The Constitutional Amendment Thread.

The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.

Miller v. U.S. 230 F 486 at 489

Click to expand...

Where rights as secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which will abrogate them.

Miranda v. Ariz., 384 U.S. 436 at 491 (1966).

Click to expand...

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256 137, 180

Click to expand...

All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.

Marbury v. Madison

Click to expand...

The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.

Reid v Covert 354 US l (1957)

Click to expand...

When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all.

Justice William O. Douglas

Click to expand...

Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.

John F. Kennedy

Click to expand...

Colonel Hogan said:

But I am troubled by and take exception to your implication that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution enshrine individual rights that enjoy an exalted status of "unalienable" as compared to rights or legal sanctions stipulated by subsequent amendments or any addressed in the main articles of the Constitution itself. Do you mean to suggest that Amendments XI - XXVII and those yet to come are somehow "lesser law"? If so, I cannot accept that, nor is their anything in the language of the Constitution that would support it.

What human right could be more unalienable in the eyes of God than to be free of enslavement to another man as literally analogous to an inanimate piece of property? And would someone argue to me that such a right is less unalienable simply because we waited to embrace it in the 13th Amendment rather than three or more amendments sooner?

And would someone else argue to me that the process does not exist within our law by which the 13th Amendment could be repealed?

Speaking of "altogether different proposition," making something "stick" is an altogether different proposition legally than an "unalienable" right. That which does or does not "stick" is usually a matter of sufficient or insufficient strength of public opinion. That which is truly "unalienable" legally stands ABOVE public opinion. To argue that slavery was a long suffering violation of an unalienable right is a distinction that made scant difference to those who lived their lives under it.

Better to simply recognize that ALL rights are defined by the governments that regulate them, and to defend, as most morally legitimate, those governments which are most democratic in their structure.

Click to expand...

Ishmael said:

Your troubles are none of my own

Your fixation on slavery bothers me, especially considering that that peculiar institution was ended long ago........at great cost.

Click to expand...

Ishmael said:

Regarding the BoR, there is a point in time where a stand must be made. It matters not that some politicians have ground the populace down to the point that they will surrender their liberties in the belief that the "government" will protect them.

Click to expand...

Ishmael said:

I see those signs as a signal to take up arms, the very reason the 2nd amendment exists to begin with. Law without liberty and justice is no law at all and should be treated appropriately.

And please, don't come at me with "the military will subdue you in short order." That has a long history of failure. Like swatting mosquitoes with baseball bats, it only alienates those caught up in the collateral damage. Further, it presumes that the military will do the masters bidding.

However, I will concede that at some point in the distant future the populace will become so complaint so as to tolerate enslavement. Just not in my lifetime.

Ishmael

Click to expand...

BotanyBoy said:

You sound pretty upset about that.....




Any examples? Can you name the liberty that has been sacrificed?

LOL yea...didn't think so.



Oh yea you're stable and should be taken seriously

Click to expand...

VaticanAssassin said:

Come on man... Even when your wrong you try to put thought behind it. This is weak sauce. A thoughtless weak one liner? Did Luke hack your account?

Click to expand...

VaticanAssassin said:

As far as what liberty? See Patriot act.

Click to expand...

BotanyBoy said:

What? He refuses to even look at anything not FOX approved man....why should I put any effort into a provocative POV or counter argument when the only thing he wants is "Geee ish you're so right you're like Glenn Beck!! Probably even as smarter..." smoke blown up his butt.

Sorry but he's not worth anything more than cheap shot 1 liners anymore. If he gave me something beyond /RushRage#LimbaughAttack!! rhetoric but as it stands he's just filling vettey's shoes as the GB' typical "racist old white guy who spends 4+ hr's a day screaming, SCREAMING at FOX news about liberals and their evil." RW'er living in a fantasy land of 1776.



What liberty was that?

I somehow can't do/say/think whatever the fuck I want still? No liberty was lost...I've actually seen an INCREASE in liberty over the past 15 years. Sure I might have to fill out more paperwork or do more homework but I can still do more today than I could in 2000.

Click to expand...

VaticanAssassin said:

Im pretty sure the founding fathers would have issues with the government monitoring our calls. Assuming we could ever get to stop watching porn on the Internet...

Click to expand...

VaticanAssassin said:

Come on man... Even when your wrong you try to put thought behind it. This is weak sauce. A thoughtless weak one liner? Did Luke hack your account?

As far as what liberty? See Patriot act.

Click to expand...

Ishmael said:

Quite frankly I'm beginning to have issues with HerbalChilds legend that he's trying to sell here.

Click to expand...

Ishmael said:

I think he's more shit than substance.....have for while now.

Click to expand...

Ishmael said:

I'd love to invite him to my Friday breakfast club meetings, sure would winnow the chaff.

Ishmael

Click to expand...

BotanyBoy said:

Yet you refuse to address them....

Or just school me a new one and answer a question occasionally with something other than a typical "but socialism is bad because I say it is mmmkay?" RW talking head dipshit deflection.

Maybe you could try backing up some of your bullshit now and then with something other than a condescending attitude and smug assumptions.



Just a bunch of hot air.....like miles....like vette...like I SAID.

Point out the shit and back it up, tell me where I'm wrong and I'll gladly stand corrected....but it's going to have to be better than an AmericanStinker/InfoWarz opinion piece.



Yea I'm sure...... you can't even talk to me over the internet without getting all bent, doing some childish fart sniffer shit talking and tossing me on iggy for challenging your views or asking you to back up your claims/assertions/assumptions etc.

Click to expand...

Ishmael said:

I choose to view your post, not because I think you have anything worth saying, merely because I did call you out and for that reason you deserve a say. So I'll respond.

Let's start with the fact that I just don't waste my time arguing with LT persona's. You're amusing up to the point that you take yourself seriously

Click to expand...

Ishmael said:

I think your whole military legend is a lie. I think your whole marijuana farm is a lie. I don't think you can shoot your way out of a wet paper bag.

Click to expand...

Ishmael said:

BUT, if you choose to call my allegations, pick your weapon.........rifle, pistol, or shotgun. Pick your course of fire. And we'll start with that sparky. So that is the first litmus test, put up or shut up.

Ishmael

Click to expand...

Written by James Madison in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for individual liberties, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, written by George Mason, strongly influenced Madison.

One of the many points of contention between Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the Constitution’s lack of a bill of rights that would place specific limits on government power. Federalists argued that the Constitution did not need a bill of rights, because the people and the states kept any powers not given to the federal government. Anti-Federalists held that a bill of rights was necessary to safeguard individual liberty.

Madison, then a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, went through the Constitution itself, making changes where he thought most appropriate. But several Representatives, led by Roger Sherman, objected that Congress had no authority to change the wording of the Constitution itself. Therefore, Madison’s changes were presented as a list of amendments that would follow Article VII.

Click to expand...

Ishmael said:

Your troubles are none of my own

Your fixation on slavery bothers me, especially considering that that peculiar institution was ended long ago........at great cost.

Regarding the BoR, there is a point in time where a stand must be made. It matters not that some politicians have ground the populace down to the point that they will surrender their liberties in the belief that the "government" will protect them.

I see those signs as a signal to take up arms, the very reason the 2nd amendment exists to begin with. Law without liberty and justice is no law at all and should be treated appropriately.

And please, don't come at me with "the military will subdue you in short order." That has a long history of failure. Like swatting mosquitoes with baseball bats, it only alienates those caught up in the collateral damage. Further, it presumes that the military will do the masters bidding.

However, I will concede that at some point in the distant future the populace will become so complaint so as to tolerate enslavement. Just not in my lifetime.

Ishmael

Click to expand...

phrodeau said:

The military will subdue you in short order. They have drones now.

Click to expand...

eyer said:

Ask Frizzled Fried's missing brain cells and balls how your "military" and "drones" thesis worked out subduing a bunch of "hajis" and "ragheads", playdeau.

Click to expand...