Sen. Paul proposes an Amendment to the Constitution

soloman02

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
12,172
Likes
3,042
Location
NH
Its a good idea but it won't go anywhere. In fact, I predict it will never even see the floor for a vote.
 
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
3,263
Likes
962
Location
SE NH, ex-MA
Its a good idea but it won't go anywhere. In fact, I predict it will never even see the floor for a vote.
So what? Plenty of good ideas started as ridiculously unlikely shots. It is good to see the establishment forced to admit it depends on having the ruling class ignore the laws that apply to their "subjects".
 
Rating - 100%
33   0   0
Joined
Jan 26, 2009
Messages
1,895
Likes
370
Location
Free
With some actual media coverage and airtime this may go in the right direction. There are a few in the house that will beat the media over the head with this until they submit and say it on prime time... I hope.
 

Win

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
2,597
Likes
1,098
Location
Melrose, MA
It would be a welcome addition to the constitution but it's unfortunate that this amendment is needed.
 

soloman02

NES Member
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
12,172
Likes
3,042
Location
NH
So what? Plenty of good ideas started as ridiculously unlikely shots. It is good to see the establishment forced to admit it depends on having the ruling class ignore the laws that apply to their "subjects".
They won't be forced to admit anything. Reid will make sure of that. Did you not see the video of Reid shutting down the Demint amendment to audit the Fed?

[video=youtube_share;4tRQHsXujpo]http://youtu.be/4tRQHsXujpo[/video]
 
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
3,993
Likes
587
Location
Central PRM
Levin wants a Constitutional Convention, There is no way in hell to support that. Once a Constitutonal Convention is convened the whole Constitution is up for review and rewrite.
All amendments would still have to go through the ratification process; they can not just say "here is a new constitution so suck it". And like I said I would like to see Paul file these.
 
Rating - 100%
11   0   0
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
3,263
Likes
962
Location
SE NH, ex-MA
They don't obey the Constitution now, why would they obey this new amendment?
Politicians are afraid of one thing - losing an election. As long as a new amendment would make it easier to point out to the public who the politicians to vote for and against are, it has lots of value.

But no, passing a law does not magically eliminate crime... from regular Joe's or politicians. Merely a tool in the toolbox.
 
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Joined
Aug 27, 2008
Messages
499
Likes
50
Location
Seattle, WA
While this is a nice gesture, it has no teeth. Aren't there a few clauses in the US Code already that guarantee equal application of laws? What I'd like to see amended to the Constitution is proscribed punishment for violating an Amendment, i.e. if Senator Numbnuts enacts a law that is later found to be unconstitutional by pre-existing Amendments, Senator Numbnuts has a guaranteed decade in PMITA prison. If Governor Shazbot tries to enact a law in his state that is struck down as unconstitutional, he gets a guaranteed decade in the slammer as well, and so on.
 
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
3,993
Likes
587
Location
Central PRM
It reminds me of Congressman Shadegg's "Enumerated Powers Act" which would have required laws to cite to the Constitutional provision that provides that power. He filed it every session he was in office since 104th session ('95 - '97) and it never went anywhere. (He left office in '11)
 
Last edited:

DispositionMatrix

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
3,799
Likes
1,109
Location
SoNH
I would not want to open the door to the filth we call Congress amending the constitution.
1A? Abridged.
2A? Gone.
3A? Abridged.
4A? As gone on paper as it already is in practice.
 
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
3,993
Likes
587
Location
Central PRM
I would not want to open the door to the filth we call Congress amending the constitution.
1A? Abridged.
2A? Gone.
3A? Abridged.
4A? As gone on paper as it already is in practice.
It's not an as easy as you seem to think and was designed that way. 38 states are required. (43 in Obama Math)



It's all spelled out in 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.
 
Last edited:

DispositionMatrix

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
3,799
Likes
1,109
Location
SoNH
I'm well aware of the process, and my point stands. I do not want these morons to even start the process of making changes to the constitution. They do enough damage simply within the realm of legislation.
 
Top Bottom