Text 27274, 170 rader
Skriven 2007-02-17 18:57:06 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
     Kommentar till en text av VERN HUMPHREY (1:123/140)
Ärende: Presidential race
=========================
VERN HUMPHREY -> ED HULETT wrote:
 EH>>>> So, if such an amendment happened to become part of the
 VH> Constitution,
 VH>>> it wou
 EH>>>> be a violation of itself?

 VH>>> Don't be silly, Ed!

 EH>> I'm not being silly, Vern.

 VH> Then please explain how an amendment can violate itself!

I didn't claim it could. Notice the question mark above.

 VH>>> An amendment to the Constitution over-rides any earlier provisions that
 VH>>> it may contradict.  For example, the 18th Amendment, authorizing a law
 VH>>> to prohoibit the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages was
 VH>>> rendered null and void by the 21st Amendment.

 EH>> Whoa!

 EH>> Not all amendments over-ride earlier porvisions.

 VH> Come on, Ed!  No one said ALL amendments over-ride earlier provisions.

Re-read your statement above.

 VH> But when there IS a conflict, the provisions of the newer amendment
 VH> replace those of the old.

I knew this already. Tell me something I don't know.

 EH>> The 18th Amendment was a failed experiment in trying to use the amendment
 EH>> process to limit individual freedom. The 21st Amendment rectified that
error
 EH>> Congress should have learned from this folly, but they haven't.

 VH> Which doesn't disprove the point that an Amendment AMENDS the
 VH> Constitution -- that it, it CHANGES the Constitution.

Wow! All these new revelations are overwhelming. :-)

 VH> An Amendment cannot conflict with itself, nor can it be "Unconstitutional"
because it
 VH> conflicts with an earlier provision.  Whereever there is conflict, the
 VH> earlier provision is set aside.

Again. Tell me something I don't already know.

 VH>>>>> "I don't want" isn't justification for violating the Constitution.

 VH>>> Now if your position is "well it would never pass" then what is your
 VH>>> justification of enforcing a provision that cannot pass!?!?

 EH>> It wouldn't pass in Congress -- it probably wouldn't even make it out of
 EH>> committee. That isn't to say it wouldn't pass if Congress was honest
enough
 EH>> start the process.

 VH> If it won't pass, it won't pass.  And therefore we ought not to act as
 VH> if it HAD passed.

My point is that an amendment isn't needed if the state law is worded properly.

 VH>>> And every state that has such a provision.

 EH>> Then, why has Washington state not been forced to stop.

 VH> Because it works in favor of the majority party, of course.  They
 VH> violate the Constitution for their benefit and WE let them get away with
 VH> it.

Say what? Requiring someone to live in the district they represent favors the
majority party exactly how?

 EH>> The only way to redraw US Congressional districts is if the census deems 
it
 EH>> necessary to add a district.

 VH> The Census deems nothing.  The State legislatures re-draw the districts
 VH> every ten years.

Not the congressional districts. State legislative districts get redrawn all
the time.

 VH> You see, even if the state doesn't pick up or lose a representative, the
 VH> population shifts -- one part of the state may gain, another lose.  So
 VH> the districts that were approximately equal in population decade ago are
 VH> no longer equal.

We are talking very minor changes.

 VH> Every state redistricts every ten years.

The 6th district in which I live has been the same for a very long time.

 VH>>> You'd think gun control would have been stricken down, now too, or the
 VH>>> Campaign Reform Act.

 EH>> So, you're saying that it's still law in this state because of lazy
 EH>> politicians?

 VH> No, because of crooked politicians.

Uh huh... it always comes down to the claim of crooked politicians.

 VH> Be careful, Ed.  You're getting close to saying, "If they pass a law it
 VH> HAS to be Constitutional and we HAVE to accept it."

Nope, not even close.

 VH> Which is damn close to saying, "The Constitution says whatever those in
 VH> power WANT it to say."

What next? You going to be like Hull and call me a liberal?

 VH>>> Then why say that the Constitution allows states to put added obstacles
 VH>>> in the way to the Federal ballot, when the Supreme court has said
 VH>>> otherwise?

 EH>> Maybe requiring someone to live in their district isn't such an obstacle.

 VH> Is it in the Constitution?  Which Article, section and clause?

I'm saying it doesn't have to be in the Constitution. There are a lot of things
the US Constitution leaves to the states and the people. If it covered
everything, it would not only be hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages long, it
would be over-reaching.

 EH>>>> You'd think someone in the DC city council would have challenged it
 VH>>> by now.

 VH>>> And get their JOBS declared unconstitutional!?!?

 EH>> Okay, then some concerned citizens?

 VH> What?  And cut off all that federal money flowing in to be spent as they
 VH> deem good?

Vern, you're all over the page on this. First, you say if an amendment can't be
passed it isn't worth considering. Now, you say it can't pass because of
political graft.

 EH>> Regardless, DC was never meant to be more than the seat of federal
governmen
 EH>> There was no plan on it becoming such a large city.

 VH> Correct -- and the Constitution says Congress shall legislate for DC in
 VH> all cases whatsoever.

It also says the district "shall not exceed 10 miles square."

Ed

-- 
"But the safety of the people of America against dangers from
foreign force depends not only on their forbearing to give
just causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing
and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to invite
hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are
pretended as well as just causes of war."

-- John Jay (Federalist No. 4)


Linux User#: 416016
Linux Machine#: 323569

--- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060717 Debian/1.
 * Origin: The Eastern Star - Fidonet Via Your Newsreader (1:123/789.0)