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: 86079
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 The second article of amendment is hereby repealed.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 (1-85) not displayed.
.
.
.
#86. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#83)
BTW, what does the Consitution say about the involuntary removal of a Supreme Court judge?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
#87. To: Liberator, tpaine (#9)
Chan is only the bearer of bad (obvious) news. Don't kill the messenger.
He asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" [emphasis added]
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.
#88. To: tpaine (#0)
Nolu chan never proposed any such amendment. I changed the Title.
#89. To: nolu chan (#75)
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opinion on that specific issue, and left it at that, whereupon damn near everyone ignored the 'amendment, until it was repealed.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.
Anyone can read the other thread, and see that you did not prove your claim.
The question was not before the court to determine the constitutionality of the 18th Amendment.
Root made that argument, among others. Your lengthy posts only cite the others, and the opinions about those other arguments..
An amendment cannot be unconstitutional.
So you've been claiming, (without any constitutional basis) - for several days now. -- It's your opinion.
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.
As I've noted before, you seem to want to end this discussion (because you realise you can't what - 'win'?) with a flame war. --- No sale..
#90. To: SOSO (#85)
Actually not even that as the recent Supreme Court decisions prove.
The US Supreme Court can not strike down an amendment. They infer or "interpret" a decision based acceptable cases rising on their scrutiny for cse law for and about the US Constitution requirements.
They are a "whacky, weird set of opinions" too. For what it is worth, I disagree with just about every decision they make. I disagee with the process for their cases, alo ... as they are as politically motivated as a pile of pirates begging for some rum in a nudity bar and getting a quickie in a backroom.
#91. To: SOSO, tpaine (#86)
BTW, what does the Consitution say about the involuntary removal of a Supreme Court judge?
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
In 1804, the Senate held an impeachment trial for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. He was not convicted.
#92. To: buckeroo (#90)
The US Supreme Court can not strike down an amendment.
They don't have to strike it down. What would have happened if SCOTUS ruled the other way against the various City and State laws resticting gun ownership by implementing extremely onerous, if not practically impossible, permiting requirements?
Also, what happens if the Fed refuses to enforce a constitutional valid law or Supreme Court decision for itself or for a State? SCOTUS does not have any enforcement power.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
#93. To: nolu chan (#91)
In 1804, the Senate held an impeachment trial for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase. He was not convicted.
Who presided?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
#94. To: nolu chan (#87)
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?" [emphasis added]
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.
And I read your example, and observed that it seemed you advocated the power of the people to pass such an unconstitutional act..
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.
It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it..
#95. To: SOSO (#92)
They don't have to strike it down. What would have happened if SCOTUS ruled the other way against the various City and State laws resticting gun ownership by implementing extremely onerous, if not practically impossible, permiting requirements?
Well stated.
The USSC can simply "interpret the laws under the US Constitution." So, they practice "due diligence" as blacked robed thieves of citizen rights, liberties, freedoms and dignites. They have been performing their black maejiick nearly since their first appearance.
#96. To: SOSO, nolu chan (#71)
The only rights we have in the real world are those rights we can defend.
The way I look at it, when you drill down to the core, all liberty repose in the rules of evidence. You have the liberty to do everything permitted by the laws of physics: you CAN do whatever is POSSIBLE to do. The real question is whether you will be punished or not for doing it. And THAT is really determined, first and foremost, by whether anybody can prove you did it before a tribunal. Likewise, the authorities CAN charge you with anything, whether you're innocent or not, and seek your incarceration or death. In all such cases, guilt or innocence is decided by the tribunal by applying rules, and the rules that matter most are the rules that determine what your accusers get to say to the trier of fact, and what you get to say in rebuttal. Who has the "burden of proof" is usually dospositive. And THAT is why all liberty ultimately repose in the rules of evidence
#97. To: tpaine (#89)
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.
Try reading the court opinions.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/253/350/case.html
National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350 (1920)
[385] Conclusions of the Courttares 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 text of the Eighteenth Amendment, proposed by Congress in 1917 and proclaimed as ratified in 1919, 40 Stat. 1050, 1941, is as follows:
"Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
"Sec. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
We here are concerned with seven cases involving the validity of that Amendment and of certain general features of the National Prohibition Law, known as the Volstead Act, c. 83,41 Stat. 305, which was adopted to enforce the Amendment. The relief sought in each case is an injunction against the execution of that act. Two of the cases —Nos. 29 and 30, Original,—were brought in this court, and the others in district courts. Nos. 696, 752, 788 and 837 are here on appeals from decrees refusing injunctions, and No. 794 from a decree granting an injunction. The cases have been elaborately argued at the bar and in
[386] Conclusions of the Court
printed briefs; and the arguments have been attentively considered, with the result that we reach and announce the following conclusions on the questions involved:
1. The adoption by both houses of Congress, each by a two-thirds vote, of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution sufficiently shows that the proposal was deemed necessary by all who voted for it. An express declaration that they regarded it as necessary is not essential. None of the resolutions whereby prior amendments were proposed contained such a declaration.
2. The two-thirds vote in each house which is required in proposing an amendment is a vote of two-thirds of the members present—assuming the presence of a quorum— and not a vote of two-thirds of the entire membership, present and absent. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Kansas, 248 U. S. 276.
3. The referendum provisions of state constitutions and statutes cannot be applied, consistently with the Constitution of the United States, in the ratification or rejection of amendments to it. Hawke v. Smith, ante, 221.
4. The prohibition of the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation and exportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, as embodied in the Eighteenth Amendment, is within the power to amend reserved by Article V of the Constitution.
5. That Amendment, by lawful proposal and ratification, has become a part of the Constitution, and must be respected and given effect the same as other provisions of that instrument.
6. The first section of the Amendment—the one embodying the prohibition—is operative throughout the entire territorial limits of the United States, binds all legislative bodies, courts, public officers and individuals within those limits, and of its own force invalidates every
[387] Conclusions of the Court
legislative act—whether by Congress, by a state legislature, or by a territorial assembly—which authorises or sanctions what the section prohibits.
7. The second section of the Amendment—the one declaring "The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation"—does not enable Congress or the several States to defeat or thwart the prohibition; but only to enforce it by appropriate means.
8. The words "concurrent power " in that section do not mean joint power, or require that legislation thereunder by Congress, to be effective, shall be approved or sanctioned by the several States or any of them; nor do they mean that the power to enforce is divided between Congress and the several States along the lines which separate or distinguish foreign and interstate commerce from intrastate affairs.
9. The power confided to Congress by that section, while not exclusive, is territorially coextensive with the prohibition of the first section, embraces manufacture and other intrastate transactions as w$ll as importation, exportation and interstate traffic, and is in no wise dependent on or affected by action or inaction on the part of the several States or any of them.
10. That power may be exerted against the disposal for beverage purposes of liquors manufactured before the Amendment became effective just as it may be against subsequent manufacture for those purposes. In either case it is a constitutional mandate or prohibition that is being enforced.
11. While recognising that there are limits beyond which Congress cannot go in treating beverages as within its power of enforcement, we think those limits are not transcended by the provision of the Volstead Act (Title II, § 1), wherein liquors containing as much as one-half of one per cent, of alcohol by volume and fit for use for beverage
[388]
purpose are treated as within that power. Jacob Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U. S. 264.
Giving effect to these conclusions, we dispose of the cases as follows:
In Nos. 29 and 30, Original, the bills are dismissed.
In No. 794 the decree is reversed.
In Nos. 696, 762, 788 and 837 the decrees are affirmed.
Feigenspan was case #788 as cited by SCOTUS in affirming the decree thereof.
Feigenspan is found at 264 Federal Reporter 186 (1920), below is the first headnote of the holding.
1. Eighteenth Amendment, with respect to its subject-matter, held within the power to amend given by article 5, and valid.
Feigenspan v Bodine, 264 Federal Reporter 188 (1920)
#98. To: tpaine (#94)
It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it..
No. It led you to make an ass of yourself.
#99. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#96)
And THAT is really determined, first and foremost, by whether anybody can prove you did it before a tribunal.
Not first and foremosr, just ask anyone in a society in which vendettas are tolerated, if not the norm.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
#100. To: SOSO (#93) (Edited)
Who presided?
Aaron Burr.
The House impeached in 1804 and the trial was in 1805.
#101. To: nolu chan (#98)
It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it..
No. It led you to make an ass of yourself.
Sigh, another silly, uncalled for pejorative flame.. -- Very unprofessional for a guy trying to pass himself off as one..
#102. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan, buckeroo (#96)
And THAT is why all liberty ultimately repose in the rules of evidence
I totally disagree. Irrespective of what the written law may be, practice trumps it. No tribunal, be it a judge or jury or whatever, is ever bound or forced to reach its decision on the basis of evidence. Kanagroo courts abound, always have and always will. A law that isn't enforced is de facto not a law. Histroy is on my side on this.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
#103. To: nolu chan (#100)
Who presided?Aaron Burr.
I thought impeachment hearings had to be presided over by the Chief Justice. Was that not always the case?
Aaron Burr, you say. Wasn't he the man that shot Liberty Valance?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
#104. To: SOSO (#102)
But even kangaroo cots feel constrained to set up a procedure, to have a "court". Within our system in America, our prosecutors all powers and abuses often render our justice system kangaroo courts. But 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.
#105. To: Vicomte13 (#104)
But 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.
Let's see what happens to those Baltimore cops.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
#106. To: SOSO (#105)
At the end of the final appeal.
#107. To: tpaine (#61)
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
#108. To: SOSO (#103)
I thought impeachment hearings had to be presided over by the Chief Justice. Was that not always the case?
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:
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..
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?
#110. To: tpaine, Liberator (#40)
- "SCOTUS opinions can be ignored on constitutional grounds and officials can refuse to implement/fund any attempts at forcement."
- "Yep, just as 'we' can ignore scotus.."
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
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.
- - - - -
US v McDonald, 9th Cir 88-5239, 919 F.2d 146 (26 Nov 1990)
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: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)
- - - - -
#111. To: SOSO, buckeroo (#92)
Also, what happens if the Fed refuses to enforce a constitutional valid law...?
Illegal immigration?
#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?
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.
#113. To: nolu chan (#111)
Also, what happens if the Fed refuses to enforce a constitutional valid law...?Illegal immigration?
LOL!
#114. To: Vicomte13 (#106)
At the end of the final appeal.
Fair enough.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
#115. To: nolu chan, buckeroo (#111)
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
#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.
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.
Long answer is if we do we scrap the philosophical founding of our nation, the DoI.
So essentially, we agree. Thanks..
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.
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..
#117. To: nolu chan, gatlin, Y'ALL (#109)
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?"
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.
And I read your example, and observed that it seemed you advocated the power of the people to pass such an unconstitutional act..
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.
It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't 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.
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.
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>>
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..
#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.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
#119. To: tpaine, nolu chan, ALL (#117) (Edited)
I suggest you address gatlin, our empty head expert..
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.
#120. To: Gatlin, Nolu Chan, Y'ALL (#119)
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.
#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.
It most certainly did.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
#122. To: redleghunter, tpaine (#107)
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.
Amen.
(Are we there yet, Daddy??)
;-)
We desperately need a bold leader who will echo your exactly post with absolute conviction.
#123. To: SOSO, gatlin, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#121)
--- 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.
It most certainly did. --- SOSO
Thanks for your fiat opinion. - You've made big brownie points with gatlin and chan.
#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.
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."
#125. To: tpaine, gatlin, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#123)
You've made big brownie points with gatlin and chan.
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
#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.
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...
.
.
.
Comments (127 - 255) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]