Topic: Beat me or Ban me; It just doesn't matter anymore!

[Duke McDukiedook]

No, not really, I don't take it personally, I don't understand what ass rape fairies has to do with anything here. The fact that you use that phrase frequently does say something personal about you though.

I understand the difference between a law and an amendment, one is fairly easy to pass and change, the other, a lot harder to do both to.

I guess that's where you and I differ on the subject, I think the Supreme Court does have a say on the constitutionality of laws and amendments. Where does it say this of which you speak (Supreme Court not having the power to declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional). Please show me.

[Markcb750]

No, not really, I don't take it personally, I don't understand what ass rape fairies has to do with anything here. The fact that you use that phrase frequently does say something personal about you though.

I understand the difference between a law and an amendment, one is fairly easy to pass and change, the other, a lot harder to do both to.

I guess that's where you and I differ on the subject, I think the Supreme Court does have a say on the constitutionality of laws and amendments. Where does it say this of which you speak (Supreme Court not having the power to declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional). Please show me.

This is the problem, you think we just differ. I know the situation is different.


This is a fundamental aspect of the way our government works, it is pretty Black and White.


If I where to be sent to jail, ASS RAPE FAERIES would be the homosexual prison mates who know the only sex they can have is with fellow inmates.  In my proposed scenario I would be in jail. As long as Laws where passed that made it clear I was in jail for being stupid enough to  to invent an Anti-gravity machine, I go to Jail.

[DammitDan]

Federal and State Legislatures pass laws and (if challenged) the Supreme Court interprets the Constitutionality of those laws based upon the Amendments to the Constitution.

The Supreme Court bases its decisions upon Amendments, therefore it cannot strike down an Amendment.  Markcb750 is correct, the ratification process of Amendments serves as the check and balance for the Supreme Court in our system of government.  If the law is struck down by the Supreme Court and Congress disagrees, Congress gets together and votes 2/3 in House & Senate to pass an Amendment, and when it is ratified it by 3/4 of the state legislative bodies the law simply goes over the head of the Supreme Court.

The thing is, getting an Amendment ratified by the states is nearly impossible unless there's overwhelming support for the issue.  That's why there's only been 16 passed since the Constitution was written 220 years ago.

So, you still gonna tell me an Amendment to the Constitution can be considered unconstitutional?

[DammitDan]

In fact, it seems this is exactly what Congress did in passing the 16th Amendment:

The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to the United States Constitution was ratified on February 3, 1913. This Amendment overruled Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895), which greatly limited the Congress' authority to levy an income tax. This Amendment allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the States or basing it on Census results.

I'll call your double-dog dare...  This 16th Amendment is the law on the books that says Congress can levy a federal income tax.  And because there is an Amendment in place, Congress has the authority to pass laws within its boundaries.

Now, if you can prove Congress is stepping outside those boundaries, then you have a case with the Supreme Court.

[Duke McDukiedook]

Yes, I will say the supreme court can deem an amendment unconstitutional. Where does it say they cannot?
They have the power to do so but I think they realize what kind of precedence that would set if they took such an action against an amendment.

The supreme court bases their rulings on the intent of the framers of the constitution and stare decisis, not the amendments.

Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have power
To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Oh, so the 16th amendment seems to contradict section 8 of article I. Hmmmmm.

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

Whoops, looks like they turned that over to the Federal Reserve, which is about as Federal as federal Express.

Article I, Section 9: The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Oh, there's that pesky 16th amendment again contradicting what was in the articles of the original draft of the constitution.

And again I ask you, where is the specific law or tax code that says we have to pay federal income tax? The 16th amendment just gives congress the power to do as they please tax wise. I want the specific law if you can find it.

[Markcb750]

As I said before you and I can have a disagreement with the Supreme Court as to how a Law complies with the Constitution, but the SC cannot declare an Amendment Unconstitutional.

You are just debating your interpretation of what the constitution says vs the laws enacted to  run the country.  You do not agree with how the Justices apply evaluation of Law relative to what you see as contradictory Amendments . This is OK, the Justices seldom all agree.


If the SC could void parts of the Constitution, they would have ultimate power not the balance we have.


This is why NOW wants a Amendment about Feminine rights, why Right to Life groups want an anti-abortion Amendment.  A new Amendment would force the Courts to interpret the new Amendment instead of, and in addition to, the current set of Amendments when they decide if a Law complies with the Constitution. 

[Inigo Montoya]

So far, with what I have found, the judicial branch can only affect LAWS but not amendments. If someone finds written proof otherwise that clearly states that the SC can remove an amendment, please post it.

I do not think they can though. Remember the SC is appointed for life or until they feel they can no longer make sound rulings. If they were able to remove amendments, what would be stopping them from removing the 1st or 2nd amendments?
Just food for thought. I know someone might say they would not dare to or something like that but look how politics works sometimes. If you keep that in mind, you realize that nothing is impossible in politics.

[DammitDan]

The point of a Constitutional Amendment is to AMEND the Constitution.

Do you understand what this means?

The Framers provided the ability to create Amendments because they realized that with time comes change, and they wanted to make sure the Constitution remained a fluid document which would survive the ages (maybe fluid like molasses, but still fluid).  Therefore, an AMENDMENT will overrule anything previously written in the Constitution.  Like how they passed the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) and later had to ratify ANOTHER amendment (22nd Amendment) to repeal it.

Like has been said before, if the Supreme Court can change the Constitution, then it makes them an omnipotent force in our government.  The Supreme Court simply interprets laws passed by the legislature by the letter of the Constitution.

[Inigo Montoya]

Thats what I have been finding too.

[Duke McDukiedook]

The point of a Constitutional Amendment is to AMEND the Constitution.

Do you understand what this means?

The Framers provided the ability to create Amendments because they realized that with time comes change, and they wanted to make sure the Constitution remained a fluid document which would survive the ages (maybe fluid like molasses, but still fluid).  Therefore, an AMENDMENT will overrule anything previously written in the Constitution.  Like how they passed the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) and later had to ratify ANOTHER amendment (22nd Amendment) to repeal it.

Like has been said before, if the Supreme Court can change the Constitution, then it makes them an omnipotent force in our government.  The Supreme Court simply interprets laws passed by the legislature by the letter of the Constitution.

Show me where in the constitution it implicitly or explicitly states the US Supreme Court does not have the power to deem a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. Show me.

[Markcb750]

Good luck Dan...

I give up.  He is either jerking our chains or unable to use them to pull himself into understanding.

[HavocTurbo]

While they label this an "amendment" it is actually based on a LAW not a constitutional article.

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=can+the+supreme+court+deem+an+amendment+unconstitutional%3F&page=1&qsrc=0&ab=5&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thecrimson.com%2Farticle.aspx%3Fref%3D507666

And while these are STATE constitution amendments, it looks like the US Supreme Court can rule on those.

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=can+the+supreme+court+deem+an+amendment+unconstitutional%3F&page=1&qsrc=0&ab=4&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.now.org%2Fnnt%2F11-96%2Flesbian.html

And it seems here that an amendment to the STATE constitution can over rule a STATE supreme court decision.

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=can+the+supreme+court+deem+an+amendment+unconstitutional%3F&page=1&qsrc=0&ab=9&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfgate.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Farticle.cgi%3Ff%3D%2Fc%2Fa%2F2008%2F05%2F15%2FBAGAVNC5K.DTL


Seems to me that this is a murky question regardless of how you word it. While there is probably not SET law or article pertaining to the ACTUAL limits of the US Supreme Court's power, there would be places they wouldn't dare go for fear of the populous turning on them.

So while Dook may be correct in that there is no worded limit, there is perhaps an unworded moral or ethical limit to their reach.

[Markcb750]

Yes The federal courts have the ability to rule a State Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional.  There is some debate in California about the courts ability to overturn Prop 8.


No As Article III states the Federal Courts cannot change or rule on a Constitutional Amendment unconstitutional.

It Says..

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. 


This is a straight forward concept.  It is not a gray area.

[Duke McDukiedook]

Please point out in section 2 you cited where it says that. I'm not trying to be obtuse, I don't read what you read into it. It just says to me the federal courts power extends to all cases, in law and equity. To me that extends to every law, including amendments.

Your citation still does not move me to see your point of view on the argument.

[HavocTurbo]

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. 


This is a straight forward concept.  It is not a gray area.

I don't want to delve in this much further for the sake of my job security but....

Depending on how you interpret such things, like:

;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--

Could be taken as a specific person or state vs. the USA regarding a particular amendment.

Now I know that is a very basic literal iteration of what I'm trying to say, but take away all the lawyer wording and it could be something like that.

Dukiedook-

Can you provide specific evidence where the US-SC way have even "looked" at a constitutional amendment?? As far as I know only Congress can make changes. Or something to that effect.

[Duke McDukiedook]

2nd amendment- DC gun ban. Just this past year.

Congress can make changes to the amendment, supreme court can rule on the constitutionality of a constitutional amendment and laws.

Let's say that congress passed and ratified amendment 19 statinging all purple people living in the US from X day forward are denied basic rights afforded by the constitution and the bill of rights. A purple person brings a lawsuit against the federal government citing all people are equal according to the basic articles of the US constitution. It is brought before the US Supreme Court, purple person Z v. US government.

So, you are telling me the Supreme Court of US has no say in this matter  because it is a passed and ratified amendment? So in essence you are saying that congress is an omnipotent force in our government with no checks or balances against a constitutional amendment. 

[HavocTurbo]

So, you are telling me the Supreme Court of US has no say in this matter  because it is a passed and ratified amendment? So in essence you are saying that congress is an omnipotent force in our government with no checks or balances against a constitutional amendment. 

Woah Woah Woah. Slow down.

We are taking this to an extreme. I'm not being that literal. Or specific.

I believe I posted a link to an article pertaining to the DC gun ban.

What I meant was, as far as I know once an amendment has been ratified and placed in section with the other amendments, you will need another amendment to cancel it out. I don't think that the US-SC can just make a ruling and that's it.

If that were the case, then the US-SC would be omnipotent.

I'm just trying to work this from all angles and see what comes out.

[DammitDan]

2nd amendment- DC gun ban. Just this past year.

Congress can make changes to the amendment, supreme court can rule on the constitutionality of a constitutional amendment and laws.

If Congress passes a law about a gun ban in DC, then a suit can be brought before the Supreme Court to challenge the Constitutionality of that law.  The Supreme Court will then argue in favor of the law or against the law as it applies to what the Constitution says.

Let's say that congress passed and ratified amendment 19 statinging all purple people living in the US from X day forward are denied basic rights afforded by the constitution and the bill of rights. A purple person brings a lawsuit against the federal government citing all people are equal according to the basic articles of the US constitution. It is brought before the US Supreme Court, purple person Z v. US government.

So, you are telling me the Supreme Court of US has no say in this matter  because it is a passed and ratified amendment? So in essence you are saying that congress is an omnipotent force in our government with no checks or balances against a constitutional amendment. 

Yes, that is what I'm saying.  That's the Democratic part of our Democratic Republic moniker.  With the approval of 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states, the representatives of the people can make changes to the Constitution and the Supreme Court has to abide by those changes.  The Supreme Court has no say because it is the will of the people (through the say of their Federal and State Representatives) to change the Constitution with an Amendment, and the Supreme Court is made up of appointed members.

*edit* Oh, and the 19th Amendment is Womens Suffrage...  So I doubt it has anything to do with purple people living in America 

[Markcb750]

Yes Congress can pass an Amendment (3/4 of the State's legislatures must agree) that purple people (PP) have no right to exist.  It would be legal for laws to be passed that would require purple people to be cease existence.  The courts could could rule that the law requiring PP's to cease existence was vague, but they could not prevent  laws from Congress limiting the existence of PP.


Our Constitutional Framers did however expect the difficult process of amending the Constitution to limit how silly we behave.

[Duke McDukiedook]

So I guess then it's just your opinion against mine since no one could show documentation contrary to my statement.

[DammitDan]

Jesus...  Dookie you're one obstinate bastard 

How about this?

Dred Scott v. Sanford

A decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants[2]—whether or not they were slaves—were not legal persons and could never be citizens of the United States, and that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories.

The 13th Amendment (abolition of slavery) and 14th Amendment (guarantee of citizenship) to the Constitution overturned the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision.  If Congress has the ability to overturn a Supreme Court decision with a Constitutional Amendment, how could the Supreme Court deem an Amendment unconstitutional?

Does this make it any clearer?

[Markcb750]

So I guess then it's just your opinion against mine since no one could show documentation contrary to my statement.

In my world, those making extraordinary claims, provide the back up...


Article 3 section 2 is pretty clear, it provides no method for the Court to alter amendments, and in 233 years it has not happened.  

[DammitDan]

Proof from a first year law student (click download to read the PDF file)

*edit* I'll copy-and-paste for ease of reading:

A persistent student, more deeply in need of re-education and de-programming than the norm, may raise this objection: But by the logic of Professor Polisci’s lectured truth – one hopes the good professor was simply misunderstood by the student – that Marbury v. Madison makes the Supreme Court’s decisions . . . well, supreme, why wouldn’t it follow that the Supreme Court could overrule the Thirteenth and the Fourteenth Amendments too? Is the Supreme Court supreme or not? It’s not really such a bad question, is it?

I repair to my earlier answer: No, my dear student, if the Supreme Court did that, it would not be acting properly or
legitimately. The Supreme Court is the highest federal court, to be sure. And indeed, it is now widely accepted (by nearly everyone except me)1 that the Court’s decisions are binding on the other branches of government. But that doesn’t make it right for the Supreme Court to “overrule” the Thirteenth or Fourteenth amendment! The justices don’t legitimately, rightfully have the power to do such a thing! It would be a violation of the Constitution, of their sworn oaths to be bound by it, for the justices to “strike down” the plain text of a constitutional amendment!

[Duke McDukiedook]

Pardon me if I don't just take your certified opinion as proof. I'm sorry, just wasn't raised that way.

You are right, 13th and 14th did override Dred Scott.

Mark, did I say ANYTHING about the supreme court altering amendments? No, I did not, I have no idea why you keep bringing that up, never said it- please stop talking about altering amendments.

Dan, I read the paper, at the end he states that is HIS opinion and he could be wrong.
BUT, big but, if the Supreme Court took such action against an amendment it could be considered a violation of the constitution. What if the ficticious amendment passed and ratified were considered so arbitrary and capricious the Supreme court had to deem an amendment unconstitutional?

I call that a big, fat, legal mess for sure and yes, HIGHLY unlikely. And with that, I'm done for now.

Talk amongst yourselves. 

[DammitDan]

Well we first must keep in mind that as a Democratic Republic, we give our "say" in government decisions to popularly elected representatives who (in theory) act in the best interest of the majority of their constituents.

If those representatives on the federal level (acting on the suggestion of their constituents) vote overwhelmingly, 2/3 in favor to amend the Constitution to outlaw the citizenship rights of purple people, and an even more overwhelming 3/4 of the state legislatures also vote in favor of the amendment, then the Constitution is amended to outlaw those rights because it has been popularly decided that this is the best direction for the country's government and the government's laws.

Is it logical to assume that a body of 12 appointed judges could overrule a popularly established amendment to a document upon which they are supposed to BASE their decisions?  Say the Supreme Court says that it's wrong to restrict the citizenship of purple people and they rule that the amendment is unconstitutional.  This means that the 12 members of the Supreme Court are more powerful than ALL the legislative bodies and ALL the popularly elected representatives who chose to amend the Constitution.  This would give the Supreme Court limitless power to effectively rule the government.  The tail would wag the dog 

The Constitution, which can be altered by the votes of the legislative branch, serves as the "check and balance" for the Supreme Court.  This is why the 13th and 14th Amendments overruled the prior Dred Scott decision...  The Supreme Court was forced by the Constitution (and in turn, the Legislative branches on the Federal and State level) to effectively "change its mind".