Bill of Rights

Discussion in 'US Constitution' started by vasuderatorrent, Jan 5, 2019.

  1. The Professor
    Online

    The Professor Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    16,453
    Thanks Received:
    24,214
    Trophy Points:
    2,405
    Ratings:
    +29,073
    You are wrong. I have a doctorate in law and I find what you say to be not merely uninformed but also funny as hell. If you want to learn more, you know how to Google.

    “A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.”

    Constitutional Amendment Process

    Preamble to the Bill of Rights
    *Congress of the United States
    begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz. ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

    Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg Speaker of the House of Representatives John Adams, Vice-President of the United States and President of the Senate.

    Attest, John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives. Sam. A. Otis Secretary of the Senate. *On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the state legislatures twelve proposed amendments, two of which, having to do with Congressional representation and Congressional pay, were not adopted. The remaining ten amendments became the Bill of Rights.

    The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 - 10)

    One last thing. The procedures by which a Constitutional Amendment is ratified should give even the most cerebrally-challenged among the populace some insight as to how, once ratified, these amendments can be changed/repealed. I have already shown you how difficult it is to amend the Constitution. How do you propose that such amendments are repealed? By an opinion poll on USMB?

    CONCLUSION: Since the Amendments become part of the Constitution when ratified, common sense should tell you these amendments can only be changed the same way that other portions of the Constitution are changed. However, if I am wrong – and I am certainly not – would you please tell me the process by which amendments to the U.S. Constitution are repealed. If you respond, I won't even pressure you for a link, as I know there are none and you are merely expressing your personal, albeit uninformed, unenlightened and intellectually indefensible opinion.

    You have the last word. I said what I had to say and I am too fucking old (79) to waste any more time telling fools what they should already know or would know if they had even a smidgen of common sense.

    A personal note: I have enjoyed your many posts and I thought you were educated and on top of things. If you are merely pulling our legs, I understand; however, if you are serious I stand by everything I said



    Have a good day..
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  2. harmonica
    Online

    harmonica Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Messages:
    21,617
    Thanks Received:
    2,226
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +11,846
    Prohibition repealed
    sorry--have a nice day --hahahahhahahahaha
    Today's Document from the National Archives
     
  3. norwegen
    Offline

    norwegen Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2013
    Messages:
    6,907
    Thanks Received:
    1,259
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Daytona Beach, FL
    Ratings:
    +6,140
    The repeal of the that amendment resulted in considerable changes. The manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcohol resumed.

    That amendment also imposed on the people. The Constitution was drafted to impose on the government.
     
  4. Porter Rockwell
    Offline

    Porter Rockwell VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    3,411
    Thanks Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +1,156
    Being well trained in law and having worked two cases that went before the United States Supreme Court - and were WON, I stand by what I said.

    I highly doubt your claims to any law degree because you have convoluted the amendment process with the process of legal interpretation. Here's an overly simplified look at what happens (in theory):

    Congress (the House and the Senate) pass a law. Then someone breaks the law and is found guilty. That guy is convicted and he challenges the constitutionality in the Ninth District. I'm oversimplifying the whole thing for a reason. Anyway the Ninth District says the law means that our man is not guilty.

    Someone living in another state is arrested and ultimately found guilty and he appeals the case. He ends up in the Fifth District. Now, most of the time, courts follow the Ninth District's lead (they represent 20 percent of the country's population.) But, this time, the Fifth District disagrees with the Ninth District... the same statute, the same basic facts and two opposing rulings. A challenge is made and the United States Supreme Court steps in and decides what that statute means. That is the final say on what the law is.

    So, you and I have read the law and understand what it means. But lo and behold, while doing that which was perfectly legal gets us arrested and we start appealing the case. The United States Supreme Court steps in and says the law means 180 degrees OPPOSITE of what they previously ruled!!! Given that amount of latitude, how in the Hell do you propose that people follow the law, when at best, all they can do is guess??? What you're saying is unrealistic and has nothing to do with the amendment process.

    Where the amendment process comes into play is that, in the above analogy, if someone did not agree with the United States Supreme Court's ruling and they could not bring evidence to the table that changes the facts substantially, then the proper way to change the law is via an amendment to the Constitution. Anyone who studied civics in high school knows how the Constitution gets amended. Case in point:

    While I am pro-Life, the abortion issue is SETTLED LAW. IF Trump's Court hears the issue again and changes the law based upon just the fact that pro-lifers are in the majority of the Court, I would OPPOSE the Court hearing the case. OTOH, science and technology being what it is, if new evidence is introduced to show that a fetus is more "human" than previously thought, it might be proper to reopen the issue.

    Legislating from the bench, however, is NOT constitutional or proper. Thomas Jefferson admonished us:

    "on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past "(sic).

    Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
     
  5. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    31,981
    Thanks Received:
    2,876
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +9,374
    Constitutional arguments are interesting - to a point. Rehashing the decisions of the founders raises discussions our society badly needs to have. But in the end, what matters is the consensus of the people. If hardly anyone cares about limited government, government will grow unlimited. If no one care about individual rights, they will be pissed away. If people want to be "taken care of" more than they want liberty and independence, they will become serfs.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  6. Porter Rockwell
    Offline

    Porter Rockwell VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    3,411
    Thanks Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    75
    Ratings:
    +1,156
    While I agree that this is what happens in the cycles of history, bear in mind that there will always be there who do not believe in a government - God.

    For that reason, I continue to exhaust all of my non-violent legal and political avenues of redress - which includes voting, lobbying, educating others, taking matters to court, and if necessary passive resistance, non-compliance, civil disobedience, etc. There is a step by step process. At the end of the day, you do NOT forfeit your Rights.
     
  7. Dick Foster
    Offline

    Dick Foster Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2018
    Messages:
    2,754
    Thanks Received:
    419
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    The People's Republic of the Californicated
    Ratings:
    +2,979
    However there were indeed lots of drunks running around with loaded guns yet we're still here. Just saying.
     
  8. teddyearp
    Offline

    teddyearp Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2014
    Messages:
    4,661
    Thanks Received:
    913
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Pinetop, AZ
    Ratings:
    +2,846
    Out of those three, the second has the fewest words, yet is the most open to interpretation. To bring it up to modern times, it should have been written like this:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear certain arms, after clearing the changing permissions to be enumerated by Congress from time to time, shall not be infringed.
     
  9. emilynghiem
    Offline

    emilynghiem Constitutionalist / Universalist Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Messages:
    21,854
    Thanks Received:
    3,023
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    National Freedmen's Town District
    Ratings:
    +8,430
    vasuderatorrent
    Not necessarily. Nuclear Bombs involve materials that require safety
    and hazardous materials laws to kick in. So this is not necessarily legal
    for any citizen by invoking the 2nd Amendment because other laws
    have to be followed as well.

    As for enforcing or changing laws, if we even educated, trained
    and assisted people in invoking and enforcing the laws already on the books:
    www.ethics-commission.net
    then we could already check and correct any abuses before they escalated or
    developed into worse threats against law, order and equal protections.

    The places where I would recommend reforming the system is
    to separate taxes to defund the ability of parties to impose beliefs
    through govt by funding their own policies for their own members,
    and expanding on the party precinct and electoral districts to offer
    proportional representation by party so that people can submit
    grievances and complaints, and resolve conflicts to reform public policy.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page