[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions Status: Not Logged In; Sign In 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: 70874 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 Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 143. #3. To: tpaine (#0) During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Comments? Nolu Chan is legally correct. Through the amendment process the Constitution can be amended to say anything, except removing equal representation in the Senate. THAT requires unanimity of the states. The Constitution could be amended to require the sacrifice of first-born children. And if the sufficient majorities were found to vote for that, it would be "constitutional". Of course, then treason, and seeking the overthrow and destruction of the Constitution, and supporting foreign invasion and annihilation of the American government, would be the only morally correct thing to do. The Constitution does not guarantee MORAL content. The people have to do that. If the people become depraved and enact depraved laws, then "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed". America was always depraved. First there was slavery, then there was Indian genocide and segregation. Those things ended, but now we have abortion and the glorification of buggery. Most people think that those evils - slavery, segregation, abortion, gay marriage - are "sufferable evils" and don't rebel. And that would be the case with the Second Amendment abolition also, were it to pass. (Truth is, it could not pass in the current environment). Mandatory sacrifice of firstborn children would be bad enough to justify treason, and would swiftly result in its outbreak. Traitors who win are called "Founding Fathers" of the new order they usher in. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-07-09   10:49:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: Vicomte13, tomder 55, gatlin (#3) The Constitution could be amended to require the sacrifice of first-born children. And if the sufficient majorities were found to vote for that, it would be "constitutional". Of course, then treason, and seeking the overthrow and destruction of the Constitution, and supporting foreign invasion and annihilation of the American government, would be the only morally correct thing to do. You all contend that our only recourse from a majority passing amendments that take away our basic human rights is violence? - 'Treasonous' violence? - Civil war? tpaine  posted on  2015-07-09   11:10:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: tpaine (#5) You all contend that our only recourse from a majority passing amendments that take away our basic human rights is violence? - 'Treasonous' violence? - Civil war? I didn't say "only " I provided an example where an amendment was reversed by an amendment . But to answer this new question ......possibly. Let's look at the amendments that the "progressives" don't like . Clearly they don't like the 2nd . They have proven to me beyond a shadow of doubt that they don't like the 1st amendment free exercise clause ( Wisconsin's junior Senator Tammy Baldwin said on MSNBC that the free exercise of religion extends only to religious institutions ,and not to individuals outside the church).They clearly would put restrictions of the free speech provisions (ie the movement to amend the constitution to reverse the 'Citizens United' decision ). http://freespeechforpeople.org/the-amendment/democracy-for-all-amendment/#sj- res-5-114th-congress They are trying to control the internet to limit free speech .Before that they wanted to censor talk radio . They had a 'fairness doctrine ' that required the airing of opposing views at one time. They want to outlaw so called 'hate speech'. Now if they managed to amend the Constitution to strip provisions that the founders thought were so basic that some of them did not believe it necessary to include them in the Constitution originally, then what would the recourse be ? Perhaps amending the constitution again ,or in the extreme ,"when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. " tomder55  posted on  2015-07-09   13:00:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: tomder55, Y'ALL (#11) The 18th amendment outlawed alcohol . The 21st amendment repealed the 18th . Yes it can be done. -- tomder 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? I didn't say "only " I provided an example where an amendment was reversed by an ( amendment . But to answer this new question ......possibly. 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. 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." 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? tpaine  posted on  2015-07-09   17:25:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #75. To: tpaine, tomder55 (#53) 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. This claim is false, as previously explained thoroughly on the other thread. 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: 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 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 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. The argument was characterized in W. F. Dodd, Amending the Federal Constitution, Yale Law Journal, V1 XXX, No. 4, February 1921, p. 333. This argument might be termed somewhat ridiculous, had it not appeared under the distinguished name of Mr. Elihu Root. [...] 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. In 264 Federal Reporter 186, on the Feigenspan case, the headnotes read, 1. Eighteenth Amendment, with respect to its subject-matter, held within the power to amend given by article 5, and valid. 2. Every grant of power to the federal government, whether by the Constitution as orlglnally framed or by subsequent amendment, necessariy diminished powers of the several st.ates, and that an amendment takes away a pollce power previously In the state dpes not render It invalid. 3. That a constitutional amendment is in effect legislation controlling the conduct of private individuals, in that it ordains a final permanent law prohibiting certain acts, not alterable at the will of a majority, does not render it invalid. 4. The provision of Const. art. 5, authorizing Congress to propose amendments "whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary," does not require that a joint resolution proposing an amendment shall expressly declare that it is deemed necessary. 5. Congress alone, of all departments of the federal government, is intrusted with the power of proposing amendments to the Constitution, and the form of resolutions by which it proposes an amendment is not subject to judicial investigation. 6. In Const. art. 5, providing that a proposed amendment shall be valid "when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states," when that mode shall be proposed by Congress, the word "Legislature" means the then recognized representative law-making bodies of the states, and the validity of an amendment ratified by the requisite number of such Legislatures cannot be affected by state laws providing for, or permitting, a referendum vote on legislative acts. 7. Eighteenth Amendment, § 2, providing that "the Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislatlon," must be construed, in harmony with its purpose, to expressly authorize effective legislation for enforcement of section 1, which excludes a construction making concurrence of the states necessary to tbe effectiveness of congressional legislation, and such legislation, if enacted, is parramount, and, while it may be supplemented by state legislation, it cannot be defeated by any action or nonaction of the states. In the absence of action by Congress, any state may enact enforcement legislation effective within its borders. 8. National Prohibition Act Oct. 28, 1919, § 1, in providing that "intoxicating liquor" as used in the act, shall be construed to include all liquors, liquids, or compounds containing one-half of 1 per centum or more of alcohol by volume, does not make a definition which may be declared arbitrary and unconstitutional by the courts, but one which it was within the reasonable discretion of Congress to make for the purposes of the act. 9. National Prohibition Act Oct 28, 1919, held not invalid, as taking private property for public use without just compensution, in violation of Fifth Amendment, because, as incidental to the exercise of a lawful power, loss may result to certain species of property. 10. "Amendment" includes additions to, as well as corrections of, matters already treated, and there is nothing in the context of Const. art. 5, providing that Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments, which suggests that it was used in a restricted sense. The Decree in Feigenspan was affirmed by SCOTUS. 253 US 350, 40 Sup Ct 486. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-09   21:35:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #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 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. tomder55  posted on  2015-07-10   11:56:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #138. To: tomder55 (#118) Any amendment that contradicts the text of the Constitution itself or an earlier amendment will nullify the earlier text. 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. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-10   19:12:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #143. To: nolu chan (#138) It's what the people chose to do. 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 . tomder55  posted on  2015-07-10   20:04:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 143. #144. To: nolu chan (#143) (Edited) 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. tomder55  posted on  2015-07-10 20:09:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #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 . 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. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-10 20:33:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 143. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com