PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues "Bury The Constitution Before It Can Bury Us All"


orange
08-23-2010, 02:45 PM
I understand perfectly. Your whole "federalism" and "original intent" allegience is mallarky. You're perfectly happy with fundamental changes to the most basic principles the nation was founded on - as long as they're YOUR changes.

Now that we've ironed that out after all these years, you can stop the whole "original intent" nonsense. http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6929701&postcount=19

Republicans hot, cold on Constitution

updated 8/23/2010 8:37:18 AM ET
+-EDITOR'S NOTE — An occasional look behind the rhetoric of public officials.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican Rep. Paul Broun won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn't care for — lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.

This hot-and-cold take on the Constitution is surprisingly common within the Republican Party, particularly among those like Broun who portray themselves as strict Constitutionalists and who frequently accuse Democrats of twisting the document to serve political aims.

Republicans have proposed at least 42 Constitutional amendments in the current Congress, including one that has gained favor recently to eliminate the automatic grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

Democrats — who typically take a more liberal view of the Constitution as an evolving document — have proposed 27 amendments, and fully one-third of those are part of a package from a single member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. Jackson's package encapsulates a liberal agenda in which everyone has new rights to quality housing and education, but most of the Democratic proposals deal with less ideological issues such as congressional succession in a national disaster or voting rights in U.S. territories.

The Republican proposals, by contrast, tend to be social and political statements, such as the growing movement to repeal the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship. Republicans like Sen. Jeff Sessions, the lead Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argue that immigrants are abusing the right to gain citizenship for their children, something he says the amendment's authors didn't intend.

Sessions, who routinely accuses Democrats of trying to subvert the Constitution and calls for respecting the document's "plain language," is taking a different approach with the constitution's 14th Amendment. "I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the amendment had in mind," he said, "but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen."

Other widely supported Republican amendments would prohibit government ownership of private companies, bar same-sex marriage, require a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise taxes, and — an old favorite — prohibit desecration of the American flag.

During the health care debate, Democratic Rep. Pete Hoekstra introduced an amendment that would allow voters to directly repeal laws passed by Congress — a move that would radically alter the United States' founding fathers' system of checks and balances.

Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, who founded a tea party caucus in Congress honoring the growing conservative movement that focuses on Constitutional governance, wants to restrict the president's ability to sign international treaties because she fears President Barack Obama's administration might replace the dollar with some sort of global currency.

Broun, who is among the most conservative members of Congress, said he sees no contradiction in his devotion to the Constitution and his desire to rewrite parts of it. He said the country's founding fathers never imagined the size and scope of today's U.S. federal government and that he's simply resurrecting their vision by trying to amend it.

"It's not picking and choosing," he said. "We need to do a lot of tweaking to make the Constitution as it was originally intended, instead of some perverse idea of what the Constitution says and does."

The problem with such a view, says constitutional law scholar Mark Kende, is that divining what the framers intended involves subjective judgments shaded with politics. Holding up the 2nd Amendment as sacrosanct, for example, while dismissing other parts of the Constitution is "cherry picking," said Kende, director of Drake University's Constitutional Law Center.

"There are a lot of people who obviously don't like income taxes. That's a political position," she said of criticism of the 16th Amendment, which authorized the modern federal income tax more than a century ago. "But it's in the Constitution ... and I don't think you can go around saying something is unconstitutional just because you don't like it."

Sloan said that while some proposals to alter the Constitution have merit, most are little more than posturing by politicians trying to connect with voters.

"People are responding to the politics of the day, and that's not what the framers intended," she said. "They intended exactly the opposite — that the Constitution not be used as a political tool."

The good news, Sloan and Kende said, is that such proposals rarely go anywhere.

Since the country's founding more than 200 years ago, just 27 have survived the arduous amendment process, and 10 of those came in the initial Bill of Rights.

Only two have come in the past 40 years, and both avoided ideology. One, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age to 18; the other, ratified in 1992, limited Congress' ability to raise lawmakers' salaries.

___

Online: U.S. Constitution (http://tinyurl.com/2trneo)

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38814113

healthpellets
08-23-2010, 03:31 PM
ok, i don't have a lot of time, but let's get started...

Republicans hot, cold on Constitution

updated 8/23/2010 8:37:18 AM ET
+-EDITOR'S NOTE An occasional look behind the rhetoric of public officials.

WASHINGTON (AP) Republican Rep. Paul Broun won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn't care for lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.

ok, so now we're gonna pick on people because they want to alter the consitution in a legal manner, instead of going through the courts. fine.

we're not talking about altering the Constitution. or any of the first 10 amendments, that were passed within 4 years of the adoption of the constitution. you can determine original intent with those. it's easy. there is a ton of documentation.

when we move on to things like the 14th, which was passed some 70 years later, it is not as sacrosanct as the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. but hey, it was an amendment. it altered the Constitution in the appropriate manner.

then we look at the 16th, which if you do some research you can find out for yourself that it was never actually approved and adopted within the rules, and is probably invalid. but whatever. and moreover, i'm still pretty sure it doesn't apply to individuals.

um, no. we're not going to allow castration for rapists. thats fukcing sick.

but amending the Constitution is FINE. why don't you people get that. we're all about amending it. doing it the right way. it's when you start "amending" it through the courts that we get all up in arms.



This hot-and-cold take on the Constitution is surprisingly common within the Republican Party, particularly among those like Broun who portray themselves as strict Constitutionalists and who frequently accuse Democrats of twisting the document to serve political aims.

Republicans have proposed at least 42 Constitutional amendments in the current Congress, including one that has gained favor recently to eliminate the automatic grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

like i said before. propose amendments till you're blue in the face. i love it. it's the proper process. get them through Congress, then have the states ratify. if it's the will of the people to alter the Constitution, let's do it.


Democrats who typically take a more liberal view of the Constitution as an evolving document have proposed 27 amendments, and fully one-third of those are part of a package from a single member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. Jackson's package encapsulates a liberal agenda in which everyone has new rights to quality housing and education, but most of the Democratic proposals deal with less ideological issues such as congressional succession in a national disaster or voting rights in U.S. territories.

you have a more liberal view of the consituiton because you think it's fine to fcuk with it via the courts. that's not okay.

um, jesse jackson, jr...you can go to hell. right to housing? really?


The Republican proposals, by contrast, tend to be social and political statements, such as the growing movement to repeal the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship. Republicans like Sen. Jeff Sessions, the lead Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argue that immigrants are abusing the right to gain citizenship for their children, something he says the amendment's authors didn't intend.

Sessions, who routinely accuses Democrats of trying to subvert the Constitution and calls for respecting the document's "plain language," is taking a different approach with the constitution's 14th Amendment. "I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the amendment had in mind," he said, "but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen."

Other widely supported Republican amendments would prohibit government ownership of private companies, bar same-sex marriage, require a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise taxes, and an old favorite prohibit desecration of the American flag.

awesome. let's do them all. or none of them. but let's let the people decide instead of the courts.


During the health care debate, Democratic Rep. Pete Hoekstra introduced an amendment that would allow voters to directly repeal laws passed by Congress a move that would radically alter the United States' founding fathers' system of checks and balances.

awesome. mob rule. hey, flyover states...here's a big FU. funny how ya'll love true democracy until the majority supports banning gay marriage like in CA.



Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann, who founded a tea party caucus in Congress honoring the growing conservative movement that focuses on Constitutional governance, wants to restrict the president's ability to sign international treaties because she fears President Barack Obama's administration might replace the dollar with some sort of global currency.

i think Bachmann's seat is going to be dissolved via the Census, and i'm the first to say "Stay Away".


Broun, who is among the most conservative members of Congress, said he sees no contradiction in his devotion to the Constitution and his desire to rewrite parts of it. He said the country's founding fathers never imagined the size and scope of today's U.S. federal government and that he's simply resurrecting their vision by trying to amend it.

"It's not picking and choosing," he said. "We need to do a lot of tweaking to make the Constitution as it was originally intended, instead of some perverse idea of what the Constitution says and does."

The problem with such a view, says constitutional law scholar Mark Kende, is that divining what the framers intended involves subjective judgments shaded with politics. Holding up the 2nd Amendment as sacrosanct, for example, while dismissing other parts of the Constitution is "cherry picking," said Kende, director of Drake University's Constitutional Law Center.

"There are a lot of people who obviously don't like income taxes. That's a political position," she said of criticism of the 16th Amendment, which authorized the modern federal income tax more than a century ago. "But it's in the Constitution ... and I don't think you can go around saying something is unconstitutional just because you don't like it."

Sloan said that while some proposals to alter the Constitution have merit, most are little more than posturing by politicians trying to connect with voters.

"People are responding to the politics of the day, and that's not what the framers intended," she said. "They intended exactly the opposite that the Constitution not be used as a political tool."

The good news, Sloan and Kende said, is that such proposals rarely go anywhere.

Since the country's founding more than 200 years ago, just 27 have survived the arduous amendment process, and 10 of those came in the initial Bill of Rights.

Only two have come in the past 40 years, and both avoided ideology. One, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age to 18; the other, ratified in 1992, limited Congress' ability to raise lawmakers' salaries.

___

Online: U.S. Constitution (http://tinyurl.com/2trneo)

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38814113

you can't say someone gets to pick and choose when he's going about changing the constitution in the way provided for in the document itself. what the hell is wrong with that?

making a mountain out of a mole hill. kinda like you guys are doing with SS. no one in the republican party has even mentioned SS, but ya'll are starting the fear campaign. those damn republicans wanna take away your money. amazing. really good work, though.

alnorth
08-23-2010, 04:01 PM
This is a stupid article.

I don't have time to research this specific congressman's beliefs and how he views how our constitution should be interpreted, whether he's right, and all that, but it isn't necessary.

This article has a simple premise: believing the constitution as written should be respected and enforced, with no amendment (like the 2nd) disfavored or ignored because it is politically unpopular by some, is not consistent with a desire to amend the constitution.

Bullcrap.

There is nothing inconsistent with insisting that the entire constitution be enforced (or having an honest disagreement with what the constitution means and forcing the courts to look into it to make a ruling), and at the same time hoping to pass some amendments to that same constitution to change aspects we don't agree with.

This quote is particularly stupid:

The problem with such a view, says constitutional law scholar Mark Kende, is that divining what the framers intended involves subjective judgments shaded with politics. Holding up the 2nd Amendment as sacrosanct, for example, while dismissing other parts of the Constitution is "cherry picking," said Kende, director of Drake University's Constitutional Law Center.

"There are a lot of people who obviously don't like income taxes. That's a political position," she said of criticism of the 16th Amendment, which authorized the modern federal income tax more than a century ago. "But it's in the Constitution ... and I don't think you can go around saying something is unconstitutional just because you don't like it."

Professor Kende, you are a dumbass. Aside from a few fringe crazy people who should be ignored, no one I know of in congress who proposes changes to the 16th amendment is suggesting that the federal income tax is "unconstitutional". How could something in the constitution be unconstitutional anyway?

orange
08-23-2010, 04:14 PM
Professor Kende, you are a dumbass. Aside from a few fringe crazy people who should be ignored, no one I know of in congress who proposes changes to the 16th amendment is suggesting that the federal income tax is "unconstitutional". How could something in the constitution be unconstitutional anyway?

... er...

then we look at the 16th, which if you do some research you can find out for yourself that it was never actually approved and adopted within the rules, and is probably invalid. but whatever. and moreover, i'm still pretty sure it doesn't apply to individuals.

You two work it out and get back to me. :D

alnorth
08-23-2010, 04:22 PM
... er...



You two work it out and get back to me. :D

heh

I stand by what I wrote. Those who say the 16th amendment was not legally ratified is, at least on that particular issue anyway, crazy fringe people who should be ignored. The courts have thoroughly ruled on the origin of the 16th amendment, and it is settled law.

orange
08-23-2010, 04:24 PM
Aside from a few fringe crazy people who should be ignored, no one I know of in congress who proposes changes to the 16th amendment is suggesting that the federal income tax is "unconstitutional". How could something in the constitution be unconstitutional anyway?

Paulistas weigh in:

Daily Bell: What do you think of the Constitution and how it was written and the principles it espouses?

Judge Napolitano: When it was written it had some defects in it. It permitted slavery; it even permitted the slave trade. So one can love the restraint to impose on government, and one can love the bill of rights. One can appreciate the separation of powers within the federal government and the federal system as it relates to sovereign states that can act as a check to the federal government. But once we overcame things like discrimination based on race, and discrimination based on gender, it is a brilliant document that guarantees liberty and ensures the separation of power. Now unfortunately it has been harmed by at least two amendments that are unconstitutional. Now here is an interesting question: Can a part of the Constitution be unconstitutional? The answer is yes. The 16th amendment and the 17th amendment encapsulate the income tax and the changing of the manner in which the US Senate is elected. So the Constitution we have today is nowhere near the beautiful balanced instrument of limited government that the framers gave us. It's barely a shadow of it's original self.

http://www.thedailybell.com/1108/Judge-Andrew-Napolitano-on-Chaotic-Courts-and-Unconstitutional-Justice-in-the-United-States.html

Also:

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-PvaNWrkFeQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-PvaNWrkFeQ&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xd0d0d0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

orange
08-23-2010, 04:28 PM
crazy fringe people who should be ignored

Now, if you're saying that Ron Paul and his lackeys are "crazy fringe people who should be ignored," there we're in total agreement.

alnorth
08-23-2010, 04:31 PM
all of that is amusing, but doesn't refute my point.

Saying "well, the law is the law, we have to follow it even if we dont like all of it" is not consistent with wanting to change the law (constitution) is silly.

It really is an incredibly stupid article written by some moron who wanted to create a cute little "gotcha" that wasn't there.

BucEyedPea
08-23-2010, 05:35 PM
Talk about not comparing apples and oranges. ( pun intended )

This is pure strawman stuff. A complete re-framing of the argument to twist the words of the Right to suit some antagonism.

No one said the Constitution could not be amended for changing times — just that it should be done per the Constitution. That's original intent. Using judges to amend not Constitutional.

Another way the Constitution allows for change is under federalism. General laws should be made at the local level. That includes the police powers regarding public morality. As society changes they change those laws. It's a grass roots bottoms up kind of document. Laws that reflect the customs of the people are easier for them to follow and easier to enforce. Laws made my political activists creating cases by activists to federalize such things via activist judges was never part of original intent and leads to contention and division because it imposes law from above.

The 16th Amendment is highly contradictory to other parts of the Constitution and the BoRs, as well as to those rights the Ninth Amendment doesn't list—privacy. The Constitution was written primarily to restrain the Fed govt from violating this. Repealing the 17th would return more state's rights and ensure their representation as intended. Both of these would restore original intent which was federalism—aka states as mini-sovereignties sharing power except for where they handed over certain powers. The states preceded the Federal govt and the BoRs came from their Constitutions.

The only one that is a real change from the original is birthright citizenship —if that was ever there at the beginning because it's the 14th Amendment that was added 81 years later. There are some good things the 14th Amendment did but even THAT eventually got stretched and applied beyond it's own original intent. Time to reign the Feds in. This is one area where things have changed enough that warrant an amendment just as women were allowed to vote. Changing this doesn't alter the original intent's structure of diffused power through de-centralization. Tyranny results when there is over centralization. We are all much safer keeping certain issues local.

Orange doesn't get it. So he amends the entire argument instead.

BucEyedPea
08-23-2010, 06:28 PM
Orange thinks the Constitution provides the right of search and seizure—for the Federal govt, that is.

BucEyedPea
08-23-2010, 06:29 PM
Anyone who supports the 16 Amendment likes the Federal govt to have the right of search and seizure.

blaise
08-23-2010, 06:32 PM
Orange thinks the Constitution provides the right of search and seizure—for the Federal govt, that is.

I honestly believe orange is the kind of person who would goose step to just about anything in order to further his side's agenda.

orange
08-23-2010, 06:40 PM
Orange thinks the Constitution provides the right of search and seizure—for the Federal govt, that is.

I have no idea what windmill you're tilting at here. Care to elaborate?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xdr4vmg3edY/R7Q4jWcN9PI/AAAAAAAAA8U/Xf5wMyjE0HQ/s320/don-quixote.gif

healthpellets
08-23-2010, 06:53 PM
Now, if you're saying that Ron Paul and his lackeys are "crazy fringe people who should be ignored," there we're in total agreement.

Have you ever looked in to how the 16th was passed?

alnorth
08-23-2010, 06:58 PM
What a sec, now that I'm home and reviewed this some more, I just read this golden nugget.

Judge Napolitano: When it was written it had some defects in it. It permitted slavery; it even permitted the slave trade. So one can love the restraint to impose on government, and one can love the bill of rights. One can appreciate the separation of powers within the federal government and the federal system as it relates to sovereign states that can act as a check to the federal government. But once we overcame things like discrimination based on race, and discrimination based on gender, it is a brilliant document that guarantees liberty and ensures the separation of power. Now unfortunately it has been harmed by at least two amendments that are unconstitutional. Now here is an interesting question: Can a part of the Constitution be unconstitutional? The answer is yes. The 16th amendment and the 17th amendment encapsulate the income tax and the changing of the manner in which the US Senate is elected. So the Constitution we have today is nowhere near the beautiful balanced instrument of limited government that the framers gave us. It's barely a shadow of it's original self.

At first, I just assumed he was talking about the "controversy" over the 16th amendment not being properly ratified, but there was no controversy over the 17th.

This stupid bastard actually believes that an amendment can not re-write the original text of the constitution? (except I guess he makes an arbitrary exception with slavery and gender discrimination for no apparent reason) How the hell did this guy pass the bar, much less con someone into making him a "judge"?

Great, he also believes that giving the people the right to directly elect their senators was a bad thing. Why?

alnorth
08-23-2010, 07:53 PM
Have you ever looked in to how the 16th was passed?

probably nothing that hasn't already been discussed to death, decided, and then ignored by a few foolish tax protestors who paid fines and went to jail for their folly.

These 16th amendment non-ratification arguments have been officially recognized as a frivolous argument which automatically lands you with a fine if you try to use it with the IRS. These arguments have been rejected in the federal courts.

Briefly though in case you just recently ran into this, there are two basic tax protestor arguments regarding the ratification of the 16th amendment. (There's more arguments than that on the 16th amendment, but just these two on ratification):

1) The 16th amendment was not legally ratified because 3/4 of the states did not approved the exact text (including all capitalization, spelling, and punctuation) of the amendment. If a state leaves out a comma, they did not ratify the amendment.

At the time the amendment was officially deemed to have been ratified, 38 states (out of 48, so needed 36) were recorded as having ratified. Other states ratified later, but we're just looking at 1913 here.

Of those 38, 37 sent in some sort of a formal letter of ratification to the US secretary of state. (Minnesota informed the feds orally). Only 4 of those 37 letters listed the amendment they voted on *exactly* as passed by congress. The other 33 had some sort of minor punctuation difference, capitalization difference, or misspelling. The secretary of state drew up a list of these errors, and after consulting with other officials, decided the errors were immaterial, so declared the amendment adopted.

So, done deal right? It is obviously a mistake, the secretary of state was just wrong. The amendment was not passed precisely as written, so we really have only a handful of states who passed it, and the courts should declare the amendment void, right?

Nope. Some states have this policy with state constitutions being ratified, but the US Supreme Court uses something called the "enrolled bill doctrine". It basically says that if a legislative document that was voted on is authenticated by the appropriate officials, then the supreme court will just presume the bill was properly adopted. You might think the secretary of state has no right to ignore little typos when some states passed an amendment, but the supreme court has basically said that yes, if congress also decides not to object, then he does have that right. I assume if there's ever a case of blatant fraud where a bunch of states vote down an amendment and everybody just outright lies and says it was passed they may step in, but the federal courts have basically said they dont want to be bothered by whether or not a state legislature made a silly little typo on an amendment.

See: Leser v Garnett (plaintiff argued that TN and WV did not properly follow their own procedure when they ratified the 19th. SCOTUS basically said "we dont care, it is the job of congress and the secretary of state to decide if a state properly ratified an amendment")

2) Due to a bureaucratic blunder, Ohio was not a state until 1953, so their vote doesn't count.

First of all, doesn't matter, they got more than they needed anyway. Second, this argument has been rejected in at least 8 different court cases. As far as the courts are concerned, Ohio was a state in 1803.

healthpellets
08-23-2010, 08:36 PM
What a sec, now that I'm home and reviewed this some more, I just read this golden nugget.



At first, I just assumed he was talking about the "controversy" over the 16th amendment not being properly ratified, but there was no controversy over the 17th.

This stupid bastard actually believes that an amendment can not re-write the original text of the constitution? (except I guess he makes an arbitrary exception with slavery and gender discrimination for no apparent reason) How the hell did this guy pass the bar, much less con someone into making him a "judge"?

Great, he also believes that giving the people the right to directly elect their senators was a bad thing. Why?

Because it removed a massive amount of power from states and state legislatures. Do you understand how important state politics would be if senators came directly form starr legislatures?

alnorth
08-23-2010, 08:52 PM
Because it removed a massive amount of power from states and state legislatures. Do you understand how important state politics would be if senators came directly form starr legislatures?

Yes, I understand that. I fail to be persuaded that direct election of senators is a bad thing, or at least that it doesn't far outweigh these trivial concerns.

The original structure of the senate (elected by state houses, instead of directly by the people) is elitist, unnecessary, and basically implies that the unwashed masses cant be trusted with both houses, we need our own version of the house of lords to balance our version of the house of commons.

Oh, and not that this is strictly important from an idealist perspective, but the GOP doesn't fully control very many state legislatures. I'd hate to see what the senate would look like without the 17th.

BucEyedPea
08-24-2010, 07:21 AM
I have no idea what windmill you're tilting at here. Care to elaborate?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xdr4vmg3edY/R7Q4jWcN9PI/AAAAAAAAA8U/Xf5wMyjE0HQ/s320/don-quixote.gif

No need. You have it all figured out. Although I'd say this thread is tilting at windmills. We all project a little bit though. So I'll cut you slack on this one.