Please cut and paste that provision of the Constitution that says only the states can amend it.
HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
Please cut and paste that provision of the Constitution that says only the states can amend it.
Into the Night
Verified User
Yes he does.
Into the Night
Verified User
No, it does not even require a bill from Congress. He can do this by executive order.
Into the Night
Verified User
No need. Read it for yourself, especially Article 5.
No need? In other words, you know it is not in there. Any constitutional convention is called by Congress at the request of 2/3 of the states according to Article V.
Somebody has been feeding you BS. I know you didn't read it yourself because we both know it is not there.
Into the Night
Verified User
It is in there.
This is one way. The other ways of amending the constitution are also in Article V. ALL of them mean that only the States have the authority to change the Constitution.
What about "two thirds of the States" don't you understand??
It IS there.
Then cut and paste that section---it is not very long. Show us the provision!! The 2/3 of the states only request the convention, Congress must call it.
Flash...nice try...but you have a better chance of getting a brick wall to change its mind.
He is a joke. You are wasting your time. (But I gotta acknowledge that I am enjoying watching it...and seeing him squirm.)
Getin the ring
Verified User
the definition of irony may very well be YOU calling someone a joke.
The Democrats have decided the constitution can mean anything you want it to mean, so why is it any different when a Republican does it
2nd part of the process. 3/4 of the STATES (currently 38), each having one vote, are required to vote in the affirmative for an amendment to be added. Without that approval, it's nothing more than a proposal by one of the two ways that can be done. For example, the Equal Rights Amendment was introduced several times over a 50 year period (1921 - 1972) until it finally became a PROPOSED amendment with 2/3 of both houses of Congress voting for it to reach that stage. At it's highest point, it received 35 of the 38 required to ratify it although several of the 35 later rescinded their ratification vote. It never made it as an amendment because not enough STATES voted to do so.
No need to cut/paste. Read Article V of the Constitution.
Hey you ugly old hag. Still using a picture of a beautiful woman as an avatar.
NOW THAT IS IRONY!
The "Democrats" have done no such thing. I don't actually think the Republicans have done it either. If you erroneously think they have, though...take it up with a Democrat or a Republican. I am neither.
When it comes down to the provisions in Article V, Getin the Ring is correct. The only thing the two houses can do is PROPOSE. Unless the States ratify it, there is no amendment only a proposal.
Are you aware that the Bill of Rights could have been the first 20 amendments amendments to the Constitution. Madison proposed 20 ideas, 17 were left after the House finished, 12 after the Senate, and 10 AMENDMENT after ratification by the STATES. While Congress is involved in the process, ONLY the States can make them amendments.
And the states cannot ratify an amendment until it has been proposed by Congress. So, neither federal or state can amend the document without the other.
Based on your reasoning, you could equally conclude that only the federal government can amend the Constitution because it must FIRST propose the amendments. Without amendments proposed by Congress there are none for the states to ratify.
I was not aware 20 amendments were introduced in Congress. Are you aware one of the original 12 amendments not ratified in 1791 was ratified in 1992 and became our 27th amendment? Recently the University of Texas student whose efforts resulted in the ratification had his grade changed from "C" to "A" for the paper he wrote on the subject in his American Government class?
You and Getn in the Ring are not thinking logically--neither fed or state governments can amend the Constitution without the other. Congress must act first (even if the alternative methods are used).
Actually, what you say about Congress having to act isn't true. If you'll read Article V, you'll see that an amendment can be added and involve ONLY the States. For proposals of amendments to occur, there are two methods. One does directly involve Congress and the other involves Congress basically "rubber stamping" a call for a constitutional convention by 34 or more of the State legislatures.
There weren't 20 amendments. There were 20 suggestions or proposals. They aren't amendments until 3/4 of the States ratify them. There weren't 12 original amendments only 12 original proposals that came out of the House and Senate. If what you keep incorrectly calling something actually occurred, we'd have 32 instead of 27 amendments to the Constitution. As it stands, we have 32 proposals with only 27 becoming amendments. One of the two proposals not ratified in 1791 was not the same as the 27th. It can't be either amendment 11 or 12 and 27 at the same time.
While all of the amendments have been proposed by the 2/3 vote of Congress option, they don't have to be. Why do you think all of them have been proposed that way despite the other State led option? This is a thinking question which requires common sense to answer. Nothing to look up to find it.
The avatar could have been a pile of shit that could easily be confused for your grandchildren.
Madison's plan had 20 amendments. The House passed 17 of these and the Senate proposed 12. 10 of these were ratified in 1791. The amendment you are referring to as #11 (was originally the 2nd) and was ratified by 3/4 of the states in 1992. It cannot be both 11 or 12 and 27 at the same time because by the time it was ratified we already had 26 other amendments and they weren't going to change the numbers. It is the same amendment proposed in 1791 but was obsolete by the time it was ratified because Congress had already passed a law giving them automatic pay raises based on the CPI (like Social Security).
Regarding the alternative method of amending, Congress does not have to rubber stamp a proposed call for a convention, so, it is still involved in the process. And, if that convention is called, the state does not necessarily ratify that amendment. The alternative is to have ratifying conventions and 3/4 of those must ratify.
The ratifying conventions basically bypass the state legislatures and was used to ratify the 21st Amendment because it was feared the southern state legislatures would not vote to repeal prohibition and they bypassed the legislatures by using ratifying conventions.
"Madison started off with 20 amendments with a separate preamble to the Bill of Rights.
The House of Representatives debated and changed Madison’s proposal and approved a version with 17 amendments. Then, the proposed Bill of Rights went to the Senate, where it underwent more extensive revisions, and emerged as a document with 12 amendments. Congress then approved the “final” Bill of Rights, as a joint resolution, on September 25, 1789.
But the 12 amendments didn’t all make it through the state ratification process. And in fact, the original First and Second Amendments fell short of approval by enough states to make it into the Constitution.
The original First Amendment stated a formula for determining the size of the House of Representatives based on the population of the United States in 1789. That amendment could still be revived, but it wouldn’t be practical in the year 2013. The original Second Amendment was about determining when Congress can change its pay. It took a very long time, but the original Second Amendment became the 27th Amendment when it was ratified in 1992." [National Constitution Center]
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog...original-12-amendments-in-the-bill-of-rights/
Loving91390
Verified User
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
And about Don's anchor baby kids?
Hopefully, they will consider the legal precedent set by SCOTUS in the Wong Kim Ark case, where all that was necessary was for the parents to have established a permanent residence and be doing business in the U.S., and to not be in the employ of any foreign power. That would exclude the children of tourists and many, though not all, illegals.i guess we will have to leave it for the supreme court to decide as this will get there eventually.
