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

[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.

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?

All you've said is that the court took a big shit on the Constitution. We are all painfully aware of that fact.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Within it's proper sphere, that's the caveat you commies seem to forget. We have a Federal Government, not a national government, with defined and limited powers. Your fine courts have been complicit with the politicians they depend on for career advancement to destroy the founders original intent. Any court ruling that is not in accordance with the letter and intent of the Constitution is null and void, doesn't matter how much power the courts confer on themselves. The States can change the scope of the Federal Government at will through Article 5 and there is not a damned thing the courts, congress or the executive can do about it, why, because the States are the master of the Federal Government not the other way round.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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.

Of course it could be done. In fact it would be easy if we returned to what the FF wanted - a very very small federal govt.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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.

You obviously have never read the supremacy clause.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

And under the your socialist idiocy a behemoth government is great , parasitism is fantastic and federal government bureaucrats must control our lives.

.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

because the States are the master of the Federal Government not the other way round.

That's the way it's supposed to be but lincoln turned the constitution on it's head and made the federal govt the master. But he didn't actually change the wording of the constitution though i'm sure he planned on doing that. He wanted to repeal the tenth amendment and change the amending process. But he was killed and the constitution still supports states rights.

 

[Erand7899]

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.

Are you saying the courts have not amended this?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Warrentless searches, no knock raids, patdowns, etc.

Can one be secure in their person, house, papers, or effects, when government agents can bust down one's door, in the middle of the night, on no more probable cause than an anonymous tip? Is there any oath or affirmation when the Highway Patrol searces you car in the middle of nowhere? Is your person secure when police can stop you in the street, search you for anything illegal, and threaten you with arrest if you resist?

Altering the meaning of words and phrases within the Constitution, is amending the document.

 

[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.

Of course it could be done. In fact it would be easy if we returned to what the FF wanted - a very very small federal govt.

The intent of the framers was to create a government with tremendous national powers as compared to the government they were replacing, and that meant size. Where is it found in the Constitution that the size of the national government is limited?

 

[OKTexas]

because the States are the master of the Federal Government not the other way round.

That's the way it's supposed to be but lincoln turned the constitution on it's head and made the federal govt the master. But he didn't actually change the wording of the constitution though i'm sure he planned on doing that. He wanted to repeal the tenth amendment and change the amending process. But he was killed and the constitution still supports states rights.

Please don't quote me out of context, it's easy to quote the full post and highlight what you may want to emphasize.

 

[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.

Of course it could be done. In fact it would be easy if we returned to what the FF wanted - a very very small federal govt.

The intent of the framers was to create a government with tremendous national powers as compared to the government they were replacing, and that meant size. Where is it found in the Constitution that the size of the national government is limited?

See the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, the feds were limited to 18 specific functions the remainder have been granted unconstitutionally by the courts. That's why we need an Article 5 convention, to reign in all 3 branches.

 

[regent]

Of course it could be done. In fact it would be easy if we returned to what the FF wanted - a very very small federal govt.

The intent of the framers was to create a government with tremendous national powers as compared to the government they were replacing, and that meant size. Where is it found in the Constitution that the size of the national government is limited?

See the enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8, the feds were limited to 18 specific functions the remainder have been granted unconstitutionally by the courts. That's why we need an Article 5 convention, to reign in all 3 branches.

Wrong, the federal government was not limited to the 17 powers in section 8, but the Congress was. In addition the Congress could legislate all the laws necessary and proper to carry into execution all the other powers not only in section 8, but all powers and vested in the Constitution. So what are all those other laws Congress was authorized to pass, and who decides they are necessary and proper?

 

[Pheonixops]

Legislating is a power granted to the Congress, it involves enacting laws.

Private lands? Read the US Constitution: no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Now try reading Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 and see what lands congress was given legislative authority over, hint it wasn't private land.

The USC provides for this: Private property can be taken for public use, with just compensation.

You are swinging at windmills

LOL


Eminent domain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Pheonixops]

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 is not mentioned in article 3. You say otherwise - give us the quote.

Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[
The intent of the framers was to create a government with tremendous national powers as compared to the government they were replacing, and that meant size. Where is it found in the Constitution that the size of the national government is limited?

The tenth amendment. It says a power not given to the feds is retained by the states or the people. And that means 99% of govt laws and programs are unconstitutional.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Judicial review is not mentioned in article 3. You say otherwise - give us the quote.

Marbury v. Madison - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey einstein. A judicial opinion is not a constitutional clause.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=20503]Contumacious[/MENTION]

Excuse me fucktard, but according to the AG he STILL has the authority to prevent Coloradans from growing , consuming and distributing marihuana WITHIN the state borders,

.

Hmm...so things haven't changed since CJ Marshall and Hamilton and Adams were battling crazy ole Tommie Jefferson and Madison?

So what is your point about America?

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, "A republic, if you can keep it."


We couldn't keep it.

We lost it to you and your Communistic brethren.

.

deal much with myths and shit?

figures

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=39653]OKTexas[/MENTION]

Now try reading Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 and see what lands congress was given legislative authority over, hint it wasn't private land.

The USC provides for this: Private property can be taken for public use, with just compensation.

You are swinging at windmills

It also says that the feds can't purchase land within a State without the consent of the legislature, the property you're talking about is for instance the feds commandeer a ship during war time, they must compensate the owner. The feds have no {sic} imminent domain over any private lands.

First of all, if you're going to even attempt to ponder, pontificate, and profess to know wtf you are talking about: Eminent domain

eminent domain legal definition of eminent domain. eminent domain synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

next?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION] [MENTION=37134]ShootSpeeders[/MENTION] [MENTION=20503]Contumacious[/MENTION]

Dante has kicked reactionary far right wing ass all over the Board.

The federalists would have generally disagreed with the likes of Shoot Speeders. They simply would have jailed Contumacious and thrown away the key.

We can see what the two above products of far right home schooling have done to the student body's ability to critically think.

too funny and concerning the right winger's ability to grasp simple concepts: too sad

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante has kicked reactionary far right wing ass all over the Board.

The federalists would have generally disagreed with the likes of Shoot Speeders. They simply would have jailed Contumacious and thrown away the key.

We can see what the two above products of far right home schooling have done to the student body's ability to critically think.

Really?

I believe President Thmas Jefferson would have conferred the Medal of Honor upon one Contumacious Libertarian Freeman

"What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. "

.

You might want to contemplate what those tools like you who put together Shay's Rebellion did to their own cause. Jesus, they strengthened their opponent's hands a hundred fold.

 

[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.

Within it's proper sphere, that's the caveat you commies seem to forget. We have a Federal Government, not a national government, with defined and limited powers. Your fine courts have been complicit with the politicians they depend on for career advancement to destroy the founders original intent. Any court ruling that is not in accordance with the letter and intent of the Constitution is null and void, doesn't matter how much power the courts confer on themselves. The States can change the scope of the Federal Government at will through Article 5 and there is not a damned thing the courts, congress or the executive can do about it, why, because the States are the master of the Federal Government not the other way round.

Incorrect.

Again, Article VI is clear and beyond dispute: Federal laws, the Federal Constitution, and the Federal courts are supreme, where the states are subordinate to those laws and rulings; this was the original intent of the Framers and the people of the Founding Generation, it was their desire to create a National government and to interact with the National government absent interference from the states.

We are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of our respective states secondary to that, and the states lack the authority to deny American citizens residing in the states their civil liberties as codified and protected by the Federal Constitution and its case law.

One does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of this state of residence, nor does the will of the people trump the civil liberties of an American citizen, as the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.