America Ended With The Depression

[regent]

The principle remains unchanged.


No guesses, whims, caprice, penumbras......


If the people wish to change the Constitution, what is the only method?

Say it......I dare you.


"...why did the framers put in the tenth Amendment?"

The Constitution is designed to restrict tyranny of the federal government.

First, people do not change the Constitution, it is a political process that involves politicians. Second, there is not only one method for amending the constitution, but four.
And where does it specifically say in the text that the constitution is designed to restrict the tyranny of the federal government?

The people do so via the ballot box.
1. The Constitution spells out four paths for an amendment:
• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):
Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


2."And where does it specifically say in the text that the constitution is designed to restrict the tyranny of the federal government?"
It does so by specifically enumerating the only things the federal government can do.
Sadly...FDR used a crisis to end-run those restrictions.


3. As it is clear that you have a limited understanding of the Constitution, I hope you will read the OP that I'm going to put up tomorrow on Constitutional education.

So that is your idea of specific text in the constitution, if it says what the nation can do, then everything else is unconstitutional, right? Did George Washington also do an end run when Washington allowed the creation of the Bank of America, or Jefferson buying Louisiana, or Lincoln helping the railroad companies? Seems like our history is filled with end runs by not only the presidents but congress and even the supreme court. Looking forward to your post on constitutional education.

 

[PoliticalChic]

First, people do not change the Constitution, it is a political process that involves politicians. Second, there is not only one method for amending the constitution, but four.
And where does it specifically say in the text that the constitution is designed to restrict the tyranny of the federal government?

The people do so via the ballot box.
1. The Constitution spells out four paths for an amendment:
• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):
Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


2."And where does it specifically say in the text that the constitution is designed to restrict the tyranny of the federal government?"
It does so by specifically enumerating the only things the federal government can do.
Sadly...FDR used a crisis to end-run those restrictions.


3. As it is clear that you have a limited understanding of the Constitution, I hope you will read the OP that I'm going to put up tomorrow on Constitutional education.

So that is your idea of specific text in the constitution, if it says what the nation can do, then everything else is unconstitutional, right? Did George Washington also do an end run when Washington allowed the creation of the Bank of America, or Jefferson buying Louisiana, or Lincoln helping the railroad companies? Seems like our history is filled with end runs by not only the presidents but congress and even the supreme court. Looking forward to your post on constitutional education.

You seem actually puzzled.

Actually, it is both simple and brilliant.

1. Our Founders envisioned the states as laboratories of democracy and enshrined into our Constitution the principle of federalism. Under federalist principles, the American people endowed the national government with a defined set of limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution. Any powers beyond those specifically given to the federal government fall entirely within the province of the states. Federalism protects liberty by protecting against the overreaching of any one branch of our federal government, and is part of the uniquely American system of checks and balances.
Paloma Zepeda, "Reinventing the Right."

Of course, the people may decide to elect folks who wish to alter the Constitution.

This can only be done in one way: amendments.


2. You agree with view that social problems can be ameliorated by judges who 'interpret,' meaning rationalize, a current viewpoint and pretend to find it in the Constitution.
It may be a good hearted intent....but it is wrong.

No matter how many examples you can find of wrong decisions, they remain wrong decisions.


3. Different laws in different states should be seen as a positive.

a. In Texas, a 10-hour safety course, and a background check, and a resident may carry a concealed pistol at all times. The result has been a reduction of violent crimes in many areas. Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers:Law-abiding Public Benefactors | NCPA

b. In Illinois, such law is voted down annually. The view there, is that fewer handguns increase safety. Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Both reflect the will of the population, and the concept is a critical element of American representative democracy. The foundational principle of our nation is that ultimate sovereignty lies with the citizenry.
Largely from "Reinventing the Right," Bryan Jiral

 

[regent]

The people do so via the ballot box.
1. The Constitution spells out four paths for an amendment:
• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
• Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
• Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):
Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


2."And where does it specifically say in the text that the constitution is designed to restrict the tyranny of the federal government?"
It does so by specifically enumerating the only things the federal government can do.
Sadly...FDR used a crisis to end-run those restrictions.


3. As it is clear that you have a limited understanding of the Constitution, I hope you will read the OP that I'm going to put up tomorrow on Constitutional education.

So that is your idea of specific text in the constitution, if it says what the nation can do, then everything else is unconstitutional, right? Did George Washington also do an end run when Washington allowed the creation of the Bank of America, or Jefferson buying Louisiana, or Lincoln helping the railroad companies? Seems like our history is filled with end runs by not only the presidents but congress and even the supreme court. Looking forward to your post on constitutional education.

You seem actually puzzled.

Actually, it is both simple and brilliant.

1. Our Founders envisioned the states as laboratories of democracy and enshrined into our Constitution the principle of federalism. Under federalist principles, the American people endowed the national government with a defined set of limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution. Any powers beyond those specifically given to the federal government fall entirely within the province of the states. Federalism protects liberty by protecting against the overreaching of any one branch of our federal government, and is part of the uniquely American system of checks and balances.
Paloma Zepeda, "Reinventing the Right."

Of course, the people may decide to elect folks who wish to alter the Constitution.

This can only be done in one way: amendments.


2. You agree with view that social problems can be ameliorated by judges who 'interpret,' meaning rationalize, a current viewpoint and pretend to find it in the Constitution.
It may be a good hearted intent....but it is wrong.

No matter how many examples you can find of wrong decisions, they remain wrong decisions.


3. Different laws in different states should be seen as a positive.

a. In Texas, a 10-hour safety course, and a background check, and a resident may carry a concealed pistol at all times. The result has been a reduction of violent crimes in many areas. Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers:Law-abiding Public Benefactors | NCPA

b. In Illinois, such law is voted down annually. The view there, is that fewer handguns increase safety. Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Both reflect the will of the population, and the concept is a critical element of American representative democracy. The foundational principle of our nation is that ultimate sovereignty lies with the citizenry.
Largely from "Reinventing the Right," Bryan Jiral

Do you make this stuff up or follow some sort of anti-American history guru?
The framers wanted no part of democracy. Of the three branches of government the people were only involved in electing 1/2 of one branch. and the people involved in the electing usually had to own some type of property.
As for the constitution changing, as Justice Hughes said, the constitution is what the courts say it is, and Justice Hughes could have added, and the justices keep changing. Has a court ever reversed another court's decision? In addition the constitution never gave the court the power to interpret the laws of the United States.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So that is your idea of specific text in the constitution, if it says what the nation can do, then everything else is unconstitutional, right? Did George Washington also do an end run when Washington allowed the creation of the Bank of America, or Jefferson buying Louisiana, or Lincoln helping the railroad companies? Seems like our history is filled with end runs by not only the presidents but congress and even the supreme court. Looking forward to your post on constitutional education.

You seem actually puzzled.

Actually, it is both simple and brilliant.

1. Our Founders envisioned the states as laboratories of democracy and enshrined into our Constitution the principle of federalism. Under federalist principles, the American people endowed the national government with a defined set of limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution. Any powers beyond those specifically given to the federal government fall entirely within the province of the states. Federalism protects liberty by protecting against the overreaching of any one branch of our federal government, and is part of the uniquely American system of checks and balances.
Paloma Zepeda, "Reinventing the Right."

Of course, the people may decide to elect folks who wish to alter the Constitution.

This can only be done in one way: amendments.


2. You agree with view that social problems can be ameliorated by judges who 'interpret,' meaning rationalize, a current viewpoint and pretend to find it in the Constitution.
It may be a good hearted intent....but it is wrong.

No matter how many examples you can find of wrong decisions, they remain wrong decisions.


3. Different laws in different states should be seen as a positive.

a. In Texas, a 10-hour safety course, and a background check, and a resident may carry a concealed pistol at all times. The result has been a reduction of violent crimes in many areas. Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers:Law-abiding Public Benefactors | NCPA

b. In Illinois, such law is voted down annually. The view there, is that fewer handguns increase safety. Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Both reflect the will of the population, and the concept is a critical element of American representative democracy. The foundational principle of our nation is that ultimate sovereignty lies with the citizenry.
Largely from "Reinventing the Right," Bryan Jiral

Do you make this stuff up or follow some sort of anti-American history guru?
The framers wanted no part of democracy. Of the three branches of government the people were only involved in electing 1/2 of one branch. and the people involved in the electing usually had to own some type of property.
As for the constitution changing, as Justice Hughes said, the constitution is what the courts say it is, and Justice Hughes could have added, and the justices keep changing. Has a court ever reversed another court's decision? In addition the constitution never gave the court the power to interpret the laws of the United States.

So...both Lenny and Squiggy concur!
No Constitution is necessary as long as there are judges!

Brilliant.


Serious request: This deserves an OP.....would you mind if I quote you in same?

 

[regent]

You seem actually puzzled.

Actually, it is both simple and brilliant.

1. Our Founders envisioned the states as laboratories of democracy and enshrined into our Constitution the principle of federalism. Under federalist principles, the American people endowed the national government with a defined set of limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution. Any powers beyond those specifically given to the federal government fall entirely within the province of the states. Federalism protects liberty by protecting against the overreaching of any one branch of our federal government, and is part of the uniquely American system of checks and balances.
Paloma Zepeda, "Reinventing the Right."

Of course, the people may decide to elect folks who wish to alter the Constitution.

This can only be done in one way: amendments.


2. You agree with view that social problems can be ameliorated by judges who 'interpret,' meaning rationalize, a current viewpoint and pretend to find it in the Constitution.
It may be a good hearted intent....but it is wrong.

No matter how many examples you can find of wrong decisions, they remain wrong decisions.


3. Different laws in different states should be seen as a positive.

a. In Texas, a 10-hour safety course, and a background check, and a resident may carry a concealed pistol at all times. The result has been a reduction of violent crimes in many areas. Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers:Law-abiding Public Benefactors | NCPA

b. In Illinois, such law is voted down annually. The view there, is that fewer handguns increase safety. Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Both reflect the will of the population, and the concept is a critical element of American representative democracy. The foundational principle of our nation is that ultimate sovereignty lies with the citizenry.
Largely from "Reinventing the Right," Bryan Jiral

Do you make this stuff up or follow some sort of anti-American history guru?
The framers wanted no part of democracy. Of the three branches of government the people were only involved in electing 1/2 of one branch. and the people involved in the electing usually had to own some type of property.
As for the constitution changing, as Justice Hughes said, the constitution is what the courts say it is, and Justice Hughes could have added, and the justices keep changing. Has a court ever reversed another court's decision? In addition the constitution never gave the court the power to interpret the laws of the United States.

So...both Lenny and Squiggy concur!
No Constitution is necessary as long as there are judges!

Brilliant.


Serious request: This deserves an OP.....would you mind if I quote you in same?

The conservative court in 1803 decided the constitution gave the court the power to interpret the constitution and took that power unto themselves. Jefferson and the liberals were upset but Marshall had outsmarted them. We may never know if that was the framer's intentions because the framers never put that clause in the constitution, even the originalists can't find it.
In any case it is now the law of the land. For the most part, judges are appointed for political reasons, conservatives will find the law as conservatives want, and liberals as liberals want. There is an occasional judge, that with a secure job, will find differently than expected and that causes fits.
Someday a court might find the Marshall Court misread the constitution and they really don't have the power, but otherwise it would take an amendment to change the Marshall Court's findings. So far neither party has suggested the amendment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you make this stuff up or follow some sort of anti-American history guru?
The framers wanted no part of democracy. Of the three branches of government the people were only involved in electing 1/2 of one branch. and the people involved in the electing usually had to own some type of property.
As for the constitution changing, as Justice Hughes said, the constitution is what the courts say it is, and Justice Hughes could have added, and the justices keep changing. Has a court ever reversed another court's decision? In addition the constitution never gave the court the power to interpret the laws of the United States.

So...both Lenny and Squiggy concur!
No Constitution is necessary as long as there are judges!

Brilliant.


Serious request: This deserves an OP.....would you mind if I quote you in same?

The conservative court in 1803 decided the constitution gave the court the power to interpret the constitution and took that power unto themselves. Jefferson and the liberals were upset but Marshall had outsmarted them. We may never know if that was the framer's intentions because the framers never put that clause in the constitution, even the originalists can't find it.
In any case it is now the law of the land. For the most part, judges are appointed for political reasons, conservatives will find the law as conservatives want, and liberals as liberals want. There is an occasional judge, that with a secure job, will find differently than expected and that causes fits.
Someday a court might find the Marshall Court misread the constitution and they really don't have the power, but otherwise it would take an amendment to change the Marshall Court's findings. So far neither party has suggested the amendment.

Was that a yea or nay?

If you'd rather, I'll use the quote without your name.