Change the Constitution????

[This_person]

Has there ever been an amendment to the Constitution to allow something that is allowed under the Constitution?

The author of the Bill of Rights actually believed the first ten amendments to be a joke, because he couldn't understand why they were necessary. Everyone clearly understood that we were going to have a very, very weak federal government holding together a group of virtual nation-states, and that the states held the bulk of the power while consenting to be group bound only where necessary. So, why were the first ten needed, since it was already clear that the Congress only had the power to do what was spelled out in the body of the constitution? A rare time he was fairly short-sighted.

 

[ylexot]

The author of the Bill of Rights actually believed the first ten amendments to be a joke, because he couldn't understand why they were necessary. Everyone clearly understood that we were going to have a very, very weak federal government holding together a group of virtual nation-states, and that the states held the bulk of the power while consenting to be group bound only where necessary. So, why were the first ten needed, since it was already clear that the Congress only had the power to do what was spelled out in the body of the constitution? A rare time he was fairly short-sighted.

I know. I was trying to poke Larry because his argument against a Constitutional amendment was that the Constitution doesn't give the authority to do X. Well duh! If the Constitution gave the authority, there would be no need for an amendment Of course, Larry didn't get it. Maybe I was too subtle. :shrug:

 

[Larry Gude]

I Don't...

I know. I was trying to poke Larry because his argument against a Constitutional amendment was that the Constitution doesn't give the authority to do X. Well duh! If the Constitution gave the authority, there would be no need for an amendment Of course, Larry didn't get it. Maybe I was too subtle. :shrug:

...DO SUBTLE.


The conversation is still worth having and, frankly, is critical. We have drifted so far from what the darn papers say and how to properly view government, it's roll and how things are to be done that whereas some of the founders, as this person pointed out, thought much of this stuff superfluous, now we think any conversation at all about what is in there is superfluous.

Any government proposal, law or policy should always be framed in this thought process;

Can it be done with the framework of the constitution?
If so, should it be done?
If it can't be done, should it be?

Going through the process is the surest safeguard for all us. If we treated the constitution like we treat federal employee handbooks, we'd be gold.

 

[This_person]

There is NO constitutional basis for denying anyone from entering into a contract with anyone else which is what marriage is. We can reasonably argue one must be of a certain age in respect to marriage being a bit much for a 10 year old to understand what they are getting into but you can't say two adults of the same gender should not be married unless you have a moral objection based on something outside of the constitution because nowhere does the constitution single out gender as a limitation on individual rights.

IMO, it actually doesn't talk about this type of thing at all except in two ways:
1. Article 4, which says all the states have to accept whatever the other states do (ie, if I have a marriage license in OH, then it's good in HI); which means if one state says poligamy is legal, it legalizes it in all states, or if one says same-sex marriage is legal, it's legal in all states, etc.
2. The tenth amendment, which says whatever is not specifically in the Constitution doesn't apply to the federal government, and is a right of the states or the people.

These two reasons conflict, and therefore I think federal clarification may, just may, be warrented. However, if I have a driver's license in one state, and move to another, the new state can require I get a new license from that state. The same could be said of marriage licenses (this, of course, would be VERY new). This would restore the individual state's ability to control the things the constitution granted the states - like marriage laws.

As for abortion, either a fetus has rights or it does not. As it is totally dependent on the mother, the fetus is subordinate to the mom, thus, it's up to her. Period.

I agree with most of what you say, but I can't agree with this. Babies still in the womb DO have some rights. Scott Peterson was charged with two murders, and killing the baby in the womb is a separate crime in a lot of states. Just because the baby is dependant upon mom does not make it less of a separate life. The baby is dependant for quite some time after birth, too. And, my great grandmother was pretty dependant as well. Most mentally and physically challenged individuals in institutions are dependant upon help to stay alive.

Again, any objection, like gay marriage, is not and can not be based on constitutional grounds thus no support for banning abortion can be based on constitutional grounds.

Huckabee is proposing the impossible; a constitution that is all about limiting government and freeing the people being amended to increase government power and limit individual freedom.

While these could be solutions to ensure clarity (and, take new powers not previously granted, which I think is what the amendment process is all about), I agree with you. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

but I can't agree with this. Babies still in the womb DO have some rights. Scott Peterson was charged with two murders, and killing the baby in the womb is a separate crime in a lot of states. Just because the baby is dependant upon mom does not make it less of a separate life. The baby is dependant for quite some time after birth, too. And, my great grandmother was pretty dependant as well. Most mentally and physically challenged individuals in institutions are dependant upon help to stay alive.While these could be solutions to ensure clarity (and, take new powers not previously granted, which I think is what the amendment process is all about), I agree with you. It doesn't make sense.

...make your argument for subordinating the woman's rights to the unborn baby's rights.

A born child and/or an older person can be cared for by anyone. An infant in the womb, while I may think abortion is, by far, the most barbaric thing mankind can possibly do, is 100% dependent on mom.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...Roe is 'codified' by the Supremes in the individual right to privacy as in the 14th amendment even though it doesn't say that. Roe it further supported by due process clause. They also declared that the fetus has no rights.

So, what all this means is that there is no way in hell government can restrict drug use or prostitution or selling a kidney and that if a fetus is lost do to criminal act upon the mother who survives you can't call that a murder.

Again, my point is that it serves us all to have good law and respect it.

For 80 some odd years we accepted that blacks were not people and Dredd Scott was the last straw in that nonsense.

The 14th is another of the Amendments that is totally misused by incorrectly parsing the words into meanings that were never meant.

Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The equal protect clause that is used to enforce law from one state on another state is in Section 1. It is obvious from the wording that that is not what the writers meant to happen. It guarantees equal protection within the jurisdiction, nothing more. Why is it that lawyers, heck, people in general just can't read un understand plain English?

 

[This_person]

...make your argument for subordinating the woman's rights to the unborn baby's rights.

It can be shown that it is entirely reasonable to expect that a person who has intercourse, "protected" or not, has a potential to create a baby. Therefore, the woman chose to take that risk when engaged in intercourse. Thus, that separate life, with it's own DNA, it's own system of everything, should reasonably be able to expect the person who chose to take the risk of creating the life will provide that nourishment at least until the life could reasonably be expected to survive without the mother (say, birth). After that, it's certainly reasonable for the mother to stop providing sustanance for the baby, provided she can reasonably expect whomever she turns the child over to to provide that care.

This is in no way different from you being left responsible for your children at home. If you have a two month old that you are the responsible person for and you refuse to feed him/her, that is an actual crime. I see no subordination of your rights, because you chose to take that responsibility on. By having intercourse, the mother took on that implied responsibility for at least 36 (give or take) weeks.

 

[This_person]

...make your argument for subordinating the woman's rights to the unborn baby's rights.

Larry?

What did you think of my argument?

 

[Larry Gude]

Sorry...

Larry?

What did you think of my argument?

...I got distracted by the Redskins coach debacle.

You are still subordinating the mother and can not, in my opinion, constitutionally do that. It is very different once the kid is born as anyone could care for it then.

 

[This_person]

...I got distracted by the Redskins coach debacle.

You are still subordinating the mother and can not, in my opinion, constitutionally do that. It is very different once the kid is born as anyone could care for it then.

You don't think she takes that as an implied responsibility of having intercourse? Automatically? Just like the father takes on the responsibility of at least 18 years of financial support to the child automatically?

 

[Larry Gude]

If you...

You don't think she takes that as an implied responsibility of having intercourse? Automatically? Just like the father takes on the responsibility of at least 18 years of financial support to the child automatically?

...do not recognize a difference between in utero and out utero, we're not going to see this the same.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...do not recognize a difference between in utero and out utero, we're not going to see this the same.

Many states, thirty or so I think, recognize an in utero fetus as a human being with the right to life in the third trimester or when the fetus has a viable chance of surviving if taken from the uterus.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Huckabee is disturbing to me and I'm surprised that he's doing as well as he is. I would guess it's a public reaction to the godless Left, but I still don't like it anymore than I liked them.

You Republicans must be confused because half of you say us liberals are godless and the other half say we stand around all day holding hands singing "Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya".
Geez, will you guys make up your mind about us already?

 

[Larry Gude]

Sorry...

Many states, thirty or so I think, recognize an in utero fetus as a human being with the right to life in the third trimester or when the fetus has a viable chance of surviving if taken from the uterus.

...in there kid, one more day and you'd be 6 months old. Oh well....'swooooossshhhhhhhh...'

We can bestow rights on a ham sammitch once it is 180 days old and it makes about as much sense constitutionally. You can not, constitutionally, subordinate someones rights to 'someone' else in the fashion that outlawing abortion does. You can't tell someone to not take drugs, nor smoke, drink alcohol, eat trans fats or sell a kidney. Or have an abortion.

At least not constitutionally. At least not in my opinion. If we can, we can tell them anything including no guns, no using this or that word, no privacy, redefine 'unreasonable search' and so on.

 

[This_person]

...do not recognize a difference between in utero and out utero, we're not going to see this the same.

Fair enough. I was actually trying to change your mind, or see if you could change mine, but I agree we see it differently!

 

[Larry Gude]

It's like...

Fair enough. I was actually trying to change your mind, or see if you could change mine, but I agree we see it differently!

...slavery; Roger Taney said Dredd Scott wasn't a citizen because only men can be citizens and Dredd, as a slave, as a piece of property like a horse, could not be a man, therefore not a citizen. That was the last straw in a load we'd been carrying as a nation since day 1.

If a woman is a citizen, then they have full and equal rights. You can not make them care for a fetus inside them, you just can't. If she wants it gone, it's none of anyone else's business. To me, right doesn't always mean the most palatable choice. I think abortion and drug addiction and alcoholism and smoking cigarettes are pretty darn self abusive. I also think it is an individual right to abort, to smoke, to drink or get high.

The best we, as a society can do is educate and debate. Just because one has the right to abort or smoke or drink or get high, doesn't mean they should. What an individual chooses is a result of upbringing, education and free will.

 

[Larry Gude]

What we're saying...

You Republicans must be confused because half of you say us liberals are godless and the other half say we stand around all day holding hands singing "Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya".
Geez, will you guys make up your mind about us already?

...is you worship the wrong God(s).

 

[Xaquin44]

...is you worship the wrong God(s).

HEY! What's wrong with Cthulhu?

All hail our dark lor-



ahem.


I mean .... ummmm .... ahhehe

 

[Larry Gude]

You...

HEY! What's wrong with Cthulhu?

All hail our dark lor-



ahem.


I mean .... ummmm .... ahhehe

...have to worship Jesus H. Christ, the only white guy in Jerusalem, or else.

 

[Xaquin44]

hahahaha