Would you favor a Constitutional Amendment Limiting the Wealth of the Top 1%?
Naw, just tax it. You don't need an amendment to tax it, just a law passed. Actually, some years ago the highest tax bracket was 90%. That actually was during the time when the US economy was growing very fast--1950s. Sort of wonder if that was a coincidence or not.
Is it possible to propose an amendment that repeals multiple amendments?
"The Big Sellout" is wrong. Anything in the Constitution can be amended or repealed, including the Bill of Rights.
An amendment can say anything that Congress approves. However, the more parts that are in it the harder it will be to get it through Congress and ratified by the states.
Why couldn't the 19th amendment have happened without world war 1?
women would have gotten the vote without the war, as Britain gave it to them in 1910. Several states in the USA allowed women to vote, starting with Wyoming in 1869 (New Jersey did briefly after the Revolution). My grandmother was a leading suffragette in California, inspired by seeing her husband go off to the Spanish American War, leaving her with an eight year old to care for. WW1 undoubtedly speeded things up but it was coming anyway
Does section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment also pertain to African Americans?
Of course it does, that was one of the main purposes of the 14th amendment:
"The amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had excluded slaves, and their descendants, from possessing Constitutional rights."
what was the 1 and only formal amendment to the constitution?
I do not understand your question. There are 27 formal amendments to the Constitution.
When the Constitution was ratified it was approved by the states with the understanding that the new government would submit to the states a Bill of Rights. The newly elected Congress did keep their promise. They sent 12 (not 10) Amendments to the states. Only ten Amendments were ratified and they became known as the Bill of Rights. These 10 Amendments were formal in that they passed the House and Senate and were sent to the States for ratification. This was the formal process.
When the first 12 Amendments were proposed they did not put a deadline date by which it must be ratified. All 10 Bill of Rights Amendments were ratified and were added to the Constitution on December 17, 1791.
But did you know what happened to the other 2 Amendments? Well one is still pending but the other one was dusted off by the states and it became Amendment # 27.
What was so special about the 27th Amendment? This stopped the members of the House & Senate from giving themselves a pay raise and get to immediately start collecting the tax payer $. They can (and do) vote to raise their salary but they must wait for an election to collect the new salary.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Pennsylvania's 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which allowed the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to reimburse nonpublic schools (most of which were Catholic) for teachers' salaries, textbooks and instructional materials, violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.
The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion.
1.List five individual rights found in the 1st amendment of the U. S. Constitution?
1. Seriously? You can't read the 1st Amendment, which is one sentence, and which outlines the 5 rights you describe?
2. The 2nd Amendment covers the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The controversy is because the Founders used unusual language in it, and not only specified the right, but the purpose of the right.
It reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Because of that many either willingly read it to think what they want it to say, or just are confused as to what it means. Some thing it refers to states having the right to militias. Some think it means the people can own and carry weapons at whim.
Only when read in it's entirety does it become clear. The right is that "the people" (you and me) have the right to own weapons. The purpose is so that we may use our own weapons to serve in militias as needed.
How is Robin Hood Obama going to get around that Pesky 14th Amendment Section 1 equal protection clause?
That's what Obama will be doing making sure that the well off aren't able to hire fancy lawyers and accountants to find loop holes in order to skip out on paying taxes that the middle class have to pay.
Is paying taxes unconstitutional according to the 10th Amendment, article 1, section 8?
Actually, stupid, article one section eight allows for Congress to collect taxes. Also, the sixteenth amendment allows for an income tax.
Read the damn Constitution before citing it. You're a typical American that has no idea what our Constitution says. That's pretty damn pathetic.
What does section 1 of the 14th amendment have to do with corrections?
The 14th Amendment guarantees you due process of law. That means your liberty cannot be taken away from you without you having notice of what you did wrong, and an opportunity to present your side of the story.
Does the 16th Amendment say that Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution is wrong? ?
Easy. The founding fathers felt there would from time to time need to change the Constitution. It was not made easy, and has not happen often. It ended slavery, It protects the right to keep and bear arms, free press, direct election of senators. Also, income tax, and the woman's right to vote. It does not say it was wrong, only that it needed to be changed.
What exactly does fourth amendment mean and how does it differ from article 1 section 7?
Something is wrong with your question. Article 1 Section 7 is how a bill becomes law. The 4th Amendment covers illegal search and seizure. There's nothing similar about them.
Your second question is garbled too. But schools stand in the place of parents (in loco parentis), and have significant public interest in maintaining order, discipline, and safety. The rules are different for minors.
Amendment. What do Amendment 1-10, 12, 15, 16, 19, 22, 25, 26. really means. Can you explain it? You can pick?
12- Each elector from each state will have a congressional meeting and fill his ballot
13- It officially abolished slavery and prohibits involuntary servitude
14- States that if you were born in the U.S, you are an American citizen
15- your race and color can't stop you from voting. You are equal!
I hope this helps you out! It's obviously not all that you asked for, but it's some!
If someone comes here "LEGALLY" then by all means their children should automatically become citizens but if they are NOT here legally then I do not think they should have that right.
I do not think you should have any rights at all to anything if you are not here legally. Neither should your children.
Just my opinion.
In Amendment 1, what was the free exercise and establishment clauses of the Freedom of Religion?
Did you notice it is Freedom of Religion. It is not Freedom FROM Religion.
It means that I may go to Church but that the Government may not set up a State Religion and TAX you and me to pay for the worship building, the religious leader, books and supplies for the building and its maintenance.
It means that I may chose not to go to Church and I am not going to jail.
It does not mean that nothing can be in said in public about God. Our Declaration of Independence said we are Created. That is in the public and God is not illegal.
If Congress enacted a balanced budget amendment and a 1% national sales tax, would you support it?
Thank you for your question.
You would probably have to rationalise the system of sales taxes because individual states and cities have their own taxes. Other countries have a national sales tax so there is no reason not to support it.
A balanced budget amendment is something I could support depending on the details. I would also support an end to the Bush tax cuts combined with major cuts to spending including entitlements until the budget is in surplus.
If the Amendment 1 is not approved, what options we will have? WillThe Gov. Christ try to help us again?
It sounds like you're talking about another referendum to circumvent paying property taxes the way they're meant to be paid. This is what happens when too many people, especially children, live on one property. A referendum has to cover the loss of property tax that would have been collected if multiple families lived apart on their own property.
Why do so many hate the 14th Amendment, Section 1?
Because the 14th Amendment puts them in the awful place of having to decide between supporting gay marriage and citizenship by birth or opposing the US Constitution. Nobody ever said it was a good reason, but it's the reason.
Incidentally, part of the 14th Amendment just expands the 5th Amendment for the purposes of the states.
What does Amendment 1 of the Constitution say about the Separation of Church and State?
Not all of our founders were full blown Christians, and not all of them were of the same faith. But I do understand why they used the word 'Creator' and God in our Constitution. They knew that by decreeing that our human rights were inalienable, given to us by our Creator, they are absolute and cannot be taken away. They were not granting us our rights; they were recognizing and acknowledging a basic truth of life. They understood that the rights people have had up to this point in time were given to them by governments, kings, clergy, etc.
They were also frequently taken away at the will of powerful men, usually by force.
By acknowledging the rights as truth, unalienable, and given to mankind at birth, they could never be taken away by the will of another man. It's really that simple. That's why, even the atheists among them, agreed to the wording and meaning implied in the preamble.
Up to this point in history, that idea was revolutionary and unique.
When you understands this and can see that the more secular we become, the more we loose this basic principle. The founders also recognized that many countries used religion as their governing and political power over the people. In the 18th century, it was getting out of hand. So, they also amended the constitution to acknowledge that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" But what does that mean exactly?
They knew a government based on religion will soon become tyrannical in nature and they would end up back where they started, and what they left in the first place - governance by religion with kings.
But they also wanted to freely worship as they wanted too, free from the ridicule and punishment for doing so. So, they also included the second half which was to not allow the government to 'prohibit the free exercise, thereof'.
Freedom from being ruled by religion, and freedom to worship any way they want.
Over time, our government has begun to reject the idea that our natural rights are given to us by our Creator. Over time, they have downplayed the importance of this principle and diminished it's role in governing. What we are left with now is a political body who feel they have absolute power over the public, who has the power to grant rights, and take them away. They have blurred the lines between unalienable, human, natural rights - and the benefits they seek to bestow on us, abusing their power, and calling these 'rights'.
The right to tax us with the threat of losing one's freedom and liberty take away our land and property, etc.
It's really out of control.
We should teach our current generation WHERE their rights come from, as recognized by our founders.
It's a wakeup call For the public to see the wisdom in our founders decision, and to see just how monumentally different our concept of government was at the time of its creation.
I would think that even if you are an atheist, it's in your own best interest to understand and acknowledge the difference between natural, human rights given to us by a divine intervention, and 'rights' given to us by Obama and the Democrats.
To not see the connection is a mistake, one that leads to man having power over man, which leads to tyranny and oppressive dictatorship.
There are plenty of examples in this world of secular governments that give, and take away rights at will over the population. In truth, when man you give man control of your rights, you really never had them to begin with.
I feel a lot of people don't understand this basic principle. They don't understand the difference between China and America in this respect. They seem to be perfectly willing to allow the government (i.e.; MAN) to have control of our basic rights, as if the government is filled with feathery-winged angels from Heaven, who only make perfect, infallible, divine decisions.
They are 100% anti-god, but 100% pro government.
It doesn't make sense to me how, with the history of the world as proof that this never works.
I mean, it doesn't make sense how they can still think it would work, like this time it will be different.
Same crap, different millennium.
Man will never seem to change; left on his own, will usually lead to tyranny over his fellow man.
Without the “concept” of divine providence, or the value of life being immeasurable, human kind is pretty much toast. I'm not saying we need to all be Christians or believe in god, no, but I don't think we should be so boastful and arrogant as to say we are it; and leave it at that's that.
Do you think North Carolina should vote NO to Amendment 1?
edit: For others:
I also want to state I think it's obnoxious to put the civil rights of any group up for a public vote. Everyone should be equal.
Is enshrining discrimination in the Constitution a christian thing to do or should I vote against amendment 1?
To discriminate is wrong, both morally & intellectually. Judge a person by the actions & abilities, having a white or black individual, or a heterosexual or gay person in any position because they fill or don’t fill a certain criteria, is stupid, you need the best person who is most capable, unless you want the present situation to continue.
Hope this helps. Collin
Are you talking about the US Constitution, First Amendment? It doesn't relate to education. It does relate to religion.
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If the government regulated education than it may not teach or recognize a religion while doing so. In other words schools may not organize and require prayer or teach biblical concepts or biblical history. This has become a discussion in education because before the government took over the schools, many were run by churches. It was normal in many places to have prayers in school. It was normal for teachers to lead prayers. That's where the first amendment comes in and says government may not favor one religion over others or belief in favor of the lack of belief.
Do you feel the passage of gay marriage that amendment 1 and 9 is compatible with the rights?
Are you asking if Gay Marriage is supported by the Bill of Rights?
First the Bill of Rights is amendments 1-10. Now what are gays asking for? They want the right to marry (fine) and have their marriage recognized under law and equal entitlements to benefits associated with marriage.
The Bill of Rights as it was written has nothing to do with marriage. The Constitution does not define marriage. It is the definition of marriage that is the issue. Its hard to explain so try this for an example. If you live in a home than the Bill of Rights defends you from being forced to house soldiers or having your home searched without a warrant. Now what if you had no home but lived on the street. If you define the street as your home should you have the right to say the police may no longer use it because they may not enter without a warrant? Or soldiers may not travel on it. Just because you define the street as a home does not mean everyone else must accept your definition.
There is no law in this land that says a gay man may not purchase a marriage license. What we have is an understanding that marriage is limited to men and women. If it were up to me I would say government should have nothing to do with marriage at all but then there would not be benefits for anyone and neither side wants that. Gays are asking for marriage to be defined as a union between two people. The Constitution has no opinion on that.