U.S. Constitution gives people of the U.S. the power to amend the Constitution

http://www.argumentsake.com/illegalimmigrantprotest/index.php?topic=2007.0 ^

[fkhouck]

U.S. Constitution gives people of the U.S. the power to amend the Constitution

Taken from Article:

In other words, it is possible to amend the Constitution even if the entire U.S. Congress, all fifty state governors, the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and the President of the United States all oppose the idea. They have no role in the process.

http://www.argumentsake.com/illegalimmigrantprotest/index.php?topic=2007.0

[YOUGOTIT]

I do not read it that way. And if we did how would we the people enforce it? The governments, federal, state and local have control of law enforcement and can take any action they deem necessary to enforce their laws. The Constitution has no meaning to the courts except if they want something done their way so why would a change to the Constitution help in any way?

The Constitution says that only the Congress can either propose a change or call a convention after application of 2/3 of the states. And if a convention is called I would expect that only left-wing liberals will be placed in a position to change the Constitution so we will lost all of our freedoms that we have managed to maintain to date. The best way to make sure the Constitution is followed is to impeach the left-wing justices on the Supreme Court who are in violation of their oath and the Supreme Law of the land in most of their decisions. And to repeal the 17th amendment so we can get some real Americans in the US Senate.

[Cheburashka]

Article. V.

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; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

This is what the Constitution itself says. It looks to me that the Congress has a role in the amendment process to me. But hey, it's only in plain English, so you will have to tell me if you understand it.

Of course, we can always cut the Congress out of the loop by going the revolution route. Is that what you're talking about, sparky?

[qlangley]

Actually it says "on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, SHALL call a convention". In those circumstances it seems to me the Congress has no discretion and the convention has to be called, though it doesn't say how quickly. Also, the way I read it, the convention's proposals only need to be ratified by the states, not Congress. I think this was deliberate by the founders. They would have anticipated that most amendments would have been initiated by Congress, but also included a route by which the states could initiate amendments over the heads of Congress.

That does mean, technically, that the Constitution can be amended without Congress or any state governor supporting the amendment, provided you have at least two thirds of the state legislatures prepared to initiate the process, and three quarters prepared to ratify. The chances of this happening while Congress and all 50 state governors remain opposed would seem to be a little less than zero.

It is hardly the conservative route to take. Any new convention would have the power to completely redraft the Constitution. Expect 'rights' to healthcare, education and social security to be inserted. Along with a 'right' to live without the consequences of what you do, and to be free from anybody taking offence at anything you do or say.

This is a really, REALLY bad idea.

[Eastbound]

As with all good ideas, this one will fall be the wayside because of incorporating too many other issues. If they would have stuck with a single critical issue, it may have succeeded in greasing the mechanism the states can use to meet in convention and propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Congress' job in such a case is to decide how the amendment will be ratified, not how it should be worded or approved for proposal, imo.

Be sure the train is able to move and get to its destination before you load it with passengers.

[Cheburashka]

SHALL may be obligatory, but Congress has the authority to decide such minor matters as "who, what, where, when". All those things would have to be settled in order for the convention to be convened. Theoretically Congress could say that the convention shall consist only of the members of Congress, and convene it in the Congressional chambers five minutes after it is called. ANY other scheme could be devised, and there is no reason that Congress could not use that power in nefarious ways.

---

This is a really, REALLY bad idea.

---

You're not wrong on that.

[Eastbound]

I guess I should have qualified that. Whatever the proposed amendment is, submitted by the states or Congress itself, must be in pursuance to the supreme law of the land -- the Bill of Rights/U.S. Constitution.

In our peculiar Republic, the inalienable rights of even the least Citizen cannot be infringed upon by a majority vote of any number. Not a democracy.

[qlangley]

>>SHALL may be obligatory, but Congress has the authority to decide such minor matters as "who, what, where, when". All those things would have to be settled in order for the convention to be convened. Theoretically Congress could say that the convention shall consist only of the members of Congress,

Really? I think that would fail to pass a challenge to the Supreme Court. I would say it is clear from precedent that a convention represents the states. If Congress really wanted to avoid it a better bet would be to convene it on the date 01/01/2436. That too would face a challenge in the courts.

But there was a wider point. The notion that there could be a sufficient consensus to get 3/4 of the state legislatures on side while Congress and 50 state governors all remain opposed is just fatuous. The OP was assuming a situation that could not arise. The state legislators and the members of Congress are elected by the same people, and while there can be differences of opinion between them a huge consensus on one side is never going to be met by a huge opposition on the other.

But then, as we have just agreed, convening a new convention is a silly idea anyway, so how it could be done is nothing more than an entertaining exercise in debate.

[scrabblehack]

Nor even how delegates should be chosen and how many votes each gets. If the rules of the original constitutional convention are followed, then each state may send as many delegates as it wishes but each state would get only one vote. It seems to me that this is the best interpretation (I guess the other interpretation is that you can't decide these questions, therefore a convention should never be called), else you could never decide how to get the convention started.

[qlangley]

One option would be that since the power to call a convention lies with the states, it is the states that must define such things. However, that is problematic too. You would have to get all the states demanding a convention to agree on a formula in advance and define that formula in their resoultions. For example, if the first state to issue the call included in its resolution the demand that each state's delegation should be equal to the size of its Congressional delegation, and the convention should begin on such and such a date, then you would have to get 33 other states to issue a call under the same terms before the date defined.

[FredZarguna]

I guess I should have qualified that. Whatever the proposed amendment is, submitted by the states or Congress itself, must be in pursuance to the supreme law of the land -- the Bill of Rights/U.S. Constitution.

Nope. Not true. An Amendment may change any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. If Amendment XXVIII says, "The Constitution of the United States and all preceding Amendments are hereby repealed," and it gets passed and ratified, that's the end.

[Eastbound]

"Nope. Not true. An Amendment may change any part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. If Amendment XXVIII says, "The Constitution of the United States and all preceding Amendments are hereby repealed," and it gets passed and ratified, that's the end."

In theory, in a democracy, perhaps, where a majority grants and defines what individual rights are.

But in our Republic, not so. Representative government is representative of ALL Citizens, and was instituted to recognize, preserve, and protect the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of each Citizen.

If any law, article, or amendment is contrary and repugnant to that first principle (which is the very basis of our rule of law), it gets tossed. I'm on the 'tossing committee'.

Our Constitution is not a suicide pact.

[Eastbound]

Comment?

[FredZarguna]

You need to study the Constitution a bit, friend. There is no theory here, and my comment has nothing to do with the US being a democracy or a republic.

The Fourteenth Amendment not only extended the Bill of Rights to the states--something the framers never anticipated (nor would they have allowed)--it also substantially limits the Bill of Rights by limiting Amendments IX and X.

Please. Learn a little history. Your interpretation of the Constitution and American law is terribly oversimplified, and indeed, silly.

[Eastbound]

"The Fourteenth Amendment not only extended the Bill of Rights to the states--something the framers never anticipated (nor would they have allowed)--it also substantially limits the Bill of Rights by limiting Amendments IX and X."

Thank you for your wisdom.

Consider that the Fourteenth only applied to the fictional federal corporate states, not the union of states. Or were you unaware that there is more than one 'United States?'

Congress granted citizenship and protection to those who could not be recognized as Citizens by the states or the federal government, designating them as 'citizens' -- lower case 'c', subjecting them to federal jurisdiction.

Instead of writing the Fourteenth to accomplish that, it makes me wonder why they just didn't use the same short cut used by the Mass. Supreme Court when it re-defined the word, 'marriage.'

Well, yes, I know why Congress didn't do it the easy way. It knew it could not arbitrarily re-define a word that was already defined -- a lesson that went over the heads of the Mass. SC.

[FredZarguna]

Instead of writing the Fourteenth to accomplish that, it makes me wonder why they just didn't use the same short cut used by the Mass. Supreme Court when it re-defined the word, 'marriage.'

They did not because they were responding to a judicial abuse exactly like the one you're describing: Chief Justice Taney's opinion in the Dred Scott case. Amendment XIV is almost a point-by-point demolition of his decision.

[Eastbound]

Seems to me the Fourteenth became a two-way boulevard for states' Citizens and federal citizens to seek justice for the abuse of rights by state governments against its Citizens AND citizens, as well as for justice for the abuse of rights by the federal government against state Citizens and its own citizens.

Not sure if it was planned that way, but it worked out that way. I don't know how else they could have assimilated the freed slaves, though it still took another 100 years for the Civil Rights Act to give the Fourtheenth teeth.

[tpaine]

[Our Republic] --
, was instituted to recognize, preserve, and protect the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of each Citizen.
If any law, article, or amendment is contrary and repugnant to that first principle (which is the very basis of our rule of law), it gets tossed.

To: tpaine
Comment?

Exactly.. The principles of the Constitution cannot be violated by any amendment. -- As Article VI says: -- only laws "-- which shall be made in pursuance thereof;" -- "shall be the supreme Law of the Land; --"

Fred wrote:
Eastbound --- You need to study the Constitution a bit, friend. There is no theory here, and my comment has nothing to do with the US being a democracy or a republic.
The Fourteenth Amendment not only extended the Bill of Rights to the states--something the framers never anticipated (nor would they have allowed)

You need to continue reading Article VI fred.. It clearly says our US Constitution is supreme; "-- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"

--it also substantially limits the Bill of Rights by limiting Amendments IX and X.

Again you've misread. ---- The 9th adds "unenumerated" rights -- while the 10th limits the powers of both Fed & State gov'ts, reserving them to the people.

Please. Learn a little history. Your interpretation of the Constitution and American law is terribly oversimplified, and indeed, silly.

Considering your own misconceptions fred, you may want to reconsider that remark.

[FredZarguna]

I actually laughed out loud when I read your putative "interpretation" of the Constitution; You need to take my advice as well. Nevertheless, I am a charitable person by nature, so I'm willing to disabuse you two of some of your sillier notions. But, I must warn you, I'm not willing to spend an infinite amount of time with knuckleheads...

OK, first of all, there is nothing in Article VI that says anything like your paraphrase, nor is there anything anywhere in the Constitution which limits the scope of Amendments. The language you say is there simply does not exist.

This is the actual section in question:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

That doesn't limit Amendments. It limits the laws of the United States. Constitutional Amendments aren't laws: they are part of the Constitution. They become part of, and supersede any part of the Constitutional text upon which they impinge which was ratified prior to their own ratification.

Second.

You don't appear to have any concept of what the Tenth Amendment is about. It concerns States' rights first and foremost, and whatever rights States don't claim (according to the Tenth Amendment) belong to the people. PLEASE ACTUALLY READ THE AMENDMENT. The Last phrase, "to the states respectively, or to the people," is operative. The meaning is simple and transparent: rights not specifically granted to the Federal Government belong to the States, and then, after whatever the State Constitutions specify, then and only then, do they belong to the people. You will not find an authority on the Constitution anywhere on earth who believes that Amendment X limits States' Rights. In fact, it is exactly the opposite of your claim.

Or did you think that the Cotton States could still pass legislation to allow the ownership of slaves?

Third.

Portions of Amendment IX--which you correctly identify as concerning unenumerated rights--were also overthrown by the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, prior to the Civil Rights Act--which was specifically created by the grant of authority in the Fourteenth Amendment--it was possible to refuse housing to people on the basis of race. That is an unenumerated right recognized for the people under the Ninth Amendment by an extension of the right of Free Association recognized in the First Amendment.

Guess what? Amendment XIV allows for laws like the Civil Rights Act which take that unenumerated right away. You can no longer rent or sell property, or withhold those transactions with complete liberty. There are many, many other examples of ways in which the Fourteenth Amendment has altered, expanded, or limited the Bill of Rights. And there are other examples of Amendments which have changed the underlying meaning of Constitution. Amendment XIV is just the most dramatic.

Your interpretation that Amendments IX and X stand as ratified and unaltered by Amendment XIV is laughable; As a result of the Fourteenth Amendment the Bill of Rights no longer applies to the Federal government alone; it now also applies to the States as well. That means a vast portion of Amendment X has now been repealed. It also means the unenumerated powers of the States and the people--including a number of incursions that law enforcement was still able to enjoy under the common law--are limited as well. It means that the Fourteenth Amendment fundamentally changed the nature of the Federal government, its scope and power, and it correspondingly diminished the powers of the States.

My original statement stands, and is indeed strengthened by the actual texts cited in your irrelevant and risible post. With all respect, please, learn some history. Your Constitutional arguments are an embarrassment. The Constitution isn't what you want it to be. It is what it is. There is NO restriction on Amendment content ANYWHERE in the Constitution; only the proper legal process is described, but the actual text of a new Amendment is limited only by tradition and the good sense of 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States.

[Eastbound]

"There is NO restriction on Amendment content ANYWHERE in the Constitution;.."

Sorry. Equal sufferage by the states in the U.S. Senate is UN-amendable by the Constitution's own terms. And if one looks closely, it could be argued that some other amendments could be categorized as un-amendable.