Am I the only one who thinks that the 14th amendment needs to go?
I'm sure you're not the only one who thinks that, and I'm sure that all of you need to re-think your positions.
Are you seriously suggesting that the entire 14th Amendment -- not just the first sentence but all of the rest of the longest amendment ever adopted -- should be repealed?
I say that Section 1 needs to be:
The Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective one reserved for the militia?
Because they are ignorant or fools. They have not read the preamble to the Bill of Rights.
Some will claim that it is illegal to carry openly, even though it is legal in 43 states.
Some will claim that "the people" in the Second Amendment doesn't mean ALL the people, even though "the people" means ALL the people in the other amendments where it is used. These same people will also claim that the Second Amendment was written to protect the ability to form a militia, even though that is already protected in the main body of the Constitution.
Some will claim that the Second only protects the technology of the day, muskets and swords, which would mean that the rest of the Bill of Rights only protects the technology of the day, and the government can download the hard drive of your computer or tap your phone any time they want, and censor what you say to a radio station.
There are those who claim that you can only bear arms in a militia, or that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render militiary service" and "militia duty", despite the fact that in the early 1800's the United States Supreme Court defined the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as being able "to keep and carry arms wherever they went". That was also ruled as one of the defining rights of a free citizen.
The Founders defined it as an individual right,
Tench Coxe quotes:
Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
John Smilie warned: "Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army-or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there shall be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed."
That select militia has been formed, and is a part of the standing Army, it is called The National Guard.
PEOPLE WHO KNOW THEIR FACTS HELP: How does one propose a new amendment to the Constitution?
Let us use the ERA as an example
Representative Martha W. Griffiths of Michigan achieved success on Capitol Hill with her House Joint Resolution No. 208, which was adopted by the House on October 12, 1971, with a vote of 354 yeas, 24 nays and 51 not voting.
Griffiths' joint resolution was then adopted by the Senate on March 22, 1972, with a vote of 84 yeas, 8 nays and 7 not voting. With that, the ERA was finally presented by the 92nd Congress to the state legislatures for ratification, as Article V of the Constitution prescribes, with a seven-year deadline for ratification by the required three-quarters of the legislatures (38 legislatures).
Will the United States ever pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman?
I don't think it will ever happen. The trend for the last 40 years or so has been towards more and more acceptance of gays. This trend is irreversible, but cynical politicians will use the threat of 'the gay agenda' to get votes. This has been going on for some time now, but with less and less effectiveness over time.
California's courts overturned Prop 8, banning gay marriage. The Republicans and the Christian Right could have appealed all the way up to the US Supreme Court. But they chose not to because they don't believe they can win. The case was based on gay marriage presenting a 'danger' to regular marriage, and though this idea is at the center of anti-gay sentiment in the US, the anti-gay marriage forces were unable to show the court just how allowing gays to marry is a danger. Actually they didn't even try.
Anti-gay sentiment is not really a legitimate part of Christian ideology. It's using Christianity as a cover for intolerance and fear. Something the Republicans, and the spiritual leaders they've corrupted to help them, have been doing for years.
Why is no one - not even the NRA - defending the 2nd Amendment anymore?
It is generally accepted that the 2nd amendment covers rifles and pistols. There aren't too many people who can afford a stealth bomber or drone plane. There have to be reasonable limits or we would have to give individuals access to atomic bombs.
Likewise, pea-shooters and slingshots would not satisfy our right to bear arms. With guerrilla type warfare, a significant resistance can be mounted with plain semi-automatic rifles and etc..
The Vietcong handed us our butts with relatively primitive weapons.
Alcohol was banned by a constitutional amendment; why have other substances been banned without one?
Drugs are legal in America, as long as your drug of choice is the liquid variety.
On the plus side, I get a kick out of "conservatives" who wail that they want government off our backs and then have a hissy fit when you suggest that maybe, just maybe, it's time for government to stop passing law after law governing how citizens conduct their private lives.
That is correct. States like Texas can have a balanced budget amendment and when they experience a natural disaster, such as a drought, the feds can step in and help. If the USA has a balanced budget amendment, we won't be able to help ourselves.
Which amendment is the one that's banning gay marriage in Florida?
Florida's Amendment 2 says "This amendment protects marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife and provides that no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized" and deserves a vote of NO.
A vote for Amendment 2 does more than deny marriage to same sex couples. The wording "no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized" also bans Civil Unions.
A Florida newspaper article highlighted some consequences that could happen if Amendment 2 is passed. Attorneys General in Michigan, Kentucky, Idaho and Nebraska have ruled that the same type of language in Florida’s Amendment 2 requires states to deny health insurance to the domestic partners and children of public employees.
And if health insurance can be denied, so could hospital visitation to people who are not recognized as family members. The ability to make medical decisions for a loved one in case of a catastrophic accident or incapacitating illness could be denied to a person who is not a family member. Even the right to make funeral arrangements for a partner of several decades could be denied. The language of proposed Amendment 2 could be (and has been) read to require the state to treat an unmarried couple as legal strangers, regardless of how many years they have been together.
How did the 18th Amendment violate one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights?
You could say it limited the 1st amendment as consuming alcohol could be considered a first amendment (Freedom of speech) right. An amendment cannot 'violate' the constitution since it is an addition to the constitution.
How does one use their 5th Amendment right in court?
Pleading the 5th means you don't have to self-incriminate yourself. If you were asked if you were an accomplice in the burglary you could plead the 5th. If you are asked about your intimate relationship, that would not fall under the 5th amendment and you could refuse to answer, but the judge can force you to answer.
Why are limits on the 2nd Amendment acceptable but no one would support limits on free speech or due process?
AMEN AMEN AMEN
I do not have a permit, and I carry. The 2nd Amendment is the ONLY "permit" I will acknowledge. The Constitution is the ONLY "permit" the law should recognize.
The Constitution is CLEAR. A State may NOT pass a law that supersedes the Constitution. The constitution states that the CITIZEN has the right to OWN AND BEAR arms, and that the right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
What is one suffrage amendment ratified during the 20th century?
You already knew the answer Hanna - and so do the people above. That amendment was LONG overdue in this man's opinion. The delay in allowing women to vote has throughout history been a disgrace to men virtually everywhere. In France, the birthplace of Liberty, women could not vote until the end pf World War Two!
Why do some people think that second amendment is the only one that can be touched?
The Second Amendment may get debated a lot (What does "militia" mean?) but it'll be all right.
What you have to watch out for is the devil among the details. City ordinances extorting more sales tax for firearms, DC-style bans on owning firearms, etc. If you make it difficult enough for honest people to jump through hoops, only crooked ones will skip the hoops.
I also think it'll be impossible to get rid of guns- too many people own too many guns. But this hot-button issue is a bit like the third rail - touch it and die. IMHO, you'll see very tiny planks in anyone's platform about gun ownership (maybe the pro-gun label) or gun control (the anti-gun label).
Why can't the Federal Government have a Balance Budget Amendment if many States already have one?
Which is why several states have had to drop even essential services, cities have had to declare bankruptcy (because they can't get state funds), and so forth.
I'm not saying that a BBA is a bad idea. But when you want to be THE leading nation, there really needs to be a mechanism to keep from "going out of business."
what is a current event that has to deal with one or more of the first 10 and the 14th amendment?
As you know, the first 10 amendments to the United States Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. The 14th amendment contains the due process clause. In a case called Mapp vs. Ohio the United States Supreme Court decided that the Bill of Rights was applicable to the states. Or at least certain parts of the Bill of Rights. I'll let you research that. But the important thing to remember is that the Bill of Rights is a list of things the government cannot do. Originally it was supposed to be applicable to the federal government and over time the question became whether or not states also had to comply with the Bill of Rights.
Today, the rule is that the states must indeed comply with the first 10 amendments to the United States. They may grant more liberal rights than the 10 amendments set out, but they may not grant lesser rights.
There might be a couple of cases that interest you. These are both recent. One involved Fred Phelps. He is a minister from Kansas who protested at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. He and members of his group held up signs that said God hates fags, and other incendiary types of comments. Local and state governments attempted to limit what Rev. Phelps was doing because it offered the families of the troops. The United States Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment and the due process clause gave Rev. Phelps and his group freedom of speech. Rev. Phelps had a First Amendment right to do his protesting. As the court noted. Free speech is not always pleasant.
Another First Amendment case involved violent video games. The state of California passed a law that prevented the sale of violent video games to certain individuals. The court has to decide whether or not a game company can produce these types of games and distribute them. California is attempting to limit the manufacturers freedom to do so. You can find this case on the United States Supreme Court website, as well as the Phelps case.
Civil rights cases that involve students and civil rights usually come down on the part of the school. The reason is that it's a balancing of rights. The school has to remain safe and orderly. You also have to understand that many of the students in the school are minors and minors generally are not regarded as having constitutional rights. That is a closer question when it comes to free speech. You might want to look at the case of Tinker vs. Des Moines. In that case students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War and the court upheld that. But generally, students do not do well in the Supreme Court. I hope this helps.
Is it time to have a 28th Amendment to the Constitution, one that forces Congress to spend money it has?
it's not just a balanced budget we need it's value for money on government spending they pay about 2-300% over regular price for just about everything, many invoices are paid by one department without any other department incurring the debt, also we need some way to control dishonesty in congress the founders sort of assumed everyone in government would be honest and love america not line their own pockets, unfortunately the only way I can think of doing that is to limit the number of terms that can be served like the president and increase the number in congress so that influence is not concentrated in a few, losing a few experienced congressmen would be a small price to pay for an honest congress
Yu should really rethink tht....it doesnt not only effect gay and lesbian ppl..it also effects straight unmarried ppl and their children...google about amendment one to kno a lil more before yu vote for it...it will really hurt a lot of ppl
What is the one amendment in the original proposed Bill of Rights that has not been ratified?
It's not very interesting, I'm afraid. The proposed amendment, which was the first of the twelve, was a technical amendment that pertained to the reapportionment of the United States House of Representatives following the census every ten years. This amendment, which was never ratified, is technically still pending the state legislatures' approval, but it never will be.
In any case, since the first two of the twelve originally proposed amendments were not rights issues but issues pertaining to congress, only the last 10 were ever referred to as the "Bill of Rights."
The 14th Amendment is commonly referred to as one of the most important additions to the Constitution. Why?
It was after the era of the Civil War, and during the era of the Gilded Age and era of southern Reconstruction that the 14th amendment was implicated. During these times, America went through one of it's greatest transitional periods of all the young country's history. Considering the 14th amendment was right smack in the middle of it, It's considered important, knowing that all of the good and meaningful things (that I'm not going to go into now) that this amendment brought were half the reason for this huge transitional period of the early 1900's.