Constitutional amendments?

[kallend 1,623]

The Donald wants to eliminate birthright citizenship. Christie, Paul and Graham agree. Since that is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, it would require another amendment to eliminate it.

Paul wants an amendment to ban Congress from voting for special treatment for itself. Ted Cruz wants an amendment requiring Washington to balance the budget. Scott Walker proposes a constitutional amendment that would return to states the power to determine whether gay marriage is legal within their boundaries.

Hillary Clinton wants to “get unaccountable money out” of the US political system. But US Supreme Court rulings have in essence made that an issue of constitutional level.

Given the difficulty of getting an amendment to the Constitution passed, it's pretty clear that these are all pie-in-the-sky proposals with no hope of ever being enacted.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

kallend

Given the difficulty of getting an amendment to the Constitution passed, it's pretty clear that these are all pie-in-the-sky proposals with no hope of ever being enacted.

oh my.....none of these guys 'really' want amendments. they just want to sound 'passionate' about 'big changes' so that the ignorant public can vote with their guts instead of brains.

votes votes votes votes votes votes.......etc

in any case, no one needs 'laws' or 'amendments' any more. we can just write executive orders. Congress is too big of a pussy to fight back against the exec branch when it blatantly tries to do end arounds against legislative authority. It might get in the way of passing a "law" to build a library, or declare a national "month of ......." or issue a 'statement' to chastise some media figure of the moment that used poor grammar, or the like.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

So we have these GOP types who want to treat the 14th amendment like the Democrat types treat the Second Amendment.

I can't say that this is unexpected. Adopting the tactics of others to achieve some goal is storied. I suspect they can open up discussions with the Brady center on how to fuck with the Constitution.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,623]

lawrocket

So we have these GOP types who want to treat the 14th amendment like the Democrat types treat the Second Amendment.

I can't say that this is unexpected. Adopting the tactics of others to achieve some goal is storied. I suspect they can open up discussions with the Brady center on how to fuck with the Constitution.

Unlike you, I didn't make this partisan. I also included Hillary's proposal.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[yoink 321]

As a foreigner living in the US, I really don't understand the 'sacred-ness' (is that a word?) of the constitution.

Every conversation about changing those rights seems to devolve to 'BUT IT'S THE CONSTITUTION!' without any real thought being given about the validity or process needed to implement any change.

It's just a document of rules. It's been amended 33 times already because some of those rules were either flawed or didn't apply anymore. Doesn't that mean that it really should be an evolving document to reflect the society we live in as well as the society we want to build?

I'm all for checks and balances. Big rules must to be hard to change and must have good reasons and should be representative of the population if they are to do so - but it should have some flexibility too, at least to my mind.


I'd be genuinely interested in hearing some US folks put their thoughts down on why the constitution seems to be inviolate at the moment (or is that just my perception?). If you could refrain from the standard 'You're a Brit, you don't get it!' and other such pettiness which usually goes with a foreigner asking about the constitution, that'd be awesome.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

The "It's the Constitution" argument is pretty lame. When there is a clearly outlined procedure for changes, it's hard to argue that it shouldn't be changed.

It is hard to do. It's meant to be that way. But it's doable. Even for stupid stuff. Like the 18th amendment (Prohibition of alcohol). Many state constitutions can be amended by a simple majority referendum. I have a problem with that. It's not all that hard to whip up a very small majority to vote for something that most people don't care about or aren't willing to put an effort towards. Prop 8 in California is a good example. A small majority of the people who actually voted was all that was necessary to deny rights to a group of people. An even smaller fraction of eligible voters, smaller yet of the entire population. And they amended the state constitution based on that.

The last time a real amendment to the US Constitution was attempted was the "Equal Rights Amendment" back in the '70s. It had been put before Congress for a long, long time until it passed there and was sent to the states. It never made it.

The examples given above of "Proposed Amendments" are pretty stupid. And they seem to all be "restrictive" as far as rights go. They are looking to deny rights to people, rather than grant them.

And very, very unlikely to go into effect.

I have little or no problems with amending the Constitution. As you point out, some rules are flawed, some don't apply anymore and some stuff was never thought of by the "founding fathers."

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[rehmwa 2]

wolfriverjoe

. And they seem to all be "restrictive" as far as rights go. They are looking to deny rights to people, rather than grant them.

I agree with your post answer to that original question. The constitution is not inviolate - it can change, but it needs to be a big freakin' deal....


aside:
don't necessarily agree with the quoted sentence above really. Not with that list. (except is the first one of course)



eliminate birthright citizenship - yes directly eliminates

ban Congress from voting for special treatment for itself - doesn't affect the populace, but likely reduces abuse of the average person's rights

Ted Cruz wants an amendment requiring Washington to balance the budget - there's nothing about rights here, seems to be a fine idea if we can't do something this common sense without codifying it

Scott Walker proposes a constitutional amendment that would return to states the power to determine whether gay marriage is legal within their boundaries - pushing power more locally and less federally......this is a standing philosophical discussion where half the population considers it an improvement in personal rights and the other half disagrees exactly 180 degrees - the specific topic will also make it muddy to debate, but in general....

“get unaccountable money out” of the US political system - this one doesn't even make any sense, it's just political psychobabble that needs a bit of definition




I just think that when a candidate starts spouting off about amendments, he's just telling the populace he thinks they are dumb by inferring big change is something simple to do.

but for some of the populace, that type of rhetoric is needed to even get them to listen I suppose

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

rehmwa

...Scott Walker proposes a constitutional amendment that would return to states the power to determine whether gay marriage is legal within their boundaries - pushing power more locally and less federally......this is a standing philosophical discussion where half the population considers it an improvement in personal rights and the other half disagrees exactly 180 degrees - the specific topic will also make it muddy to debate, but in general....

Ok, overgeneralization on my part.

But the Walker proposal is far less about "states rights" than it is about the right of a state to discriminate against gays.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

I agree with your post answer to that original question. The constitution is not inviolate - it can change, but it needs to be a big freakin' deal....

It's interesting looking at the list of amendments and picking out which ones are obviously responses to certain situations. The aftermath of the Civil War, Roosevelt getting elected over and over again, Kennedy being shot...

Anyway, surely the biggest freakin' deal (and it really is a pretty big deal) should be getting Puerto Rico (and Guam, American Samoa et al) their own 23rd amendment.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rehmwa 2]

wolfriverjoe

***

...Scott Walker proposes a constitutional amendment that would return to states the power to determine whether gay marriage is legal within their boundaries - pushing power more locally and less federally......this is a standing philosophical discussion where half the population considers it an improvement in personal rights and the other half disagrees exactly 180 degrees - the specific topic will also make it muddy to debate, but in general....

Ok, overgeneralization on my part.

But the Walker proposal is far less about "states rights" than it is about the right of a state to discriminate against gays.

yeah, I agree with that intent -

but on principle, I'd still go with it being the right of individual states to eliminate discrimination without waiting on the feds to force the issue. And also the right of local authority to do the 'right' thing sooner than waiting for federal authority to force feed laws that are based on political expediency rather than right vs wrong - So if that is truly Walker's intent, I believe that long term, it'll backfire on him because people will do the right thing eventually.


of course - I'm in the camp that the more local the authority, the better it is for individuals to decide life for themselves. So no kidding.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

jakee

Quote

I agree with your post answer to that original question. The constitution is not inviolate - it can change, but it needs to be a big freakin' deal....

It's interesting looking at the list of amendments and picking out which ones are obviously responses to certain situations. The aftermath of the Civil War, Roosevelt getting elected over and over again, Kennedy being shot...

absolutely - we are a reactionary species

i don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Bolas 5]

kallend

The Donald wants to eliminate birthright citizenship. Christie, Paul and Graham agree. Since that is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, it would require another amendment to eliminate it.

Birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. This actually might not take an amendment, just a Supreme Court case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Quote

In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."[2] A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".[3] Since the 1990s, however, controversy has arisen over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, and legal scholars disagree over whether the Wong Kim Ark precedent applies when alien parents are in the country illegally.[4][5] Attempts have been made from time to time in Congress to restrict birthright citizenship, either via statutory redefinition of the term jurisdiction, or by overriding both the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the Citizenship Clause itself through an amendment to the Constitution, but no such proposal has been enacted.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,394]

>Birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. This actually might not take an
>amendment, just a Supreme Court case.

I think it would be VERY hard to read the actual amendment text in such a way as to claim that being born here isn't enough:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . "

[zoobrothertom 5]

Here's a possible amendment to kick around.

All legislation automatically expires after 5 years. Subsequent renewals may not be automatic but rather must treated as a new law would be.

Any thoughts?

____________________________________
I'm back in the USA!!

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

***So we have these GOP types who want to treat the 14th amendment like the Democrat types treat the Second Amendment.

I can't say that this is unexpected. Adopting the tactics of others to achieve some goal is storied. I suspect they can open up discussions with the Brady center on how to fuck with the Constitution.

Unlike you, I didn't make this partisan. I also included Hillary's proposal.

So I should have written "and GOP treat the second amendment?"

Correct. The GOP also favors stricter gun control. That's why the President keeps attacking them.

I'll go less partisan. "Just like all the lefties and righties out there trying to deny marriage licenses to gays and lesbians despite the Constitution."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,623]

lawrocket

******So we have these GOP types who want to treat the 14th amendment like the Democrat types treat the Second Amendment.

I can't say that this is unexpected. Adopting the tactics of others to achieve some goal is storied. I suspect they can open up discussions with the Brady center on how to fuck with the Constitution.

Unlike you, I didn't make this partisan. I also included Hillary's proposal.

So I should have written "and GOP treat the second amendment?"

Correct. The GOP also favors stricter gun control. That's why the President keeps attacking them.

I'll go less partisan. "Just like all the lefties and righties out there trying to deny marriage licenses to gays and lesbians despite the Constitution."

Still partisan. You can't help yourself?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Still partisan.

So what about extending voting rights to millions of US citizens?

Partisan either way, or just unpopular for some other reason?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Amazon 7]

jakee

Quote

Still partisan.

So what about extending voting rights to millions of US citizens?

Partisan either way, or just unpopular for some other reason?

They might vote for the wrong people...... if Gerrymandering was outlawed.... the GOP as a party would pretty much cease to exist.

[Remster 24]

zoobrothertom

Here's a possible amendment to kick around.

All legislation automatically expires after 5 years. Subsequent renewals may not be automatic but rather must treated as a new law would be.

Any thoughts?

Sure. Because simply approving a budget is proving to be so efficient, might as well add all legislation.

Remster

[Bolas 5]

billvon

>Birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. This actually might not take an
>amendment, just a Supreme Court case.

I think it would be VERY hard to read the actual amendment text in such a way as to claim that being born here isn't enough:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . "

I'd think any arguments in interpretation would be made here: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

I'd think any arguments in interpretation would be made here: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Be careful what you wish for. The only people who are in the US and are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are foreign diplomats who enjoy diplomatic immunity. And yes, if their children are born here my understanding is that they do not become US citizens. If you play this card with undocumented immigrants (or illegal aliens if you prefer) you are saying that the laws of the US do not apply to them. Such people could even commit murder and they could not be prosecuted. Personally I think creating a class of people who are exempt from US law, just to cut off their anchor babies, would be inviting a much worse problem than we already have.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[yoink 321]

jakee

Quote

Still partisan.

So what about extending voting rights to millions of US citizens?

Partisan either way, or just unpopular for some other reason?

Because they'd probably have a disproportionate number of votes to population (thanks, electoral college!) and no politicians could be arsed traveling to Guam to canvas them.

[lawrocket 3]

kallend

*********So we have these GOP types who want to treat the 14th amendment like the Democrat types treat the Second Amendment.

I can't say that this is unexpected. Adopting the tactics of others to achieve some goal is storied. I suspect they can open up discussions with the Brady center on how to fuck with the Constitution.

Unlike you, I didn't make this partisan. I also included Hillary's proposal.



So I should have written "and GOP treat the second amendment?"

Correct. The GOP also favors stricter gun control. That's why the President keeps attacking them.

I'll go less partisan. "Just like all the lefties and righties out there trying to deny marriage licenses to gays and lesbians despite the Constitution."

Still partisan. You can't help yourself?

I hate the Dems. I hate the GOP almost as much. But the guns issue is something I agree with the GOP.

Yes. I am partisan in favor of the Constitution. Turns out the GOP has adopted the Democrat tactics in order to cause contempt for those protections.

Like free speech. Turns out Democrats hate it more than anyone. Is there anyone who hate political speech more than a Democrat? Hell not.

Fourth Amendment? Count on the GOP to do what it be an against it.

But where the real steps have been taken is with the Second Amendment. You have indicated how much you dislike it. Does it suck to see the GOP using the same exact arguments and tactics to destroy Constitutional protections?

I feel your pain. It sucks ass seeing people disrespect Constitutional protections. Turns out I actually agree with you on this issue.

But you've demonstrated your hypocrisy by vocally supporting a rigatoni of Constitutional rights. Sorry. But I won't let you get away with disregarding the Constitution with the Second Amendment yet have problems with people doing the same thing to the 14th.

Which side are you on? The Constitution? Or is it something that you love when you agree with it and detest when you you don't?

Say what you want. Call me partisan. But I'm consistent. The 14th Amendment is as important as the Second and the Fittest and Fifth.

The GOP Assholes like to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they dig on. How about you?

Are you willing to hold the Second end entry I. Equal dignity with the 14th? If not, you are subject to the same hypocrisy which you vocally despise.

Ps. I am by no means perfect. Not even close

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,394]

>I'd think any arguments in interpretation would be made here: "and subject to
>the jurisdiction thereof."

I think that even Donald Trump would be hesitant to say that some people born here are not subject to our laws.

"Born here to two illegal parents? Well, the bad news is you ain't a citizen. The good news is we can't prosecute you for anything!"

[winsor 186]

billvon

>I'd think any arguments in interpretation would be made here: "and subject to
>the jurisdiction thereof."

I think that even Donald Trump would be hesitant to say that some people born here are not subject to our laws.

"Born here to two illegal parents? Well, the bad news is you ain't a citizen. The good news is we can't prosecute you for anything!"

Well, we can't prosecute you, but we CAN relocate you to the Aleutians or use you for medical experiments.