Skip to main content

View Diary: Six Constitution Amendments introduced in Senate (86 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I dont know what to say here (2+ / 0-)

    The Supreme Court has no role whatsoever in making an Amendment.  They do not get to approve or deny any Amendment, proposed much less ratified.

    They must enforce the Constitution as written and amended.   They can not even be asked for input in drafting the text of an Amendment. (at least not officially anyway)

    They can void amendments to any State Constitution if they decide it conflicts with the US Constitution, but that power is granted to them explicitly.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 12:35:26 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  But if an Amendment is unconstitutional (0+ / 0-)

      as in it directly conflicts with another Amendment, SCOTUS can reject it on the grounds it's unconstitutional. Just as they did with Obamacare (make a decision on it's Constitutionality, not that it's unconstitutional) , but I don't think that type of Amendment would even make it as far as Obamacare did.

      It would be similar to, lets say, for some strange reason, Congress, the Senate & a future POTUS want to make Christianity the official religion of America and they write up an Amendment to make it official, SCOTUS would look at it & go, wait, we can't have this as an Amendment, because it clearly violates another Amendment we already have. And that's what an Amendment to limit US Congressional & Senatorial terms would do.

      And just to clarify, if ALL of what I'm typing is wrong, then I'm going to get VERY angry at my Government professor I had last semester...

      Follow me on Twitter! @guileofthegods

      by Guile Of The Gods on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 12:45:47 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, they cannot. Once an amendment is ratified, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sfbob, Big River Bandido, skohayes

        it is part of the Constitution and SCOTUS cannot reject it.  They can try to reconcile it with other provisions, but, one rule of Constitutional (and statutory) interpretation is that the later in time provision trumps the earlier.  As a result, the 13th Amendment's prohibiton on slavery ended the 3/5th of person counting of slaves for apportionment purposes.  Also, the 21st Amendment's repeal of Pprohibition terminated the 18th Amendment's provision for Prohibition.

      •  I dont want to make you angry, but... (3+ / 0-)

        First.. Obamacare was not an Amendment.  It was a statute of law within the United States Code.  The SCOTUS is DEFINITELY the entity that has sole jurisdiction on reviewing laws in light of the Constitution (well, technically the entire Federal Judiciary does but this all feeds up to the SCOTUS).

        The SCOTUS has the power to reject any law passed by Congress or any US State but their only governing document is the US Constitution.  The check-and-balance of this that the SCOTUS has NO SAY in the making of the Constitution thereby their power can be limited.  SCOTUS making Constitution rulings the people don't like?  Then the people through their Congress and States can change the Constitution.  (FTR, the other check is that the SCOTUS can not have any say whatsoever on the legislative making process thereby avoiding a conflict when a law they helped write is brought to the court for review)

        If one branch had the right to both check the other two branches and every state based on one document AND get to have final say on what that document can or cant say... that would be scary.  Throw in lifetime unelected appointments and you get close to tyranny.

        And we COULD pass an Amendment to make Christianity the official religion of America if 290 Congressmen, 67 Senators and 38 State legislatures all agreed to it.

        It would start with an overall statement about Christianity and contain a sub-clause that "The first Article of Amendment of the Constitution of United States is hereby constrained to...." or if they really wanted to get ballsy and re-write Jefferson (!?!?) it would be " hereby modified to read...."  and then end with a line about "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

        ...and just so you know.. your "Constitutional Right" to vote to elect your senators did not exist until April 8th, 1913 when the 17th Amendment went into effect.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:04:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What I have always wondered is (0+ / 0-)

          what if they passed an Amendment taking away the equal representation of the states in the Senate.  Article V includes this provision:

          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.
          What if the Amendment repealed this provision?  Would it be "Constitutional"?   But, other than that, it is an academic exercise.  Any part of the Constitution can be amended, thereby changing the system.  
        •  Oh, no, not angry at all, fun learning experience (0+ / 0-)

          Good info.

          I mean, I still don't think a term limit Amendment would pass, but I just think of all the negative consequences.

          Like people in small areas would need to run a new Congressman every decade or so, when a town may have very few people to begin with who are qualified to be in national office, thus taking a "pro" out for an amateur. And similar to that, like on a basketball team, you don't ALWAYS want to be bringing in new guys onto the team, sometimes you like old vets to make sure the new guys are adjusting & helping out, and not just wasting space.

          Anyway, thanks for the conversation. I enjoyed your Diary & the discussion :)

          Follow me on Twitter! @guileofthegods

          by Guile Of The Gods on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 01:19:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The thing is, (0+ / 0-)

            Every congressional district has between 600,000 and 700,000 people, no matter where it is.  So they all have the same sized talent pool.

            The states will all have to find new senators regularly, and the talent pools there vary greatly... but you only need two.  I'm sure the states could manage.

            Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

            by nominalize on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 02:59:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site