Posted on 03/24/2007 9:25:49 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
I disagree with you on that, completely.
Many amendmendments have been proposed, some of them that were adopted have destroyed liberty (prohibition, eg).
No word games.
The constituion could be amended to make you heriditary king, and it would be perfectly legal.
You just have to get the amendment ratified.
Before some gun nut shoots you.
Having problems deciding on a weapon. Afraid if I fired my 12 gauge, the recoil would knock my frame out of joint. Getting brittle in my old age.
What I need is one of those no recoil 50's.
Very true. Others as well. But I'm talking what should be, not what is.
Hereditary King? But what about the 'no titles of nobility' clause? ;>
At any rate, I'm already my own monarch, in a sense. As we all are in America. Agreeing by contract with each other to abide by such specific behavior that keeps the domestic peace and eliminates chaos.
Any clause can be changed by amendment, as I said.
Now, on the other hand, none of them not changed by amendment, can be ignored.
Like 2A. That is a violation of contract law.
(And yes, the biggest lawbreaker in the country, is government)
The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment make it clear that the peoples rights to life, liberty, or property are not to be infringed, abridged or denied, -- by any level of government in the USA.
Marshall made much the same point in Marbury, back in 1803.
Thus, - as we see, the fundamental principles of personal liberty in our Constitution are permanent.
Any amendments that violated those principles would be null, void, and repugnant.
patton wrote:
What in heaven on you on about?
I'm defending our right to own & carry arms, -- saying that right can't be amended away. -- How bout You?
An Amendment changes the contitution itself, and therefore cannot be repugnant to it.
Re-read Marshall's reasoning. Our Constitution protects our right to arms, and infringements are repugnant to that principle.
Let us at least have internally consistent points, as opposed to DC in DC v. Parker, where DC argued that the militia is restricted to the NG, while at the same time DC law defines the militia as every able-bodied man, etc - BTW, the court made fun of the DC AG for being ignorant of the law in DC. I LMAO.
So why are you 'laughing' at the concept that rights cannot be amended away?
Any contract (And, indeed, the constitution is exactly that), may be modified by an amendment agreed to by all parties involved.
Contracts cannot 'agree' to illegal/unconstitutional, 'repugnant' acts. Marshall knew that in 1803; -- why don't you?
Clearly, the amendment supercedes clauses in the original contract to the contrary. (doesen't this seem obvious to the casual observer?)
Not to me, -- but then, - I'm not a lawyer playing word games. Are you?
Okay, we dis-agree on this. But I will agree that any clause WILL be changed by amendment if the perps want it bad enough.
But why got through all that trouble when we have have judges that legislate and a legislative and executive branch that rules by 'sweep of the pen, law of the land' through treaties, fast-track legislation, executive agreements, E.O's, ad infinitum?
I tell you again, I am not playing word games.
Any right can be amended away, and it is NOT repugnant to the constitution - an amendment changes the constitution itself, and hence cannot be repugnant to it.
So our goal, yours and mine, is to block any such amendment.
What contract have you ever seen that cannot be amendended, by agreement of all parties? Hello? Have you ever signed a contract? Hello?
We are better off stressing that the constitution IS a contract, and hence government is violating contract law, all over the place.
It is not a writ from G_D, for crying out loud - it is a CONTRACT!
The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment make it clear that the peoples rights to life, liberty, or property are not to be infringed, abridged or denied, -- by any level of government in the USA.
Marshall made much the same point in Marbury, back in 1803.
Thus, - as we see, the fundamental principles of personal liberty in our Constitution are permanent.
Any amendments that violated those principles would be null, void, and repugnant.
patton wrote:
What in heaven on you on about?
I'm defending our right to own & carry arms, -- saying that right can't be amended away. -- How bout You?
An Amendment changes the contitution itself, and therefore cannot be repugnant to it.
Re-read Marshall's reasoning. Our Constitution protects our right to arms, and infringements are repugnant to that principle.
Let us at least have internally consistent points, as opposed to DC in DC v. Parker, where DC argued that the militia is restricted to the NG, while at the same time DC law defines the militia as every able-bodied man, etc - BTW, the court made fun of the DC AG for being ignorant of the law in DC. I LMAO.
So why are you 'laughing' at the concept that rights cannot be amended away?
Any contract (And, indeed, the constitution is exactly that), may be modified by an amendment agreed to by all parties involved.
Contracts cannot 'agree' to illegal/unconstitutional, 'repugnant' acts. Marshall knew that in 1803; -- why don't you?
Clearly, the amendment supercedes clauses in the original contract to the contrary. (doesen't this seem obvious to the casual observer?)
Not to me, -- but then, - I'm not a lawyer playing word games. Are you?
What contract have you ever seen that cannot be amendended, by agreement of all parties? Hello? Have you ever signed a contract? Hello?
I've been a building contractor for 45 years. -- Trust me, an illegal contract, -- or an illegal/unconstitutional amendment to an otherwise valid contract, -- is null & void, & unenforceable.
That's basic contract law 101.
I commend to you the class again, because you failed to understand it.
Any contract in common law, should it be uncontstitutional, is unenforcable.
The constitution, itself, however, is also a contract, and thus may be amended.
And it has been, a number of times.
The BOR, for instance, are all amendments to the original constitution.
Are they repugnant to it?
Un-constitutional amendments cannot be agreed upon regardless who the parties are. Get it! Hello! Knock Knock! Anybody home!
Back to the 'pursuancy clause.' Read it. Understand it and get back to me.
Thank you for finally understanding my point.
Ok, guys, you win. Moses came down from the mountain, constitution in hand, "I have these 15 amendments...CRASH...I have these ten amendments, which no man shall put asunder..."
I shall now tuck my tail between my legs, and run away, having been educated by the high priests of constitutionality.
(does this seem silly to you?)
By writing a contract that can take away the blessings of liberty by someone else's posterity?
Why, Yes! I think you're being silly. But I have faith you'll soon tire of it and will get back to business here.
Maybe the Constitution was not chiseled in stone and handed down to mankind on a mountaintop, but I will guarantee you it's precepts are chiseled deeply on the tablets of many hearts.
Here's the current list of Cosponsors, the sponsor is Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4]
Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 3/7/2007
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 3/13/2007
Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 3/9/2007
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 3/9/2007
Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 3/7/2007
Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 3/13/2007
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 3/13/2007
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 3/9/2007
Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2] - 3/7/2007
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51] - 3/7/2007
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 3/7/2007
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 3/9/2007
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2] - 3/13/2007
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 3/7/2007
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 3/22/2007
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 3/15/2007
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 3/15/2007
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 3/7/2007
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 3/13/2007
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 3/13/2007
Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] - 3/7/2007
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 3/9/2007
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 3/7/2007
Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 3/13/2007
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 3/22/2007
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 3/7/2007
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 3/7/2007
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 3/15/2007
Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 3/13/2007
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 3/15/2007
Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] - 3/7/2007
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] - 3/22/2007
Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 3/9/2007
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.