[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: nolu chan contends an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amdt could be passed 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 The second article of amendment is hereby repealed.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 (1-60) not displayed.
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?
First off, creating a vanity thread to call out another poster is bad manners. That's your opinion, and I see you've pinged AKA Stone to give us his, --- but I think we're here to discuss the issues of the day, and Chan has certainly raised one by insisting the 2nd could be repealed.
Second, I looked at comments so far and one of two possibilities are evident: - -- 1. Chan is showing restraint and dignity in not responding to your carnival barking. --- or ---- 2. His response is forthcoming and no doubt he will hand you your 4th point of contact (for the civilians in the room the 4th point of contact is what you sit on; for paratroopers it is the 'fourth point' of the body hitting the ground in a 'dynamite' parachute landing fall [PLF]) I served a couple of years in the 503rd and 502nd regiments, so your attempts to instruct me about 'PLF' is as silly as your "carnival barking" about this thread. By all means, come back when you have a real point to discuss..
#62. To: tpaine, redleghunter, nolu chan (#61) I said to you before that you need to listen to nolu chan. I now say to you that you need to also listen to redleghunter. It will be to your advantage to learn from them.
#63. To: Don, tpaine (#44)
Did the U.S. Supreme Court just legislate gay marriage for the fifty states? Isn't it the Constitutional limitation for that Court to interpret the laws in accordance with the Constitution, rather than make Federal law? The Court majority found a fundamental right to same-sex marriage somewhere in the due process clause, in a manner similar to how it found a right to abortion. I disagree with their "interpretation" of the Constitution, but it is not legislation. Were it legislation, it could be overturned by Congress with more legislation. A Supreme Court holding on a constitutional issue can only be changed by a constitutional amendment or by the Court itself revisiting the issue in a subsequent case. There can be no appeal of the decided case.
#64. To: Gatlin (#62) I said to you before that you need to listen to nolu chan. Never fear my boy, I'm learning a lot from all you authoritarians. -- And I'm sure others here are. Probably, they're learning more about your politics than you want them to know..
#65. To: nolu chan (#60) What you state is true. My comments would apply to those proposing said amendment ( Congress ) and those voting to ratify ( states ) Si vis pacem, para bellum #66. To: tpaine (#64) Nolu chan is right on this one. It wouldn't be right morally. But it would follow the process laid out in the constitution. Remember the constitution isn't perfect. It is man made and contains flaws. It is worth protecting.
#67. To: tpaine, Liberator (#40)
Not so. Every official at every level of gov't is honor bound to protect and defend the Constitution as written, not as interpreted by the SCOTUS. Even where one feels the opinion of the Court is erroneous, their opinion matters. Abortion and same-sex marriage is legal. All Federal and State laws to the contrary were struck down. However tpaine stated,
Your opinion, and that of the court, is erroneous. 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. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2/409/case.html Hayburn’s Case, 2 US 409, 414 (1792)
“That the duties assigned to the circuit courts by this act are not of that description, and that the act itself does not appear to contemplate them as such, inasmuch as it subjects the decisions of these courts, made pursuant to those duties, first to the consideration and suspension of the Secretary at War and then to the revision of the legislature, whereas by the Constitution, neither the Secretary at War nor any other Executive officer, nor even the legislature, is authorized to sit as a court of errors on the judicial acts or opinions of this court.” http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/358/1.html Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1, 18 (1958)
Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.
#68. To: tpaine (#64) (Edited) Just so you know, every piece of content about the US Constitution can be destroyed by legislative acts. The Bill of Rights or any Amendments are not exonerated from the legislative process, either; I assume you think the Bill of Rights are built on a bedrock or fixed foundation that is unshakable. What is really sad is the government knows this FACT. That is why America is sinking into a cesspool of illegal immigration; it is to liberalize the foundations of America by creating a fascist government by clever opinions outside of American cultural norms or societal standards. Just as the Confederate Flag goes away for some of the states; just as the Ten Commandments goes away for some of the states; so goes the second amendment.
#69. To: A K A Stone (#66) Remember the constitution isn't perfect. It is man made and contains flaws. Yeah! They tried to take away our rights to drinking whiskey; and they gave it back! Now, if we can get rid of the fed.
#70. To: nolu chan (#63) Don (#44) --- Did the U.S. Supreme Court just legislate gay marriage for the fifty states?
Some people have the opinion that the SCOTUS opinion meant that, but I'd bet 'we' don't comply, any more than we complied with prohibition, -- or would comply with an amendment to repeal the 2nd..
Isn't it the Constitutional limitation for that Court to interpret the laws in accordance with the Constitution, rather than make Federal law?
Absolutely correct.. -- Only laws (or amendments) made "in pursuance thereof" (as the supremacy clause says) are part of our supreme law, the Constitution..
Nolu Chan -- The Court majority found a fundamental right to same-sex marriage somewhere in the due process clause, in a manner similar to how it found a right to abortion. --- I disagree with their "interpretation" of the Constitution, but it is not legislation. Were it legislation, it could be overturned by Congress with more legislation.
We agree...
A Supreme Court holding on a constitutional issue can only be changed by a constitutional amendment or by the Court itself revisiting the issue in a subsequent case. There can be no appeal of the decided case. We disagree. -- There is nothing in our constitution itself that supports your opinion. -- Your lengthy postings of opinions by other authorities are just that, --- opinions. They do not prove your case.
#71. To: buckeroo, tpaine, nolu chan, All (#68) The Bill of Rights or any Amendments are not exonerated from the legislative process, either; I assume you think the Bill of Rights are built on a bedrock or fixed foundation that is unshakable. The only rights that one has in the real world are the rights that one can defend. Otherwise it's Katy bar the door. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #72. To: A K A Stone, tpaine (#66) Nolu chan is right on this one. It wouldn't be right morally. But it would follow the process laid out in the constitution.
If the sovereign people do not have the power to change the organic law of the country as they choose, the Constitution and the government formed under it surely resulted from unlawful acts. The explanation of the power exercised is that the people are the sovereigns, and the sovereign answers to nobody. There is no guarantee they will act wisely. It was definitely not done pursuant to the Articles of Confederation. Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation:
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.
#73. To: tpaine (#70) Your lengthy postings of opinions by other authorities are just that, --- opinions. They do not prove your case. Your posting your wingnut nonsense certainly does not prove your point.
#74. To: SOSO, tpaine (#71) The only rights that one has in the real world are the rights that one can defend. Good commentary. The issue today, particularly because the US government is so weak with debt while stricken with an anemic economy for the past decade is, they are ripping the place up attempting to install disipline to the people obeying a government. Tpaine makes good points about his considerations. But the second amendment (as all amendments) are only reliable and trustworthy as the people and the representative government that is voted by the people.
#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. 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. The Decree in Feigenspan was affirmed by SCOTUS. 253 US 350, 40 Sup Ct 486.
#76. To: A K A Stone, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#66) 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.
Nolu chan is right on this one. I beg to differ. I think we have an unalienable right to keep and bear arms. -- I see nothing in the Constitution itself that says we could amendment away that right.
It wouldn't be right morally. But it would follow the process laid out in the constitution. I've been asking Chan to point out where in the Constitution it allows a majority to repeal ANY of our basic inalienable rights. He can't quite find it. --- Can anyone??
Remember the constitution isn't perfect. It is man made and contains flaws. --- It is worth protecting. We agree..
#77. To: buckeroo (#68) I assume you think the Bill of Rights are built on a bedrock or fixed foundation that is unshakable. Damn right..
#78. To: tpaine (#76) I think we have an unalienable right to keep and bear arms. -- I see nothing in the Constitution itself that says we could amendment away that right. Yes you do. It is called the Amendment process. It is a built in mechanism of the US Constitution. Here is an authoritative glimse:
The Constitutional Amendment ProcessFrom: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/
#79. To: nolu chan (#73) Nolu Chan -- The Court majority found a fundamental right to same-sex marriage somewhere in the due process clause, in a manner similar to how it found a right to abortion. --- I disagree with their "interpretation" of the Constitution, but it is not legislation. Were it legislation, it could be overturned by Congress with more legislation.
We agree...
A Supreme Court holding on a constitutional issue can only be changed by a constitutional amendment or by the Court itself revisiting the issue in a subsequent case. There can be no appeal of the decided case.
We disagree. -- There is nothing in our constitution itself that supports your opinion. -- Your lengthy postings of opinions by other authorities are just that, --- opinions. They do not prove your case.
Your posting your wingnut nonsense certainly does not prove your point. Your pejorative comments lead me to believe you want to end this discussion in a flame war. -- No thanks...
#80. To: tpaine (#76) I see nothing in the Constitution itself that says we could amendment away that right. I see no limitation on the amendments. Is there somewhere that says the second amendment can't be amended. Now I think it is a stupid idea to try to repeal the second amendment. But technically speaking I don't see how it would be unconstitutional. It would be against the Declaration of Independence. A superior document.
#81. To: tpaine (#77) buckeroo: I assume you think the Bill of Rights are built on a bedrock or fixed foundation that is unshakable. In these days of
#82. To: tpaine (#79) Your pejorative comments lead me to believe you want to end this discussion in a flame war. -- No thanks... A flame war does not consist of mildly perjorative comments. I am expressing my disdain for your blather.
#83. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#79) Supreme Court holding on a constitutional issue can only be changed by a constitutional amendment or by the Court itself revisiting the issue in a subsequent case. There can be no appeal of the decided case. Who has ever successfully defied a Supreme Court ruling on a consitutional issue? What is the avenue of appeal other than what nolu has identified? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #84. To: All, tpaine, Deckard (#81) I forgot to include Deckard in my above post. Almost daily, he confirms that a Fascist America is alive & thriving while begging to ensure that a police state over-powers American citizens.
#85. To: buckeroo (#74) But the second amendment (as all amendments) are only reliable and trustworthy as the people and the representative government that is voted by the people. Actually not even that as the recent Supreme Court decisions prove. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь #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 Court 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.
. . . Comments (101 - 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]
|