Replies

OneWingedShark --

I just noticed another serious error of understanding in your proposed amendments, under "Grand Jury Amendment", section VIII where you indicate:

"The text of the Constitution should not be arbitrarily reinterpreted and, as the judiciary does such with its doctrine of incorporation, the Fourteenth amendment is hereby repealed."

While most certainly the Constitution should not be arbitrarily reinterpreted, by referencing the "doctrine of incorporation" applied to the 14th Amendment, you've actually rejected one corruption by the Court, only to to validate an earlier corruption to the principle of this country.

Inherent to the referenced rejection of the"doctrine of incorporation" is that the several States are not obligated to recognize our unalienable individual rights. Somehow the unalienable rights of our founders became highly alienable by States. This was never their intent.

This idea stems from a profound fundamental corruption that the Bill of Rights actually grants us our rights, and they are thereby only applicable to the federal government itself. The Constitution does not grant us those rights, but rather only recognizes what exist beyond the Constitution, only therein phrasing those rights in regard to the structure of the federal government.

This earlier corruption stemmed from Barron vs Baltimore (1833), in which the court indicated that because States are sovereign entities, they are somehow immune to any obligation to persons and their property -- in other words, States can make our rights and property highly alienable, and we've created 50 new little monarchies. Such a corrupt principle is entirely in conflict with everything in the Constitution and all the founder's writings. From this corruption, we have States and municipalities severely infringing on our rights to keep and bear arms (notice I didn't say "Second Amendment right"), and confiscating our property without compensation or trial, under a wide range of excuses.

Those rights are every bit as applicable to the State governments, as they are the federal. It's just that the federal government should be prohibited from any policing authority over those rights.

>> “The text of the Constitution should not be arbitrarily reinterpreted and, as the judiciary does such with its doctrine of incorporation, the Fourteenth amendment is hereby repealed.”
>
> While most certainly the Constitution should not be arbitrarily reinterpreted, by referencing the “doctrine of incorporation” applied to the 14th Amendment, you’ve actually rejected one corruption by the Court, only to to validate an earlier corruption to the principle of this country.

Ah, but with incorporation we get the “magical” process by which the court may take some regular text like the first amendment, change it, and apply it to the states. In fact, in order to have ANY effect on the states the First Amendment needs to be textually altered because it is explicitly binding on one entity only: the Congress.

I reject the idea that repealing the 14th (and incorporation) must needs be the embracing of State sponsored tyranny. One if the major problems today is the rush to put everything into the Federal realm of jurisdiction. — This is one reason why state sovereignty is virtually non-extant, in one of the dissents to SB1070 the justice remarked that in rejecting the State’s ability to ensure laws are enforced the only remnant of state sovereignty is the right/ability/power to defend themselves from being invaded. With that in mind, I ask this: What would the Federal response be to a southern State taking its National Guard and using it to seal the southern border via military force?