I'm surprised that no one has created a topic on this:

[Joe DeFuria]

So you're saying that if a bunch of congressmen got together and created an amendment to the constitution stating that only white men can vote, and it passed in the house and senate, that that wouldn't be unconstitutional, despite it's inclusion in the constitution?

No, we're saying that if 2/3 of congress passes said amendment, and 3/4 of the states also ratify it, then the amendment is not unconstitutional. The amendment IS part of the constitution.

Amendments cannot be by definition unconstitutional. They are either passed, or they do not pass.

 

[Natoma]

They can be unconstitutional in that they violate the spirit of the constitution. I'm looking at this from a non-literal viewpoint.

 

[RussSchultz]

They can be unconstitutional in that they violate the spirit of the constitution.

No, they cannot.

The constitution is not some holy ethereal being that is involate and incapable of being morally wrong that will somehow reject any "wrong thinking" amendments.

You possible could get a supreme court that construes the amendment in such a way to make it meaningless, but it does not make it unconstitutional. It is, by definition of being in the constitution, constitutional.

May I refer you to some previous advice:

You should never, ever, try to get a job as a legal scholar.

 

[Natoma]

I suppose Prohibition wasn't unconstitutional then. What a failure that was eh?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

They can be unconstitutional in that they violate the spirit of the constitution. I'm looking at this from a non-literal viewpoint.

The sprit of the constitution is derived from the contents of constitution itself. I'm looking at this from every point of view.

 

[RussSchultz]

...

 

[Natoma]

If it wasn't unconstitutional then why was it repealed and labeled unconstitutional, 14 years after inception?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I suppose Prohibition wasn't unconstitutional then. What a failure that was eh?

Of course prohibition was constitutional.

 

[RussSchultz]

I suppose Prohibition wasn't unconstitutional then. What a failure that was eh?

You're right. Prohibition was a "failure". That's why it was repealed, using the exact same procedure to get prohibition ammended to the constitution. That's why its still in the text of the constitution.

Being wrong does not equate to being unconstitutional.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

If it wasn't unconstitutional then why was it repealed and labeled unconstitutional, 14 years after inception?

It wasn't repealled because it was unconstitutional. It was repealled because we no longer thought prohibition was "right."

 

[Natoma]

Being wrong does not equate to being unconstitutional.

It was repealled because we no longer thought prohibition was "right."

You would get quite a few constitutionalists to disagree with you on that one.

The point is, we've seen what legislating a particular social morality into the constitution gets us, rather than legislating social legality. As the site I quoted earlier in this thread stated, there is a reason why this was the only amendment to be repealed in the 227 year history of this nation.

 

[RussSchultz]

/ignore

You're too unwilling to listen to bother discussing this with.

 

[Natoma]

/ignore

You're too unwilling to listen to bother discussing this with.

All I said is that you'd have people disagreeing with you on your point of view. If that is what you consider unwilling to listen then so be it.

 

[RussSchultz]

LOL to you too.

Constitutionalists wouldn't have any problem at all saying that any amentment is constitutional de facto, per se.

That quote you had showed them saying something completely different from what you're espousing.

You read what they're saying and proclaim they're saying its "unconstitutional", when that isn't AT ALL what they're saying.

And trying to convince you of that, apparently, is an exercise in futility because you seem to brush away any reasoned legal discussion with your own flawed viewpoints.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You would get quite a few constitutionalists to disagree with you on that one.

Um, name one?

The point is, we've seen what legislating a particular social morality into the constitution gets us, rather than legislating social legality.

Social morality is intertwined with social legality or however else you want to put it. The constitution more or less defines U.S. morality.

As the site I quoted earlier in this thread stated, there is a reason why this was the only amendment to be repealed in the 227 year history of this nation.

Um, yes...because it is the only amendment that we admitted to making a mistake on. Some amendments, on the other hand, effectively REPEAL or change other aspects of the constitution.

So, I guess Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional, right, Natoma?

 

[Natoma]

You would get quite a few constitutionalists to disagree with you on that one.

Um, name one?

You name one who would agree with your viewpoint and I'll acquiesce.

The point is, we've seen what legislating a particular social morality into the constitution gets us, rather than legislating social legality.

Social morality is intertwined with social legality or however else you want to put it. The constitution more or less defines U.S. morality.

That's why social morality allowed the creation of the anti-miscegenation laws which were strictly unconstitutional?

As the site I quoted earlier in this thread stated, there is a reason why this was the only amendment to be repealed in the 227 year history of this nation.

Um, yes...because it is the only amendment that we admitted to making a mistake on. Some amendments, on the other hand, effectively REPEAL or change other aspects of the constitution.

So, I guess Federal Income Tax is unconstitutional, right, Natoma?

You'll have to educate me on the federal income tax you're referring to. I know the 16th amendment allows the collection of income taxes by the congress, but how would this be unconstitutional?

 

[Natoma]

LOL to you too.

Constitutionalists wouldn't have any problem at all saying that any amentment is constitutional de facto, per se.

That quote you had showed them saying something completely different from what you're espousing.

You read what they're saying and proclaim they're saying its "unconstitutional", when that isn't AT ALL what they're saying.

And trying to convince you of that, apparently, is an exercise in futility because you seem to brush away any reasoned legal discussion with your own flawed viewpoints.

Reasoned legal discussion? Fine, lets use reasoned legal discussion. An amendment to the constitution making marriage exclusionary of legal homosexual relationships would be in conflict with the constitution. Why? Equal Protection Clause, 14th amendment.

So if it becomes the 28th amendment, then it is in direct violation of the 14th, i.e., unconstitutional. The 15th and 19th amendments merely extended the 14th. The proposed 28th would seek to invalidate the 14th. The illegality of the proposed amendment would have no bearing on whether or not herd-mentality-politicians would ratify it into law. See the 80 year existence of the anti-miscegenation laws as a prime example of the unconstitutionality of laws that still make it through, simply because phobia of certain groups overrides legal common sense.

Thank you Equal Protection Clause.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You name one who would agree with your viewpoint and I'll acquiesce.

Um, I'm not the one who claimed "You would get quite a few constitutionalists to disagree with you on that one. "

That was you, remember? All I ask is for you to name one, from the "quite a few" that you refer to.

That's why social morality allowed the creation of the anti-miscegenation laws which were strictly unconstitutional?

Huh?

That's why such anti-miscegenation laws WERE stricken down. The U.S. general morality, as defined by the Constitution, said they should be.

You'll have to educate me on the federal income tax you're referring to.

Um, how about the one that I must reconcile with the Federal Government by April 15th of every year, using some variant of Form 1040, which is titled "U.S. Individual Income Tax Return?"

 

[Natoma]

You name one who would agree with your viewpoint and I'll acquiesce.

Um, I'm not the one who claimed "You would get quite a few constitutionalists to disagree with you on that one. "

That was you, remember? All I ask is for you to name one, from the "quite a few" that you refer to.

I will. If you name one who would agree with you.

p.s.: I've spoken with my parents on this one, who both work in the legal profession, and they agree with me. I've also asked them to speak with the lawyers at their respective firms and garner their opinions on the subject.

If you PM me I'll send you my parent's email addresses so you can speak with them directly if you need further evidence.

That's why social morality allowed the creation of the anti-miscegenation laws which were strictly unconstitutional?

Huh?

That's why such anti-miscegenation laws WERE stricken down. The U.S. general morality, as defined by the Constitution, said they should be.

They still existed for 80 some odd years. They were legislated into law, despite the constitution.

You'll have to educate me on the federal income tax you're referring to.

Um, how about the one that I must reconcile with the Federal Government by April 15th of every year, using some variant of Form 1040, which is titled "U.S. Individual Income Tax Return?"

That's allowed by the 16th amendment. Again, what is wrong here?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Reasoned legal discussion? Fine, lets use reasoned legal discussion.

This should be good for a laugh...

An amendment to the constitution making marriage exclusionary of legal homosexual relationships would be in conflict with the constitution. Why? Equal Protection Clause, 14th amendment.

Think of it this way: a homosexual can get married just like everyone else. The fact that you are a homosexual doesn't mean you can't get married...you just have to marry someone of the opposite sex.

The fact that I'm a heterosexual doesn't give me any more right to marry a male than you.

So, we're being treated equally. 8)

Seriously, Where does the 14th amendment say anything about all relationships being equal? I thought we had all kinds of laws on the books, deemed constitutional, that discriminate between different kinds of relationships?

"Equal Protection" is not some magical blanket, otherwise the 15th wouldn't even need to exist.

I can't vote if I'm not 18. By definition, those under 18 are not being treated "equally" than those older than me. Age discrimination?

Hell, look at Amendment 26: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. "

So, we can't discriminate on the basis of age...as long as you meet some age criteria? I guess that Amendment is self-defeating?