- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 32,516
- Reaction score
- 5,321
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
They can be taken away by a vote of a large enough amount of people. If enough people feel that some group should not be allowed a right, such as speech or religion or guns or even due process, for whatever reason, then they can put it in the Constitution as an Amendment if they have enough support. Prohibition proves this. The right to drink alcohol should have fallen under the "rights to the people or the states" guaranteed by the Constitution. Then enough people took that right away from either the people or the state (whichever you care to say) and prohibited alcohol completely until that Amendment was repealed. During Prohibition though, the people's right to drink alcohol or the states' right to control whether the people could drink alcohol was taken away. Prohibition was not struck down by a SCOTUS decision, but rather repealed through the same process that put it into place.
None of which changes the fact that the federal government cannot change the Constitution on it's own. If the Fed wants to change something in the Constitution the States have to approve it, just like the colonies originally approved the Constitution. Nothing is different and nothing has changed in that respect since 1776.simple fact.. you cant, and live is denial.
<snip - redundant/repeat>
None of which changes the fact that the federal government cannot change the Constitution on it's own. If the Fed wants to change something in the Constitution the States have to approve it, just like the colonies originally approved the Constitution. Nothing is different and nothing has changed in that respect since 1776.
The entire Constitution can be amended. Every letter, every sentence.
Article V said: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.
As we've discussed more than once, it doesn't matter what the intent of some of the parties of a contract may be, all that counts is the signed document. I'm sorry you don't like this simple fact. You cannot go to the bank after you've signed a loan document and ask where your $1000 rebate is if it's not in the loan contract. It just doesn't work that way.i said the bill of rights, which was created in 1789 two years after the constitution..cannot be changed or abolished........stated by the founding fathers.
That phrase alone has undergone radical changes since it was first coined. Your argument continues to fail.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
<snip - another long, redundant and/or off-subject sermon>
wrong, we have a republican form of government, not a democratic form, federalist 39, with a mixed constitution federalist 40.
rights are not subject to a vote of the people, rights are unalienable, and cannot be taken from you through a vote........that is democracy, and founders hated democracy, and did not create such a form of government.
They can be taken away by a vote of a large enough amount of people. If enough people feel that some group should not be allowed a right, such as speech or religion or guns or even due process, for whatever reason, then they can put it in the Constitution as an Amendment if they have enough support. Prohibition proves this. The right to drink alcohol should have fallen under the "rights to the people or the states" guaranteed by the Constitution. Then enough people took that right away from either the people or the state (whichever you care to say) and prohibited alcohol completely until that Amendment was repealed. During Prohibition though, the people's right to drink alcohol or the states' right to control whether the people could drink alcohol was taken away. Prohibition was not struck down by a SCOTUS decision, but rather repealed through the same process that put it into place.
Cite an unbiased and reliable source that differentiates republic and democracy that way v private property rights.The Republican Form of government is one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. individuals retain sovereign prerogatives over their private property rights (absolute ownership) of their person, labor and property.
Unlike the democratic form of government, in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the whole body of free citizens, individuals do not retain sovereign prerogatives over their private property rights (absolute ownership) of their person, labor and property.
Which means the States have the power, too, not the federal government alone. That doesn't address a damn thing in relation to Amendments of any kind. The States have to approve any Amendment, just as I've been saying.The U.S. Constitution guarantees a republican form to the states. (See Art.4,Sec.4)
As we've discussed more than once, it doesn't matter what the intent of some of the parties of a contract may be, all that counts is the signed document. I'm sorry you don't like this simple fact. You cannot go to the bank after you've signed a loan document and ask where your $1000 rebate is if it's not in the loan contract. It just doesn't work that way.
That phrase alone has undergone radical changes since it was first coined. Your argument continues to fail.
Where is the consent of the governed if the governed can't change things?
Cite an unbiased and reliable source that differentiates republic and democracy that way v private property rights.
Which means the States have the power, too, not the federal government alone. That doesn't address a damn thing in relation to Amendments of any kind. The States have to approve any Amendment, just as I've been saying.
You should look in the mirror and say this. There are many forms of both republic and democracy. Your apparent interpretation is extremely narrow and bias.i suggest you learn the difference between republican form of government and democratic form first.
Then we've already violated the republic because most Amendments change the rights of people.in republican forms of government, the people can vote on many things, however they cannot vote on the rights of other people.
Yesterday, I heard an argument that I was not aware of. Basically the individual claimed that one could not legally amend the United States Constitution so that it changed or repealed any of the current Amendments in the first ten - the Bill of Rights.
Here is Article V of the Constitution which has all the language from that document about the amendment process
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.
The specific part of the Constitution in question was the Second Amendment.
It is my contention that there is nothing in the Constitution which would prohibit any amendment changing the Second - or any other Amendment for that matter. Legally, it could be done.
It is my position that politically, it would be impossible to do so at this time and there simply is not any political will to do this.
Putting aside the already mentioned practical political considerations making it impossible to actually get such an amendment passed, is it legally possible to amend the Constitution changing or outright repealing anything contained within it including the Second or any other existing Amendment?
A republic means that the people vote for their representatives, and their representatives vote for laws. We are actually a constitutional republic, meaning that those representatives are restricted to a point for what they can and cannot do concerning the laws of our nation as a simple majority when the issue is constitutionally protected. But when we are talking about the Constitution and amending it, it requires more than a simple majority which is why any part of it can be changed when those conditions are met.
Yes, the Constitution, any part of it, including the Bill of Rights, can be amended as long as the Amendment goes through the proper process.
That's exactly what he said, "it requires more than a simple majority which is why any part of it can be changed when those conditions are met." :roll:it requires 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states..a lot more simple majority.
The federal government CANNOT "[usurp] the rights of the people". Your argument is false on it's face.the bill of rights was create 2 years after the constitution, and it was to prevent the federal government from usurping the rights of the people, and you going to state that the federal government has the power to create an amendment over them.......wrong.
That's exactly what he said, "it requires more than a simple majority which is why any part of it can be changed when those conditions are met." :roll:
Reading comprehension, try it sometime.
The federal government CANNOT "[usurp] the rights of the people". Your argument is false on it's face.
So you have some kind of government advisory job and you don't even know how the constitution works.Yesterday, I heard an argument that I was not aware of. Basically the individual claimed that one could not legally amend the United States Constitution so that it changed or repealed any of the current Amendments in the first ten - the Bill of Rights.
Here is Article V of the Constitution which has all the language from that document about the amendment process
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.
The specific part of the Constitution in question was the Second Amendment.
It is my contention that there is nothing in the Constitution which would prohibit any amendment changing the Second - or any other Amendment for that matter. Legally, it could be done.
It is my position that politically, it would be impossible to do so at this time and there simply is not any political will to do this.
Putting aside the already mentioned practical political considerations making it impossible to actually get such an amendment passed, is it legally possible to amend the Constitution changing or outright repealing anything contained within it including the Second or any other existing Amendment?
Honestly, I think we already have amended at least one of the Amendments found in the Bill of Rights with the 14th Amendment. I believe that since 10th Amendment is mainly used as giving powers to the states while the 14th restricts those powers to a large degree then the 14th basically took some of the rights away from the states and gave them to the people, greatly reducing the scope of the 10th Amendment.
friend, as i have suggested before.... please read the federalist papers which explain the Constitution,.
federalist 39 states clearly we have republican government, federalist 10 states we do not have democratic government, and federalist 40 states we have a mixed Constitution, where powers are divided between the states and the people.
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous.
well you missed something...in my second line of my statement....."the founders state our rights come from the creator, not from government or the people themselves, which they state this in the DOI, that it is self -evident, and that rights preexist before the u.s. constitution.
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Fixed the first part for you. "No action" is not the same as "no law".ask yourself this:
"congress shall make no law" stated in the first amendment.
this means congress can take make noactionlaw to overturn the first amendment
yet you are saying congress can take action and create an amendment.
i stated the constitution can be changed , the bill of rights cannot becuase they are restrictive to the federal government......and i have stated this many times,...how is it you missed it?
So you have some kind of government advisory job and you don't even know how the constitution works.
Outstanding!
Just to make this clear for the historically ignorant: the federalist papers do not explain the constitution. They explain the author's(Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay) views and opinions of the constitution and why it should be ratified. So unless you think they held the only views and opinions on the constitution, you have to realize that they are just what they claim to be, opinion. Note also this quote from the Federalist Papers, where Hamilton talks about the Bill of Rights:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?