Forgive those that trespass? Not in AZ

[zakubandit]

Should I give you a round of applause?

[Kuciwalker]

Case in point, you all disagree that AZ state legislatures can implement laws that would help resolve the massive illegal problem in the state, while not deporting or engaging in foreign affairs. Nothing is gonna change our opinions on the matter. I side with the states, you side with the Fedys.

Yes, because you don't actually understand the Constitution, as has been amply demonstrated in this thread.

[zakubandit]

THERE IT IS. Kuci, thank you. You yourself just said that the people have no right or vote? That the people don't mean jack squat to having new laws or amendments being ratified?

[Kuciwalker]

Should I give you a round of applause?

No, refuting people like you isn't very difficult.

[Kuciwalker]

THERE IT IS. Kuci, thank you. You yourself just said that the people have no right or vote? That the people don't mean jack squat to having new laws or amendments being ratified?

I'm not the one saying it, the Constitution is:

Article V:
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.

Right there. If 2/3 of the Senate and 2/3 of the House propose an Amendment, and the legislatures of 3/4 of the states ratify it, an amendment becomes part of the Constitution with no vote by the public. In fact, the vast majority (all?) of amendments have been passed this way.

[Wezil]

This thread has jumped the shark.

[zakubandit]

So what happens when these 2/3 are not met with 2/3 of legislature votes from states? Such as with the ratification of the 16th when Kentucky rejected it but was counted as approved by the Fedys, and Oklahoma who reworded the amendment to make it opposite of what it said, but the Fedys marked them as approved also. What I mean is, when there is a population base that says no that the Feds can just go and say whatever they want and approve? That the people really do not matter? Legislatures are to vote in favor of their constituents, but this is not always the case...hence people protesting and fighting against, because they are being ignored.

[Darius871]

It's acutally more based on the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV

Not really, since Slaughterhouse totally gutted that Clause and left enforcing its substance up to the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

(Sorry, but I just couldn't resist the pun. )

[Kuciwalker]

Dude, the myth that the 16th wasn't properly ratified is just that: a myth. It was invented by wannabee tax frauds and cheats to try to weasel out of jail.

A rudimentary google search will turn up all the information you need to learn why the claim is false; I'm not going to do the work for you this time.

xpost

[zakubandit]

You see it as a myth, but I have found a bit of factual evidence on it. Always 2 sides of the story, always truth in lies and lies in truth. But hey, it's just your money getting taxed. You don't care then whatever. Hope you don't like your other rights.

[Darius871]

Asked before, why don't I stay down? I was trained for that.

Mentioned before, a lot of lies on the internet. No doubt, I gave you enough evidence to back my story up. I haven't seen much about the lawyer and his BAR credentials, or Mr. Physics and his doctorate degree. So on and ladi-da.

Yes, the government can propose changes and additions to the Constitution. Yea we have have checks and balances installed that ensure that nothing will be done without majority approval. Proposal moves its way around the 3 branches, but still must be presented to the people to make their vote. If this is surpassed, or not properly done, then the legislatures passing said proposal would be violating the transparency of government, and the ability of the people to dictate their rights and laws has been usurped. Thus making the republic a failure, and the right of the people to overthrow the current regime and reinstall a suitable government body can be enforced.

What was said, unless I mistook what KH meant, was that all Amendments and articles are able to be changed by a vote of the government. So unless I missed something KH said about the people being involved, not all changes are valid or legal without proper public involvement and vote.

Don't ask me stupid questions. What did my PTSD have to do with anything? Read back to KH talking about my "mental handicap". I also, in case I was misleading, have a unique perspective on public servants, public freedoms, the rights of the government over the people, and on the world at large due to my experiences. Personally, I hate lawyers and I have never met one I liked. I am all for all book knowledge, but experience gives you insight. Hell, libs are trying to get a judge onto the supreme court who has said she prefers life experience over by the book judgments. And also, I don't let people insult my service. I don't even talk to my own mother any more when she questioned my integrity and my service. So if I don't let the woman who brought me into this world talk **** about my service, what makes anyone think I am gonna let them do it? But that's neither here nor there. Case in point, you all disagree that AZ state legislatures can implement laws that would help resolve the massive illegal problem in the state, while not deporting or engaging in foreign affairs. Nothing is gonna change our opinions on the matter. I side with the states, you side with the Fedys.

Open immigration is dangerous without proper, and tight guidelines. If any of you lived near the Mexican border you would know just how it's like. I live in Tucson, a ways from Nogales, but still so many illegals. I went to school with kids who's parents were both illegal. I had a girlfriend who's father was illegal. So on and so forth. They ate up so much tax dollars that they were able to obtain through stupid loopholes. They are ILLEGAL, that's the bottom line. The fact that people want to let them slide is just ridiculous. How bout we let a murderer slide, he commit a crime but hey why not just let him slide. Or a rapist, we can just let him go on with his life because he committed a crime and its OK.

Which part of "[j]ust answer the question directly" don't you understand?

It was a very simple question for a simple answer:

these later amendments that take power from the people and place it in the hands of the federal government are illegal.

Ok, in all politeness, I recognize that many provisions of the Constitution are fairly vague and open to a wide spectrum of differing interpretations. But in all seriousness (with no snide tone whatsoever, no matter how much your sad perpetual siege mentality may lead you mistakenly assume I'm somehow being hostile, even though I've never once called you a "****" despite ample opportunity), I have to ask: what is your "interpretation" of the below provision?

Article V

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.

Please don't respond by reminding me again that you dodged bullets and that automatically makes your opinion superior. Just answer the question directly. Is your position that the 10th Amendment (not the 12th amendment) supersedes an Article of the original Constitution? If so, why? I'm genuinely curious what you think.

[KrazyHorse]

This is so sad.

I bet he thought he was REAL SMART before he tried discussing this with people who actually know something about it.



A constitutional scholar I'm not, but even I understand the broad strokes...

[Kuciwalker]

You see it as a myth, but I have found a bit of factual evidence on it. Always 2 sides of the story.

No. You're more than welcome to present your theories to a judge, though. I'm sure it'll work fine

[KrazyHorse]

I feel no urge to prove that I'm a physicist, as I've personally met a number of people here. But if you want to quiz me on a subject of your choosing, then feel free. My specialty is Higgs sector phenomenology, especially the phenomenology of cascade decays in the Higgs sector at the LHC.

[Darius871]

You see it as a myth, but I have found a bit of factual evidence on it.

Would you care to enlighten us with this bombshell evidence? I'm genuinely curious, because thus far the judicial branch, which legally speaking has the last word on interpreting vague aspects of the Constitution, has held that the Oklahoma and Kentucky drafts were not substantively different enough to render their ratifications ineffective.

George Washington University's Professor of Constitutional Law, Jonathan Siegel, briefly summarizes the court's holdings at http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsieg...taxes/16th.htm if you're seriously interested in the topic, but I'm sure you'll just write him off as another "liberal" and disregard it entirely. You could instead read the actual court cases to which he cites, but I'm sure you'll also just write them off as more bastardization of the Constitution by more "liberal" judges, and continue to crown yourself the Earth's sole arbiter of constitutional interpretation merely because the privilege of combat happened to have been foisted upon you. My hat is off to you sir - you are officially incapable of ever being proven wrong. Kudos.