1 Liberals like to cluck about conservatives, "constitutionalists," "originalists," or whatnot who want to amend the Constitution, as if the amendment process wasn't a part of the initial plan for our country.

It was part of the plan but the founders made it difficult to accomplish, which I think has worked out well.

2

Posted by: Captain Hate at December 12, 2011 07:47 AM (UJYQt)

If only it were also made more difficult to invent new rights and priviliges without going throught the amendment process.  The back-door revisionism only goes one way, unfortunately.

3 the president is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure..........

4 Posted by: In Exile at December 12, 2011 07:51 AM (yOYcb)

You're correct but that's a separate problem which the amendment process exists to correct as a last resort.  If the amendment process was made any easier, the Constitution may as well have been written on an etch-a-sketch which gets frequently shaken.

5 I don't get the drive to repeal the 17th amendment at all. Maybe this is just because I hate the New Mexico legislature, but I really don't get why people think they'll do a better job choosing my Senator than I will.

6 Posted by: Captain Hate at December 12, 2011 07:56 AM (UJYQt)

True enough.  Make it too easy and the US constitution becomes thicker than the tax code.  Make it too difficult, and every generation has their own consitutional convention.  I guess that I would prefer the latter to the former.

7 Jesse Jackson Jr. has some better ones ..

H. J. RES. 31

`Article --`Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.`
Section 2. Reproductive rights for women under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State.`
Section 3. Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.`
Section 4. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.'.

I particularly like Section 1 of H. J. RES. 31

8 `Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.`


Dont't most people usually write that as "on account of gender" ?

I could see why Jerry Sandusky would like that as written.

9 I am reluctant to tinker with the Constitution for some of these "hot button" issues.

I am in favor of one amendment right now. It would be that the Supreme Court will read and interpret the Constitution as it is plainly worded in English and that Stare Decisis was originally intended for cases with no written law and is part of the Common Law and has no place in the written Constitution.

10 Dont't most people usually write that as "on account of gender" ?

Ha! I think JJ, Jr. likes that exactly as written, too.

11 I say make it much more difficult to make new laws, and make sure existing laws are enforced.  I commented yesterday that in Dearborn Michigan public schools prayer is mandatory.  They are muslims, and even get foot baths.  This also applies to U of M, and other state universities.  So, permitting schools to have prayer reinstated would actually help Christians, as then they could also pray in school.  As it stands now, muslims have many more rights than we do in America.  Maybe we could even get to the point where neighboring cities around Dearborn would be able to ring their church bells again.

12 If I was going to repeal any amendments, I would start with the one that includes the "no poll or other tax" for voting.

I would get rid of the "or other" part and actually make it a requirement to vote.

13 gee this is awful "heavy" for so early in the AM ain't it?

14

The 17th is unpopular with all right-thinking Americans because the Seante has turned into this pandering collection of dipshits like Chuck Schumer, who cannot find an issue he won't grab a camera to opine upon. The Senate is not for boob-baiting--that's what Congress is for.

Perry's part-time legislature makes him look like a fool. That doesn't make it a bad idea, but it's so unlikely that Congress would make themselves less available to collect graft that he seems foolish to propose it.

15 Dont't most people usually write that as "on account of gender" ? Yes, but they are wrong. Gender is a grammatical construct. The English language has three; masculine, feminine, and neutral. Sex is a biological construct and humans have two different ones; male and female.

16

It's true.  Liberals don't really care about the Constitution.  They are much more likely to legislate or ajudicate inspite of it rather than look to change it in order to fit their vision.

As far as heavy subject matter in the morning:  thinky pieces like this are better served at times when less current news is happening.  Gives us time to think about them without having to compete for attention with other stories.  IMO th 5-8 PM block of time is the best for thinky pieces, but the 7-10 AM slot works, too.

Maybe chew this over during the day and comment tonight?  I think I will.

17 @8: nouns have gender, people have sex. And they have intercourse. "Reproductive rights for women under the law shall not be denied ". OK, we won't interfere with their right to reproduce. And don't we have a Federalism Amendment already? Maybe we should try using that one first.

18 5 I don't get the drive to repeal the 17th amendment at all. Maybe this is just because I hate the New Mexico legislature, but I really don't get why people think they'll do a better job choosing my Senator than I will.     It's not that the state legislature will choose a better senator than you will; it's that the senate was meant to represent the interests of the several states rather than the interests of the people of the several states.   If one legislative body is in Washington to represent the seveal states, it makes the states more important-- keeping government closer to the people and farther from Washington.

19 fucking formatting fail

20

What does repeal of the 16th Amendment get you other than a temporary repeal of the tax on income derived from property?  The 16A doesn't create the income tax (we've had income taxes prior to the 16A), but rather removes the apportionment requirement on taxes from property (rents, dividends, etc). 

If the 16A is repealed, first thing that will happen is a suit brought before SCOTUS to reverse Pollock v. FarmersÂ’ Loan and Trust Co and remove the apportionment requirement on those taxes. 

Deleting the income tax will require its own Amendment, not the repeal of the 16A.

21 @7, 8:  Yeah, most people use 'gender' but it's technically incorrect.  Things have a gender, people and other living things have a sex.  While JJ Jr. and everything he stands for are distasteful to me to the point of physical illness, his composition here is correct.

22 They don't care about the Amendment process, because their view of an 'living
constitution, gets that requirement out of the way.

23 While we're thinking about constitutional amendments, how about a second look at a Federalism Amendment?

Liberals don't need no steeenking Amendments - they just have the Messiah hand down an Executive Order from on High.

Better than a Federalism Amendment, Perry should go for the Right-to-Secede Amendment.

24 Glad you walked back that apparent criticism of Perry, Gabe. Wouldn't want you to lose your cob status, for anti-Perry heresy. For part 2 of your penance, you might want to write a profanity-laced tirade against Herman Cain and any who dared support him. I know it's a bit late, but it wouldn't hurt.

25 4, amendment process isn't the last resort, art5

26 I do wish that SC Justices were not there for life. As such, they actually seem to drive presidential elections. Then I think about Kagan and a certain wise Latina handing down idiotic decisions for the next 40-50 years and just shudder. Sigh. I see a good argument for 12-16 years max on federal judges and SC terms.
 
The Commerce Clause would be my number one pick for modification, plus the 'general welfare' boilerplate. Both of these have been massively overused for federal power accumulation.

27 And in addition, I still think in the long run this will hurt Perry.

28 4, amendment process isn't the last resort, art5

Posted by: Jean at December 12, 2011 08:45 AM (elbGQ)

I sit corrected.

29

I never heard anyone call "gender" what used to be called "sex" earlier than the 1990s.  The gender/sex thing is one more leftist politicization of things down to the most trivial degree. 

Like the way we can't refer to a single, unidentified person as "he/him."  We have to go through the awkward "he or she."  People also try to avoid it by saying "they" which doesn't make any sense either. 

30 As for appointing SC justices I would like to remove it from Washington entirely. I would make it an appointment by the State via what ever means the individual States desired. That would include via the Gov, via legislature, or even by popular vote.

I would also add a caveat that once appointed they could be recalled by the same State methods via a majority vote of 60% or more of the body that put them in office. If the Gov appointed them, I would make it 60% vote of the upper body of the State legislature.

Each State would get to appoint one justice. That should make it a better court.

31 As an auditor I can assure you that a document that has not been revised recently and kept up to date is a document that is being ignored.

32 For part 2 of your penance, you might want to write a profanity-laced tirade against Herman Cain and any who dared support him. I know it's a bit late, but it wouldn't hurt He was a shitty candidate and all the criticism of him was justified by the fact that he dropped out of the race. Get over it.

33 Doom up

34 Well, I think I'm done with Perry after this.

I really had hopes for him.. but his senior moments and inability to debate along with this goofy nonsense are too much.

We are going to need someone quick witted to beat the Obama that was on 60 minutes last night.. and that's just not Rick Perry.

I once thought Romney could beat Obama if all other candidates failed.. now?  not so sure.. and I know Gingrich cannot beat Obama.  So.. we're boned!

35 "He was a shitty candidate and all the criticism of him was justified by the fact that he dropped out of the race." Unike Perry, who's a shitty candidate who refuses to drop out of the race, apparently making even the mildest criticism (like he wants to propose EIGHT constitutional amendments, one for every Supreme Court Justice) of him unjustified.

36 We have to go through the awkward "he or she."

I used to see this written as 's/he' which makes sense but doesn't translate to the spoken word. Years ago when this stuff was getting started I had a teacher who resolved the 'chairman'  and 'chairwoman' choice by using chairthing.

37

Mere mortals can only bask in the brilliance that is Rick Perry.

If only the other candidates were smart enough to know that a constitutional amendment to allow school prayer was the burning issue the country was longing for, they would have a chance at the nomination. 

38

Years ago when this stuff was getting started I had a teacher who resolved the 'chairman' and 'chairwoman' choice by using chairthing.

Brilliant.

 

39 Conservatives seek to amend the Constitution by going through the tedious process outlined in the Constitution. The preferred liberal method is to amend by judicial fiat. If we counted each SCOTUS decision that effectively amended the Constitution we'd be entering the hundreds. So yeah, I'm not bothered by people advocating legitimate amendments.

40

GOP proposals for Constitutional amendments typically involve bullsh&t like flag burning. School prayer? come on. Imposing limits on the size of the federal government is the only issue worthy of a serious push for Constitutional Amendment, and there will be no such push.

Lets face it, an amendment aimed at shrinking Leviathan has no chance of passing because a very substantial portion of the populace, occassionally a majority, actually likes Leviathan as it is or wishes it was bigger. The absence of amendments in recent decades described by Gabe is the flip side of the "Amendment by Committee of 9" approach we have seen in the same decades--and both phenomena are caused by lack of agreement on the basics amongst the peeps. There is no prospect of Amending our way out of the current mess. 

On to the DOOM...

41 We are going to need someone quick witted to beat the Obama that was on 60 minutes last night.. Oh horseshit. When did Barack Obama become this unbeatable political machine, and since when did debating skills decide a presidential election. Somehow Bush beat Gore and Kerry after getting defeated in debates.

42 Unless we're talking about amending the Constitution to get rid of Mexifornian anchor babies I don't give a rat's ass about this sort of thing, especially if the guy pimping these changes is a vaccine pushing RINO. Gingrich-Cain-Palin, '12.

43

We are going to need someone quick witted to beat the Obama that was on 60 minutes last night.. and that's just not Rick Perry.

Well, I'm not in favor of running a Prof. Harold Hill (Robert Preston version) quick thinking, smooth talking, silver tongued devil just to beat SCOAMF.  Though a wee bit of "Trouble in River City" showmanship couldn't hurt.

A well prepared, non-back-pain-medicated, Rick Perry can handle ol' jug ears just fine in a debate.

44 This flag thing doesn't require an amendment.

In 1801 the pasha of Tripoli declared war on the US by chopping down the flagpole with the US flag on it. Then things happened. We need only legally accept that precedent.

Pass a straightforward law defining defilement of the flag as a declaration of war (since practitioners already use it as a declaration of enmity), then enforce "aid and comfort." Not easy, but simple. Lets everybody know right where they stand.

Many self-defined conservatives might find themselves discomfited once the Flag Code became enforceable, though. I've seen a lot of attitude among those who use the flag as a lawn decoration, antenna banner, or item of clothing. It's different when I do it, flag-nazi. Omma merkin.

45

There is no need to propose an amendment to a document that you don't believe restricts your power in the first place.

 

 

46 If only the other candidates were smart enough to know that a constitutional amendment to allow school prayer was the burning issue the country was longing for, they would have a chance at the nomination.

Yes,  since nothing can be done in parallel, we must abandon the social conservative wing of the party entirely.

47

The Commerce Clause would be my number one pick for modification, plus the 'general welfare' boilerplate. Both of these have been massively overused for federal power accumulation.

Yes, let's have a clarification amendment to explicitly define and limit certain constitutional rhubarbs, like: a) Commerce Clause, b) "Natural Born" citizen requirement for being President, c) an end to anchor babies, d) beef up 10th amendment Federalism i.e. "we really mean it!", e) "general welfare", f) ...

Then, let's repeal the 17th and return the Senate to a body representing the several states' legislatures.

And sometime, late at night perhaps, let's repeal the 19th amendment to make it a trifecta of early 20th century amendments that were just ... well let's just chalk it up to the excesses of the progressive/socialist movement of the period and move on.

48 A bunch of those proposed amendments are being offered to counteract Supreme Court decisions that made up "Constitutional rights" out of whole cloth -- e.g. the "rights" to abortion, flag burning, being protected from school prayer and public nativity scenes, etc.  

49 I don't get the drive to repeal the 17th amendment at all. Maybe this is just because I hate the New Mexico legislature, but I really don't get why people think they'll do a better job choosing my Senator than I will. Posted by: embittered redleg at December 12, 2011 08:01 AM (CuPwN) He or she is not your Senator. He or she is your State's Senator.

50

It has taken years to get a conservative majority in our state legislature. And I live in a very red state.

Even when we had Dems dominating our state legislature, we had two Republican Senators....for decades. .....It was because people could vote for them, directly, in the general elections.

So I'm not sure that repealing the 17th amendment is a good idea for every state.

Beyond that, I think that it is honest of Rick Perry to be talking about these amendments. I like honesty in a candidate.

Constitutional amendments are a way of 'putting it before the people' to decide on an important issue. They take a lot of time to accomplish. In that time, the issue gets hashed and re-hashed. Which is good.

If the people don't want an amendment.....then it doesn't pass. ....Right now we are being ruled by 9 political appointees in the Supreme Court, which hasn't been working out very well for us. 

51

Perrybots are in full damage control mode.  Obama is ripping apart the constitution through his dictatorship, the dem controlled congress did it through legislation, and all Perry can say is that if he were President he would overhaul the constitution?

If the idiot were President he wouldn't have to, unless he thought he didn't have the self-control to obey it as well.

Appoint senators?  That one is not needed.

Repeal income tax?  If there were enough in congress to pass that one, there would be enough in congress to change the tax structure to a fair tax (this is why Newt has the  plan and doesn't waste his time while Perry panders)

Student led prayer in school - they already can do that, the problem we really have is that the schools don't have deep enough pockets so they are scared when the ACLU threatens them.  Just change the law to guarantee the defendent in some of these civil suits quadruple costs from the plaintiff if the defendent wins.

Veto power over the Supreme Court, yeah right, who needs checks and balances.  At least if we did that, then we could vote in the right Congress and we could get slavery back in a heart beat, something Perry probably would love.

Balanced budget amendment?  That is another stupid idea, yes stupid.  Maybe if a 10-year budget needs to be balanced.  When the economy is doing well, it shouldn't be balanced they should be storing up funds for a rainy day, when the economy isn't doing so well, they should be using those funds and taking in less.

When we need to go to war......guess we have to cut everything else and triple the taxes on the people.....balanced budget amendment.

Abolishing lifetime tenure for judges, again a Perry sized attack on our founding fathers, who probably could name all of their Supreme Court members.  If you have a problem with a few of the judges, impeach them.  If you need to make it easier to impeach them, figure out how to make it easier, but destroy the check and balances?  Right'o third world backwater country we could be.

 

 

52 Beyond that, I think that it is honest of Rick Perry to be talking about these amendments. I like honesty in a candidate.

I agree.

Look, I am not a social con, but I did not delude myself into thinking that Rick Perry wasn't one.  He is.  However, those issues are not the main driver for him as a governor or as a politician.  He's got his eye on the ball when it comes to getting the country back on track. 

But, in order to show well in Iowa he has got to recapture the votes of conservatives, including social cons, who for whatever reason are currently backing Santorum, Bachmann, Gingrich, and the others.  It's politicking.  No surprise there.  Hell, Perry even made a play for Paul voters in the debate this weekend.  Good for him.

I am surprised by and a little suspicious of folks who claim to have been Perry supporters (or leaners) but for whom these sorts of things are the last straw.  It rings pretty hollow for me. 

53 we could get slavery back in a heart beat, something Perry probably would love.

Dude, suck my dick, seriously.  Ron Paul will not be the nominee.  Make peace with it.

54 Teh stupid, it burns

55

toby,

isn't that the effect of his proposal for having a political veto power over Supreme Court decisions?

There isn't a better way to destroy the US constitution than giving Congress the ability to bypass the constitution through veto power over the one body whose job it is to interpret the constitution.

As soon as there were two-thirds majority of Dems in Congress, you know we would have to turn in all our guns and likely they would try to enslave the business owners, taking away all our property.

PERRY IS OBVIOUSLY A MORON. 

I didn't know who Perry was, but everyone kept talking about when he enters the race he will win and is the only one that could beat Obama.  Well, after seeing him in action, I pretty much think that he could be governor of the hillbillies, but that is about it, he is just not a smart fellow. 

I want my President to be someone who could see past the first move in a game of chess...Perry comes across as someone who is struggling to see the first move.

56 The so-called Liberals believe, on Goddamned little evidence, on the Goodness of the State. As a consequence they are in favor of "the law means what those in power say it mean at any given moment", and don't see much need to amend the Constitution, since they intend to interpret it to suit their ends from day to day. Conservatives - true Conservatives anyway - do not trust the State as far as they could kick it in their stocking feet. Consequently, they want to bind it down with limits and conditions, expect that to be a constant work-in-progress, and want the whole merry-go-round to move slowly enough to allow for plenty of second thoughts.

57

55...Look, I am not a social con...

Y-not....I'm not much of one either. But it doesn't bother me that Perry is.

 

56....Dude, suck my dick, seriously...

*hugs toby928*

 

57....Teh stupid, it burns

It does, Vic. It does indeed.

58

54

Doug,

You comments make a compelling argument for what a lot of us have been saying about Perry all along.

He isn't the least bit prepared for a national campaign or to be President of the United States.  He has knowledge in federal and global affairs that is about as deep as a 3 years & up kiddie pool you would buy at Target.

His fanatical followers unfortunately have no problem in throwing as much slime as they can at the other candidates as well as their supporters in a desperate effort to save the pathetic campaign of their tongue-tied hero.

 

 

 

 

 

59 Article Five, babee. Time for a Convention. ------------- 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. -------------- The 2/3s of state legislatures calling for it seems like the most likely way to get it going. Just a majority vote in those states. Note that no amendment becomes law unless THREE QUARTERS of the states ratify it. That's a strong check against runaway conventions.

60 Posted by: Reggie1971

So you agree that Perry would reinstate slavery?  Pick your friends better.  When you lay down with dogs and paulbots, you get up with fleas.

61

63

No, I did not say that Perry would reinstate slavery.  Please point out where I did.

62

Posted by: wheatie.....aka ConservativeMenAreJustHotter at December 12, 2011 10:51 AM (HvKWW)

 

there is a ton of legislation that gets passed that passes on responsibilities and cost to the states that many people arent aware of. they just know that their state level taxes keep rising and blaming local officials instead of the federal govt. those types of unfunded mandates never existed when the senators respresented the states since obviously that type of legislation is against the states interests. this has allowed the feds to pass legislation that in the past would have never even gotten a look in the senate and as i stated before it hides where the true cost is coming from and who is truly responsible.

63

Posted by: doug at December 12, 2011 11:27 AM (gUGI6

 

thats about a 4th grade understanding of the Constitution and the amendments Perry is proposing. you're really really pathetic.

64 Good thing neither Bachmann nor Palin ever proposed 8 + constitutional amendments. We would have been treated to long ridiculing dissertations about how they were "emotive" or how they were proof that the girls needed to "bone up" on the issues or some such other drivel. But, because this pandering tripe comes from the southern democrat, I guess the rules require that it be taken seriously. P.S. Mike Castle remains a good for nothing RINO.

65 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

66 I'll vote for Mr perry because he'll ban homosexuality.