The Supreme Law of the Land

[Tritium]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Arkansas

If the Bill of Rights were thought to have secured certain rights for the life of the Constitution, are those rights really secure?

Could congress propose amendments abolishing those rights with 3/4's of the states approving?

I have done 2 years of research on the Constitution. It is my opinion from this research that the Constitution cannot be altered in a contrary way. The founding fathers said that by adding the Bill of Rights, those rights were forever secured once they became a part of the Constitution. That would seem to me to imply that the Constitution, once put into effect, is forever... And anything contrary to the Constitution cannot be part of the Constitution.

If this is true... then why, tell me, is the 16th Amendment, contrary to the Constitution approved by the people, subsequently authored by a subordinate authority, considered to be higher than the already highest laws of the land?

[FlyingRon]

You highly defective in your constitutional studies. The whole point of the constitution was to recognize the need for flexibility and hence ANYTHING is fair game to be changed by an amendment. The bill of rights was only contentious in that many believed that the rights were so inherent in the statement of the rest of the document that they didn't need specific enumeration. However, bills of rights were common in English and other European precedent.

Your comments on the 16th amendment are gibberish. What subrordinate authority are you jabbering about?

[Tritium]

Originally Posted by FlyingRon

You highly defective in your constitutional studies. The whole point of the constitution was to recognize the need for flexibility and hence ANYTHING is fair game to be changed by an amendment. The bill of rights was only contentious in that many believed that the rights were so inherent in the statement of the rest of the document that they didn't need specific enumeration. However, bills of rights were common in English and other European precedent.

Your comments on the 16th amendment are gibberish. What subrordinate authority are you jabbering about?

The subordinate authority I am referring to is the Federal Government... Would you not agree that the Federal Government is subordinate to the Constutiton? The Constitution Fixed certain parameters for government. To think that the Government, bound to follow the Constitution, could alter to do whatever they wish.

The Contracting parties of the Constitution were "We the People" and the States. All power delegated by the Constitution was done so by the people... and the states approved of certain restricting of itself. So if a restricting is to be repealed... the permission must come from those who delegated such powers, which in a Republican form of Government is... THE PEOPLE.

I believe Congress was well aware of this when it came to the 18th Amendment, which was repealed by the people with the 20th.

[Tritium]

Originally Posted by FlyingRon

The whole point of the constitution was to recognize the need for flexibility and hence ANYTHING is fair game to be changed by an amendment. The bill of rights was only contentious in that many believed that the rights were so inherent in the statement of the rest of the document that they didn't need specific enumeration. However, bills of rights were common in English and other European precedent.

And wrong. The whole point of the Constitution was to limit government. Otherwise, what reason is there for a Constitution? Not everything is fair game, as was witnessed when the Articles of Confederation were revised and altered to form a new Constitution... the one we are suppose to be living by today.

But are you saying the Bill of Rights is alterable by the Federal and State Governments? The State governments were never granted a power to grant powers to a federal government. It may be unpopular... but my opinion is well researched, and there is no doubt in my mind. I was just curious whether or not if anyone had a good answer to the contrary... so far.. no.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by Tritium

But are you saying the Bill of Rights is alterable by the Federal and State Governments? The State governments were never granted a power to grant powers to a federal government. .

you might want to read up on how an amendment to the Constitution can come about.

[cbg]

It's also unclear to me how the 16th Amendment is "contrary" to the Constitution.

[Tritium]

16th Amendment: 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.

Because it is contrary to the parts italicized below.

Constitutional Provisions: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises . . . but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States . . .

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers . . . .

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Even though a Direct Tax, was a tax upon the state itself.. apportioned by population... There is no source for a direct tax except directly upon each state.... According to their respective Populations.

[thedoctorisin]

Article 5 of the Constitution defines the limits of the ability to make amendments. There is no prohibition against amendments which are "contrary to the Constitution," whatever that means. The only limitation still in force is that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

[Tritium]

Originally Posted by justalayman

you might want to read up on how an amendment to the Constitution can come about.

I'm very well aware.. Thank you... but if you'd like to point out how I am incorrect... please, by all means... share with the group.

[Tritium]

And just for the fun of it, how about a professor from harvard, who in a book seems to imply that alter, amend, and repeal are 3 different actions. Why in the world would you use alter & repeal if amend would include both?

[url=http://books.google.com/books?id=9uc9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA135&dq=Constitution+Laymen+harvard&lr=&as_brr=1#PRA1-PA323,M1]An Introduction to the Study of the ... - Google Book Search[/url]

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by Tritium

I'm very well aware.. Thank you... but if you'd like to point out how I am incorrect... please, by all means... share with the group.

You are very well aware in as such as you agree or disagree that the states, by means of amending the constitution as allowed by the constitution, could in fact grant additional powers to the federal government?

[Tritium]

In a republic, powers must be delegated by the people. Not their elected officials of the state, but by the people of the state.

To AME'ND. v.a. [amender, Fr. emendo, Lat.]
1. To correct; to change anything that is wrong to something better.
2. To reform the life, or leave wickedness.
In these two cases we usually write mend. See MEND
Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place. Ferem.
3. To restore passages in writers, which the copiers are suppose to have depraved; to recover the true reading.
To AME'ND. v. n. To grow better. To amend differs from 'to improve'; to improve supposes, or not denies, that the thing is well already, but 'to amend' implies something wrong.
As my fortune either amends or impairs, I may declare unto you. -Sidney.
At his touch, such sanctity hath heaven given his hand, They presently amend. Shakespeare's Macbeth.

[BlondiePB]

Originally Posted by Tritium

In a republic, powers must be delegated by the people. Not their elected officials of the state, but by the people of the state.

I'm not qualified to debate Constitutional law, Tritium. My understanding is that when people vote, the elected officials represent their constitutants who have delegated that official to represent them giving the elected official the power.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by Tritium

To AME'ND. v.a. [amender, Fr. emendo, Lat.]
1. To correct; to change anything that is wrong to something better.
2. To reform the life, or leave wickedness.
In these two cases we usually write mend. See MEND
Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place. Ferem.
3. To restore passages in writers, which the copiers are suppose to have depraved; to recover the true reading.
To AME'ND. v. n. To grow better. To amend differs from 'to improve'; to improve supposes, or not denies, that the thing is well already, but 'to amend' implies something wrong.
As my fortune either amends or impairs, I may declare unto you. -Sidney.
At his touch, such sanctity hath heaven given his hand, They presently amend. Shakespeare's Macbeth.

An alternate definition for "Amend":

A change to the constitution of a nation or a state. In jurisdictions with "rigid" or "entrenched" constitutions, amendments require a special procedure different from that used for enacting ordinary laws.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by Tritium

In a republic, powers must be delegated by the people. Not their elected officials of the state, but by the people of the state.

To AME'ND. v.a. [amender, Fr. emendo, Lat.]
1. To correct; to change anything that is wrong to something better.
2. To reform the life, or leave wickedness.
In these two cases we usually write mend. See MEND
Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place. Ferem.
3. To restore passages in writers, which the copiers are suppose to have depraved; to recover the true reading.
To AME'ND. v. n. To grow better. To amend differs from 'to improve'; to improve supposes, or not denies, that the thing is well already, but 'to amend' implies something wrong.
As my fortune either amends or impairs, I may declare unto you. -Sidney.
At his touch, such sanctity hath heaven given his hand, They presently amend. Shakespeare's Macbeth.

I think you really need to research the difference between a true democracy and a democratic republic, which the US is.