5stringJeff
Senior Member
Originally posted by etoile
Listen, New Guy, I wasn't saying anything about any point you are making about whether or not something is ethical or unethical, correct or incorrect, necessary or unnecessary. I am not supporting or disagreeing with your opinion about any particular amendment or potential amendment. I did not read your arguments.
I just say that the amendment of the Constitution, if passed, becomes part of the Constitution.
You say that something illegal can't be passed.
HOwever, the only way for an unjust law (and you base injustice on the existing Constitution) to be removed is:
1) Have the Supreme Court declare it unconstitutional;
2) Pass an amendment.
The only way an ammendment can be passed is if the public wants it. So amendments are technically reflections of what the public wants at the time the amendment is passed.
etoile,
First, welcome.
Second, NewGuy and I have had this discussion already. His Constitutionalist stance is that the Constitution cannot be amended past the Bill of Rights. The problem with his argument is that he does not recognize the Constitutional amendment process to be one through which you can change the Constitution, only one in which you may clarify it. Obviously, this is not the legal opinion of any of the Constitution's authors, or of any Congresses or Courts established subsequent to the Constitution's ratification; however, it is his opinion, and he stands by it.