Let me pose this question - given the dreadful ignorance of most of our electorate today, what is to prevent the Supreme Court, or the President - from making a pronouncement that this new “Amendment 28” is unconstitutional and invalid? You said Amendment 28 prevents that - but I still have a big concern.
Now you and I and anyone with half a brain can see you cannot wholesale just say an Amendment is unconstitutional - that is like saying up is down or black is white. But I believe they will effectively try to do that but using some other sort of high faluting legalize language and “interpreting” it in some way that it doesn’t really mean (they would find some emanation in the penumbra that revealed the inner mystical meaning which would be exactly what the federal elite powers that be want and exactly the opposite of what the constitutionalist writers intended...)
- just like they are doing to so many other amendments these last 40 years.(The constitution means whatever the judges say it means http://hubpages.com/hub/Hughes-Hubris )
Example - Article 10 has no “teeth” or is even much more than a placeholder these days.
My question - will Amendment 28 include in it actual enforcement measures - like clearly enumerate that the individual STATES reserve the right to direct state officials, state militias, etc to ENFORCE this by certain means, up to and including physically remove federal judges who try to circumvent this restriction of their power? I think this circular thing where the federal government makes, interprets and EXECUTES the federal law - and states have no specific power to enforce anything - is a real issue and something that will need to be addressed, otherwise Article V amendments can just be ‘reinterpreted’ and essentially ignored or downgraded as have so many others. And also we will have the media, the 5th column, ENDLESSLY propagandizing this whole thing so that uninformed people do not understand what is going on.
I am not a lawyer and probably have not stated this concern very clearly, - but I think it’s a key, core issue.
I do agree Article V may be the last possible measure other 3 other possible outcomes: wholesale revival in which peoples hearts are changed, total tyranny in which the whole country comes under totalitarian control, or all out bloody civil war.
To: boxlunch
> Hostage:
The example 28th Amendment of this thread is a game changer and is like no other amendment that has ever existed.
The answer to your fear is in Section 3 where the States are allowed to void any specific Supreme Court ruling. The term ‘void’ in legal definitions means to be treated as if it never existed.
SCOTUS won’t have any interpretation opportunity for Amendment 28 Section 3. If 30 or more states declare according to Amendment 28 that the same-sex ruling of today is void, the state statutes and policies are free to remain intact and there is nothing the federal government can do about it. No reliance is placed on any part of federal government to interpret or enforce. All power from the example 28 falls to the States. That’s why it’s like nothing seen before; why it’s a game changer
> “Let me pose this question - given the dreadful ignorance of most of our electorate today, what is to prevent the Supreme Court, or the President - from making a pronouncement that this new “Amendment 28” is unconstitutional and invalid? You said Amendment 28 prevents that - but I still have a big concern.”
Nothing prevents ‘saying’ anything. People can say “I am the King of Siam”. Fine, so what?
The States, having duly ratified Amendment 28 into the Constitution need not respond to anyone’s statements that their amendment is invalid. It simply does not matter. All this is discussed in the context that the Rule of Law is intact, otherwise there will be violent confrontation.
> “”But I believe they will effectively try to do that but using some other sort of high faluting legalize language and “interpreting” it in some way that it doesn’t really mean (they would find some emanation in the penumbra that revealed the inner mystical meaning which would be exactly what the federal elite powers that be want and exactly the opposite of what the constitutionalist writers intended...)
That’s your fear. Whether founded or unfounded, put your fear to a plausible fact. Invent one such ‘specific’, ‘plausible’ evasion or distortion of the example 28th. Try it. I can think of one (which will ultimately fail) but I will let you work up one of your own first. It will be a good exercise for you and others to throw what you got against the 28th to see how strong it is. These are tests or ‘thought experiments’, and they can be beneficial.
> “Article 10 has no “teeth” or is even much more than a placeholder these days.”
You meant ‘Amendment’ 10. The 10th Amendment has no ‘teeth’ because of the way it was written. It provides no means for the States to check the Federal Government should the separation of the different branches of the Federal Government abandon checks and balances and instead coalesce into one entity (which has happened today in several specific instances).
> “... will Amendment 28 include in it actual enforcement measures - like clearly enumerate that the individual STATES reserve the right to direct state officials, state militias, etc to ENFORCE this by certain means, up to and including physically remove federal judges who try to circumvent this restriction of their power?”
Governors call up the National Guard with consent of their state legislature. If a state legislature has joined with at least 29 other states to ‘quash’ a specific act, mandate or order of the Federal Government, I think it would be suicidal and insane for federal government officials to oppose the ‘quash’ using militant means. And to be clear, if such a conflict were to happen, it would not be a scenario of a Civil War II, it would be confined to a confrontation between forces of the Federal Government and forces of the States, The States have overwhelming force in this scenario. The Military Forces of the United States are barred from deployment by the Posse Comitatus Act, and exceptions based on the the Enforcement Acts, among other powers, allow the US military forces to be called up when state authorities are either unable or unwilling to suppress violence that is in opposition to the constitutional rights of the people. No such violence or opposition would exist within a state. Therefore, using the Army is impossible in an arena where the Rule of Law is intact. There are far too many hurdles for the Federal Government to jump through to order enforcement of their will and interpretation. The probability of this scenario happening is extremely low.
We can take out ‘fears’ and dream up all kinds of monsters in the attic. At some point we have to draw a line between what is realistic and what is fear-driven fantasy.