mnealtx 0
muff528 3
QuoteQuote[reply...........Technically, though, every part of the Constitution, without exception (thus far), is subject to amendment (including being repealed by means of subsequent amendment) by the formal amendment process...............
So... I take it that, in your professional opinion, the abolition of slavery by virtue of the 13th Amendment is not "settled law".
Digging a bit deep there, aren't you? By that criteria, none of the amendments are "settled law", since they could all be changed/abolished by future amendments.
Not digging at all... it's right there in plain sight... ...."without exception".
I dunno...... that whole "settled law" terminology that has recently cropped up sends chills up my spine for some reason. Having said that, there are certain fundamental precepts, or unalienable rights, that I feel should be "settled" and guaranteed. I just happen to lump the BOR in there with them (IMO, of course).
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuote[reply...........Technically, though, every part of the Constitution, without exception (thus far), is subject to amendment (including being repealed by means of subsequent amendment) by the formal amendment process...............
So... I take it that, in your professional opinion, the abolition of slavery by virtue of the 13th Amendment is not "settled law".
Digging a bit deep there, aren't you? By that criteria, none of the amendments are "settled law", since they could all be changed/abolished by future amendments.
Not digging at all... it's right there in plain sight... ...."without exception".
I dunno...... that whole "settled law" terminology that has recently cropped up sends chills up my spine for some reason. Having said that, there are certain fundamental precepts, or unalienable rights, that I feel should be "settled" and guaranteed. I just happen to lump the BOR in there with them (IMO, of course).
By the language of Article 5 of the Constitution, he's correct:
"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."
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Andy9o8 2
Quote[reply...........Technically, though, every part of the Constitution, without exception (thus far), is subject to amendment (including being repealed by means of subsequent amendment) by the formal amendment process...............
So... I take it that, in your professional opinion, the abolition of slavery by virtue of the 13th Amendment is not "settled law".
Just the opposite. It clearly abolished slavery by superseding the prior-existing clause, to the extent that that clause applied to slavery (its original intent), as expressly distinguished from compulsory penal labor. So I'd say that point is settled law.
To acknowledge what I think you're driving at, it might have been "cleaner" if the 13th Amendment had expressly said something like "Paragraph 3 of Article 4, Section 2 of this Constitution is hereby repealed", but it doesn't. Nonetheless, the net effect, under the principle of superseding recency, is to render that Paragraph 3 obsolescent, and, therefore, a nullity.
So in my post #129, instead of saying "(including being repealed by means of subsequent amendment)", it would have been more complete had I said "(including being repealed or rendered null and/or obsolescent by means of subsequent amendment)".
mnealtx 0
That's a good explanation of the 13th, Andy - thanks.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
muff528 3
Quote.................
So in my post #129, instead of saying "(including being repealed by means of subsequent amendment)", it would have been more complete had I said "(including being repealed or rendered null and/or obsolescent by means of subsequent amendment)".
So the 13th, by replacing a clause, has effectively eliminated that clause causing any future hypothetical repeal of the amendment to not result in reverting back to the original (now non-existant) clause. So new language would need to be written to replace the amendment. This in contrast to, say, the 18th Amendment which really did not amend anything that existed in the Constitution. Of course the 18th was repealed and the Constitution effectively reverted to a pre-18th condition (notwithstanding the subsequent 19th and 20th). (Again, I'm not suggesting that any repeal of the 13th should even be considered. Just using that as a contrasting example.) All of that was really a question attempting to gain understanding.
And yes, I completely agree that when specific issues are addressed in Amendments or opinions issued by courts, that "cleaner" language (say what you mean!) would be nice. But then you guys would have to look for other work.
Meso 38
QuoteI always wonder how many "Libertarians" and anarchists would be able to stay alive for more than a few days in their wet dream world with no governments
Actually, Anarchism isn't just chaos and violence. There have been numerous anarchic communities where people have lived their lives opposed to government rule. There are still some too, and even one in South Africa, where the biggest fear for violence comes from the police and the government.
An anarchic society, at least in many of the cases where it has been present is often formed by a breakaway of people opposed to government rule, sharing the same values. It's not really about "Oh my god, I can do whatever I want". Because quite frankly you can't, while there may not be a government as currently thought of in democratic societies, if you go and commit a crime you will pay for it... Members of anarchic societies don't want murderers and rapists involved with the community either.
Freedom from government does not mean freedom from morality. Laws shouldn't tell you what is right and what is wrong anyway, those can be determined just by thinking. And usually revolves around peoples rights to do what they want as long as what they do isn't ruining other peoples lives.
I hate government, every single little bit of it. The way they have the ability to control personal choices and use people as pawns to their global game of chess.
But with that said, I do think that if anarchy was forced upon the world it would be a disaster. Instead, ideally I think it should be communities. And while this is pretty much defeating the idea of anarchism and freedom from boundaries, it is a step closer to letting people have more freedom than they do at present. No one is then forced into a state of anarchy, but instead would be a choice, give them a country. You can look at the current South African anarchic community and see their biggest threat of violence to it's members is the government (attacks on them from political parties)
I think people just assume that every anarchist wants to go around and punch babies in the face. Some just want freedom, that which is not given to anyone these days. People have just become so used to being oppressed they don't question it.
And quite frankly, I'd rather see the world burn being free than see it succeed through oppressive leaders who see it fit to rule others lives.
Best part about this post is everyone is going to be all pissed off and reply to it using their usual talk about how 'free' they are and how God loves them. And I won't even check back to this thread.
(A)
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteI always wonder how many "Libertarians" and anarchists would be able to stay alive for more than a few days in their wet dream world with no governments
Actually, Anarchism isn't just chaos and violence. There have been numerous anarchic communities where people have lived their lives opposed to government rule. There are still some too, and even one in South Africa, where the biggest fear for violence comes from the police and the government.
An anarchic society, at least in many of the cases where it has been present is often formed by a breakaway of people opposed to government rule, sharing the same values. It's not really about "Oh my god, I can do whatever I want". Because quite frankly you can't, while there may not be a government as currently thought of in democratic societies, if you go and commit a crime you will pay for it... Members of anarchic societies don't want murderers and rapists involved with the community either.
Freedom from government does not mean freedom from morality. Laws shouldn't tell you what is right and what is wrong anyway, those can be determined just by thinking. And usually revolves around peoples rights to do what they want as long as what they do isn't ruining other peoples lives.
I hate government, every single little bit of it. The way they have the ability to control personal choices and use peoples as pawns to their global game of chess.
But with that said, I do think that if anarchy was forced upon the world it would be a disaster. Instead, ideally I think it should be communities. And while this is pretty much defeating the idea of anarchism and freedom from boundaries, it is a step closer to letting people have more freedom than they do at present. No one is then forced into a state of anarchy, but instead would be a choice, give them a country. You can look at the current South African anarchic community and see their biggest threat of violence to it's members is the government (attacks on them from political parties)
I think people just assume that every anarchist wants to go around and punch babies in the face. Some just want freedom, that which is not given to anyone these days. People have just become so used to being oppressed they don't question it.
And quite frankly, I'd rather see the world burn being free than see it succeed through oppressive leaders who see it fit to rule others lives.
Best part about this post is everyone is going to be all pissed off and reply to it using their usual talk about how 'free' they are and how God loves them. And I won't even check back to this thread.
(A)
The quote you are replying to is not from me.
But your points are clear and interesting
Thanks
Marc
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
muff528 3
Returning to my 2 guys stranded on a desert island... As soon as they agree to coexist and to share latrine duties they have formed a rudimentary "government"... like it or not. Then it's only a question of scale.
Andy9o8 2
QuoteQuote.................
So in my post #129, instead of saying "(including being repealed by means of subsequent amendment)", it would have been more complete had I said "(including being repealed or rendered null and/or obsolescent by means of subsequent amendment)".
So the 13th, by replacing a clause, has effectively eliminated that clause causing any future hypothetical repeal of the amendment to not result in reverting back to the original (now non-existant) clause. So new language would need to be written to replace the amendment. This in contrast to, say, the 18th Amendment which really did not amend anything that existed in the Constitution. Of course the 18th was repealed and the Constitution effectively reverted to a pre-18th condition (notwithstanding the subsequent 19th and 20th). (Again, I'm not suggesting that any repeal of the 13th should even be considered. Just using that as a contrasting example.) All of that was really a question attempting to gain understanding.
And yes, I completely agree that when specific issues are addressed in Amendments or opinions issued by courts, that "cleaner" language (say what you mean!) would be nice. But then you guys would have to look for other work.
You raise an interesting hypotherical question: Would an express repeal of the 13th Amendment (example: "Amendment Thirteen of this Constitution is hereby repealed") restore slavery to legality? Quicky and off the top of my head, I'd say No, because there are myriad Federal laws, as well as state laws and state constitutional provisions, that still make the practice of non-penal slavery unlawful. But it could give rise to an argument that the particular express impediment to slavery in particular under the US Constitution has been removed. One counter-argument to that would be that the other rights embodied in the Constitution, if followed faithfully, already effectively prohibit slavery, even though they might not specifically mention the word "slavery".
This is an incomplete thought process on my part - I'd have to do more research to answer in greater depth.
muff528 3
QuoteQuoteQuote.................
So in my post #129, instead of saying "(including being repealed by means of subsequent amendment)", it would have been more complete had I said "(including being repealed or rendered null and/or obsolescent by means of subsequent amendment)".
So the 13th, by replacing a clause, has effectively eliminated that clause causing any future hypothetical repeal of the amendment to not result in reverting back to the original (now non-existant) clause. So new language would need to be written to replace the amendment. This in contrast to, say, the 18th Amendment which really did not amend anything that existed in the Constitution. Of course the 18th was repealed and the Constitution effectively reverted to a pre-18th condition (notwithstanding the subsequent 19th and 20th). (Again, I'm not suggesting that any repeal of the 13th should even be considered. Just using that as a contrasting example.) All of that was really a question attempting to gain understanding.
And yes, I completely agree that when specific issues are addressed in Amendments or opinions issued by courts, that "cleaner" language (say what you mean!) would be nice. But then you guys would have to look for other work.
You raise an interesting hypotherical question: Would an express repeal of the 13th Amendment (example: "Amendment Thirteen of this Constitution is hereby repealed") restore slavery to legality? Quicky and off the top of my head, I'd say No, because there are myriad Federal laws, as well as state laws and state constitutional provisions, that still make the practice of non-penal slavery unlawful. But it could give rise to an argument that the particular express impediment to slavery in particular under the US Constitution has been removed. One counter-argument to that would be that the other rights embodied in the Constitution, if followed faithfully, already effectively prohibit slavery, even though they might not specifically mention the word "slavery".
This is an incomplete thought process on my part - I'd have to do more research to answer in greater depth.
You're getting very close to where I've been going with this discussion since early in this thread.
champu 1
QuoteOne counter-argument to that would be that the other rights embodied in the Constitution, if followed faithfully, already effectively prohibit slavery, even though they might not specifically mention the word "slavery".
I haven't fine-tooth combed the constitution from that angle either. It gets even trickier if you repeal the 13th and leave the 14th because of the person/citizen distinction.
Andy9o8 2
QuoteYou're getting very close to where I've been going with this discussion since early in this thread.
If you say. Or not. I'm not trying to advocate; merely to analyze.
muff528 3
Quote..............
You raise an interesting hypotherical question: Would an express repeal of the 13th Amendment (example: "Amendment Thirteen of this Constitution is hereby repealed") restore slavery to legality? Quicky and off the top of my head, I'd say No, because there are myriad Federal laws, as well as state laws and state constitutional provisions, that still make the practice of non-penal slavery unlawful. But it could give rise to an argument that the particular express impediment to slavery in particular under the US Constitution has been removed. One counter-argument to that would be that the other rights embodied in the Constitution, if followed faithfully, already effectively prohibit slavery, even though they might not specifically mention the word "slavery".......
Quote....But it could give rise to an argument that the particular express impediment to slavery in particular under the US Constitution has been removed. One counter-argument to that would be that the other rights embodied in the Constitution, .....
Specifically which "other rights"?... embodied where in the Constitution? (Later...)
Quote..... if followed faithfully, already effectively prohibit slavery, even though they might not specifically mention the word "slavery".
For that counter-argument to be successful it would have to be shown that slavery was effectively already prohibited prior to the ratification of the 13th Amendment and therefore a repeal of the Amendment could not affect the prohibition of slavery. IMO that argument, if successful, would have to show that the practice of slavery had been illegal and unconstitutional for almost 90 years since the original ratification of the Constitution, regardless of the interpretation of the wording in the extradition clause.
Additionally, if these "other rights" used for this counter-argument can "effectively prohibit slavery" with no specific mention of the word "slavery".... then how can the original Article 4, Section 2, which does not mention the word "slave", be exclusively interpreted to refer to the return of escaped slaves (in addition to referring to the extradition of escaped convicts)? Of course, it could have been interpreted by the SCOTUS either way (with or without also meaning slaves) if they wanted to since the Constitution makes no other reference to slavery whatsoever prior to that Article and in fact does not even use the word "slaves" until the 13th Amendment in 1865. IOW, even if the wording of Art4, Sec2 was meant to throw a bone to the slave states (and yes, I do realize it was) to gain some support for the agreements, there is no previous mention of the conditions or responsibilities (or the legality or constitutionality) of slave ownership in the Constitution itself to suggest that the clause in Section 2 should necessarily also refer to slaves. ....and I find that a little curious and conspicuous.
Specifically which "other rights"?... embodied where in the Constitution?
IMO these other rights are embodied in the BOR and in the Declaration of Independence (which, in part, provides the principles upon which the framers built the Constitution and the Union). Now if the tenets of Freedom and Liberty (not to mention the economic considerations of the day) were so important to the framers, and they absolutely meant for the practice of slavery to continue, how do they neglect to do something as simple and important as defining who can be sold into slavery and seemingly more importantly .... who can not? Did they just assume that there are "other rights" (which, it seems, are subject to amendment and modernization without exception) that would provide sufficient protection, .... and that future populations would simply continue to enslave only people of a particular description because, well,.... that's just the way it is?
My uneducated opinion is that these are unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness outlined in the Declaration, and what should be the non-amendable Bill of Rights without which there would have been no agreement or ratification or union. If all parts of the Constitution can be amended without exception then there really is no protection at all provided by the Constitution for anyone and we are just trusting that the government of the day (political people who generally have a political agenda) will constrain themselves to "do the right thing" when they perceive or represent important issues as Constitutional crises.
Without an immovable base the Constitution would (will) eventually evolve into an entanglement of seemingly conflicting amendments with no real principled foundation.
dj123 0
QuoteAnd where did you get that the BOR is not repealable?
My thinking on this is that since Rights are not derived from governments but instead are inherent by birth and being, no government of men and no man can justly deny another of his/her Rights.
Thus the Bill of Rights cannot be repealled .
Do you agree or disagree
Blue Skies,
DJ
Andy9o8 2
QuoteQuoteAnd where did you get that the BOR is not repealable?
My thinking on this is that since Rights are not derived from governments but instead are inherent by birth and being, no government of men and no man can justly deny another of his/her Rights.
Thus the Bill of Rights cannot be repealled .
Do you agree or disagree
With all due respect, you are legally incorrect. Please see my post #129. The first 10 Amendments of the Constitution are no more and no less subject to the potential of being altered or repealed, by the formal amendment process, than any other part of the Constitution. As a matter of constitutional law, there's no wiggle room in that.
dj123 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd where did you get that the BOR is not repealable?
My thinking on this is that since Rights are not derived from governments but instead are inherent by birth and being, no government of men and no man can justly deny another of his/her Rights.
Thus the Bill of Rights cannot be repealled .
Do you agree or disagree
With all due respect, you are legally incorrect. Please see my post #129. The first 10 Amendments of the Constitution are no more and no less subject to the potential of being altered or repealed, by the formal amendment process, than any other part of the Constitution. As a matter of constitutional law, there's no wiggle room in that.
Yes Andy,
I understand your point and I agree that from a strictly legal standpoint the Bill of Rights can be repealled.
The problem is that since governments derive their just power from the consent of the Governed ,assuming those governed wish to retain each and every one of their birth Rights, no legitimate government could ever repeal the Bill of Rights in part or totality.
My thought as a Free Man anyway.
Blue Skies,
DJ
Andy9o8 2
I don't think one could define "birthright" without some degree of arbitrariness and cultural bias. Put another way, what might be a birthright in my opinion might not be seen as a birthright by someone on the other side of the planet. Even the concept of "universal rights" is culturally biased and subject to varying definitions.
dj123 0
QuoteI don't think one could define "birthright" without some degree of arbitrariness and cultural bias. Put another way, what might be a birthright in my opinion might not be seen as a birthright by someone on the other side of the planet. Even the concept of "universal rights" is culturally biased and subject to varying definitions.
Let me try another tact.
As the US has entered into a myriad of treaties with the UN which spell out various Human Rights, do you believe that the Bill of Rights can be repealled by a simple Constitutional ammendment?
Seems the ball is out of our court system.
Blue Skies,
DJ
So... I take it that, in your professional opinion, the abolition of slavery by virtue of the 13th Amendment is not "settled law".
Digging a bit deep there, aren't you? By that criteria, none of the amendments are "settled law", since they could all be changed/abolished by future amendments.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706