Let The PEOPLE Amend the Constitution....or Not.

Dear Americans and fellow ATSers,

I don't come to ATS to be plugged into a positive feedback loop of self satisfaction. Your opinions matter to me; I enjoy reading them and learning from them. This is why I come to ATS. We all have insights and beliefs and things to say. However, the last few days have been absolutely disturbing around here. I have to get this off my chest.

YOUR PERSONAL OPINION DOES NOT A LAW MAKE!

The US Constitution. It is only through this document that WE THE PEOPLE exist as an entity. The government has no rightful authority without it. The United States of America does not exist without it.

The very purpose of drafting a constitution and a bill of rights in the first place is to specifically withdraw certain subjects from political controversy. If rights only mean what you personally think they should mean, and not what is explicitly written, they are worthless. Isn't that something all of us can agree on? I think this is perfectly common sense.

To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. – Thomas Jefferson

America, we are absolutely courting disaster by suggesting a portion of society can just haphazardly eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like without following the lawful procedure that is specifically written out in the document itself. The fact that this even has to be a conversation in our society should be unacceptable to every single one of us regardless of your personal political beliefs.

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

..."Duh, Well, I like that freedom of worship thing, except for Islam... and I don't like the gun thingy or the privacy thingy, so we need to get rid of those."

NO! Just stop it already!

The Constitution protects the rights of the individual from the tyranny of the collective will, period! Our rights don't come from government, they come from our humanity. They come from our unique individualism and our immortal souls. They are NOT public property!

Bypassing the above Lawful process to amend the Constitution is an unacceptable precedent. If we are to change the Constitution, I urge us to do so via article 5 of the US Constitution. It's the Law!

reply to post by METACOMET


I so much agree.

As it stands right now though, we don't have a first nor do we have a second Amendment. We have "Conditional" Amendments.

Imagine little asterisks next to them.

The 1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*

*Unless that religion interferes with ObamaCare, or if the speech is something that may hurt someone's feelings.

The 2nd Amendment
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed*

*Based on government pre-approval of caliber size, type, magazine capacity and the individuals location

reply to post by beezzer

No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than any constitutional provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. – Roger B. Taney, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Ex parte Milligan, 1866

Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence –U.S. Supreme Court, Mapp vs. Ohio

It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood, if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be like tomorrow. – James Madison

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. – South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. -Thomas Jefferson

The framers of the Constitution employed words in their natural sense; and where they are plain and clear, resort to collateral aids to interpretation is unnecessary and cannot be indulged in to narrow or enlarge the text. -U.S. Supreme Court, McPherson v. Blacker

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government. – James Madison

Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency. – Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948), Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, HBL Assn v. Blairsdell, 1934

I cannot assent to the view, if it be meant that the legislature may impair or abridge the rights of a free press and of free speech whenever it thinks that the public welfare requires that it be done. The public welfare cannot override constitutional privilege. – John Marshall Harlan, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Patterson v. Chicago

One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly may not be submitted to vote; they depend on no elections. – Robert H. Jackson, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943

When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all. – Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. – U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury vs Madison

reply to post by METACOMET


Totally agree, as far as I remember the United States of America is both a collective of individual states cooperating (by state agreement) through a "centralized" management body known as the "federal government" and is a REPUBLIC based on the rule of law, NOT popular opinion. The US is NOT a democracy and should never be one as the democratic process can be used to strip the rights of the many to enable the few, hence the generation of ponzi scams like the FED and the IMF.

I only see one problem with the 75% equation, that being with all the voting fraud in the US, it would probably be very easy for the @sshat politicians to manipulate outcomes.

ETA: I gave you an S&F whether ya like it or not.

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by METACOMET
Dear Americans and fellow ATSers,

I don't come to ATS to be plugged into a positive feedback loop of self satisfaction.

Even if you did I will still star and flag a post like this.

reply to post by bobs_uruncle


You are absolutely correct in all of your assertions. Thank you sir!

As for the 3/4ths (38 state) ratification, there was a movement, in the 1800's IIRC, to require all states to ratify a Constitutional amendment. Of course this never came to fruition.

Perhaps the only thing worse than authority being exercised outside of Constitutional limits is having a legislature and media that encourages such behavior. Slippery slope, as they say.

Originally posted by METACOMET
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

You are absolutely correct in all of your assertions. Thank you sir!

As for the 3/4ths (38 state) ratification, there was a movement, in the 1800's IIRC, to require all states to ratify a Constitutional amendment. Of course this never came to fruition.

Perhaps the only thing worse than authority being exercised outside of Constitutional limits is having a legislature and media that encourages such behavior. Slippery slope, as they say.

Yea they are out of hand.

The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.

James Madison Federalist 46#

Madison had so very much faith in the people. He was not a naive man but I dont think that he could even foresee in his day the level of corruption and the morphing into maddness the relationship the federal government has with the states and the people. What drove Madison to support a central government was his fear of what independent states would become. He thought the states would have stood up top the Federal government by now.

We could amend the 2nd Amendment (properly of course) to clear up any ambiguous language and make it more relevant to today BUT I would advise against it as a) opening that door invites in those who would try to eliminate 2A all together and b) we would lose the argument of the words of the "founding fathers" if we tampered with it after two centuries.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
We could amend the 2nd Amendment (properly of course) to clear up any ambiguous language and make it more relevant to today BUT I would advise against it as a) opening that door invites in those who would try to eliminate 2A all together and b) we would lose the argument of the words of the "founding fathers" if we tampered with it after two centuries.

Speaking of ambiguous language. Here is an example of where madisom was a bit full of it. There we some that felt strongly that musch of the language was ambiguous and here is what madiso had to say.....

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Federalist 41#

Man was he full of crap on this one. He should have listened. I keep bringing him up because he was the cause of much of this ambiguous language as he wrote a lot of it.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
We could amend the 2nd Amendment (properly of course) to clear up any ambiguous language and make it more relevant to today BUT I would advise against it as a) opening that door invites in those who would try to eliminate 2A all together and b) we would lose the argument of the words of the "founding fathers" if we tampered with it after two centuries.

Thus why we must demand the lawful procedure if any such action is to be taken. To ignore this and to unilaterally make changes to the constitution either through legislation or through executive order is to invite disaster.

Originally posted by METACOMET
Dear Americans and fellow ATSers,

I don't come to ATS to be plugged into a positive feedback loop of self satisfaction. Your opinions matter to me; I enjoy reading them and learning from them. This is why I come to ATS. We all have insights and beliefs and things to say. However, the last few days have been absolutely disturbing around here. I have to get this off my chest.

YOUR PERSONAL OPINION DOES NOT A LAW MAKE!

The US Constitution. It is only through this document that WE THE PEOPLE exist as an entity. The government has no rightful authority without it. The United States of America does not exist without it.

The very purpose of drafting a constitution and a bill of rights in the first place is to specifically withdraw certain subjects from political controversy. If rights only mean what you personally think they should mean, and not what is explicitly written, they are worthless. Isn't that something all of us can agree on? I think this is perfectly common sense.

To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition. – Thomas Jefferson

America, we are absolutely courting disaster by suggesting a portion of society can just haphazardly eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like without following the lawful procedure that is specifically written out in the document itself. The fact that this even has to be a conversation in our society should be unacceptable to every single one of us regardless of your personal political beliefs.

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

..."Duh, Well, I like that freedom of worship thing, except for Islam... and I don't like the gun thingy or the privacy thingy, so we need to get rid of those."

NO! Just stop it already!

The Constitution protects the rights of the individual from the tyranny of the collective will, period! Our rights don't come from government, they come from our humanity. They come from our unique individualism and our immortal souls. They are NOT public property!

Bypassing the above Lawful process to amend the Constitution is an unacceptable precedent. If we are to change the Constitution, I urge us to do so via article 5 of the US Constitution. It's the Law!

Spoken much better than I could have; Salute!

According to your OP the thirteenth amendment should have never happened. I suppose slavery ought to still exist in the US as the original constitution permitted it. Epic fail on your part. Try a bit harder next time. *gjesp*

Originally posted by NysgjerrigDame
According to your OP the thirteenth amendment should have never happened. I suppose slavery ought to still exist in the US as the original constitution permitted it. Epic fail on your part. Try a bit harder next time. *gjesp*

The thirteenth amendment was ratified legally by the states in the exact same way that my OP advocates.

Something obviously confused you. Perhaps you should read my OP again.