• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

16th Amendment & Other Amendment

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tritium

Member
What is the name of your state? Washington

Why are these amendments held as valid if:

Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
The 16th Amendment was a Senate Joint Resolution, this means it originated in the Senate. You can find an image of the document on Wikipedia. S J Res 41 – Passed Monday, March 15th 1909. In addition, Every order, resolution, or vote.... shall be presented to the president of the United States. That's 2 strikes, the President was never presented with the amendment. No signature was ever applied. Also, there is no repeal provision or expression that strikes out any other part of the constitution that it may oppose, making it inactionable, null & void according to the "Rules of Construction".

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
As a matter of fact, almost all of the amendments proposed and passed by the several states lacked repeal provisions or expressions. Meaning there are opposing clauses in the Constitution. Had the many state legislatures been aware that the amendment actually changed the constitution, they may have discussed the reasoning for the constitution to have enacted the apportionment restriction. (If they were even aware of such.)

In Collier v. Frierson, 24 Ala. 100, 109 (1854), this court invalidated an amendment to the state constitution for the reason that it had not been properly adopted. Here, the court held:

"It has been said, that certain acts are to be done - certain requisitions are to be observed, before a change can be effected. But to what purpose are these acts required, or these requisitions enjoined, if the Legislature or any other department of the government, can dispense with them. To do so, would be to violate the instrument which they are sworn to support; and every principle of public law and sound constitutional policy requires the courts to pronounce against every amendment, which is shown not to have been made in accordance with the rules prescribed by the fundamental law."
Origin of the word amend : c.1220, "to free from faults, rectify," from Old French amender, from Latin emendare "to correct, free from fault," from ex- "out" + menda "fault, blemish" (cognate with Skt. minda "physical blemish," Old Irish mennar "stain, blemish," Welsh mann "sign, mark"). Supplanted in senses of "repair, cure" by its aphetic offspring mend (q.v.). Amendment "alteration of a writ or bill" (to remove its faults) is 1607. Amends, collective singular, is first recorded c.1314.What is the name of your state?
 


Tritium

Member
Where have these arguments been made?

I am willing to accept your answer as truth, but can you show me any reference where it has been?

James Madison spoke of the "Rules of Construction" and all the cases regarding the rules of construction have only supported my assessment. I believe the Federalist paper is No. 78.

Though it could be another one in the 70's.

Any Supreme Court ruling that declared that the "Rules of Construction" does not apply, or that the origin issue does not apply would be helpful.

Thanks.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
you need to read your signature line repeatedly until you understand it.

first, an amendment is not intiated as a "bill" so the old section 7 there does not apply. That is in regard to laws, not amendments to the constitution.

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.
where does that state that the senate cannot initiate a constitutional amendment.

Both houses either approve or not a "joint resolution" of their respective division of congress. an amendment does not even have to originate in the federal government. The states can initiate an amendment.

do you notice it does not require the signature of the president either?

James Madison spoke of the "Rules of Construction" and all the cases regarding the rules of construction have only supported my assessment. I believe the Federalist paper is No. 78.
Post "The Rules of Construction" that are pertinent to amendments to the constitution.
 

Tritium

Member
Please Read...

first, an amendment is not intiated as a "bill" so the old section 7 there does not apply. That is in regard to laws, not amendments to the constitution.
Origins of the word bill - "written statement," c.1340, from Anglo-L. billa "list," from M.L. bulla "decree, seal, document," in classical L. "bubble, boss, stud, amulet for the neck" (hence "seal;" see bull (2)). Sense of "account, invoice" first recorded 1404; that of "order to pay" (technically bill of exchange) is from 1579; that of "paper money" is from 1670. Meaning "draft of an act of Parliament" is from 1512. The verb meaning "to send someone a bill of charge" is from 1867. Billboard is from 1851.

where does that state that the senate cannot initiate a constitutional amendment.
It does not state they cannot initiate a constitutional amendment. I'm referring to any bill related to raising revenue must originate in the house.

"All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills"

They propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills. Meaning amendments for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.

Section 9, Item 4;
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Both houses either approve or not a "joint resolution" of their respective division of congress. an amendment does not even have to originate in the federal government. The states can initiate an amendment.
Correct, an amendment can be proposed in a Convention proposed by 3/4's of the states.

do you notice it does not require the signature of the president either?
Again, if you read:
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill
And realize that the amendment itself is a bill referring to a resolution proposing an amendment.

As found in the Amendment, it adds this as a 16th Article to the Constitution. There is still no repeal clause or expression.

Joint Resolution
Proposing an amendment to the constitution of the United States

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the Several States, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution:

"Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
 

justalayman

Senior Member
it's real simple.

you are wrong. You are confusing laws and amendments and until you come to this realization, you will believe whatever you want but you are still wrong.

and what is this crap?

Origins of the word bill - "written statement," c.1340, from Anglo-L. billa "list," from M.L. bulla "decree, seal, document," in classical L. "bubble, boss, stud, amulet for the neck" (hence "seal;" see bull (2)). Sense of "account, invoice" first recorded 1404; that of "order to pay" (technically bill of exchange) is from 1579; that of "paper money" is from 1670. Meaning "draft of an act of Parliament" is from 1512. The verb meaning "to send someone a bill of charge" is from 1867. Billboard is from 1851.
what does that have to do with anything?

It does not state they cannot initiate a constitutional amendment. I'm referring to any bill related to raising revenue must originate in the house.
fine, and when you want to discuss a BILL that does not fit that requirement, let me know. An amendment is not the result of a bill. It is the result of a JOINT RESOLUTION.

Correct, an amendment can be proposed in a Convention proposed by 3/4's of the states.
then you are saying if the 16th amendment originated in with the states that it would be legal and acceptable then, right?

And realize that the amendment itself is a bill referring to a resolution proposing an amendment.
Realize that you are again wrong.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill
Don't you notice that none of that is aplicable to an amendment? Since when can congress override a presidential veto of an amendment on a 2/3 vote? They can't because it does not happen that way.

As found in the Amendment, it adds this as a 16th Article to the Constitution. There is still no repeal clause or expression.
So what? Show me where it is a requirement for an AMENDMENT to the constitution.

You have failed to provide anything regarding the "Rules of Construction" as well.

You are so wrong that this is a waste of time.

Best of luck to you and hopefully you will refuse to pay those damn illegal income taxes. I will not argue one bit about having to help pay for your incarceration.
Oh, btw; if you refuse to pay your taxes, do not avail yourself of my government, my roads, my police, my fire departments, my military forces, my utility infrastructure, and on and on ad nauseum.
 

Tritium

Member
it's real simple.

you are wrong. You are confusing laws and amendments and until you come to this realization, you will believe whatever you want but you are still wrong.
wow, and I thought ignorance couldn't possibly be that bad. I stand corrected.

What would you call the "Bill of Rights" if not a "Written Document of Rights" - Which seems to fit the definition of the word 'bill'.

what does that have to do with anything?
Yes, I'm sure most courts throw out definitions as irrelevant when not defined.

Quote:
It does not state they cannot initiate a constitutional amendment. I'm referring to any bill related to raising revenue must originate in the house.

fine, and when you want to discuss a BILL that does not fit that requirement, let me know. An amendment is not the result of a bill. It is the result of a JOINT RESOLUTION.
Explain again the "Bill of Rights" to me, and how an amendment isn't a bill.

Quote:
Correct, an amendment can be proposed in a Convention proposed by 3/4's of the states.

then you are saying if the 16th amendment originated in with the states that it would be legal and acceptable then, right?
This is probably where I would insult your intelligence, but you'r doing a fine job. Article 1 states the purpose and responsibilites of the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government. So this would exclude the states.
Quote:
And realize that the amendment itself is a bill referring to a resolution proposing an amendment.

Realize that you are again wrong.


Quote:
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill

Don't you notice that none of that is aplicable to an amendment? Since when can congress override a presidential veto of an amendment on a 2/3 vote? They can't because it does not happen that way.
Tell you what, prove to me an amendment is not a bill. Though by definition of a "bill" it most certainly is. Congress would need to have received the veto bill and at that point vote to override the veto by 3/4's vote in approval.

Quote:
As found in the Amendment, it adds this as a 16th Article to the Constitution. There is still no repeal clause or expression.

So what? Show me where it is a requirement for an AMENDMENT to the constitution.
You have failed to provide anything regarding the "Rules of Construction" as well.
You are so wrong that this is a waste of time.
Look up the Federalist Papers No. 78. If you aren't part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. Spreading ignorance may be your way, but it's not the correct way.

Federalist No. 78: by Alexander Hamilton

This exercise of judicial discretion, in determining between two contradictory laws, is exemplified in a familiar instance. It not uncommonly happens, that there are two statutes existing at one time, clashing in whole or in part with each other, and neither of them containing any repealing clause or expression. In such a case, it is the province of the courts to liquidate and fix their meaning and operation. So far as they can, by any fair construction, be reconciled to each other, reason and law conspire to dictate that this should be done; where this is impracticable, it becomes a matter of necessity to give effect to one, in exclusion of the other. The rule which has obtained in the courts for determining their relative validity is, that the last in order of time shall be preferred to the first. But this is a mere rule of construction, not derived from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing. It is a rule not enjoined upon the courts by legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They thought it reasonable, that between the interfering acts of an EQUAL authority, that which was the last indication of its will should have the preference.

But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior and subordinate authority, of an original and derivative power, the nature and reason of the thing indicate the converse of that rule as proper to be followed. They teach us that the prior act of a superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that accordingly, whenever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former.

It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.

If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
What would you call the "Bill of Rights" if not a "Written Document of Rights" - Which seems to fit the definition of the word 'bill'.
most words in the English language have multiple definitions but that does not mean each definition is applicable to that word in all situations. Example; bill. it has many definitions. Along with those definitions are how a word is used. A bill, in the terms you speak of does not include a proposal for an amendment to the constitution. Specifically, a JOINT RESOLUTION is the term applied to the proposed amendment. So, since usage as well as definition is important, a bill (as in the 16th amendments terms) does not include a joint resolution of either house of congress.



Yes, I'm sure most courts throw out definitions as irrelevant when not defined.
See this? It is from your post of what you define as a definition:
Origins of the word bill
that is the etymology of the word "bill". It is not a definition of the word. It is used to help understand the definition of a word. So, again, I ask, what does that have to do with anything here?


Explain again the "Bill of Rights" to me, and how an amendment isn't a bill.
It is a bill. Just not the "bill" we are speaking of. It is of this definition:

Main Entry: 4bill
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French & Medieval Latin; Anglo-French bille, from Medieval Latin billa, perhaps alteration of bulla, papal seal, bull — more at bull
Date: 14th century
1: an itemized list or a statement of particulars (as a list of materials or of members of a ship's crew)
pretty simple once you get your head out of your ass, isn;t it?


This is probably where I would insult your intelligence, but you'r doing a fine job. Article 1 states the purpose and responsibilites of the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government. So this would exclude the states.
but article 5 specifically provides for the states to initiate a constitutional amendment which, based upon this reply of yours, would make any amendment so initiated as an unenforceable amendment. Good luck with that.


Tell you what, prove to me an amendment is not a bill. Though by definition of a "bill" it most certainly is. Congress would need to have received the veto bill and at that point vote to override the veto by 3/4's vote in approval.
I already have. You just simply refuse to learn.

you can cure ignorance but you just can't fix stupid.



Look up the Federalist Papers No. 78. If you aren't part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. Spreading ignorance may be your way, but it's not the correct way.
again, what nearing do the Federalist Papers have on this. They are used to aid in the interpretation of the constitution but they are not legally enforceable in any way. As with any constitutional argument, the spirit of the law is critical and the federalist papers help in that aspect.

So, still waiting for the "Rules of Construction" that support your claims.
 

Tritium

Member
Either you're not an attorney, or a degree was the surprise in your cracker jack box.

Marbury v. Madison

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."

— Chief Justice John Marshall

The Federalist Papers serve as a primary source for interpretation of the Constitution, as they outline the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government. The authors of the Federalist Papers wanted to both influence the vote in favor of ratification and shape future interpretations of the Constitution. According to historian Richard B. Morris, they are an "incomparable exposition of the Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later American writer."
When determining the Constitutionality, one must consider the time in which it was written, and when no definition is prescribed, one must be assigned. Such an assignment would be simple for a word with only one meaning, but when much time has passed, and the word have multiple definitions, one must look at the context and purpose of such, by referencing materials that may assist in interpretation of the Constitution. This would be the Federalist Papers.

I have only stated several times already my reasoning, and nothing you have said has any relevant opposition to what I've stated. If you happen to skim over the answer to your questions, I will not continue to repeat what is already stated. "Rules of Construction" are a very basic principle. If you aren't too sure about it, look it up.

I posted the question to see if any thoughts might come from others who are familiar with law. While I politely answered your poor objections, and provided more than necessary, I am not looking to educate you on the basic principles of law.

Thanks.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
Well, you have really shown how ignorant you really are. I have had the same signature line for well over a year.

QUOTE=Tritium;1932486]Marbury v. Madison



When determining the Constitutionality, one must consider the time in which it was written, and when no definition is prescribed, one must be assigned. Such an assignment would be simple for a word with only one meaning, but when much time has passed, and the word have multiple definitions, one must look at the context and purpose of such, by referencing materials that may assist in interpretation of the Constitution. This would be the Federalist Papers.

I have only stated several times already my reasoning, and nothing you have said has any relevant opposition to what I've stated. If you happen to skim over the answer to your questions, I will not continue to repeat what is already stated. "Rules of Construction" are a very basic principle. If you aren't too sure about it, look it up.

I posted the question to see if any thoughts might come from others who are familiar with law. While I politely answered your poor objections, and provided more than necessary, I am not looking to educate you on the basic principles of law.

Thanks.
[/QUOTE]

You simply reiterated what I posted. The Federalist Papers are used to INTERPRET the intention of the constitution. I already said that. What you miss is they do not carry the weight of law.

and no, you did not answer my objections. I did not have objections, they were corrections that you are simply too dense to understand apparently.

Your reasoning is flawed and therefor, wrong.

As to the "Rules of Construction"; YOU are the one claiming they had an effect on this situation. I challenged you to show where this was true. You have failed to do so. It is your short comings that are the problem.

As to understanding Constitutional law; I do not claim to be a scholar in the field but apparently I understand it much better than you.

You were wrong when you first posted your query. You have been wrong every time you attempted to dispute my points. You are wrong now. Get used to it and pay your taxes.
 

Tritium

Member
Dear Brutus:

blah blah blah
If you had been listening, in the Federalist papers, it states a Process by which a judge would determine the validity of a law that opposes another. As they do today in the courts. That would be by using the "Rules of Construction". It's a standard practice, as I said before "LOOK IT UP!"

Also, while we're already here, go to the congress.gov - look at what they call a proposed amendment. It's a BILL.

All legislation is presented on a BILL. A WRITTEN DOCUMENT.

And how should I know what your tag line was previously? Perhaps if you had an intelligent thought worth reading, I would have noticed. But I did not.

Thanks. H-A-N-D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top