A Reagan Quote

[tpahl]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Not true. I don't know where you come up with that.

Any law or Amendment going against the Constitution as it is written before the law or Amendment is created is null and void. -By simple Constitutional decree.

Uh I do not think so. The whole point of allowing for amendments is to allow CHANGE to the constitution. The newer the amendment the higher the precedent.

Prohibition was repealled unConstitutionally.

How so?

Travus

 

[etoile]

Hey, the US controls its borders now, right?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by tpahl
Uh I do not think so. The whole point of allowing for amendments is to allow CHANGE to the constitution. The newer the amendment the higher the precedent.

nope:

Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In other words,"This Constitution, or anything supporting it, shall be the supreme law of the land. "

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

In other words, all officers of ALL branches support THE CONSTITUTION, not "The Constitution supports the Judicial branch".

In other words, all judges of all courts ARE BOUND to follow the highest authority in all the land, our US Constitution.

This puts anyone in a position of contradicting existing Constitutional statements in a position of going against the Constitution. Any law to be added (Amendment) would be classified as same.

I don't think I need to point out to you the punishment of such a crime.

In addition, there is no reference ANYWHERE giving ANYONE the power to repeal in the Constitution anyway. -The end result is that once an Amendment is made, it is there permanently.

Hence the reason for the entire balance of power and level of importance in guarding balance of power and insuring against corruption is because the Constitution is the highest authority which limit men and ANY subversion will immediately flip the situation so that the Constitution is RULED by men. -And only those who would already be corrupt.

Amendments can only be added for in-context clarification as the Bill of Rights was.

 

[etoile]

What about the amendment instituting Prohibition and the one repealing it? One of them is, then, unconstitutional. Right now we follow the one that repealed prohibition.
What about voting rights? The constitution did not give voting rights to everybody; nevertheless now women and all minorities vote.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by etoile
What about the amendment instituting Prohibition and the one repealing it? One of them is, then, unconstitutional. Right now we follow the one that repealed prohibition.
What about voting rights? The constitution did not give voting rights to everybody; nevertheless now women and all minorities vote.

As I said, the repealing of an Amendment shows no Constitutional basis.

It doesn't matter how "FAIR" the Amendment seems. If it is AGAINST the CONTEXT of the Constitution, it is illegal.

 

[etoile]

Yeah. but the amendment was made. It's now part of the constitution. I'm not questioning or promoting the fairness of any particular amendment. But the function of AMENDING the constitution is what makes it so flexible and useful. If not for the elasticity, it would have become obsolete.

Consider every single amendment to the constitution, which we now take as law. When the Bill of Rights was passed, immediately AFTER the signing of the constitution, people took those 10 amendments as law. Until the 16th amendment instituted the income tax, it wasn't legal. When society accepted slavery as ethical, slavery existed. Then society realized the wrongs of slavery and thus came the Emancipation proclamation and 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. During the Progressive movement, alcohol was thought to be the source of all of humanity's problems, and therefore it was outlawed. Then, people saw that this didn't stop alcohol abuse and, indeed, increased it. So the law was repealed. The Constitution changes with the times, so a later amendment becomes PART of the Constitution, thus nullifying any earlier contradictions. Amendments are legal becuase they are not changes ACCORDING to the supreme law, but changes WITHIN THE SUPREME LAW ITSELF.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by etoile
Yeah. but the amendment was made. It's now part of the constitution. I'm not questioning or promoting the fairness of any particular amendment. But the function of AMENDING the constitution is what makes it so flexible and useful. If not for the elasticity, it would have become obsolete.

1. It can never be obsolete. Prove how it is.

2. The Constitution clearly indicates anything unConstitutional is not to be followed.

Just because an illegal Amendment exists, it doesn't mean you have to follow it.

Consider every single amendment to the constitution, which we now take as law. When the Bill of Rights was passed, immediately AFTER the signing of the constitution, people took those 10 amendments as law.

It was CONSTITUTIONAL BY CONTEXT.

Until the 16th amendment instituted the income tax, it wasn't legal. When society accepted slavery as ethical, slavery existed. Then society realized the wrongs of slavery and thus came the Emancipation proclamation and 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. During the Progressive movement, alcohol was thought to be the source of all of humanity's problems, and therefore it was outlawed. Then, people saw that this didn't stop alcohol abuse and, indeed, increased it. So the law was repealed.

If you break the law, does it make it invalid? NO. The law is the law regardless of event. Just because illegal activity happened, and people didn't realize it becasue they are dumbed down by media and tyrannical politicians, doesn't change fact.

Case in point--JFK.

The Constitution changes with the times, so a later amendment becomes PART of the Constitution, thus nullifying any earlier contradictions. Amendments are legal becuase they are not changes ACCORDING to the supreme law, but changes WITHIN THE SUPREME LAW ITSELF.

No. You are flat out wrong and cannot disprove my factual, Constitutional statements of fact, so you use history to disprove the very highest authority when history IS NOT LAW.

You are also justifying replacing moral and ethical STANDARD with moral relativity which is illogical, wrong, and turns our nation into one of being socialist not Constitutional in origin.

Nice try.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
We will never get rid of our tax and redistribute to the masses mentality.

Is this in Revelations or are you just being a negative nelly?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Is this in Revelations or are you just being a negative nelly?

Negative nelly.

But we both know the tide is too great to turn without a revolution.

After all, the tax and redistribute is the heart of socialism.

 

[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.

 

[Annie]

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.posted by Etoile

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.

 

[etoile]

But without the approval of a definitive majority of state legislatures, the amendment will get nowhere.

 

[Annie]

That's correct. It's not an easy process and should not be approached lightly. One of the safeguards to state's rights in our federal system. Much easier to change the local constitutions or rewrite the whole constitution for that matter.

 

[NewGuy]

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.

If you keep making points without reading my replies, you are being pretty dumb considering you keep asking questions.

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.

WRONG. If you would READ, you would see the supreme court has NO authority doing anything with the Constitution whatsoever.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by etoile
But without the approval of a definitive majority of state legislatures, the amendment will get nowhere.

Which are NOT required to be the opinions of the populace.

 

[etoile]

The Supreme Court can overturn an unjust law. Not a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[etoile]

Law passed by some legislature or other that is not in the Constitution.

Also, I was initially replying to a single post where you claimed that amendments can be unconstitutional. I disagree with that and have subsequently tried to show you why. What I have said has nothing to do with what you were arguing about earlier.

 

[Annie]

Well that has been happening for quite awhile now, but by what authority does the USSC have to determine unfair? Unconstitutional? Yes. Unfair? By who's standards?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by etoile
The Supreme Court can overturn an unjust law. Not a Constitutional Amendment.

An Amendment is higher law. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by etoile
Law passed by some legislature or other that is not in the Constitution.

Also, I was initially replying to a single post where you claimed that amendments can be unconstitutional. I disagree with that and have subsequently tried to show you why. What I have said has nothing to do with what you were arguing about earlier.

Try providing PROOF.