Should any one or two people have the power to alter a constitutional amendement?

[iamwhatiseem]

This isn't about the gun control debate, which make no mistake about it - when Obama or any other Democrat uses the phrase "gun violence" it means "gun control".
But putting that aside...should it be within the power of any individual, including the President, to alter a constitutional amendment?
In this case, there are those who would agree with his sentiment, but would those same individuals support such a thing if it was not their party leader? And not something they agree with?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

This isn't about the gun control debate, which make no mistake about it - when Obama or any other Democrat uses the phrase "gun violence" it means "gun control".
But putting that aside...should it be within the power of any individual, including the President, to alter a constitutional amendment?

There is no authority to alter the Constitution residing in any branch of government. The Executive branch may suspend for periods of martial law, but at its own peril.

The Constitutional can be altered only by the amendment process.

 

[Timmy]

How is he altering the constitution ?

We have gun control, the 2nd amendment is not limitless . Otherwise you could buy machine guns out of vending machines .

Is that what you want?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

How is he altering the constitution ?

We have gun control, the 2nd amendment is not limitless . Otherwise you could buy machine guns out of vending machines .

Is that what you want?

and the 15th amendment is not limitless, otherwise you would have people voting twice and non citizens vot,, oh wait, never mind.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

How is he altering the constitution ?

No one said he was. He would, however, if he could.

We have gun control, the 2nd amendment is not limitless .

Following the words "shall not be infringed", we do not find exceptions. In terms of Congress' authority, the amendment is quite limitless. The Executive Branch has no power to make law.

Is that what you want?

What I want is for all three government branches to stop fucking around and stay within Constitutional restrictions.

 

[whitehall]

It's not just a Constitutional Amendment. The right to bear arms was so important to the Founding Fathers that it became the 2nd of the first ten Amendments to the Constitution aka the Bill of Rights. First they go after the 2nd Amendment and then they they go after the 1st Amendment. FDR got away with incarcerating American citizens without due process because the media supported it at the time and he appointed a former KKK member to the Supreme Court who affirmed his executive order.

 

[Timmy]

How is he altering the constitution ?

No one said he was. He would, however, if he could.

We have gun control, the 2nd amendment is not limitless .

Following the words "shall not be infringed", we do not find exceptions. In terms of Congress' authority, the amendment is quite limitless. The Executive Branch has no power to make law.

Is that what you want?

What I want is for all three government branches to stop fucking around and stay within Constitutional restrictions.

It also mentions "well regulated " . If we are cherry picking words .

 

[Iceweasel]

Last I heard obama's handlers haven't completed his position on exactly what it will be. They are still checking laws (surprising so, I know) and potential challenges. I don't know what he could actually do except try and stop private gun sales and make them go through a FFL. Legal private sales haven't been the problem but that doesn't matter to the grabbers. They will inch it forward as best they can.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This isn't about the gun control debate, which make no mistake about it - when Obama or any other Democrat uses the phrase "gun violence" it means "gun control".
But putting that aside...should it be within the power of any individual, including the President, to alter a constitutional amendment?
In this case, there are those who would agree with his sentiment, but would those same individuals support such a thing if it was not their party leader? And not something they agree with?

We have a Supreme Court to deal with such controversies.

 

[Little-Acorn]

How is he altering the constitution ?

He isn't. He's violating it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

How is he altering the constitution ?

He isn't. He's violating it.

We have gun control,

I see you answered your own question.

 

[9aces]

How is he altering the constitution ?

No one said he was. He would, however, if he could.

We have gun control, the 2nd amendment is not limitless .

Following the words "shall not be infringed", we do not find exceptions. In terms of Congress' authority, the amendment is quite limitless. The Executive Branch has no power to make law.

Is that what you want?

What I want is for all three government branches to stop fucking around and stay within Constitutional restrictions.

It also mentions "well regulated " . If we are cherry picking words .

Let's cherry pick words. What do you think "well regulated" in the days of the Constitutional convention meant?

Hint: Not government regulated or controlled.

 

[westwall]

This isn't about the gun control debate, which make no mistake about it - when Obama or any other Democrat uses the phrase "gun violence" it means "gun control".
But putting that aside...should it be within the power of any individual, including the President, to alter a constitutional amendment?
In this case, there are those who would agree with his sentiment, but would those same individuals support such a thing if it was not their party leader? And not something they agree with?

Nope. That is what we call a "dictator"....

 

[9aces]

This isn't about the gun control debate, which make no mistake about it - when Obama or any other Democrat uses the phrase "gun violence" it means "gun control".
But putting that aside...should it be within the power of any individual, including the President, to alter a constitutional amendment?
In this case, there are those who would agree with his sentiment, but would those same individuals support such a thing if it was not their party leader? And not something they agree with?

We have a Supreme Court to deal with such controversies.

We had a Supreme Court to deal with such. The Supreme Court has gone well beyond the powers granted to it in the Constitution. They were allowed to do so by Congress, which was an enormous mistake. Like many such, it gradually occurred over time, and they never even noticed it seems till it was gone.

 

[Timmy]

How is he altering the constitution ?

No one said he was. He would, however, if he could.

We have gun control, the 2nd amendment is not limitless .

Following the words "shall not be infringed", we do not find exceptions. In terms of Congress' authority, the amendment is quite limitless. The Executive Branch has no power to make law.

Is that what you want?

What I want is for all three government branches to stop fucking around and stay within Constitutional restrictions.

It also mentions "well regulated " . If we are cherry picking words .

Let's cherry pick words. What do you think "well regulated" in the days of the Constitutional convention meant?

Hint: Not government regulated or controlled.

I did that to annoy . Just like pro gunners fail to quote the whole 2nd .

You think we should have no gun restrictions? Guns avialble on demand ??

 

[NYcarbineer]

This isn't about the gun control debate, which make no mistake about it - when Obama or any other Democrat uses the phrase "gun violence" it means "gun control".
But putting that aside...should it be within the power of any individual, including the President, to alter a constitutional amendment?
In this case, there are those who would agree with his sentiment, but would those same individuals support such a thing if it was not their party leader? And not something they agree with?

We have a Supreme Court to deal with such controversies.

We had a Supreme Court to deal with such. The Supreme Court has gone well beyond the powers granted to it in the Constitution. They were allowed to do so by Congress, which was an enormous mistake. Like many such, it gradually occurred over time, and they never even noticed it seems till it was gone.

You have no idea how stupid your post is.

 

[Little-Acorn]

But putting that aside...should it be within the power of any individual, including the President, to alter a constitutional amendment?

Obviously a joke post.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Just like pro gunners fail to quote the whole 2nd .

(yawn)

Who supports removing the second amendment? | Page 17 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Concealed Carry Permits Should be Treated Like Driver's Licenses | Page 35 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not? | Page 8 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Little-Acorn]

Let's cherry pick words. What do you think "well regulated" in the days of the Constitutional convention meant?

Hint: Not government regulated or controlled.

This question has been cussed and discussed approximately 34,271,266 times in this forum.

And the liberals have been beaten into the ground every time.

In modern language, the 2nd amendment says:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom and security, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

 

[konradv]

Not one or two people, but at least 5 out of 9. If that's a problem for some, they're the ones trying to alter the Constitution.