Skip to main content

View Diary: Impeachment and the Original Intent of our Founders (108 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There is a difference between criminal law and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jimdotz

    these other subjects.  In one sense, I am a purist, in that I believe that the Court should have merely declared that all laws in violation of the 14th Amendment are illegal and void, and therefore unenforceable.  See, Shelley v. Kramer.  This would avoid many of the problems you refer to without lesseing the intended protective effects of the 13th and 14th amendments.  However, regulation does not automatically mean criminal sanctions, nor does the regulation of interstate commerce have anything to do with the 9th amendment.
        Finallly, if a Constitutional amendment were to repeal the First amendment, then the 9th amendment would have no effect in saving the First, as the specific provision in law, Constitutional and otherwise, takes effect over the general.  And more finally, the terms like "ridiculous and "silly" are not a proper part of this discussion, unless you are a law professor practicing preemptive socratic rhetoric.

    Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

    by StrayCat on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 11:27:48 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Of course all laws in violation of the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jimdotz

      14th (or any other) amendment are unenforceable.  That is not even fairly debatable.  the question is what does the 14th Amendment protect.  You have this rather fanciful notion that the 14th Amendment prevents appliction criminal sanctions to conduct that does not constitute "breach of peace."  (Without bothering to explain who gets to make the "breach of peace" determination).  

      If regulation of interstate commerce has nothing to do with the 9th Amendment, I fail to see what your beef is with Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act on those grounds.  The Act only banned the procedure in cases where it involves interstate commerce.

      Finally, repeal of the First would not necessarily be more "specific."  If the repeal is phrased simply as "First Amendment is hereby repealed," it does not mean that everything that was previously protected is now banned.  It just means that it is not specially protected.  But under your theory, those rights can re-appear through the Ninth.  

      •  No, not the 14th Amendment, but the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jimdotz

        Fourth amendment along with other provisions of the Bill of Rights.  There are Constitutional limitations to what can be rendered criminal.  This is basic Con Law.  The issue is, and always has been, what are the limits and what describes or defines those limits.

        Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

        by StrayCat on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 12:43:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, not by my theory can a repeal of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jimdotz

        the first Amendment be rendered null by the application of the Ninth amendment.  That's your statement.  A Constitutional Amendment repealing the Fisrst Amendment, should such s horrible thing ever occur, would, under ordinary rules of construction, end the First Amendment.

        Patriotism may be the last refuge of scoundrels, but religion is assuredly the first.

        by StrayCat on Sun Jun 17, 2007 at 12:46:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site