Why stop at the 14th?

[Smoke]

I would first have to see somewhere that it said that black landowners couldn't vote; though most of that would have been established by state law.

You're right; it varied from state to state. In some states, free blacks were allowed to vote right at the beginning of the republic (if they met the other requirements). But there were definitely no guarantees. Some states that had free black voters in the 18th century disfranchised free black citizens in the 19th century. It only became unconstitutional to exclude citizens from voting on the grounds of race during Reconstruction, and it only really stopped in the 1970s.

I stand corrected on their white unity... however, i still dont see how the original intent of our founder's constitution was that only white landowners could vote. it would be less unfair and random if only landowners could vote since they owned a piece of America.

If you approach history with the assumption that what would be less unfair is what actually happened, history's going to be quite a disappointment to you.

 

[Mister Emu]

I'm failing to see how "changes to 2nd Amendment" and "interpreting the portions they did/do not like out" are contradictory to each other, since the latter is an act of changing.

Because interpreting things you don't like out isn't changing, it is ignoring. Making an overly restrictive law on gun ownership is contravention of the Constitution, not change.

Regardless of word semantics though, it's side stepping the issue of the hypocrisy in doing the same thing that you demonized other people for doing.

Except, of course, the conservative are not doing what they've condemned others for. They are not saying we should ignore the 14th amendment, they are not saying the 14th amendment does not say what it clearly does, they are arguing that we, through the constitutional process of amendment, should change it. It won't happen, they know it won't happen, but it is the only legitimate path to the goal they seek(one which I do not agree with).

If they were seeking to get the courts to 'understand' the 14th amendment differently, I'd be right there condemning them for hypocrisy, and condemning for the manner in which they go about their business. But they aren't.

So labeling people as nazis and saying that liberals who wanted to make changes to the 2nd amendment were "wiping their rear-ends with the Constitution," does not mean that they're being labeled as unconstitutional? Right it must mean something else...

Except they never sought to change the constitution. They never sought an amendment repealing or altering the second. They just wanted to get what they want, gun bans, with regard to whether the means were legitimate or not. That is how they were "wiping their rear-ends with the Constitution". They were seeking to bypass the people in the means by which the Constitution is changed.

The comparison to Nazis is in what they wanted changed, the people's right to firearms.

Thing is nobody removed anything: The Supreme Court reviewed the 2nd amendment just like the Tea Party and the Conservatives want to review the 14th Amendment. Contrary to what you're insinuating, there is no difference between the two

There is a huge difference. It is not the Court's place to determine our rights. It is our place to do so. The people of America determine whether or not we have a right to this or that. And we the people have said we have a right to own guns, and the liberals attempted to get around that by misusing the court system. Thankfully they failed in this instance.

The people who want to repeal or amend the 14th are respecting the constitutional process of change and saying that the proposed changed be given to the people to decide.

Alterations of our rights are momentous occasions, and they require monumental effort. Constitutional "purists" know this and would rather not get what they seek than to subvert the will and prerogative of the people.

Stripping people of their birthright citizenship is most certainly unconstitutional unless we make it retro-active all the way to the Mayflower docking on America's shores, otherwise we have another case of "separate but equal" going on.

Not if you alter the constitution in such a way that citizenship is not a birthright. Once again, it is not unconstitutional to seek amendment.

 

[Mister_T]

Because interpreting things you don't like out isn't changing, it is ignoring. Making an overly restrictive law on gun ownership is contravention of the Constitution, not change.

And making those supposed interpretations into action that would alter what we knew as the 2nd Amendment (which IS what happened, but failed to pass), is an act of change. So no, they are not different.

Except, of course, the conservative are not doing what they've condemned others for. They are not saying we should ignore the 14th amendment, they are not saying the 14th amendment does not say what it clearly does, they are arguing that we, through the constitutional process of amendment, should change it. It won't happen, they know it won't happen, but it is the only legitimate path to the goal they seek(one which I do not agree with).

They are saying that the 14th Amendment is "not what the Forefather's had in mind originally." How is this different then your scenario of the liberals "ignoring parts of the 2nd Amendment?" It's rhetorical question, because there is no difference other than a mincing of words: Both seek to alter/change amendments by "special" interpretation, selective reasoning and just flat out ignoring what is plainly written.

If they were seeking to get the courts to 'understand' the 14th amendment differently, I'd be right there condemning them for hypocrisy, and condemning for the manner in which they go about their business. But they aren't.

They are or will be trying to get the courts to "understand it from the 'original' intent of the Forefathers." That is indeed what is been done here: Understanding an Amendment differently. I'm not sure how else you can spin that in principle.

Except they never sought to change the constitution. They never sought an amendment repealing or altering the second. They just wanted to get what they want, gun bans, with regard to whether the means were legitimate or not. That is how they were "wiping their rear-ends with the Constitution". They were seeking to bypass the people in the means by which the Constitution is changed.

Again, the 2nd Amendment was under review, specifically how we are to interpret it. Now there's a calling for a review of the 14th Amendment as to how we are to interpret it; the end goal of these reviews is a change to what we interpret these amendments as currently. Again, I'm not sure how anyone can realistically spin that into 2 completely different acts that are counter to each other.

The comparison to Nazis is in what they wanted changed, the people's right to firearms.

I'm not arguing what their irrational reasoning for labeling liberals or whoever as Nazis for, rather it's the fact that they cherry pick what they choose to label as Nazis and so forth and create a glaring double-standard that they don't care to recognize.

There is a huge difference. It is not the Court's place to determine our rights. It is our place to do so. The people of America determine whether or not we have a right to this or that. And we the people have said we have a right to own guns, and the liberals attempted to get around that by misusing the court system. Thankfully they failed in this instance.

It is the courts place to uphold our Civil Rights which are not to be voted upon by the people. If we allowed people to vote on our Civil Rights and let the "will of the people" be the deciding factor, we'd still have segregated bathrooms and water fountains. The Supreme Court did it's job and protected our Civil Right to bear arms. We had nothing to do with it; it was not a civilian vote.

The people who want to repeal or amend the 14th are respecting the constitutional process of change and saying that the proposed changed be given to the people to decide.

Respecting the constitutional process of change? They want to strip away one of our rights, that's not constitutional; they aren't respecting anything except their disdain for undocumented immigrants. Like I said, Civil Rights are not to be voted upon. We have Civil Rights in this country to protect each of us, regardless if it is the majority or not. Protecting the minority from the majority.

Alterations of our rights are momentous occasions, and they require monumental effort. Constitutional "purists" know this and would rather not get what they seek than to subvert the will and prerogative of the people.

The will and prerogative of the people is null and void when it comes to individual Civil Rights. They aren't up for grabs. If we held a vote tomorrow that said that Conservatives were not allowed freedom of speech and it passed, do you think Constitutional "Purists" would live up to their name and not subvert the will of the people? Yeah, you know the answer to that.

Bottom line is if that's what they want to believe as Constitutional "Purists," fine but don't be a hypocrite about it when it comes to something that doesn't fall into your agenda...otherwise they can just ditch the name and the rhetoric all together and people won't call them hypocritical.

Not if you alter the constitution in such a way that citizenship is not a birthright. Once again, it is not unconstitutional to seek amendment.

And once again Every Man is Equal: as long as you are making that amendment retroactive to the Mayflower docking on what was once the Native Americans land until we illegally immigrated to it, then it is certainly constitutional. There is no "Separate but Equal." Everyone on American soil is as equal as the next guy...but hey, at this rate we'll probably try and change that too.

 

[Mister_T]

The comparison to Nazis is in what they wanted changed, the people's right to firearms.

Which reminds me, having authorities go around and demand that they see your "papers" is also something that is very Nazi-esque, yet those Constitution lovers apparently took a vacation when this was happening in Arizona, as they never bothered to call them out for there "nazi-ism"....or were they cheering them on and calling them "patriots?" I can't remember. :cover:

 

[Mister Emu]

And making those supposed interpretations into action that would alter what we knew as the 2nd Amendment (which IS what happened, but failed to pass), is an act of change. So no, they are not different.

They are categorically different in the method, and the legitimacy of the method, they use to seek their goals.

There is a vast difference between saying "the Constitution only says things I like" and "the Constitution says things I don't like, and we should use the amendment process to fix it".

They are saying that the 14th Amendment is "not what the Forefather's had in mind originally." How is this different then your scenario of the liberals "ignoring parts of the 2nd Amendment?" It's rhetorical question, because there is no difference other than a mincing of words: Both seek to alter/change amendments by "special" interpretation, selective reasoning and just flat out ignoring what is plainly written.

They're both ignorant. But the tea party supporters aren't ignoring the 14th amendment, they are seeking to amend the constitution to reflect their desires. They aren't "interpreting" the 14th amendment to say what they want, they're saying it says something they don't like, and we need to change it.

They are or will be trying to get the courts to "understand it from the 'original' intent of the Forefathers." That is indeed what is been done here: Understanding an Amendment differently. I'm not sure how else you can spin that in principle.

No, it is not. They don't want to interpret it in a way that suits them, they want to repeal it.
"suggesting Congress examine repealing the 14th Amendment, which deals with one way of becoming a U.S. citizen."

It is the courts place to uphold our Civil Rights which are not to be voted upon by the people. If we allowed people to vote on our Civil Rights and let the "will of the people" be the deciding factor, we'd still have segregated bathrooms and water fountains. The Supreme Court did it's job and protected our Civil Right to bear arms. We had nothing to do with it; it was not a civilian vote.

Both equality under the law for all citizens, and the right to bear arms were direct results of the expressed will of the people as recognised in the 2nd and 14th amendments. We the people had everything to do with it. The Supreme Court did its job in protecting our rights, which we determined for ourselves(through our state and federal governments).

Respecting the constitutional process of change? They want to strip away one of our rights, that's not constitutional; they aren't respecting anything except their disdain for undocumented immigrants. Like I said, Civil Rights are not to be voted upon. We have Civil Rights in this country to protect each of us, regardless if it is the majority or not. Protecting the minority from the majority.

They certainly are to be voted upon. How do you think we got the rights we have? Every right we legally have access to, except one that I know of, was brought about by the expressed will of the vast majority of the citizenry. The right to assemble, the right to religion, the right to a speedy trial, protection from unlawful search and seizure... they were all voted on. We vote on rights.

The will and prerogative of the people is null and void when it comes to individual Civil Rights.

It is the only legitimate recogniser of rights. The one that recognises rights can also take them away. If the courts determine our rights then upon their whim we have none. The only way for the people to be secure in their rights is if it is the power and will of the people that grants them.

If we held a vote tomorrow that said that Conservatives were not allowed freedom of speech and it passed, do you think Constitutional "Purists" would live up to their name and not subvert the will of the people? Yeah, you know the answer to that.

Were such an amendment passed(which ironically would also require amendment of the 14th to remove the equal protection under the law clause) I would certainly illegally express myself(perhaps at risk of imprisonment) to get such an amendment repealed.

There is a difference between what is right and what is constitutionally sound.

Bottom line is if that's what they want to believe as Constitutional "Purists," fine but don't be a hypocrite about it when it comes to something that doesn't fall into your agenda...

The whole point is that no one has as yet demonstrated hypocrisy from them in this matter.

And once again Every Man is Equal

What does that have to do with anything? As far as I know, they are not seeking to remove the equal protection clause. They are seeking to alter that all men born in America are citizens.

as long as you are making that amendment retroactive to the Mayflower docking on what was once the Native Americans land until we illegally immigrated to it, then it is certainly constitutional.

A part of the constitution cannot be unconstitutional. Whether they make it retroactive or not, if it passes it is constitutional.

It would be unconstitutional if they tried to pass a law limiting citizenship for those born in America while the 14th stands as is, but they aren't doing that...

 

[Mister Emu]

Which reminds me, having authorities go around and demand that they see your "papers" is also something that is very Nazi-esque, yet those Constitution lovers apparently took a vacation when this was happening in Arizona, as they never bothered to call them out for there "nazi-ism"....or were they cheering them on and calling them "patriots?" I can't remember.

There you go... something where you can rightly criticise them for hypocrisy. They get worked up whenever someone else acts in a way that Nazis acted, but acclaim themselves even though they acted in a way that Nazis did.

 

[Engyo]

I thought this was on-topic:

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

The Far Right is not merely trying to "review" the 14th amendment. They want to, at the very least, reword parts of it:

John Boehner on Repeal of 14th Amendment: 'It's Worth Considering'
Jon Kyl 14th Amendment Repeal Support
washingtonpost.com

If they want to take out one clause of the 14th Amendment, what's to stop them from taking out another? How about invoking a little states "rights" and removing the entire first article? Heck, let's while we're at it, take out the 17th, 1st, 5th, 9th, 15th, 19th, 21st, and maybe even the 13th. Go ahead, GOP, remove every amendment except 2nd and the 10th.

 

[Mister_T]

They are categorically different in the method, and the legitimacy of the method, they use to seek their goals.

There is a vast difference between saying "the Constitution only says things I like" and "the Constitution says things I don't like, and we should use the amendment process to fix it".

Both have or will have a process, both could have an end result: change or alteration as to how were are to interperete certain Civil Rights, which is the crux of your argument that you are claiming is non-existent in the 2nd Amendment review, which unfortunately you have not really been able to make a case for other than semantics of what actually constitutes "change."

They're both ignorant. But the tea party supporters aren't ignoring the 14th amendment, they are seeking to amend the constitution to reflect their desires. They aren't "interpreting" the 14th amendment to say what they want, they're saying it says something they don't like, and we need to change it

Nobody was "ignoring" the 2nd amendment either. :cover: Again, you're trying to word it so that the 2nd Amendment review didn't involve any special "interpreting," or have an end result of "change," thus making it some how different than what we're seeing with the 14th, and it plainly involves both.

No, it is not. They don't want to interpret it in a way that suits them, they want to repeal it.
"suggesting Congress examine repealing the 14th Amendment, which deals with one way of becoming a U.S. citizen."

And how does this contradict what I said exactly? Their reason for wanting to repeal it is because want to interpret it the way was the the Founding Fathers "original intent" was.

"Some are even trying to suggest that how it is being used today is counter to the original intent of the Founding Fathers." That is their whole reasoning for wanting to review the amendment in the first place: Because illegal immigrants children being born here was not original intent of the Founding Fathers and the illegals are abusing it.

Both equality under the law for all citizens, and the right to bear arms were direct results of the expressed will of the people as recognised in the 2nd and 14th amendments. We the people had everything to do with it. The Supreme Court did its job in protecting our rights, which we determined for ourselves(through our state and federal governments).

The point you're missing is, "the will of the people" had absolutely no bearing on the Supreme Court's final decision on the matter, despite your claim to the contrary. Doesn't matter if 80% of the population wanted to ban guns, the Supreme Court did it's job and protected our 2nd Amendment. Protecting the minority from the majority.

They certainly are to be voted upon. How do you think we got the rights we have? Every right we legally have access to, except one that I know of, was brought about by the expressed will of the vast majority of the citizenry. The right to assemble, the right to religion, the right to a speedy trial, protection from unlawful search and seizure... they were all voted on. We vote on rights.

I'm not saying the will of the people has no bearing on Civil Rights, I'm saying that the will of the people is not the deciding factor on what gets done around here in regards to them. For example a majority of the people here in California voted that gay people were not allowed to get married by voting to amend our state constitution to define marriage as "one man and one woman." One group of people had their rights stripped away because the majority voted for it. Now it's getting over turned and looks like it could be making it's way to the top because regardless of what the will or majority of the people wanted, it is unconstitutional (for the time being). Same thing with ending slavery and black equality, I'm sure at certain times the majority of the people didn't want either of those things to happen either....

Civil Rights should not be decided on what the will of the people want; They should be decided based on what is constitutional and what isn't.

It is the only legitimate recogniser of rights. The one that recognises rights can also take them away. If the courts determine our rights then upon their whim we have none. The only way for the people to be secure in their rights is if it is the power and will of the people that grants them.

See above.

Were such an amendment passed(which ironically would also require amendment of the 14th to remove the equal protection under the law clause) I would certainly illegally express myself(perhaps at risk of imprisonment) to get such an amendment repealed.

There is a difference between what is right and what is constitutionally sound.

That seems to be in conflict with what you previously said:

Alterations of our rights are momentous occasions, and they require monumental effort. Constitutional "purists" know this and would rather not get what they seek than to subvert the will and prerogative of the people.

Which is fine because it demonstrates the flaw of that particular piece of reasoning: The will of the people should not determine what is and what isn't constitutional.

The whole point is that no one has as yet demonstrated hypocrisy from them in this matter.

I think it has been demonstrated, but some people rely on semantics and mental gymnastics to get around recognizing it.

What does that have to do with anything? As far as I know, they are not seeking to remove the equal protection clause. They are seeking to alter that all men born in America are citizens.

It has to do with your argument stating that altering citizenship to not being a birthright is not unconstitutional maybe? :sarcastic Unless that extends all the way to the Mayflower, then it's not in anyway equal and therefore not constitutional because it targets one specific group...which will bring us back to square one with "equality" in this country.

A part of the constitution cannot be unconstitutional. Whether they make it retroactive or not, if it passes it is constitutional.

It would be unconstitutional if they tried to pass a law limiting citizenship for those born in America while the 14th stands as is, but they aren't doing that...

So if it was constitutional for the Supreme Court to have the power to amended the constitution (which it does) so it ban guns from citizens, then that's constitutional too, right?

IF it passes in the way they want it to sans retroactive (which I doubt it will), then it will be in conflict with the equality parts of the constitution unless because it will target only one group of people...of course I guess you're right in the sense that anything officially on the constitution is technically "constitutional." But then, that brings us back to the OP, why stop at the 14th? What else are the going to make "constitutional?"

There you go... something where you can rightly criticise them for hypocrisy. They get worked up whenever someone else acts in a way that Nazis acted, but acclaim themselves even though they acted in a way that Nazis did.

I've presented a good case for "rightly" criticizing them in this instance as well. Well, at least though we can agree on one thing.

 

[Mister_T]

The Far Right is not merely trying to "review" the 14th amendment. They want to, at the very least, reword parts of it:

Right, but they want to review the "original intent of the Founding Fathers" in an effort to get it repealed, which is fluff for saying we don't want children from illegal immigrants to be citizens even though it's a constitutional right. Point being though that there is some sort of "reviewing" to be taking place, well at least according to them.

 

[Mister Emu]

I thought this was on-topic:

Thumbs up

Both have or will have a process, both could have an end result: change or alteration as to how were are to interperete certain Civil Rights

One involves a change of interpretation(when you want to interpret the 2nd Amendment not to mean that everyone can own a gun), one involves a change in actuality(when you want to physically alter the document to remove the right to citizenship at birth).

Nobody was "ignoring" the 2nd amendment either.

Again, you're trying to word it so that the 2nd Amendment review didn't involve any special "interpreting,

They were ignoring what it clearly says, and actually the opposite, I'm saying the 2nd Amendment review was all special interpretation. Because there is no way America is going to alter the 2nd Amendment so that it says what they want it to, in their attempt to 'win' they tried to get it interpreted their way, luckily they failed.

And how does this contradict what I said exactly? Their reason for wanting to repeal it is because want to interpret it the way was the the Founding Fathers "original intent" was.

Besides the logical disconnect in postulating founding father intent for an amendment which they had no part in, I'm not discussing why someone wants to change, but the manner in which they go about attempting to do so.

Repealing an amendment when it says something you don't like is the proper path. Trying to interpret your issues with the Constitution away is not.

The point you're missing is, "the will of the people" had absolutely no bearing on the Supreme Court's final decision on the matter, despite your claim to the contrary. Doesn't matter if 80% of the population wanted to ban guns, the Supreme Court did it's job and protected our 2nd Amendment. Protecting the minority from the majority.

Without the expressed will of the people there wouldn't be a 2nd Amendment to base the ruling on. The people are the ultimate foundation of rights in our society. The people can take away any right you currently have by an overwhelming expression of their will. If 80% of people decided to remove the 1st Amendment, it would be removed.

I'm not saying the will of the people has no bearing on Civil Rights, I'm saying that the will of the people is not the deciding factor on what gets done around here in regards to them.

It is the ultimate basis for it. If not for the will of the people, we would have no civil rights.

Civil Rights should not be decided on what the will of the people want; They should be decided based on what is constitutional and what isn't.

What is in the Constitution is decided by the the will of the people.

That seems to be in conflict with what you previously said

It isn't. I wouldn't attempt to subvert the will of the people, I would attempt to alter the will of the people.

Which is fine because it demonstrates the flaw of that particular piece of reasoning: The will of the people should not determine what is and what isn't constitutional.

Again, they determine what is in the Constitution...

I think it has been demonstrated, but some people rely on semantics and mental gymnastics to get around recognizing it.

You are conflating two disparate scenarios alike in end but largely divergent in means to make an unfounded attack.

It is akin to a thief calling someone who asks for money a hypocrite if he criticizes theft. "You want their money too." Perhaps the practical end is the same, we both get someone else's money, but there is a very noted difference in how we accomplish it, and that should not be ignored.

It has to do with your argument stating that altering citizenship to not being a birthright is not unconstitutional maybe?

Unless that extends all the way to the Mayflower, then it's not in anyway equal and therefore not constitutional because it targets one specific group...which will bring us back to square one with "equality" in this country.

Putting limits on citizenship doesn't unequally target any specific group.

So if it was constitutional for the Supreme Court to have the power to amended the constitution (which it does) so it ban guns from citizens, then that's constitutional too, right?

No it does not. I don't know where you got that preposterous idea from.

Article five of the Constitution:

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.

But then, that brings us back to the OP, why stop at the 14th?

Why indeed? The constitution isn't perfect, never has been(it once banned alcohol remember ), there is room for improvement and we should never settle. And we certainly shouldn't abdicate our role as ultimate deciders of our rights to anyone.

I've presented a good case for "rightly" criticizing them in this instance as well.

No. You are not a hypocrite for being antagonistic towards methods you find odious even if you seek similar ends. The tea party people aren't using the same methods they have criticised, thus they are not, in this respect, hypocrites.

 

[Mister_T]

No it does not. I don't know where you got that preposterous idea from.

In many jurisdictions the supreme court or constitutional court is the final legal arbiter that renders an opinion on whether a law or an action of a government official is constitutional.

Constitutionality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What was I thinking by saying the Supreme Court had the power to amend to constitution? Preposterous idea indeed.

I'll get around to addressing the rest of this later when I have more time.

 

[Mister Emu]

What was I thinking by saying the Supreme Court had the power to amend to constitution? Preposterous idea indeed.

Of course it is... because they can't. The power to amend the constitution is given solely to the state legislatures/conventions.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Right, but they want to review the "original intent of the Founding Fathers" in an effort to get it repealed, which is fluff for saying we don't want children from illegal immigrants to be citizens even though it's a constitutional right. Point being though that there is some sort of "reviewing" to be taking place, well at least according to them.

Oh, right, forgot. Republicans have their own definitions for at least half the verbs in the English language.

 

[Mister_T]

Of course it is... because they can't. The power to amend the constitution is given solely to the state legislatures/conventions.

Emu, read this part very carefully,

the supreme court or constitutional court is the final legal arbiter that renders an opinion on whether a law or an action of a government official is constitutional.

and then read the definition of arbiter please,

ar·bi·ter

&#8194; <a href=&quot;http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/A06/A0639800&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;><img src=&quot;http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; alt=&quot;arbiter pronunciation&quot; /></a>&#8194;/&#712;&#593;r

b&#618;

t&#601;r/ Show Spelled[ahr-bi-ter] Show IPA
–noun 1. a person empowered to decide matters at issue; judge; umpire.

2. a person who has the sole or absolute power of judging or determining.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Mister Emu]

Read the Constitution. The power to amend belongs solely to the states.

is the final legal arbiter that renders an opinion on whether a law or an action of a government official is constitutional.

Supreme Court has the final say on whether a government action lines up with what is in the Constitution. They do not have the power to amend what that is.

The Supreme Court is nowhere given the power to amend the Constitution. Read it, Section 3 is the Judiciary, Section 5 is amendments.

Thanks for playing.

You're welcome I especially enjoy games I win

 

[Mister_T]

Read the Constitution. The power to amend belongs solely to the states.

Yeah, I did read it. You're the one who's not reading: If the Supreme Court decides that whatever the states want to amend is not going to pass, then it's not. Plain and simple. Not hard to see who has the power over amendments.

Supreme Court has the final say on whether a government action lines up with what is in the Constitution. They do not have the power to amend what that is.

The Supreme Court is nowhere given the power to amend the Constitution. Read it, Section 3 is the Judiciary, Section 5 is amendments.

I'm having deja vu with this twisting of black and white definitions in plain English. The Supreme Court decides what gets passed and what doesn't, therefore they have the ultimate control and the final say over any proposed amendments or in more simpler and condensed terms, the power.

Maybe you should try reading it yourself:

The foremost authority for deciding the constitutionality of federal or state law under the Constitution of the United States in cases which come before it is the Supreme Court of the United States, as decided in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). In Marbury the Supreme Court struck down a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 which had purported to change the Court's original jurisdiction from what the Constitution described. Although the Court continues to review the constitutionality of statutes, Congress and the states retain power to influence what cases come before the Court. For example, the Constitution at Article III, Section 2, gives Congress power to make exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, and additionally states may choose to exercise sovereign immunity from lawsuits.

Pretty cut and dry as to what their authority is.

Or to put it another way

The way the Constitution is understood is influenced by court decisions, especially those of the Supreme Court. These decisions are referred to as precedents. In the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of judicial review. Judicial review is the power of the Court to examine federal legislation, executive agency rules and state laws, to decide their constitutionality, and to strike them down if found unconstitutional. Judicial review includes the power of the Court to explain the meaning of the Constitution as it applies to particular cases. Over the years, Court decisions on issues ranging from governmental regulation of radio and television to the rights of the accused in criminal cases have changed the way many constitutional clauses are interpreted, without amendment to the actual text of the Constitution.

Once again, thanks for playing. :clap

You're welcome I especially enjoy games I win

Even those in 2nd or 3rd place still win something, so I guess that's one way you could look at it.

Anyways, we should probably get back on topic.

 

[Mister Emu]

If the Supreme Court decides that whatever the states want to amend is not going to pass, then it's not.

The Supreme Court is not in any way involved in the Amendment process. Their role is to check law against the Constitution, not determine what is in the Constitution. They have no veto power over Amendments. If the states amend the Constitution is a way the Supreme Court doesn't like they can't do a thing about it. The people have the power.

The Supreme Court decides what gets passed and what doesn't, therefore they have the ultimate control and the final say over any proposed amendments or in more simpler and condensed terms, the power.

No, they don't. They determine in federal/state law is on the up-n-up with the Constitution. They do not control what is in the Constitution. The states do.

Judicial review is the power of the Court to examine federal legislation, executive agency rules and state laws, to decide their constitutionality, and to strike them down if found unconstitutional.

You do realise, Constitutional Amendments are not federal legislation, executive agency rules, or state laws? Once again, read the Constitution, I'll post it this time. Article Five, the section about amendment, conspicuously lacks any mention of the Supreme Court... because their power does not extend over what is in the Constitution, everything else is their purview.

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.

When 3/4ths of the state legislatures or conventions ratify an amendment, that is it, it is part of the Constitution, nothing anyone can do except repeal it through another amendment with 3/4ths of the state legislatures or conventions.

Once again, thanks for playing.

I always enjoy victory.

Even those in 2nd or 3rd place still win something, so I guess that's one way you could look at it.

I'm glad you can take something positive away from this lesson in civics.

Anyways, we should probably get back on topic.

Right.

Tea Part(iers?) are not hypocrites in this instance, because they are not using the methods they have condemned in the past.

 

[Mister Emu]

I apologise for any immaturity I've displayed. Particularly:

I always enjoy victory.

I'm glad you can take something positive away from this lesson in civics.

These two responses.

 

[Smoke]

I apologise for any immaturity I've displayed.

Maturity is highly overrated. Even Jesus thought so.