United States of America; Namely, New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsyvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South-Carolina, and Georgia.
#143. To: nolu chan (#138)
It's what the people chose to do.
#144. To: nolu chan (#143)
(Edited)
#145. To: tomder55 (#143)
So if you are asking me if I'd be in favor of a repeal amendment .My answer would be yes .
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]