Amendment to return power to states with veto

[The Infidel]

Im just enjoying the hell out of all the "patriotic" images wrightwinger keeps posting....

 

[Liberty]

also caribener, the type of conservative you fallaciously, ignorantly, and baselessly claim speak for all are in deed in the vast minority, for any true constitutional conservative would tell you POINT BLANK if it is not an enumerated power then it is a state issue, and this includes obviously abortion.

WITH THAT SAID, if done through the appropriated measures, anything can be written as an amendment if as said, is done through the provided methods of amending. A federal ban on anything, if done properly, is constitutional. This is balanced by the fact that it is extremely difficult to accomplish which is the reason why politicians of both sides (mostly dems though) circumvent this with legaleese and bureaucratic bullshit.

Anyone who tells you they are a conservative but support a federal amendment to ban abortions are incorrect with their ideological representation, however, let me define a conservative as simply someone who supports the constitution as written and believes it is written in plain english and is NOT open to interpretation because the wording is simple and easily understood. The 10th amendment has a purpose and Article 1 Section 8 means within the enumerated powers (Federalist 41 explains this), for example.

You however, are a fool for believing such nonsense.

 

[snjmom]

i messed up on that specific statement. It was in order to get the southern states to ratify, but the method was to accelerate the inevitability of emancipation and abolition, not to strengthen the southern states or provide them with future opportunities to become stronger in both their state and federal seats.

It may not have been intended to strengthen their opportunities but it certainly did.

The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio" had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.

Funny how the old south didn't want to count them for taxes paid to the feds but insisted they counted for congressional seats and electoral votes.

Things haven't changed all that much in 200 + years.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We already have checks and balances in the federal government, the three branches and my vote is enough. I don't need anything overturned, I need representatives who are responsible to the people.

Would you say the same thing if McCain and the Republicans had won, and thye had passed a law that took citizenship away from anyone who disagreed with them?

I am afraid so amigo. I can't help if you want to vote in people who would turn America into a criminal dictatorship that preempts wars, and opens up it own butcher shop to torture, rape, and murder innocent chained & detained women & children. That is the way America works. We have enough checks & balances and don't need to add another layer to it. What we do need to do is vote them out of office. If you aren't willing to do that, then expect what we both get. It is certainly time to do that, considering we have a T-Party of upset individuals, but then they turned out to be as bad as republicans.

That either makes you a consistent liar or a consistent idiot, neither of which I approve of.

 

[shintao]

Would you say the same thing if McCain and the Republicans had won, and thye had passed a law that took citizenship away from anyone who disagreed with them?

I am afraid so amigo. I can't help if you want to vote in people who would turn America into a criminal dictatorship that preempts wars, and opens up it own butcher shop to torture, rape, and murder innocent chained & detained women & children. That is the way America works. We have enough checks & balances and don't need to add another layer to it. What we do need to do is vote them out of office. If you aren't willing to do that, then expect what we both get. It is certainly time to do that, considering we have a T-Party of upset individuals, but then they turned out to be as bad as republicans.

That either makes you a consistent liar or a consistent idiot, neither of which I approve of.

Well smash your balls with a sledge hammer imbecile.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Great idea. If the 10th Amendment were complied with, this would not be necessary.

Tea Party Pushes Repeal Amendment to Give States Power Over Federal Government

"Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."

Its an interesting idea. The biggest problem is that it would weaken the US's ability to draw in international corporations and investors immensely. Foreign capital investors like stable, centralized governments. This basically stomps all over that.

The second issue is that you'd almost certainly see a California-esque situation develop rather quickly. Namely, the elected leaders may see a problem, try to deal with it, and find their hands quickly tied by the States. This ammendment would almost certainly end any hopes of actually balancing the budget, as any unpopular attempt to address the problem would be doomed to repeal at the State level.

It's interesting, but I think it has some serious issues that would make it unlikely to pass.

 

[JWBooth]

the 3/5ths happened after the constitution was ratified and it was to compromise with the south while keeping majority in congress in the north to eventually abolish the practice. I can't believe i am educating you on something that your precious public school completely failed you on.

Public schools didn't fail. They are doing exactly what they were designed to do

Indoctrination

 

[JWBooth]

Great idea. If the 10th Amendment were complied with, this would not be necessary.

Tea Party Pushes Repeal Amendment to Give States Power Over Federal Government

"Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."

Nullification, its been around a long time but its use has been abandoned. This would codify it. Interesting idea.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The 3/5s compromise was a brilliant compromise designed to punish slave states by denying them their full representation as long as they supported slavery.

Why is it we seem to ignore why certain things were in the Constitution?

LOL

As Avatar tries to defend slavery

Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of the Constitution. Because the 3/5s compromise was designed to end slavery by limiting the power of slave with the idea that it would end completely.

Are you suggesting that Slave states should have been giving their full power while they kept people in bondage?

No, they should have been forced to make a choice: Give up your slaves, or give up your membership in the new nation. No compromise.

 

[JWBooth]

No, they should have been forced to make a choice: Give up your slaves, or give up your membership in the new nation. No compromise.

No compromise, passage of the new constitution. As in a majority of the 13 states had some form of legalised slavery at the time, there would have been no ratification.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Great idea. If the 10th Amendment were complied with, this would not be necessary.

Tea Party Pushes Repeal Amendment to Give States Power Over Federal Government

"Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."

Nullification, its been around a long time but its use has been abandoned. This would codify it. Interesting idea.

There's a reason nullification and the 10th Ammendment have gone by the wayside, namely neither of them make sense when you logically try to lay out the consequences.

I'm going to quote a post of mine here from a past thread, rather than just copy and paste it:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. -10th Ammendment.


This is one of the least upheld, most violated, ammendments in the constitution. And no one even raises an eyebrow.

Its also the least understood of any. It talks about powers not listed or defined by the Constitution and deposits them in the relm of two seperate entities, the States and Citizens.

Lets take for example the creation of the NSA, CIA, and DHS. The Constitution specifically vests in the Executive the power of "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States" and additionally the power to "Commission all the Officers of the United States." However, does that authorize the President to command intelligence agencies or domestic security agencies?

The traditional argument is that yes, as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy he'd certainly have control of intelligence operations ran out of the Army and/or the Navy, and with the power to Commission Officers he can control and install the leadership for such organizations. However, an independent intelligence or security agency isn't provided for in the Constitution explicitly. Doesn't the 10th ammendment mean that unless the CIA, NSA, and FBI are housed under the auspices of the Army and Navy that formation and organization of such entities is reserved for the independent states?

That's clearly ridiculous (or is thought to be by most legal experts), so the argument must mean that control of the NSA, FBI, and CIA is a natural outgrowth of the Commander and Chief and Head of the Executive roles of the Presidency, so it seems to be the prevailing opinion that the 10th ammendment doesn't apply to certain non-enumerated powers.

That brings up what non-enumerated powers are and are not covered by the 10th Ammendment, and that's a doozy.

Nullification faces similar issues, in that if you invest the power to declare Federal Law unconstitutional at the State level, it means that instead of a single unified set of laws at the Federal Level and a single unified legal interpretation of the Constitution in the SCOTUS, you have 50 different interpretations and implementations of any Federal law and 50 different legally binding interpretations of the Constitution. It weakens the notion of a Federal Government to the point of uselessness.

 

[editec]

That would entirely change the way we do government's business now, that's for damned sure.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

No, they should have been forced to make a choice: Give up your slaves, or give up your membership in the new nation. No compromise.

No compromise, passage of the new constitution. As in a majority of the 13 states had some form of legalised slavery at the time, there would have been no ratification.

Then let the South go their own way, and let the North form their own Country. On issues like Slavery there shouldn't ever be compromise.

And don't try to sell me on "It was a different time" BS. The British had ended slavery in Britain by 1772, and in 1805 the British started acting unilaterally to shut down the Slave trade on the high seas. By 1827 they'd unilaterally declared slave traders Pirates and taken matters into their own hands.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Wow.. so our leftist friends are arguing that amending the constitution is, unconstitutional? Really?

 

[slackjawed]

Wow.. so our leftist friends are arguing that amending the constitution is, unconstitutional? Really?

I noted that too, weird!
It's reminds me of those that argue that every word in their bible is true, very similar.

 

[JWBooth]

No, they should have been forced to make a choice: Give up your slaves, or give up your membership in the new nation. No compromise.

No compromise, passage of the new constitution. As in a majority of the 13 states had some form of legalised slavery at the time, there would have been no ratification.

Then let the South go their own way, and let the North form their own Country. On issues like Slavery there shouldn't ever be compromise.

And don't try to sell me on "It was a different time" BS. The British had ended slavery in Britain by 1772, and in 1805 the British started acting unilaterally to shut down the Slave trade on the high seas. By 1827 they'd unilaterally declared slave traders Pirates and taken matters into their own hands.

Would have been fine by me.

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the folks that would have been left out would have been the non slaveholders, and they were the guys who agitated most for the abandonment of the Articles of Confederation. Again, a slim majority of states were slaveholders. The only real opposition to slavery at that time was not the institution itself, but the political advantage it gave to slave states by counting the slaves as a portion of the population.

 

[Liability]

Wow.. so our leftist friends are arguing that amending the constitution is, unconstitutional? Really?

Since the Constitution itself provides for the prospect of it getting amended, and since the Constitution provides the alternative methods by which such amendments may be made, it appears that our leftist "liberal" friends are actually arguing (as I always knew they would) that

the Constitution is unConstitutional!

I like these libbies. They're out of their flippin' minds.

But they do make me laugh.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

If a Constitutional Ammendment were proposed that eliminated voting and installed the President for Life, would opposing that make you somehow "Anti-Constitution?"

A great deal of the people arguing against this idea are arguing against it because it fundamentally changes how the balance of power between the States and the Feds currently works. It would make it even harder for the Feds to take an unpopular but necessary stance, and start to dismantle the centralized government we currently have.

An Ammendment can most certainly be against the Spirit of the Constitution, while still being a part of it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wow.. so our leftist friends are arguing that amending the constitution is, unconstitutional? Really?

No I'm not. But since you see wingnuts do it all the time, I don't think you have much standing to criticize.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rightwingers again grasping for something they think would magically give their narrowly supported agenda more power, but ask yourself,

what issue strongly supported by the Right could get 2/3's of the states to support it for the sake of overturning some Federal law?