Posted on 12/24/2003 12:02:01 AM PST by Dan Evans
Not true. The point of offering such an amendment could simply be to clarify a point under dispute. For example, the proposed Hatch-Eagleton Amendment stated simply:
A right to abortion is not secured by this Constitution. The Congress and the several states shall have the concurrent power to restrict and prohibit abortions: provided, that a law of a state which is more restrictive than a law of congress shall govern.
Many would argue, including some who support abortion rights, that a right to abortion is already not secured by the Constitution. Why reapeat something that's already true? To eliminate any disagreement over the matter.
IMO, we are way past the debate about clarifying what's in the Constitution. There are maybe, at most 20 to 25 people in Washington DC who give a rat's ass about the Constitution. When all three branches of government willfully ignore language as clear as "Congress shall make no law..." or "...shall not be infringed," passing another amendment would be a joke. The Supreme Court would just say that the government has a "complelling interest" and then that amendment becomes meaningless. At this point, I don't think anything short of another civil war have any impact on changing the course we are on.
In the 1840’s, the French author Alexis d’Tocqueville wrote the classic “Democracy in America.” He was curious as to why the young American Republic had become so dynamic. His travels and observations convinced him that “America is great because her people are good. If they cease to be good, America will no longer be great.”
His words are prophetic and America's greatness is almost over the brink - as Walter Williams argues, it may too late to recover.
d’Tocqueville also wrote (to paraphrase) 'The American Republic will endure, until politicians learn they can bribe the people with their own money.'
Like hogs, the "people" have been led to the trough for far too long.
It also does not enumarate those rights and simply because you claim a right does not mean you have it.
And why would we have allowed into the union a state that reserved the right of succession?
Why would that state have explicitly reserved that right if it was assumed to already exist in the Constitution.
I think we will have to have another war to resolve this.
You might find the HBO movie The Second Civil War interesting.
Legally? Probably. But it would make the evasion of the Constitution more obvious. Obvious enough, perhaps, that people will wake up and smell the judicial oligarchy.
The Supreme Court would just say that the government has a "complelling interest" and then that amendment becomes meaningless.
Possibly. It could also wake them up. I can always hope...
At this point, I don't think anything short of another civil war have any impact on changing the course we are on.
I suspect that any other civil war will end pretty much the same way. Why? Because the people who leave have the burden of persuading others to change the status quo.
I suspect that any other civil war will end pretty much the same way. Why? Because the people who leave have the burden of persuading others to change the status quo.
Was that a typo? The outcome of a civil war will depend on military facts. How many states want to secede, the military strength of both sides, etc.
It also does not enumarate those rights
The whole basis of the Constitution is that the powers of the Federal government are enumerated, not the states. In other words the states have the right unless prohibited by the Constitution. There is no other rational interpretation.
and simply because you claim a right does not mean you have it.
Yes you do. Unless prohibited by law (civil, criminal or Constitutional) you have the right.
Some states underscored their right of succession when they entered the union. For the Federal government to then accept them as states given that reservation implies acceptance of that right for all states.
This isn't 1961. You'll need to convince states that destroying the United States is preferable to staying in it and given the massive death that any real modern war would produce, that's going to be a very tough sell. Having seen the power of the American military in the Gulf, for example, I can't imagine any large numbers of American soldiers being eager to fight each other without a much better cause than state's rights.
Having seen the power of the American military in the Gulf, for example, I can't imagine any large numbers of American soldiers being eager to fight each other without a much better cause than state's rights.
A lot more than state's rights are at issue. Free Republic posts have documented the horrific encroachments on all of our rights for years now. And the men who have been in the military are much more conservative than liberal. Only about 20% of them voted for Gore.
This could also turn out another way. The Constitution provides for a convention that could dissolve the union entirely.
Yes, but they are also Americans and you'd need to convince them that the United States was their enemy. They are trained to defend the United States and I don't see them acting to destroy it.
This could also turn out another way. The Constitution provides for a convention that could dissolve the union entirely.
And I have absolutely no faith that the product of a Constitutional Convention would be an improvement, even if the Union were dissolved. The problems with the United States are not a problem with the structure as written but with how it is implemented in practice. Any attempts to to fix what is wrong will likely fall victim to a political version of the second system effect.
The problems with the United States are not a problem with the structure as written but with how it is implemented in practice.
I agree, in other words, the government is violating the Constitution. So what must we do to get them to obey the law? It might take the threat of succession or a constitutional convention, but I'm guessing that it will take the threat of violence to get enough people to see the light.
Any attempts to fix what is wrong will likely fall victim to a political version of the second system effect.
Second-system syndrome: When one is designing the successor to a relatively small, elegant, and successful system, there is a tendency to become grandiose in one's success and design an elephantine feature-laden monstrosity.
Isn't that the very definition of what we have now in our federal government?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.