| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Deuteros" |
| Date: |
18 Dec 2005 08:52:54 PM |
| Object: |
New Constitutional Amendments |
I always wondered why Senators bother amending a document that they
already ignore every day of the week. Since when have Senators cared about
what the Constitution says? Why bother changing it? At any rate, it's a
good time to ponder how the Constitution could be improved. If government
officials ever followed the Supreme Law of the Land, such improvements
would translate into triumphs for liberty in our time. Here are some
suggestions:
- Reword the Second Amendment:
The federal governmnent shall not make any law restricting or
forbidding the right to purchase, own, or carry any weapon.
- Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
- No government confiscation of property:
No individual, majority, society, or government may legitimately take
or control an individual's property without that individual's consent
(Government won't be able to take your property because the property
is "accused" of a crime)
- No government taxation of property:
No government shall tax any property, real or personal. (Property and
ad valorum taxes amount to renting your property from the government.
After all, if the government can confiscate your property for
non-payment of taxes do you really own the property?)
- Military reform:
No military forces shall be deployed outside American territory
without a Congressional Declaration of War.
Military forces will never engage in hostilities without a
Congressional Declaration of War, unless repelling an attack or
invasion by an outside force.
At times of official peace, the decision to aid, assist, or oppose any
foreign government or revolutionary movement will be reserved to the
people, as individuals.
- Congressional reform:
The individual states may impeach their respective Senators and
Representatives they send to Congress.
Compensation of Congressmen will be determined by his or her
respective state of origin.
Government agents, foreign or domestic, will not have immunity from
prosecution.
- Repeal the "general welfare", "interstate commerce", and the "necessary
and proper" clauses.
- Federal expenditures are limited to the specific items listed in Article
1 Section 8.
- Repeal the authority of the government to establish post offices and
control the militia.
- Federal disaster relief shall be limited to humanitarian assistance
only. (passing out food, water, etc)
These are just suggestions of course. The goal is to cut back the bloated
mess our government has become today to a simple government that respects
individual rights and perhaps even fears the people it governs.
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
01 Jan 2006 01:56:43 PM |
|
|
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Martin Holterman" <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:43b827b3$0$10088$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43b81edc$0$58077$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b6d94b$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of
their
state of residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish their
own
citizenship and do not issue passports. States are not even
permitted to control their borders.
<US Constitution>
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Another right-wing halfwit who thinks that there are no amendments
to the constitution,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities
of citizens of the United States;
14th amendment.
What a doofus! Read what you just pasted.
No state is permitted to violate the rights of US citizens.
Being forced to conform to federal laws is hardly what one would
call
autonomy.
Does that mean that France is no longer sovereign since it has to
conform to EU law?
France can withdraw from the EU.
States can withdraw from the union
When you resort to such obvious lying it's clear that you have
lost the debate and are just being an argumentative *****.
Do you have something to support your assertion that he is lying when he
says that States can withdraw from the union???
Civil war.
Heard of it?
And, more importantly perhaps, the right of the federal government to
resist insurrections as it is implied in the constitution, cf:
I (8) (15) ("Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the
militia to (...) supress insurrections")
I (9) (2) ("in cases of rebellion or invasion")
These wouldn't apply to peaceful action of withdrawing from the union under
due process.
See number V below. Insurrection is illegal.
I (10) (1) ("No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or
confederation")
They aren't entering into any treaty, alliance or confederation, at least
not until they have withdrawn from the Union.
IV (3) (1) (I think an insurrection qualifies as a war against the United
States, and thus as treason.)
War involves force at arms, simply withdrawing doesn't involve war unless
you chose to deny the consent of the governed.
Simply withdrawing is not legal.
V (All states together, or at least 38 of them, can peacefully repeal the
constitution.)
Sure, but that doesn't prevent unilateral action by individuals states in
chosing to peacefully withdraw.
Yes it does.
VI (2) "Supreme law of the land"
Yep. So?
So the states are not empowere dto violate the constitution.
Point being, the only way to legally withdraw from the union is trough
article V.
Maybe, but I would think that a system of government formed upon the
principle of the consent of the governed wouldn't force people to remain
within that system of government if they chose to withdraw from it.
WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE LAW.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
01 Jan 2006 07:16:22 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b833fb$0$58038$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Martin Holterman" <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:43b827b3$0$10088$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" < > wrote in message
news:43b81edc$0$58077$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b6d94b$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" < > wrote:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" < > wrote:
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of
their
state of residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish
their own
citizenship and do not issue passports. States are not even
permitted to control their borders.
<US Constitution>
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Another right-wing halfwit who thinks that there are no
amendments to the constitution,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or
immunities
of citizens of the United States;
14th amendment.
What a doofus! Read what you just pasted.
No state is permitted to violate the rights of US citizens.
Being forced to conform to federal laws is hardly what one would
call
autonomy.
Does that mean that France is no longer sovereign since it has to
conform to EU law?
France can withdraw from the EU.
States can withdraw from the union
When you resort to such obvious lying it's clear that you have
lost the debate and are just being an argumentative *****.
Do you have something to support your assertion that he is lying when
he says that States can withdraw from the union???
Civil war.
Heard of it?
And, more importantly perhaps, the right of the federal government to
resist insurrections as it is implied in the constitution, cf:
I (8) (15) ("Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth
the militia to (...) supress insurrections")
I (9) (2) ("in cases of rebellion or invasion")
These wouldn't apply to peaceful action of withdrawing from the union
under due process.
See number V below. Insurrection is illegal.
I (10) (1) ("No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or
confederation")
They aren't entering into any treaty, alliance or confederation, at
least not until they have withdrawn from the Union.
IV (3) (1) (I think an insurrection qualifies as a war against the
United States, and thus as treason.)
War involves force at arms, simply withdrawing doesn't involve war
unless you chose to deny the consent of the governed.
Simply withdrawing is not legal.
V (All states together, or at least 38 of them, can peacefully repeal
the constitution.)
Sure, but that doesn't prevent unilateral action by individuals states
in chosing to peacefully withdraw.
Yes it does.
VI (2) "Supreme law of the land"
Yep. So?
So the states are not empowere dto violate the constitution.
Point being, the only way to legally withdraw from the union is trough
article V.
Maybe, but I would think that a system of government formed upon the
principle of the consent of the governed wouldn't force people to remain
within that system of government if they chose to withdraw from it.
WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE LAW.
If they withdraw then they no longer have to abide by the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
01 Jan 2006 08:19:27 PM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b833fb$0$58038$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Martin Holterman" <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:43b827b3$0$10088$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43b81edc$0$58077$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b6d94b$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of
their
state of residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish
their own
citizenship and do not issue passports. States are not even
permitted to control their borders.
<US Constitution>
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Another right-wing halfwit who thinks that there are no
amendments to the constitution,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or
immunities
of citizens of the United States;
14th amendment.
What a doofus! Read what you just pasted.
No state is permitted to violate the rights of US citizens.
Being forced to conform to federal laws is hardly what one would
call
autonomy.
Does that mean that France is no longer sovereign since it has to
conform to EU law?
France can withdraw from the EU.
States can withdraw from the union
When you resort to such obvious lying it's clear that you have
lost the debate and are just being an argumentative *****.
Do you have something to support your assertion that he is lying when
he says that States can withdraw from the union???
Civil war.
Heard of it?
And, more importantly perhaps, the right of the federal government to
resist insurrections as it is implied in the constitution, cf:
I (8) (15) ("Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth
the militia to (...) supress insurrections")
I (9) (2) ("in cases of rebellion or invasion")
These wouldn't apply to peaceful action of withdrawing from the union
under due process.
See number V below. Insurrection is illegal.
I (10) (1) ("No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or
confederation")
They aren't entering into any treaty, alliance or confederation, at
least not until they have withdrawn from the Union.
IV (3) (1) (I think an insurrection qualifies as a war against the
United States, and thus as treason.)
War involves force at arms, simply withdrawing doesn't involve war
unless you chose to deny the consent of the governed.
Simply withdrawing is not legal.
V (All states together, or at least 38 of them, can peacefully repeal
the constitution.)
Sure, but that doesn't prevent unilateral action by individuals states
in chosing to peacefully withdraw.
Yes it does.
VI (2) "Supreme law of the land"
Yep. So?
So the states are not empowere dto violate the constitution.
Point being, the only way to legally withdraw from the union is trough
article V.
Maybe, but I would think that a system of government formed upon the
principle of the consent of the governed wouldn't force people to remain
within that system of government if they chose to withdraw from it.
WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE LAW.
If they withdraw then they no longer have to abide by the Constitution.
States cannot withdraw from the union without breaking the law.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
02 Jan 2006 09:10:16 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43b88daf$0$58082$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b833fb$0$58038$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Martin Holterman" <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:43b827b3$0$10088$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43b81edc$0$58077$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b6d94b$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of
their
state of residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish
their own
citizenship and do not issue passports. States are not even
permitted to control their borders.
<US Constitution>
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Another right-wing halfwit who thinks that there are no
amendments to the constitution,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or
immunities
of citizens of the United States;
14th amendment.
What a doofus! Read what you just pasted.
No state is permitted to violate the rights of US citizens.
Being forced to conform to federal laws is hardly what one would
call
autonomy.
Does that mean that France is no longer sovereign since it has to
conform to EU law?
France can withdraw from the EU.
States can withdraw from the union
When you resort to such obvious lying it's clear that you have
lost the debate and are just being an argumentative *****.
Do you have something to support your assertion that he is lying when
he says that States can withdraw from the union???
Civil war.
Heard of it?
And, more importantly perhaps, the right of the federal government to
resist insurrections as it is implied in the constitution, cf:
I (8) (15) ("Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth
the militia to (...) supress insurrections")
I (9) (2) ("in cases of rebellion or invasion")
These wouldn't apply to peaceful action of withdrawing from the union
under due process.
See number V below. Insurrection is illegal.
I (10) (1) ("No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or
confederation")
They aren't entering into any treaty, alliance or confederation, at
least not until they have withdrawn from the Union.
IV (3) (1) (I think an insurrection qualifies as a war against the
United States, and thus as treason.)
War involves force at arms, simply withdrawing doesn't involve war
unless you chose to deny the consent of the governed.
Simply withdrawing is not legal.
V (All states together, or at least 38 of them, can peacefully repeal
the constitution.)
Sure, but that doesn't prevent unilateral action by individuals states
in chosing to peacefully withdraw.
Yes it does.
VI (2) "Supreme law of the land"
Yep. So?
So the states are not empowere dto violate the constitution.
Point being, the only way to legally withdraw from the union is trough
article V.
Maybe, but I would think that a system of government formed upon the
principle of the consent of the governed wouldn't force people to remain
within that system of government if they chose to withdraw from it.
WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE LAW.
If they withdraw then they no longer have to abide by the Constitution.
States cannot withdraw from the union without breaking the law.
Please list the article of the Constitution that prohibits succession?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
01 Jan 2006 10:18:15 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b88daf$0$58082$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
If they withdraw then they no longer have to abide by the Constitution.
States cannot withdraw from the union without breaking the law.
What law?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
02 Jan 2006 12:10:54 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in news:43b88daf$0$58082
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
If they withdraw then they no longer have to abide by the Constitution.
States cannot withdraw from the union without breaking the law.
What law is that?
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
A real man should have the conviction to hold strong beliefs....
Hmmm, I believe I should have another beer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
02 Jan 2006 02:01:23 AM |
|
|
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b833fb$0$58038$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Martin Holterman" <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:43b827b3$0$10088$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43b81edc$0$58077$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b6d94b$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of
their
state of residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish
their own
citizenship and do not issue passports. States are not even
permitted to control their borders.
<US Constitution>
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Another right-wing halfwit who thinks that there are no
amendments to the constitution,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or
immunities
of citizens of the United States;
14th amendment.
What a doofus! Read what you just pasted.
No state is permitted to violate the rights of US citizens.
Being forced to conform to federal laws is hardly what one would
call
autonomy.
Does that mean that France is no longer sovereign since it has to
conform to EU law?
France can withdraw from the EU.
States can withdraw from the union
When you resort to such obvious lying it's clear that you have
lost the debate and are just being an argumentative *****.
Do you have something to support your assertion that he is lying when
he says that States can withdraw from the union???
Civil war.
Heard of it?
And, more importantly perhaps, the right of the federal government to
resist insurrections as it is implied in the constitution, cf:
I (8) (15) ("Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth
the militia to (...) supress insurrections")
I (9) (2) ("in cases of rebellion or invasion")
These wouldn't apply to peaceful action of withdrawing from the union
under due process.
See number V below. Insurrection is illegal.
I (10) (1) ("No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or
confederation")
They aren't entering into any treaty, alliance or confederation, at
least not until they have withdrawn from the Union.
IV (3) (1) (I think an insurrection qualifies as a war against the
United States, and thus as treason.)
War involves force at arms, simply withdrawing doesn't involve war
unless you chose to deny the consent of the governed.
Simply withdrawing is not legal.
V (All states together, or at least 38 of them, can peacefully repeal
the constitution.)
Sure, but that doesn't prevent unilateral action by individuals states
in chosing to peacefully withdraw.
Yes it does.
VI (2) "Supreme law of the land"
Yep. So?
So the states are not empowere dto violate the constitution.
Point being, the only way to legally withdraw from the union is trough
article V.
Maybe, but I would think that a system of government formed upon the
principle of the consent of the governed wouldn't force people to remain
within that system of government if they chose to withdraw from it.
WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE LAW.
If they withdraw then they no longer have to abide by the Constitution.
But if they withdraw, the constitution is no longer "the supreme law of
the land".
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
02 Jan 2006 09:11:15 AM |
|
|
"Martin Holterman" <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:43b8ddd2$0$10078$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b833fb$0$58038$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Martin Holterman" <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:43b827b3$0$10088$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43b81edc$0$58077$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b6d94b$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of
their
state of residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish
their own
citizenship and do not issue passports. States are not even
permitted to control their borders.
<US Constitution>
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Another right-wing halfwit who thinks that there are no
amendments to the constitution,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities
of citizens of the United States;
14th amendment.
What a doofus! Read what you just pasted.
No state is permitted to violate the rights of US citizens.
Being forced to conform to federal laws is hardly what one would
call
autonomy.
Does that mean that France is no longer sovereign since it has to
conform to EU law?
France can withdraw from the EU.
States can withdraw from the union
When you resort to such obvious lying it's clear that you have
lost the debate and are just being an argumentative *****.
Do you have something to support your assertion that he is lying when
he says that States can withdraw from the union???
Civil war.
Heard of it?
And, more importantly perhaps, the right of the federal government to
resist insurrections as it is implied in the constitution, cf:
I (8) (15) ("Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth
the militia to (...) supress insurrections")
I (9) (2) ("in cases of rebellion or invasion")
These wouldn't apply to peaceful action of withdrawing from the union
under due process.
See number V below. Insurrection is illegal.
I (10) (1) ("No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or
confederation")
They aren't entering into any treaty, alliance or confederation, at
least not until they have withdrawn from the Union.
IV (3) (1) (I think an insurrection qualifies as a war against the
United States, and thus as treason.)
War involves force at arms, simply withdrawing doesn't involve war
unless you chose to deny the consent of the governed.
Simply withdrawing is not legal.
V (All states together, or at least 38 of them, can peacefully repeal
the constitution.)
Sure, but that doesn't prevent unilateral action by individuals states
in chosing to peacefully withdraw.
Yes it does.
VI (2) "Supreme law of the land"
Yep. So?
So the states are not empowere dto violate the constitution.
Point being, the only way to legally withdraw from the union is trough
article V.
Maybe, but I would think that a system of government formed upon the
principle of the consent of the governed wouldn't force people to remain
within that system of government if they chose to withdraw from it.
WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE LAW.
If they withdraw then they no longer have to abide by the Constitution.
But if they withdraw, the constitution is no longer "the supreme law of
the land".
Sure it is, but only for those states that CHOSE to retain the Constitution.
"consent of the governed".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
02 Jan 2006 09:15:41 AM |
|
|
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43b8ddd2$0$10078$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
Deuteros wrote:
If they withdraw then they no longer have to abide by the Constitution.
But if they withdraw, the constitution is no longer "the supreme law of
the land".
Which was my point.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
02 Jan 2006 12:12:10 PM |
|
|
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43b8ddd2$0$10078$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b833fb$0$58038$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Martin Holterman" <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:43b827b3$0$10088$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43b81edc$0$58077$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b6d94b$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and
of their
state of residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish
their own
citizenship and do not issue passports. States are not
even permitted to control their borders.
<US Constitution>
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Another right-wing halfwit who thinks that there are no
amendments to the constitution,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
and
subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the state wherein they reside. No state
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or
immunities
of citizens of the United States;
14th amendment.
What a doofus! Read what you just pasted.
No state is permitted to violate the rights of US citizens.
Being forced to conform to federal laws is hardly what one
would call
autonomy.
Does that mean that France is no longer sovereign since it
has to conform to EU law?
France can withdraw from the EU.
States can withdraw from the union
When you resort to such obvious lying it's clear that you have
lost the debate and are just being an argumentative *****.
Do you have something to support your assertion that he is lying
when he says that States can withdraw from the union???
Civil war.
Heard of it?
And, more importantly perhaps, the right of the federal government
to resist insurrections as it is implied in the constitution, cf:
I (8) (15) ("Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth
the militia to (...) supress insurrections")
I (9) (2) ("in cases of rebellion or invasion")
These wouldn't apply to peaceful action of withdrawing from the
union under due process.
See number V below. Insurrection is illegal.
I (10) (1) ("No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or
confederation")
They aren't entering into any treaty, alliance or confederation, at
least not until they have withdrawn from the Union.
IV (3) (1) (I think an insurrection qualifies as a war against the
United States, and thus as treason.)
War involves force at arms, simply withdrawing doesn't involve war
unless you chose to deny the consent of the governed.
Simply withdrawing is not legal.
V (All states together, or at least 38 of them, can peacefully
repeal the constitution.)
Sure, but that doesn't prevent unilateral action by individuals
states in chosing to peacefully withdraw.
Yes it does.
VI (2) "Supreme law of the land"
Yep. So?
So the states are not empowere dto violate the constitution.
Point being, the only way to legally withdraw from the union is
trough article V.
Maybe, but I would think that a system of government formed upon the
principle of the consent of the governed wouldn't force people to
remain within that system of government if they chose to withdraw
from it.
WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE LAW.
If they withdraw then they no longer have to abide by the
Constitution.
But if they withdraw, the constitution is no longer "the supreme law
of the land".
Correct, but if they form a new nation, they will also have a new
constitution which very well could be denoted as "the supreme law of the
land".
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
A real man should have the conviction to hold strong beliefs....
Hmmm, I believe I should have another beer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
01 Jan 2006 08:01:10 PM |
|
|
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43b827b3$0$10088$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
And, more importantly perhaps, the right of the federal government to
resist insurrections as it is implied in the constitution, cf:
I (8) (15) ("Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth
the militia to (...) supress insurrections")
I (9) (2) ("in cases of rebellion or invasion")
I (10) (1) ("No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or
confederation")
IV (3) (1) (I think an insurrection qualifies as a war against the
United States, and thus as treason.)
V (All states together, or at least 38 of them, can peacefully repeal
the constitution.)
VI (2) "Supreme law of the land"
Point being, the only way to legally withdraw from the union is trough
article V.
The secession issue was debated pretty thoroughly in another recent thread
in this group, "The Lineaments of Existence."
Some points:
* Nothing in the Constitution bars a State from seceding. The previous
compact, the Articles of Confederation, declared a "perpetual union." That
phrase is conspicuously absent in the Constitution. One explanation is that
the States, after 15 years experience in a federation, were aware of the
problems with it. Had the "perpetual union" language been retained, some of
them would not have ratified it.
* In the absence of a stated term, a contract in common law is presumed to
be "at will," revocable by either party with appropriate notice.
* Prior to the Civil War the consensus view was that a State retained the
power to secede, mainly on the basis that no express language in the
document prohibited it, and on the 10th Amendment's declaration that "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." Lincoln's predecessor, Buchanan, held that the federal
government had no power to prevent a State from seceding.
* No Supreme Court decision prior to the Civil War so much as suggested
secession was illegal.
* Two states, Virginia and New York, included language reserving a right of
withdrawal in their ratification resolutions.
* Both Madison and Jefferson assumed states were the principle parties to
the Constitution, and were its ultimate arbiters. Wrote Madison: "That this
assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare that it views the powers
of the Federal government as resulting from the compact to which the States
are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument
constituting that compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by
the grants enumerated in the compact; and that in case of a deliberate,
palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said
compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in
duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for
maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, rights and
liberties appertaining to them."
---3rd Virginia Resolution of 1798.
With respect to your points above, they are all mooted when a state
secedes. At that point it is no longer a member of the Union, and thus
there is no "rebellion" or "insurrection." Nor does the prohibition against
agreements with other States apply, if none of them are members of the
Union. And while you are right that 38 states must ratify *repeal* of the
Constitution, secession is not repeal. A state may secede, and the document
continues in effect for those States remaining in the Union.
You may find this essay of interest:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/secessionjustification.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
01 Jan 2006 07:16:53 PM |
|
|
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43b827b3$0$10088$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Scout <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43b81edc$0$58077$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b6d94b$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of
their state of residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish their
own citizenship and do not issue passports. States are not
even permitted to control their borders.
<US Constitution>
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Another right-wing halfwit who thinks that there are no
amendments to the constitution,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
14th amendment.
What a doofus! Read what you just pasted.
No state is permitted to violate the rights of US citizens.
Being forced to conform to federal laws is hardly what one would
call autonomy.
Does that mean that France is no longer sovereign since it has to
conform to EU law?
France can withdraw from the EU.
States can withdraw from the union
When you resort to such obvious lying it's clear that you have
lost the debate and are just being an argumentative *****.
Do you have something to support your assertion that he is lying when
he says that States can withdraw from the union???
Civil war.
Heard of it?
And, more importantly perhaps, the right of the federal government to
resist insurrections as it is implied in the constitution, cf:
I (8) (15) ("Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the
militia to (...) supress insurrections")
I (9) (2) ("in cases of rebellion or invasion")
I (10) (1) ("No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or
confederation")
IV (3) (1) (I think an insurrection qualifies as a war against the
United States, and thus as treason.)
V (All states together, or at least 38 of them, can peacefully repeal
the constitution.)
VI (2) "Supreme law of the land"
Point being, the only way to legally withdraw from the union is trough
article V.
True, but if they withdraw the Constitution isn't going to apply to them
anyway.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
01 Jan 2006 09:05:07 AM |
|
|
Deuteros wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b6d94b$0$58096$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote:
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of their
state of residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish their own
citizenship and do not issue passports. States are not even
permitted to control their borders.
<US Constitution>
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Another right-wing halfwit who thinks that there are no amendments
to the constitution,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States;
14th amendment.
What a doofus! Read what you just pasted.
No state is permitted to violate the rights of US citizens.
Being forced to conform to federal laws is hardly what one would call
autonomy.
Does that mean that France is no longer sovereign since it has to
conform to EU law?
France can withdraw from the EU.
Actually, they can't. At least not legally. The new constitutional
treaty would have created the possibility (art I-60), but they turned it
down. The present treaties have effect over "an unlimited period". (art.
51 EU and art. 312 EC)
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/en/treaties/dat/12004V/htm/C2004310EN.01001101.htm
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/en/treaties/dat/12002M/htm/C_2002325EN.000501.html
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/en/treaties/dat/12002E/htm/C_2002325EN.003301.html
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
31 Dec 2005 11:12:26 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b5f9dd$0$58042$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" < > wrote in message
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" < > wrote in message
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of their
state of
residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish their own
citizenship and do not issue passports. States are not even
permitted to control their borders.
<US Constitution>
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Another right-wing halfwit who thinks that there are no amendments
to the constitution,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States;
14th amendment.
What a doofus! Read what you just pasted.
No state is permitted to violate the rights of US citizens.
That depends on which right you are discussing. The Second Amendment,
for example, has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court as to apply
to the states. Nor has the Third or the Seventh.
Being forced to conform to federal laws is hardly what one would call
autonomy.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
A real man should have the conviction to hold strong beliefs....
Hmmm, I believe I should have another beer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
31 Dec 2005 12:59:55 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b5f9dd$0$58042$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of their
state of
residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish their own
citizenship and do not issue passports. States are not even
permitted to control their borders.
<US Constitution>
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Another right-wing halfwit who thinks that there are no amendments
to the constitution,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States;
14th amendment.
What a doofus! Read what you just pasted.
No state is permitted to violate the rights of US citizens.
That depends on which right you are discussing. The Second Amendment,
for example, has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court as to apply
to the states. Nor has the Third or the Seventh.
States can abolish juries for civil cases falling under their
jurisdiction? I didn't know that.
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
01 Jan 2006 11:20:40 AM |
|
|
Martin Holterman wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b5f9dd$0$58042$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of their
state of
residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish their own
citizenship and do not issue passports. States are not even
permitted to control their borders.
<US Constitution>
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Another right-wing halfwit who thinks that there are no amendments
to the constitution,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States;
14th amendment.
What a doofus! Read what you just pasted.
No state is permitted to violate the rights of US citizens.
That depends on which right you are discussing. The Second
Amendment, for example, has not been incorporated by the Supreme
Court as to apply to the states. Nor has the Third or the Seventh.
States can abolish juries for civil cases falling under their
jurisdiction? I didn't know that.
If they wish to be test cases for the "incorporation doctrine" they
can. The point is that the Second, Third and Seventh Amendments have
not been incorporated by the Supreme Court as to apply to the states.
Here is a list of what the Court has incorporated and the case in which
that occurred:
Incorporation by the Supreme Court.
First Amendment:
Freedom of Speech - Gitlow v New York - 268 US 652 (1925), Fiske v
Kansas - 274 US 380 (1927)
Freedom of Press - Near v Minnesota - 283 US 697 (1931)
Freedom of Assembly - Dejong v Oregon - 299 US 353 (1937)
Free Exercise of Religion - Cantrell v Connecticut - 310 US 296 (1940)
Ban on Religious Establishment - Everson v Board of Education - 330 US 1
(1947)
Freedom of Association - NAACP v Alabama - 357 US 449 (1958)
Fourth Amendment:
Unreasonable Search/Seizure - Wolf v Colorado - 418 US 25 (1949)
Exclusionary Rule - Mapp v Ohio - 367 US 643 (1961)
Fifth Amendment:
Just Compensation - Chicago Burlington & Quincy Railroad, Co v
Chicago - 166 US 226 (1897)
Self Incrimination - Malloy v Hogan - 378 US 1 (1964)
Double Jeopardy - Benton v Maryland 395 US 784 (1969)
Sixth Amendment:
Assistance of Counsel in Capital Case - Peterson v City of Greenville -
373 US 244 (1963)
Right to Public Trial - Oliver, in Re - 333 US 257 (1948)
Assistance of Counsel in all Felony Cases - Gideon v Wainwright - 372 US
335 (1963)
Right to Confront Adverse Witnesses - Pointer v Texas - 380 US 400
(1965)
Right to Impartial Jury - Parker v Gladden - 385 US 363 (1966)
Right to Compulsory Process to Obtain Witnesses - Washington v Texas -
388 US 14 (1967)
Right to a Speedy Trial - Klopfer v N Carolina - 386 US 213 (1967)
Right to Jury in Nonpetty Criminal Cases - Duncan v Louisiana - 391 US
145 (1968)
Right to Counsel in Imprisonable Misdemeanor - Argersinger v Hamlin -
407 US 25 (1972)
Right to Notice of Accusation - Rabe v Washington - 405 US 313 (1972)
Right to Unamimous Verdict if Only Six Jurors - Burch v Louisiana -
441 US 130 (1979)
Eighth Amendment:
Ban on Cruel and Unusual Punishment - Robinson v California 370 US
660 (1962)
Note: No Supreme Court Cases addressing Second, Third or Seventh
Amendment's application to the states. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments
should be self explanatory.
As you can see several of them are rather recent including one from
1979. Long ways from Barron v Baltimore in 1833.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
A real man should have the conviction to hold strong beliefs....
Hmmm, I believe I should have another beer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
01 Jan 2006 08:04:44 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@comcast.net> wrote in
news:NsKdncagSpz7kiXeRVn-ug@comcast.com:
States can abolish juries for civil cases falling under their
jurisdiction? I didn't know that.
If they wish to be test cases for the "incorporation doctrine" they
can. The point is that the Second, Third and Seventh Amendments have
not been incorporated by the Supreme Court as to apply to the states.
Here is a list of what the Court has incorporated and the case in which
that occurred:
Incorporation by the Supreme Court.
First Amendment:
[ . . .]
Good post.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
01 Jan 2006 12:57:35 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Martin Holterman wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b5f9dd$0$58042$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of their
state of
residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish their own
citizenship and do not issue passports. States are not even
permitted to control their borders.
<US Constitution>
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Another right-wing halfwit who thinks that there are no amendments
to the constitution,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States;
14th amendment.
What a doofus! Read what you just pasted.
No state is permitted to violate the rights of US citizens.
That depends on which right you are discussing. The Second
Amendment, for example, has not been incorporated by the Supreme
Court as to apply to the states. Nor has the Third or the Seventh.
States can abolish juries for civil cases falling under their
jurisdiction? I didn't know that.
If they wish to be test cases for the "incorporation doctrine" they
can. The point is that the Second, Third and Seventh Amendments have
not been incorporated by the Supreme Court as to apply to the states.
Here is a list of what the Court has incorporated and the case in which
that occurred:
Thanks for the list. (Although I have snipped it for brevity.)
But what is the reason to believe that those amendments that haven't
been the subject of an incorporation case yet don't similarly extend to
the states? Apart, maybe, from those rights that one cannot logically
extend to the states. I always thought the 14th amendment generally
extended all rights from the Bill of Rights, as well as rights at common
law (9th) to the relation between a citizen and a state.
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
01 Jan 2006 01:28:25 PM |
|
|
"Martin Holterman" <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in message
news:43b8261e$0$10088$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Martin Holterman wrote:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:43b5f9dd$0$58042$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
steveo <gnsemail@cox.net> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
An American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of their
state of
residence
You're either stupid or lying. States do not establish their own
citizenship and do not issue passports. States are not even
permitted to control their borders.
<US Constitution>
Article IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Another right-wing halfwit who thinks that there are no amendments
to the constitution,
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States;
14th amendment.
What a doofus! Read what you just pasted.
No state is permitted to violate the rights of US citizens.
That depends on which right you are discussing. The Second Amendment,
for example, has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court as to apply
to the states. Nor has the Third or the Seventh.
States can abolish juries for civil cases falling under their
jurisdiction? I didn't know that.
If they wish to be test cases for the "incorporation doctrine" they can.
The point is that the Second, Third and Seventh Amendments have not been
incorporated by the Supreme Court as to apply to the states. Here is a
list of what the Court has incorporated and the case in which that
occurred:
Thanks for the list. (Although I have snipped it for brevity.)
But what is the reason to believe that those amendments that haven't been
the subject of an incorporation case yet don't similarly extend to the
states? Apart, maybe, from those rights that one cannot logically extend
to the states. I always thought the 14th amendment generally extended all
rights from the Bill of Rights, as well as rights at common law (9th) to
the relation between a citizen and a state.
It does.....in theory......in practice, however, SCOTUS has been a
bit...reluctant....to enforce certain protections where they should be
applied.
Just goes to show the inherent weakness of the Judicial system due to
virtually no planning, attention or consideration by the Founding Fathers.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Holterman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
01 Jan 2006 03:20:59 PM |
|
|
Scout wrote:
[skip]
Just goes to show the inherent weakness of the Judicial system due to
virtually no planning, attention or consideration by the Founding Fathers.
Just curious: What did you have in mind?
Martin Holterman
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
02 Jan 2006 11:24:07 AM |
|
|
Martin Holterman <martin.holterman@wxs.nl> wrote in
news:43b8261e$0$10088$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Martin Holterman wrote:
SNIP.......
That depends on which right you are discussing. The Second
Amendment, for example, has not been incorporated by the Supreme
Court as to apply to the states. Nor has the Third or the Seventh.
States can abolish juries for civil cases falling under their
jurisdiction? I didn't know that.
If they wish to be test cases for the "incorporation doctrine" they
can. The point is that the Second, Third and Seventh Amendments have
not been incorporated by the Supreme Court as to apply to the states.
Here is a list of what the Court has incorporated and the case in
which that occurred:
Thanks for the list. (Although I have snipped it for brevity.)
But what is the reason to believe that those amendments that haven't
been the subject of an incorporation case yet don't similarly extend
to the states?
Nothing other than the fact that they have not been adjudicated as such.
Can you imagine the chaos that would exist tomorrow if the Second
Amendment were to be incorporated to the states today? ;)
I suspect that the Supreme Court will remain as politically influenced
in the future as it has been in the past.
Apart, maybe, from those rights that one cannot logically
extend to the states. I always thought the 14th amendment generally
extended all rights from the Bill of Rights, as well as rights at
common law (9th) to the relation between a citizen and a state.
So did a lot of folks. Unfortunately some of them weren't Supreme Court
justices. While the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, the
Cruikshank Court in 1876 declared that the Second Amendment did not
apply to the states when they said:
" The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there
specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a
right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent
upon that instrument for its existence. *The second amendment declares
that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no
more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the
amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the
national government,* leaving the people to look for their protection
against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it
recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet.
139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what
was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or
restrained' by the Constituton of the United States."
This ruling virtually gutted the Fourteenth Amendment. Since then there
was a series of debates within the Court between Justices Frankfurter
(selective incorporation) and Black (total incorporation).
Unfortunately, Black's side never got a majority of the justices to
agree with him. That left the Bill of Rights to be decided on a case by
case (clause by clause) basis as to application to the states.
Personally, I agree with you that the actual intent of the Fourteenth
was to apply the entire the Bill of Rights to the states.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
A real man should have the conviction to hold strong beliefs....
Hmmm, I believe I should have another beer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deuteros" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
02 Jan 2006 01:27:27 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in
news:Xns973F69D06124Dhopewell@216.196.97.136:
Personally, I agree with you that the actual intent of the Fourteenth
was to apply the entire the Bill of Rights to the states.
I disagree. Several years after the fourteenth amendment was ratified,
Congress proposed a constitutional amendment that would apply the first
amendment to the states. It is known as the Blaine Amendment and it passed
in the House but failed in the Senate.
Why would Congress attempt to amend the Constitution to apply the first
amendment to the states if it had already been done in the fourteenth
amendment?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
02 Jan 2006 03:18:11 PM |
|
|
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:dpbuqv$jp7$1@news.onet.pl...
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in
news:Xns973F69D06124Dhopewell@216.196.97.136:
Personally, I agree with you that the actual intent of the Fourteenth
was to apply the entire the Bill of Rights to the states.
I disagree. Several years after the fourteenth amendment was ratified,
Congress proposed a constitutional amendment that would apply the first
amendment to the states. It is known as the Blaine Amendment and it passed
in the House but failed in the Senate.
Why would Congress attempt to amend the Constitution to apply the first
amendment to the states if it had already been done in the fourteenth
amendment?
Because Blaine wasn't just imposing the 1st Amendment on the states, though
his proposed Amendment did repeat a portion of the 1st, he was imposing a
restraint on the states that public money, and property could not be used
for any religious purpose. This was primarily directed at the establishment
and funding of various religious schools such as Catholic schools.
http://www.blaineamendments.org/Intro/whatis.html
http://www.blaineamendments.org/Intro/BAtext-US.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
03 Jan 2006 10:39:48 AM |
|
|
"Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:-oudnaoyKeIIBSTeRVn-hQ@adelphia.com:
"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:dpbuqv$jp7$1@news.onet.pl...
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in
news:Xns973F69D06124Dhopewell@216.196.97.136:
Personally, I agree with you that the actual intent of the
Fourteenth was to apply the entire the Bill of Rights to the states.
I disagree. Several years after the fourteenth amendment was
ratified, Congress proposed a constitutional amendment that would
apply the first amendment to the states. It is known as the Blaine
Amendment and it passed in the House but failed in the Senate.
Why would Congress attempt to amend the Constitution to apply the
first amendment to the states if it had already been done in the
fourteenth amendment?
Because Blaine wasn't just imposing the 1st Amendment on the states,
though his proposed Amendment did repeat a portion of the 1st, he was
imposing a restraint on the states that public money, and property
could not be used for any religious purpose. This was primarily
directed at the establishment and funding of various religious schools
such as Catholic schools.
http://www.blaineamendments.org/Intro/whatis.html
http://www.blaineamendments.org/Intro/BAtext-US.html
Thanks, Scout. A much better answer than mine and I see that the date is
1875 or one year before Cruikshank.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
A real man should have the conviction to hold strong beliefs....
Hmmm, I believe I should have another beer.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: New Constitutional Amendments |
03 Jan 2006 10:38:16 AM |
|
|
Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in news:dpbuqv$jp7$1@news.onet.pl:
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net> wrote in
news:Xns973F69D06124Dhopewell@216.196.97.136:
Personally, I agree with you that the actual intent of the Fourteenth
was to apply the entire the Bill of Rights to the states.
I disagree. Several years after the fourteenth amendment was ratified,
Congress proposed a constitutional amendment that would apply the
first amendment to the states. It is known as the Blaine Amendment and
it passed in the House but failed in the Senate.
Whjat was the date on the Blaine amendment? Did it precede the USSC
decision in 1876 on Cruikshank?
Why would Congress attempt to amend the Constitution to apply the
first amendment to the states if it had already been done in the
fourteenth amendment?
Because there were at least two Supreme court decisions that stated the
BoR did not apply to the states. Barron v Baltimore - 1833 and US v
Cruikshank - 1876.
Additionally, having Congress pass a specific Amendment would override
the debate between Frankfurter and Black.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
School - Four walls with tomorrow inside.
A real man should have the conviction to hold strong beliefs....
Hmmm, I believe I should have another beer.
.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
