Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution

[jillian]

I don't see any dems claiming to be Originalists or Strict Constructionists, or claiming that the Constitution has been "corrupted"

That's because you only hear what you've tuned your Fabian socialist ears to hear.

Constructionists also abhor the corruption of original intent that are the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments.

There is no such thing as "original intent". That's a phony premise that would have us believe that all the Founders were of the same mind. There were actually "original intents", which is why we have a relatively short and in some ways vague document, necessitating courts to make interpretations. As Jefferson said, it's for each generation to decide what it means and that we're not bound to their interpretation.

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson quotes

"Original intent" is a made up concept that doesn't actually exist in constitutional construction. And while Jefferson's words were nice and offer guidance, they aren't enforceable as law. Jefferson, Madison, et al, while great men, were no more than the politicians of their day. It isn't for them to tell later generations how to INTERPRET the words of the constitution.

And what the wingnuts seem not to understand is that words need to be interpreted. They do not exist in a vacuum.

And the concept that an Amendment can be somehow "unconstitutional" shows that they have no understanding of what the word unconstitutional means since, if it is part of the constitution, whether via the original words or later amendment, it is, by definition, Constitutional.

But the loons don't like the constitution. They only like what they want to pretend it is.

 

[goldcatt]

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution


"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

Wingnuts show their love for the Constitution as it was originally written by constantly offering amendments to it.

Hey Dumbass! Only 10 amendments were part of the ORIGINAL constitution! In your retard mind you trying to say that wingnutz don't approve of the 13th amendment, equal protection clause, 2 terms, no poll tax, sufferage for woman and Blacks etc.

Go fuck yourself!

The ORIGINAL Constitution had no Amendments, by definition.

Try again.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Madison himself argued that the original intent should be argued from the perspective of the ratifiers, not the framers, or signers of the US Constitution.

We also have nitwits arguing original intent of the founding fathers. D'Oh!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Wingnuts show their love for the Constitution as it was originally written by constantly offering amendments to it.

Hey Dumbass! Only 10 amendments were part of the ORIGINAL constitution! In your retard mind you trying to say that wingnutz don't approve of the 13th amendment, equal protection clause, 2 terms, no poll tax, sufferage for woman and Blacks etc.

Go fuck yourself!

The ORIGINAL Constitution had no Amendments, by definition.

Try again.

Isn't the First Amendment also the first section of the Bill of Rights? When did the Constitution become law of the land? When was the Constitution signed by all parties. Did it need 8 and not 13 states to become law of the land?


stop playing gotcha games and add something to the debate.

 

[goldcatt]

Madison himself argued that the original intent should be argued from the perspective of the ratifiers, not the framers, or signers of the US Constitution.

We also have nitwits arguing original intent of the founding fathers. D'Oh!

It isn't called the Grand Compromise for no reason.

Which Founding Fathers have an absolute lock on truth? Whose opinion is "the" opinion? It can be enlightening to read what they had to say, but it isn't anything that binds us to one POV today.

Founding Fathers is a misnomer anyway, not all of the Framers were the same people as those who Founded the nation. The folks who use the terms interchangeably, forgetting the years in between the Declaration and ratification of the COTUS, make me wonder sometimes.

Not as much as the people who mistake the Declaration for the COTUS But wonder all the same.

 

[Immanuel]

that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

the rightwingnuts never met an individual liberty they didn't try to abridge....

except for gun ownership, of course.

No, you are absolutely right, they don't pick and choose the parts they don't like. They simply twist the meaning of words around to make the Constitution say just exactly what they want it to say.

Immie

 

[GHook93]

that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

You are correct.
The Dems just throw the whole thing out, no picking and choosing for them.

i've yet to meet a rightwingnut who doesn't want to do away with the 1st amendment's separation of church and state, habeas corpus, equal treatrment under the law, the 4th amendment and now, birthright citizenship

and i've yet to meet a rightwingnut who actually understood a single thing about the constitution, no matter how many times they say the words.

but thanks for playing.

Come on Jillian, only the extremes want to get rid of Separation of Church and State (which was case law interpretted from the constition and not directly stated in the constitution, similar to the right to privacy), habeas Corpus (you are pointing to the fact that Americans don't want Habeas Corpus rights for Non-American Terrorist? - That is a grasp at straws), Equal Protection Clause (LOL, based on what!), the 4th amendment (are you being serious) and birthright clause (ya got one, because its being used well beyond its intended legislative purpose to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves and not to protect the rights of the children of criminals)!

I haven't met a liberal that didn't want to get rid of: (1) Freedom of Religion and Fress exercise there of, (2) Freedom of Press (was it Sean Penn that stated Americans that critize Hugo Chavez should be tossed in jail), (3) Freedom of Speech (Fairness Doctrine, constantly pulling fire alarms when conservatives speak on campus, unruly protest that shut down conservative events etc., (4) 2nd amendment - No explanation needed, (5) 10th amendment, grow the federal government because the States have no rights, (6) Equal Protection Clause (affirmative action!) and (7) The 13th Amendment, because they want to make us all slaves via taxes, spending and socialism (OK I added this one in for fun)!

 

[jillian]

Madison himself argued that the original intent should be argued from the perspective of the ratifiers, not the framers, or signers of the US Constitution.

We also have nitwits arguing original intent of the founding fathers. D'Oh!

The original intent of the founding fathers was that the country be run by white men who were landed gentry; that women not vote, that blacks not be considered a full person and that slavery was legal.

That was the original intent. Luckily we've evolved.

 

[Charles_Main]

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution


"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

Wingnuts show their love for the Constitution as it was originally written by constantly offering amendments to it.

Clearly you do not understand being a constitutionalists at all. The Amendment process is a part of the constitution and should be supported as such.

 

[uscitizen]

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution


"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

this was in Newts Contract with America around 30 years ago. And the republicans still have not passed it.
I wonder why?

 

[goldcatt]

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution


"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

this was in Newts Contract with America around 30 years ago. And the republicans still have not passed it.
I wonder why?

Gee, I wonder.

 

[dilloduck]

Madison himself argued that the original intent should be argued from the perspective of the ratifiers, not the framers, or signers of the US Constitution.

We also have nitwits arguing original intent of the founding fathers. D'Oh!

The original intent of the founding fathers was that the country be run by white men who were landed gentry; that women not vote, that blacks not be considered a full person and that slavery was legal.

That was the original intent. Luckily we've evolved.

bullshit----that was the best compromise they could come up with at the time.

 

[uscitizen]

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution


"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

this was in Newts Contract with America around 30 years ago. And the republicans still have not passed it.
I wonder why?

Gee, I wonder.

And anyone who believes they will now still believes in Santa Claus.

 

[Charles_Main]

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution


"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

this was in Newts Contract with America around 30 years ago. And the republicans still have not passed it.
I wonder why?

30 years ago? More like the mid 90'S

 

[goldcatt]

this was in Newts Contract with America around 30 years ago. And the republicans still have not passed it.
I wonder why?

Gee, I wonder.

And anyone who believes they will now still believes in Santa Claus.

 

[Capitalist]

that's because dems don't pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

You are correct.
The Dems just throw the whole thing out, no picking and choosing for them.

i've yet to meet a rightwingnut who doesn't want to do away with the 1st amendment's separation of church and state, habeas corpus, equal treatrment under the law, the 4th amendment and now, birthright citizenship

and i've yet to meet a rightwingnut who actually understood a single thing about the constitution, no matter how many times they say the words.

but thanks for playing.

Thank goodness I'm not "a rightwingnut". I guess maybe it's your inability to make crucial distinctions that has you dog paddling around in circles concerning what people are labeled. It's nice to know that the label police are keeping an eye out for my 1st amendment rights.
Hey BTW, hows that 1st amendment fairness doctrine thing the Dems keep talking about going.
Actually I'm for following the Constitution to the letter without additional amendments, but that type of shock and awe would decapitate our government.
Thanks for playing and good try...............

 

[Charles_Main]

i've yet to meet a rightwingnut who doesn't want to do away with the 1st amendment's separation of church and state, habeas corpus, equal treatrment under the law, the 4th amendment and now, birthright citizenship

Care to provide some proof that everyone of us on the right want to do away with separation, and Habeus corpus, and equal treatment?

Or even easier care to show us one link where a serious argument is being made by anyone on the right against Habeus Corpus, or Equal Treatment?

Or is that just you assuming you know what people think despite what they say again?

 

[Capitalist]

Madison himself argued that the original intent should be argued from the perspective of the ratifiers, not the framers, or signers of the US Constitution.

We also have nitwits arguing original intent of the founding fathers. D'Oh!

The original intent of the founding fathers was that the country be run by white men who were landed gentry; that women not vote, that blacks not be considered a full person and that slavery was legal.

That was the original intent. Luckily we've evolved.

What a crock of shit and wrong too.

 

[Charles_Main]

Madison himself argued that the original intent should be argued from the perspective of the ratifiers, not the framers, or signers of the US Constitution.

We also have nitwits arguing original intent of the founding fathers. D'Oh!

The original intent of the founding fathers was that the country be run by white men who were landed gentry; that women not vote, that blacks not be considered a full person and that slavery was legal.

That was the original intent. Luckily we've evolved.

What a crock of shit and wrong too.

What she ignores, is that is HOW ALL countries were back then. It is not like we were the only ones who did not let women and Minorities vote.

Thanks to the AMENDMENT PROCESS, They can now. See how that works.

So tell us again how it is not Supporting the Original Intent of the constitution when you support a CONSTITUTIONAL Amendment?

What I do not support is the meaning of the constitution being changed through the courts. I fully support any attempt to Amend the constitution as long as the process is followed.

 

[goldcatt]

i've yet to meet a rightwingnut who doesn't want to do away with the 1st amendment's separation of church and state, habeas corpus, equal treatrment under the law, the 4th amendment and now, birthright citizenship

Care to provide some proof that everyone of us on the right want to do away with separation, and Habeus corpus, and equal treatment?

Or even easier care to show us one link where a serious argument is being made by anyone on the right against Habeus Corpus, or Equal Treatment?

Or is that just you assuming you know what people think despite what they say again?

How is this any different from what so many of the right claim, that the entire left is in support of a fairness doctrine, doing away with the Second, doing away with freedom of press, doing away with free exercise, ad nauseating?

That some on the right advocate selective application of Habeas and the 5th is evident on the current Gitmo thread floating around here somewheres. The threads with some on the right advocating doing away with the 14th's DP/EP clauses altogether are scattered around like dandelions in my back yard.

Perhaps not fair to accuse you specifically of these things, but it's a position many on the right take. /shrug