General Discussion

RiverNoord

(1,150 posts)

49. Wow - that's a whopper

Sat Oct 19, 2013, 10:40 AM

Oct 2013

There is no 'legislative intent' argument to be made for a plain-text Amendment that simply states that income tax is OK (it was actually upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court prior to the Amendment's proposal, but there were serious concerns that that could change).

The Second Amendment, on the other hand, is not at all 'plain-text', but gun nuts love to read it very selectively - that whole 'well-regulated militia' business is out of date, unclear, just surplus language that doesn't really mean anything, etc...

And - the authors of the Constitution knew that it could not possibly be perfect - that's why there's a very clear procedure for its amendment written into it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

54 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Nat'l Journal: Republicans Close to Violating the Constitution [View all] kpete Oct 2013 OP

Constitution? brucefan Oct 2013 #1

Well that is till they get to that 2nd amendment nt meadowlark5 Oct 2013 #2

well yeah.. that's where they stop. Voice for Peace Oct 2013 #16

No, they go a little farther than that jmowreader Oct 2013 #17

That is rich... RiverNoord Oct 2013 #25

Yes, it can get dumber than that. Michele Bachmann. n/t IllinoisBirdWatcher Oct 2013 #28

Well, the teabagger was about six foot...does that count? jmowreader Oct 2013 #30

OK then there is a theoretical logical basis RiverNoord Oct 2013 #46

Heck, they are still arguing that the ACA is unconstitutional: truebluegreen Oct 2013 #34

Have you heard the best tax protester argument? jmowreader Oct 2013 #43

Wow - that's a whopper RiverNoord Oct 2013 #49

Some moran once told me everything past the Tenth Amendment was invalid jmowreader Oct 2013 #50

Um... that's a completely legitimate point RiverNoord Oct 2013 #47

In reality, if the SCOTUS says a law is constitutional, then it is... truebluegreen Oct 2013 #48

Nah, Constitution is ONLY about owning guns to these morons. nt valerief Oct 2013 #6

Paper? freebrew Oct 2013 #12

Close? Like in tactical nukes close? hobbit709 Oct 2013 #3

Horseshoes, hand grenades, and atomic bombs. Sometimes close is all it takes. Coyotl Oct 2013 #4

Exactly, and the media has ProSense Oct 2013 #5

Violate it how? MFrohike Oct 2013 #23

Because while the President would be obeying the 14th amendment, he would be breaking stevenleser Oct 2013 #40

I'm a bit confused MFrohike Oct 2013 #44

The issue was that 2naSalit Oct 2013 #51

You're confused MFrohike Oct 2013 #52

Okay 2naSalit Oct 2013 #53

That's half my life MFrohike Oct 2013 #54

That's why I say.... Swede Atlanta Oct 2013 #7

DITTO Iliyah Oct 2013 #8

Works for me! nt SunSeeker Oct 2013 #9

As much as I'd like to see them loaded into a C-130 davidpdx Oct 2013 #33

K&R!! I'm sure most Re/Teapuke have committed several crimes for which they should've been arrested. hue Oct 2013 #10

Everyone knows the only REAL part about the Constitution is to have guns, guns joeybee12 Oct 2013 #11

Its not much different than unrelenting reliance on the "commerce clause". 1-Old-Man Oct 2013 #14

Question 90-percent Oct 2013 #13

Hey, hey! Give him credit! He autographed an American flag. xfundy Oct 2013 #31

The Shutdown is unconstitutional ashling Oct 2013 #15

There is the other possibility nobody seems to want to think about mostlyconfused Oct 2013 #18

actually... mostlyconfused Oct 2013 #19

Tired MFrohike Oct 2013 #22

"Laws are for little people." eppur_se_muova Oct 2013 #20

I think what they might want paulkienitz Oct 2013 #21

Yes. This... mostlyconfused Oct 2013 #29

there's one big problem with this scenario paulkienitz Oct 2013 #39

Good point. And it made me curious. mostlyconfused Oct 2013 #41

think daily, not monthly paulkienitz Oct 2013 #42

The Constitution. In GOP circles, it's better known as "that g/ddamn piece of paper." blkmusclmachine Oct 2013 #24

Bushitler circles. lonestarnot Oct 2013 #27

So who would have standing to take them to court, and what would be the punishment of violating Agnosticsherbet Oct 2013 #26

Similarly, what statute would they be in violation of? truebluegreen Oct 2013 #35

Exactly.... Agnosticsherbet Oct 2013 #38

"Close"? After 9-11 they couldn't trash it fast enough. nt Hekate Oct 2013 #32

When they were sworn into Congress.. they took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the USA.. Cha Oct 2013 #36

Gosh, what was that constant drumbeat that this is not Sedition? Katashi_itto Oct 2013 #37

If rethugs are so concerned about the debt ThomThom Oct 2013 #45