Actually what would be good for America is to finally arrest tRump and his GOPer creeps who conspired with foreign enemies to incite insurrection, conspire to destroy Democracy from within, conspired among his GOPers to covid murder over 500,000 Americans, installed concentration camps in America as a complete violation of all core values of America and U.S. Constitutional law, adding over $8 trillion to the national debt and other high crimes this lawlessly hacked in tRump gutter mob instigated against humanity.
An amendment must be brought by either 2/3 of both the house and senate or constitutional convention.
Any amendment, brought by either method MUST be passed by 3/4 of the states before it is added.
The courts have NO say whatsoever, only both congresses can jointly propose an amendment and the president also has NO say.
Once amended, the constitution is the law of the land.
Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.
The courts do have a say.
The constitutionality of what is being proposed, then the lawmakers proceed with an addition, amendment, ratification or repeal.
NOT the voting.
The president does NOT have a role in the voting process, he can't veto an amendment, the president does, of course have an opinion but that's it.
martin (04-18-2021)
No, it isn't, who would the lawmaker making a proposal, consult?
I would think a constitutional lawyer, who then would possibly, consult a judge, that has tried constitution cases.
"The courts have NO say whatsoever".
I never said the courts ALWAYS have say, I should have stated they sometimes can.
Not ALL politicians will have a say in the amendment process, you only need 75% of states and 66% of the congress and senate.
What if the constitutionality of what is being proposed is challenged?
Last edited by no worries; 04-18-2021 at 03:12 AM.
Mass shootings can also trigger us to make knee-jerk reactions which are not in our best interests.
In the classic WWII film, "The Dirty Dozen," once Lee Marvin and Charles Bronson start shooting, the Nazis all go to their "safe room" beneath the castle. And the Americans shoot in order to herd the Germans in there behind strong doors where they entrap themselves so the Dirty Dozen can more easily control and then dispatch them.
@2:07:41
The Dirty Dozen 1967 HD (War Film) (2:29:37)
If you've never seen it, this will be a treat for you.
If you haven't watched it recently, you will enjoy seeing it again.
The Constitution provides for the methods of amendment. There is no provision for judicial review and it is illogical that there would be. A change in the meaning of The Constitution, which is what amendments do, would be unconstitutional by definition with reference to the original language.
The Court has at various times considered the validity of constitutional amendments.
In the Hawke v Smith (1920), for example, the Court upheld Ohio's ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment over objections that the Ohio Constitution provided for a referendum on the issue by voters that might have overridden the Ohio legislature's ratification of the amendment.
In the National Prohibition Cases (1920), the Court generally upheld the validity of the Eighteenth Amendment, rejecting arguments that a prohibition on the distribution and possession of alcohol was a constitutionally impermissible subject matter for a constitutional amendment.
Consider the effect of the Twenty-First Amendment repealing the Eighteenth Amendment. In LaRue v California (1972), the Court concludes that the Twenty-First Amendment qualifies the First Amendment, thus allowing states to regulate expression in establishments that serve alcohol, even when such restrictions might violate the First Amendment if applied elsewhere.
But while the Court may rule on the validity of an amendment, it cannot pass this ruling into law. It will leave Congress the choice on what to do if an amendment is determined invalid or not.
Which is correct.
The SC is not changing an amendment, create, overturn one or one or ruling one into law, just validating the constitutionality of it.
You are correct, an amendment is not subject to judicial review, then again, I never stated that.
Never said that, the courts have A SAY, in the constitutionality of an amendment, not whether it should pass or not.
The courts do, IF it is challenged, never stated SCOTUS, sometimes the lower courts stand, which they did, at the time.
That was before the civil war. (1857)
Then it was in 1868 by......................an amendment, the 14th in 1868, which politicians passed, not the courts.
Which they agreed it was CONSTITUTIONAL.
Last edited by no worries; 04-18-2021 at 10:46 AM.
Bookmarks