Question for the Constitutional scholar who posts here

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Question for the Constitutional scholar who posts here

Posted: 10/13/2005 1:00:49 PM EDT

I'm very sorry I can't remember your screen name, but I've seen you post in other topics.

In the other thread on Gun Laws / Marijuana Laws, someone stated that the original Bill of Rights are not like other amendments since they cannot be repealed.

This would make sense to me as the Constitution was only approved with the Amendments in place. However, I can find nothing that would prevent us from say repealing the 2nd amemdment if enough states wanted it done.

Can you tell me if it is possible to repeal one of the original amendments in the BOR?

thanks for any insight

Posted: 10/13/2005 1:11:35 PM EDT

[#1]

No expert but I was taught anything in the Constitution can be changed through amendment.

Posted: 10/13/2005 1:14:51 PM EDT

[#2]

I don't remember anything in the document that contravenes the following:

Article V - Amendment

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.

Posted: 10/13/2005 1:25:56 PM EDT

[#3]

thats my reading as well, if there is enough support then the 2nd could be repealed.

Posted: 10/13/2005 1:27:37 PM EDT

[#4]

Good thing that will never happen in a million years.

Posted: 10/13/2005 1:28:42 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Question for the Constitutional scholar who posts here I'm very sorry I can't remember your screen name, but I've seen you post in other topics.

thats my reading as well, if there is enough support then the 2nd could be repealed.

Which is why we always go back to natural law.

ANd the name is "garandman."

Posted: 10/13/2005 1:31:50 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Good thing that will never happen in a million years.

The danger is not a Constitutional amendment that would be highly unlikely to get through.

The real danger is liberal activist judges who ignore the Constitution... that living document bullshit.

Posted: 10/13/2005 1:34:57 PM EDT

[#7]

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."
-- Thomas Jefferson

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

The BoR is the first ten and the spirit and intent of the constitution was those right are unalienable.

Posted: 10/13/2005 2:00:39 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
The BoR is the first ten and the spirit and intent of the constitution was those right are unalienable.

Too bad they didn't actually insert that into the text as was done with the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Notice that the Constition omits all reference to a right to the pursuit of happiness. I think that the plain text of the Constitution suggests that the BoR is, in fact, subject to Article V regardless of intent. In other words, say what you mean and mean what you say!

Posted: 10/13/2005 4:02:39 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Notice that the Constition omits all reference to a right to the pursuit of happiness. I think that the plain text of the Constitution suggests that the BoR is, in fact, subject to Article V regardless of intent. In other words, say what you mean and mean what you say!

The letter of the law Kills but the spirit of the law bring life ever-lasting.

I cant find the context of the Thoams Jefferson quote just now but he said " At all times return to the spirit of the law at the time it was adopted" which shows the founders wisdom in the knowledge of law and it use.

Another reason why juries judge both facts and the LAW, no law is complete of and by it's self.

Romans 5-20 Yet law came in by the way, that the offense should be increasing. Yet where sin increases, grace superexceeds,
21 that, even as Sin reigns in death, thus Grace also should be reigning through righteousness, for life eonian, through Jesus Christ, our Lord.

Posted: 10/13/2005 4:44:04 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
I'm very sorry I can't remember your screen name, but I've seen you post in other topics.

In the other thread on Gun Laws / Marijuana Laws, someone stated that the original Bill of Rights are not like other amendments since they cannot be repealed.

This would make sense to me as the Constitution was only approved with the Amendments in place. However, I can find nothing that would prevent us from say repealing the 2nd amemdment if enough states wanted it done.

Can you tell me if it is possible to repeal one of the original amendments in the BOR?

thanks for any insight

The BoR was added after the Constitution was ratified. someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

Posted: 10/13/2005 5:36:07 PM EDT

[#11]

Some good links -

U.S. Constitution

Documentary History of the Bill of Rights

The Founders' Constitution

Charters of Freedom

Avalon Project documentary record of The American Constitution

GL

Posted: 10/13/2005 5:41:17 PM EDT

[#12]

There has been discussion of doing away with the 3rd Amendment.

Posted: 10/13/2005 5:49:37 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Another reason why juries judge both facts and the LAW, no law is complete of and by it's self.

A jury is a fact finder only. Saying precisely what is the law is solely within the province of a judge,

Posted: 10/13/2005 6:30:59 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Another reason why juries judge both facts and the LAW, no law is complete of and by it's self.

A jury is a fact finder only. Saying precisely what is the law is solely within the province of a judge,

The whole American common law system is based upon the jury judging both facts and Law.
If the jury doesnt like the law be it alcohol or marijuana related it can over turn it case by case.

Article VII - In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Posted: 10/13/2005 7:22:48 PM EDT

[#15]

There is only ONE item in the Constitution that cannot be changed. Per article V, only the clause granting to each state an equal representation in the Senate cannot be amended. And even that is not an absolute prohibition. Technically, if all 50 states wished to eliminate equal representation in the Senate, even that could be repealed.

There was a prohibition, also found in Article V, against any amendment that would prohibit the importation of slaves, but this prohibition expired in 1808.

Posted: 10/13/2005 7:39:51 PM EDT

[#16]

DoI: 1776

The Decleration of Independence is not a legal binding document, it holds many of America's beliefs in spirit, but it cannot be used as a legal document in a court of law to uphold someone's rights.

Constitution: 1787
BoRs:1791

The original Bill of Rights (12 amendments, 10 of which were ratified) were added to the Constitution as a means to reinforce the guarantee that the government may not infringe on certain inalienable, God given rights. The BoRs only articulates SOME of these rights.

Good subject, lots of interesting stuff.

D

Posted: 10/13/2005 10:45:36 PM EDT

[#17]

I especially find this one suggestive:

Amendment IX.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

GL

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Question for the Constitutional scholar who posts here

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us