A Reagan Quote

[5stringJeff]

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.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Actually only if the people in Congress want it, can it pass. Whichever method is employed to have an amendment come up for consideration, it must start in Congress.

Actually you dont have to go through Congress for an ammendment. Although I dont believe the second method has ever been used.

 

[Annie]

Avatar, though I believe the proposal still must come through Congress, I'll check it out. I know you're correct in it never being used.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
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.

I would also make the point of, if the constitution cant or shouldnt be ammended, why support the Bill of Rights which was in reality the first ammendments to the constitution? If you are going to be a literalist, may as well be consistant. if the constitution cant be ammended after the Bill of rights, why should it be before?

 

[NewGuy]

Allright, since this can of worms has been opened up, I defy ANYONE to Constitutionally prove the following:

1. The Constitution may be amended with a change NOT Constitutional.

2. The Constitution allows a repeal by some body or court or group.

Either will be fine, but it must be Constitutional PROOF.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Allright, since this can of worms has been opened up, I defy ANYONE to Constitutionally prove the following:

1. The Constitution may be amended with a change NOT Constitutional.

2. The Constitution allows a repeal by some body or court or group.

Either will be fine, but it must be Constitutional PROOF.

I'm unsure what you are asking for.

Why would anyone want to change the constitution in a way that was UNconstitutional? Are you implying that one cannot offer amendments?

Really don't know what the heck you are referring to in #2.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Kathianne
I'm unsure what you are asking for.

Why would anyone want to change the constitution in a way that was UNconstitutional? Are you implying that one cannot offer amendments?

Either amendments are allowed under any condition or only if they are Constitutional. My position is the latter.

I am looking for proof of the former.

Really don't know what the heck you are referring to in #2.

Proof that the Constitution describes a specific WHO that can specifically repeal an Amendment.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Either amendments are allowed under any condition or only if they are Constitutional. My position is the latter.

I am looking for proof of the former.

Actually, NewGuy, since the assumption has always been that amendments MAY change the original intent/meaning of the Constitution, and since there have been several amendments passed that actually have changed the Constitution's intent/meaning, the burden of proof is on you to tell us why 217 years of history are wrong. The Constitution very clearly outlines its own amendment process, which has been used 28 times now. You get to prove it wrong, not us.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Actually, NewGuy, since the assumption has always been that amendments MAY change the original intent/meaning of the Constitution, and since there have been several amendments passed that actually have changed the Constitution's intent/meaning, the burden of proof is on you to tell us why 217 years of history are wrong.

Nice trey Jeff.

1. Not only have you never been able to answer either of those two, but you fail to do so now.

2. It was MY challenge, and now you cannot answer it so you want ME on the defensive. I merely ask FOR EVIDENCE to prove history even valid.

3. You cannot prove a negative, but positives CAN be proven. By nature of that, you have purposely set me up to fail and dodged the issue which you SHOULD be able to prove. -After all, if this were a Bible, couldn't you take 15 minutes to show the statements supporting the action behined the faith? As a supporter of action you advocate and being involved with politics, I would expect it your responsibility.

4. Christians have a duty to God (which I am sure I don't need to remind you , but I do so for clarity of thought for this statement), to be absolutely responsible for that which they have been given as good stewards. The nature of our Constitution DEMANDS we follow it properly and understand it. We are CALLED TO KNOW WHAT IT SAYS AND GUARD IT AS ANY GOOD STEWARD. Therefore, your position should be proven before believed.

The Constitution very clearly outlines its own amendment process, which has been used 28 times now. You get to prove it wrong, not us.

History does not make something legal. ---ROME.

I respectfully and with great hope ask you to please answer my two questions I challenged.

 

[5stringJeff]

OK... I will have to respond later, as I'm doing my morning perusal/catch-up of the boards...

 

[tpahl]

It is really quite simple...

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures 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.

 

[5stringJeff]

Thank you tpahl.

NewGuy, I believe that post sums it up nicely. The Constitution allows for amendments, "which... shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution." There is no qualification that it match with the original intent.

BTW, I agree with your second point. There is no legal way to repeal the Constitution - though I would imagine a call for another Constitutional convention by all 50 states might be one way to do so.

 

[Annie]

BTW, I agree with your second point. There is no legal way to repeal the Constitution - though I would imagine a call for another Constitutional convention by all 50 states might be one way to do so.

I would agree, though probably only 2/3 would be needed. State constitutions are often replace through this practice. Truth is, they are bogged down with minutia, which the US one is not. It's very difficult to amend, which has served us well.

 

[tpahl]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Thank you tpahl.

NewGuy, I believe that post sums it up nicely. The Constitution allows for amendments, "which... shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution." There is no qualification that it match with the original intent.

Not only is there no qualification that it match the original intent, it does still puts limits on what the amendments can do. Before 1808 an amendment can not modify a few sections of the constitution. Now why would they not put in writing the limit that Newguy is saying exists when they took the time to put this other limit in there? Perhaps because such a limit does not really exist?

Now i think the burden of proof really is on New guy to show us where this limit he is proposing exists, comes from.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by tpahl
Now i think the burden of proof really is on New guy to show us where this limit he is proposing exists, comes from.

Agreed.

 

[NewGuy]

Can do...just give me a little time, my health is really playing games with me today.

 

[5stringJeff]

No prob... your health is more important than the board, for sure!