FACT - The federal govt CANNOT by itself amend the federal constitution

[BobPlumb]

Could we have a nation if each time we changed part of Constitutional government we had to amend the Constitution? It couldn't be done. Changes will be made today and we will accept the changes, because we don't know the changes are being done or can't do anything about the changes. The Supreme Court even changes some of its decisions after they have ruled. All we can expect is to stay someplace in the Constitutional ball park.
Maybe the biggest change ever made to the Constitution without an amendment, is when the Court said they will interpret the Constitution when no Constitutional power was given for the Court to interpret?

That ballpark just keeps growing and growing.

Think of why the nation has so few amendments to the Constitution while some states have hundreds of amendments. We have been changing the Constitution since the ink dried, and are still changing it, but nicely nicely. Thousands of court cases for change and yet only 27 amendments. We will continue to change bits and pieces of the Constitution as America changes.

Living document?

 

[bendog]

The founding fathers took states rights for granted and that's why when they wrote the constitution, they listed two ways of amending the constitution and in both ways the states have final vote on whether the proposed amendment passes.

The states can amend the constitution all by themselves, the feds cannot.

The sun also rises.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For the first 80 years of it's existence, the USA was like the european union is now. A collection of independent countries with a federal govt ALONGSIDE, not above, the countries. Then lincoln started the civil war and made the feds supreme by gutting the constitution.

The Federal government was already supreme, that's why they call it the Supremacy Clause.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The states can only amend the Constitution with We the People's agreement.

The state is only the agent of the People.

SCOTUS has always had the right of judicial review IAW with Article 3.

Judicial review requires that the CONSTITUTION BE APPLIED AS WRITTEN and if the issue is not clear then AS INTENDED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

So, where was the Congress SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO ENACT OBAMA HELLCARE?

Where did the Founding Fathers authorize the SENATE to originate bills raising revenue?

.

Actually there is no such requirement. A requirement would by definition be a rule that is enforceable.

What's the enforcement mechanism for dealing with a judicial ruling that someone thinks did not apply the Constitution as written,

and further, who is the authority with jurisdiction and power to decide that the Supreme Court did fail to meet their so-called 'requirement'?

 

[OKTexas]

For the first 80 years of it's existence, the USA was like the european union is now. A collection of independent countries with a federal govt ALONGSIDE, not above, the countries. Then lincoln started the civil war and made the feds supreme by gutting the constitution.

The Federal government was already supreme, that's why they call it the Supremacy Clause.

Only in the areas the Constitution granted them powers, nothing else. But you knew that, didn't you.

 

[bripat9643]

For the first 80 years of it's existence, the USA was like the european union is now...

Not true.

Go back to school.

Under the Articles of Confederation, but NOT under the US Constitution.


Please go back to school.

Yes, that is true. The government schools didn't succeed in brainwashing him like they did you.

 

[bripat9643]

The states can only amend the Constitution with We the People's agreement.

The state is only the agent of the People.

SCOTUS has always had the right of judicial review IAW with Article 3.

Judicial review requires that the CONSTITUTION BE APPLIED AS WRITTEN and if the issue is not clear then AS INTENDED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

So, where was the Congress SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO ENACT OBAMA HELLCARE?

Where did the Founding Fathers authorize the SENATE to originate bills raising revenue?

.

Actually there is no such requirement. A requirement would by definition be a rule that is enforceable.

What's the enforcement mechanism for dealing with a judicial ruling that someone thinks did not apply the Constitution as written,

and further, who is the authority with jurisdiction and power to decide that the Supreme Court did fail to meet their so-called 'requirement'?

Prior to the Civil War it was done by state nullification and by the threat of secession. Lincoln put an end to that by invading the states that tried it.

 

[bripat9643]

Could we have a nation if each time we changed part of Constitutional government we had to amend the Constitution? It couldn't be done. Changes will be made today and we will accept the changes, because we don't know the changes are being done or can't do anything about the changes. The Supreme Court even changes some of its decisions after they have ruled. All we can expect is to stay someplace in the Constitutional ball park.
Maybe the biggest change ever made to the Constitution without an amendment, is when the Court said they will interpret the Constitution when no Constitutional power was given for the Court to interpret?

That ballpark just keeps growing and growing.

Think of why the nation has so few amendments to the Constitution while some states have hundreds of amendments. We have been changing the Constitution since the ink dried, and are still changing it, but nicely nicely. Thousands of court cases for change and yet only 27 amendments. We will continue to change bits and pieces of the Constitution as America changes.

Only a bootlicker would support such a process.

 

[bripat9643]

Could we have a nation if each time we changed part of Constitutional government we had to amend the Constitution? It couldn't be done.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. What does "changed part of Constitutional government" signify?

Changes will be made today and we will accept the changes, because we don't know the changes are being done or can't do anything about the changes. The Supreme Court even changes some of its decisions after they have ruled. All we can expect is to stay someplace in the Constitutional ball park.
Maybe the biggest change ever made to the Constitution without an amendment, is when the Court said they will interpret the Constitution when no Constitutional power was given for the Court to interpret?

The above is utter bull crap.

 

[bripat9643]

The Federalist papers were written arguing in support of a STRONG federal government.

The anti federalists had arguments too.

Hamilton was one of the fiercest proponents of adoption of the USC even though it was more of a document to Madison's liking than his own.

The framers (not the founders) brooked compromise.

now take a hike back to your home school

The "Federalist Papers" are pretty neat archives but they were intended to be illustrations and agendas based on revolutionary propaganda. Hamilton was a walking contradiction. He was a patriot who fought beside Washington but he also admired the British centralized government. He was a federalist but switched parties (and beliefs?) when he opposed Adam's bid for reelection. The framers and the founders created the greatest document in the world. The Constitution is the law of the land regardless of the low information left's sudden interest in revolutionary history.

The Federalist Papers were written by three individuals: Hamilton (51), Madison (29) and Jay (5). They are not law, they were efforts to urge the NY Convention to ratify the Constitution. Thus they used logic intermixed with appeals to prejudice; they argued the Articles of Confederation were weak and a strong Federal Gov't was necessary to protect the nation from a strong British Navy and the ambitions of Spain.

They argued for a stronger federal government, not a strong federal government. They would be horrified by the leviathan we all suffer under today.

 

[Peach]

double

BULLSHIT.

Government schools make sure that Americans don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.

The narcotized believe that the SCOTUS may amend the Constitution under the guise of "interpreting" (wink, wink) the same.

.

You're right. I should have said the feds cannot legally amend the constitution by themselves. They do it illegally all the time by saying they're just interpreting it. States need to stop this by refusing to obey changes in the constitution made by the courts.

double

The US Constitution has NEVER been amended by the courts.

Forget school, go back to hell.

Education IS hell for those still stumbling over Article V, and parroting the Bircher "activist Judges" nonsense. Under that idiocy, the FAA cannot exist.

 

[OKTexas]

double

You're right. I should have said the feds cannot legally amend the constitution by themselves. They do it illegally all the time by saying they're just interpreting it. States need to stop this by refusing to obey changes in the constitution made by the courts.

double

The US Constitution has NEVER been amended by the courts.

Forget school, go back to hell.

Education IS hell for those still stumbling over Article V, and parroting the Bircher "activist Judges" nonsense. Under that idiocy, the FAA cannot exist.

Actually you're the one that seems to need some more schooling, tell me, where did the Supreme Court get the authority to invent a new direct tax that is not triggered by income?

 

[TheJedi]

Actually you're the one that seems to need some more schooling, tell me, where did the Supreme Court get the authority to invent a new direct tax that is not triggered by income?

What tax did they invent?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Judicial review requires that the CONSTITUTION BE APPLIED AS WRITTEN and if the issue is not clear then AS INTENDED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS.

So, where was the Congress SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED TO ENACT OBAMA HELLCARE?

Where did the Founding Fathers authorize the SENATE to originate bills raising revenue?

.

Actually there is no such requirement. A requirement would by definition be a rule that is enforceable.

What's the enforcement mechanism for dealing with a judicial ruling that someone thinks did not apply the Constitution as written,

and further, who is the authority with jurisdiction and power to decide that the Supreme Court did fail to meet their so-called 'requirement'?

Prior to the Civil War it was done by state nullification and by the threat of secession. Lincoln put an end to that by invading the states that tried it.

He simply enforced the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually you're the one that seems to need some more schooling, tell me, where did the Supreme Court get the authority to invent a new direct tax that is not triggered by income?

What tax did they invent?

They deemed the unconstitutional penalty passed in maobamacare to be a tax and held that as constitutional. The tax is triggered by a failure to purchase insurance, not by income as provided for in the 16th Amendment.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually there is no such requirement. A requirement would by definition be a rule that is enforceable.

What's the enforcement mechanism for dealing with a judicial ruling that someone thinks did not apply the Constitution as written,

and further, who is the authority with jurisdiction and power to decide that the Supreme Court did fail to meet their so-called 'requirement'?

Prior to the Civil War it was done by state nullification and by the threat of secession. Lincoln put an end to that by invading the states that tried it.

He simply enforced the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Bullshit!

 

[regent]

Could we have a nation if each time we changed part of Constitutional government we had to amend the Constitution? It couldn't be done.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. What does "changed part of Constitutional government" signify?

Changes will be made today and we will accept the changes, because we don't know the changes are being done or can't do anything about the changes. The Supreme Court even changes some of its decisions after they have ruled. All we can expect is to stay someplace in the Constitutional ball park.
Maybe the biggest change ever made to the Constitution without an amendment, is when the Court said they will interpret the Constitution when no Constitutional power was given for the Court to interpret?

The above is utter bull crap.

For an example of the Court changing the Constitution I would refer you to Article 4, Section 3, clause 2. The 18th word in that clause is "shall." Shall meaning must, no quibbling one has to do it, but the Court has said the framers really mean "may" not shall, and so the Constitution was changed by the Court.
As to judicial interpretation in what clause of the Constitution is that found?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The ignorance of the Constitution and contempt for its case law as exhibited by many conservatives is nothing new.

Indeed, of all the posts in this thread by rightists not one citation of case law in support can be found – and for good reason: there isn’t any.

It was the original intent of the Framers that the Federal government was to be supreme, where the states are subject to Federal laws and the rulings of Federal courts. We know this to be a fact as mandated by Article VI and its supporting case law (see, e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

It was also the intent of the Founding Generation to create a National government, and for the people to be citizens of one Nation, where the Constitution was created to safeguard the liberties of the whole of the American people, as Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, and residents of their states subordinate to that.

And it was the will of all the people that the states not interfere with the relationship between the people and their National government, where the National government was their creation.

As Justice Kennedy accurately explained in US Term Limits:

The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition, which I take to be beyond dispute, that, though limited as to its objects, the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. McCulloch affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States." Id., at 432. The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

This is why the states have no authority to ‘ignore’ or ‘nullify’ Federal laws or the rulings of Federal courts; this is why the states have no authority whatsoever to violate the civil liberties of their residents; and this is why the ‘will of the people’ has no authority when the majority seeks to deny American citizens their Constitutional rights.

 

[OKTexas]

Could we have a nation if each time we changed part of Constitutional government we had to amend the Constitution? It couldn't be done.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. What does "changed part of Constitutional government" signify?

Changes will be made today and we will accept the changes, because we don't know the changes are being done or can't do anything about the changes. The Supreme Court even changes some of its decisions after they have ruled. All we can expect is to stay someplace in the Constitutional ball park.
Maybe the biggest change ever made to the Constitution without an amendment, is when the Court said they will interpret the Constitution when no Constitutional power was given for the Court to interpret?

The above is utter bull crap.

For an example of the Court changing the Constitution I would refer you to Article 4, Section 3, clause 2. The 18th word in that clause is "shall." Shall meaning must, no quibbling one has to do it, but the Court has said the framers really mean "may" not shall, and so the Constitution was changed by the Court.
As to judicial interpretation in what clause of the Constitution is that found?

You might want to check your reference or your word count because it doesn't add up.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually there is no such requirement. A requirement would by definition be a rule that is enforceable.

What's the enforcement mechanism for dealing with a judicial ruling that someone thinks did not apply the Constitution as written,

and further, who is the authority with jurisdiction and power to decide that the Supreme Court did fail to meet their so-called 'requirement'?

Prior to the Civil War it was done by state nullification and by the threat of secession. Lincoln put an end to that by invading the states that tried it.

He simply enforced the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Really? Where does the Constitution authorize the federal government to invade any of the states?