quote:The thing is, it looks to me like it is intentionally vague. I don't see how it is significantly less vague in its wording than roughly half of the Bill of Rights.
It is intentionally vague. Because it is intentionally vague about an issue I care deeply about, and because the vagueness can only be negative (from my perspective), I will not support such an amendment.
We're in the drafting stage of this amendment right now. We don't have to be vague if we don't want to. A lot of vagueness I'm willing to support. Vagueness about what is - to me - a life and death issue, I'm not.
quote:If, in the future, a challenge is brought against anti-abortion legislation on the basis that it is discriminatory, your language would make such discrimination a moot point, because right or wrong such discrimination would not be allowed as basis for a ruling.
That IS conceding a point that has not been argued yet. At least not in a court of law.
It's not conceding a point. Right now, this amendment is not available to anyone arguing abortion in a court of law. After the amendment, it will not be available in a court of law. That's not conceding the issue - it's saying we haven't addressed the issue via amendment.
quote:This may be obvious to everyone else since no one has mentioned it, but how could Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka not apply here? As I recall, SCOTUS ruled that seperate facilities inherently led to inequality.
Even so, it allows for such separation when there is a compelling state interest. Also, equality in facilities such as bathroom is much more easily measurable and correctable.
quote:Basically, I could have probably paraphrased all of that with "the Constitutional Amendments do not exist to define every specific law of the nation, they are the foundation upon which all our legislation and representation are to be based."
I agree. What I don't want is some unelected official deciding that we, the people, through our very long and very complex amendment process, decided to make our framework prohibit protection for the unborn when it's clear that the people will have made no such decision.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder what segregationists said about those damned unelected officials after Brown v Topeka Board of Education.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I live in Florida, and we just had a city manager down in Largo get fired because he is planing a sex change operation. Link Would something like the ERA ammendment prevent that, or would transexual rights need to be addressed by a seperate law? (It's a confusing subject. I heard that Floria only goes by birth gender when giving marriage liscences, but this says we consider them the new gender.)
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder what segregationists said about those damned unelected officials after Brown v Topeka Board of Education.
I wonder what abolitionists said about those damned unelected officials after Dred Scott. Or those who wanted to set maximum hours for laborers said about those damned unelected officials after Lochner.
Was there some reason other than attempting to equate me with Klan members that you posted that Lyrhawn? If so, expansion might be in order.
In this case, of course, there's not even a question about the proper role of judges, because, whatever that role, it is our elected officials' role to draft amendments to the constitution. We're not usurping judicial authority by being clear in our wishes.
And, again, if we're not clear that we don't intend this amendment to affect abortion - if people do want to preserve the ambiguity specifically so it can be used to advance abortion rights - tell me so I can drop this and get to opposing the amendment.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wonder what abolitionists said about those damned unelected officials after Dred Scott. Or those who wanted to set maximum hours for laborers said about those damned unelected officials after Lochner.
I wonder that too.
quote:Was there some reason other than attempting to equate me with Klan members that you posted that Lyrhawn? If so, expansion might be in order.
That wasn't my reason at all. Your wording just set off an alarm bell in my head. I hear so much complaining about the courts these days, I wonder why people think we should have a higher court system at all. Someone always seems to be unhappy with what they do.
In any case, I'm actually on your side, I think. I think if this amendment were to be used, one way or the other, to support or attack abortion, it should be made explicitly clear, so it isn't passed into law under false pretenses, and people will know where to stand on it. I don't think it should deal at all with abortion, and I'd have no problem having wording specifically put into the amendment to remove the question entirely from the debate on the amendment.
It wasn't meant to be a specific attack on you, it's something I really, honestly wonder. I think when we don't like their decisions, it's our job to change the law, and thus change their decisions. If it's changed at the constitutional level, they can't overturn in. I believe they are there to protect us from our demons, after a fashion. But lately all I ever hear, mostly from the Right, is how "unelected judges" are "legislating from the bench." To me that sounds like a cop out for people making bad laws.
My comment wasn't personal Dag, your words just reminded me of something that's been especially bothering me lately and I tossed it out there. I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread programming.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for expanding on that. It makes a lot of sense.
I do think it is imperative to remember the unelected status of the judges when evaluating their effect on the law. It's not a cop-out, but a recognition that the power of judicial review is in tension with the concept of government by the people.
I think it's necessary to have unelected review, and I'm generally satisfied with it structurally. And I do agree that it is used as a criticism in cases where it's not appropriate. But the misuse of the point shouldn't prevent the point from being raised in appropriate circumstances.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
I'm trying to understand this line. Does this mean that anyone OTHER than the United States or any state could deny or abridge someone's rights just because of their sex? A state could not require someone to be a specific gender to fulfill a certain role, nor could they pass laws that affect one sex and not the other - but private parties such as businesses, churches, clubs, etc, could still deny participation based on sex? Boy Scouts wouldn't be forced to start including girls, for example? What about those schools who are trying to have boys-only or girls-only classes because (they say) the students learn better that way? Could they be forced to integrate?
I don't know ... this sounds a lot like the laws that were passed that prohibited discrimination based on race, and yet now don't we have lawsuits when private groups discriminate based on race? (Not that I'm saying that discrimination based on race should be okay ... just that if we're saying this applies to public institutions only, I have a hard time seeing it kept at that level.) And I do not equate equal rights among the races with equal rights among the genders. Men and women are different.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not bothering to follow everything that has happened in this thread, and responding to the initial post:
It seems very sensible to me. I don't see how any amendment on anything could be passed today if it was thought that it might affect the balance of power concerning abortion, in either direction.
So, if this amendment is worth having (something which I haven't thought enough about to have an opinion one way or another), this is the only way I can see it actually happening.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm trying to understand this line. Does this mean that anyone OTHER than the United States or any state could deny or abridge someone's rights just because of their sex? A state could not require someone to be a specific gender to fulfill a certain role, nor could they pass laws that affect one sex and not the other - but private parties such as businesses, churches, clubs, etc, could still deny participation based on sex? Boy Scouts wouldn't be forced to start including girls, for example? What about those schools who are trying to have boys-only or girls-only classes because (they say) the students learn better that way? Could they be forced to integrate?
It doesn't mean that others can, it just means that this amendment doesn't prohibit it. There are many laws preventing discrimination based on sex already. This amendment would not affect those. It might grant Congress the power to prohibit some private action in order to remedy past state discrimination, but that would be very case specific and I can't think of a good example right now.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jenna, I think that if certain jobs have requirements such as, say, being a certain small size in order to be able to perform repairs or being able to lift at least X lbs., it wouldn't be gender discrimination even with this ammendment. I don't think it would require lingerie stores to start hiring men to work on the sales floor, either. I guess I could be wrong, but...
quote:Dagonee said: It is intentionally vague. Because it is intentionally vague about an issue I care deeply about, and because the vagueness can only be negative (from my perspective), I will not support such an amendment.
We're in the drafting stage of this amendment right now. We don't have to be vague if we don't want to. A lot of vagueness I'm willing to support. Vagueness about what is - to me - a life and death issue, I'm not.
I understand how you feel, and I'm not trying to marginalize it. I'm saying that it looks to me like the proposed amendment is worded specifically to leave out issues like that, leaving it for the living legistlators and judiciary to work out. This is good no matter which stance you take on abortion or any other issue that one might think this could affect, because it is far less difficult to have a federal law changed or amended than it is to have a Constitutional Amendment changed or removed. The wording is allowing the People to still have the debates over things like abortion and other issues. I believe that is important and necessary for the foundational document for the nation.
quote:JennaDean said: I'm trying to understand this line. Does this mean that anyone OTHER than the United States or any state could deny or abridge someone's rights just because of their sex? A state could not require someone to be a specific gender to fulfill a certain role, nor could they pass laws that affect one sex and not the other - but private parties such as businesses, churches, clubs, etc, could still deny participation based on sex? Boy Scouts wouldn't be forced to start including girls, for example? What about those schools who are trying to have boys-only or girls-only classes because (they say) the students learn better that way? Could they be forced to integrate?
As Dagonee said, it wouldn't affect those things. Worrying that things like that would be affected is unnecessary overreaction, because (as Dagonee said) there are laws to prevent discrimination in most of those cases already. What this amendment proposes is that state and federal institutions cannot deny equal rights. It is worded to be a Constitutional backing for laws that are already present.
Dagonee, did you see my previous post regarding the wording of other Amendments? I'm curious about what you feel are the differences in vagaries or wording between this proposed amendment and already established ones.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is good no matter which stance you take on abortion or any other issue that one might think this could affect, because it is far less difficult to have a federal law changed or amended than it is to have a Constitutional Amendment changed or removed. The wording is allowing the People to still have the debates over things like abortion and other issues. I believe that is important and necessary for the foundational document for the nation.
I don't see it that way. There is no way for the amendment to be used to restrict abortion or reduce its constitutional protection. There are clearly articulated (IMO incorrect, but they have been successful in similar situations) legal arguments for the amendment to be used to expand constitutional protection for abortion.
Further, once passed, the People cannot do anything about it, short of passing another amendment. The courts will be the ones having the discussion.
With an addendum that makes it clear this amendment is not intended to affect abortion, the People have the exact same scope to discuss it as they do now. Without such an addendum, the people have less scope for discussion outside the context of a new amendment.
quote:Dagonee, did you see my previous post regarding the wording of other Amendments? I'm curious about what you feel are the differences in vagaries or wording between this proposed amendment and already established ones.
Briefly, I don't think it's very different. It is the similarity to the 14th in particular that makes me think this amendment would eventually be used to further restrict government power to protect the unborn.
quote:What affect would this amendment be likely to have on the issue of same-sex marriage?
My guess: the most likely outcome would be a requirement for equal civil unions (as Vermont's court decided) or same sex marriages (as Massachusetts's court decided). Haven't decided which of these two outcomes is more likely.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: What affect would this amendment be likely to have on the issue of same-sex marriage?
None, that would still be something that the People, through representatives and judiciary, need to work out themselves.
quote:I don't see it that way. There is no way for the amendment to be used to restrict abortion or reduce its constitutional protection. There are clearly articulated (IMO incorrect, but they have been successful in similar situations) legal arguments for the amendment to be used to expand constitutional protection for abortion.
But I don't see it articulated even close to as clearly as you seem to regarding abortion. The wording seems to me to be intentionally ambivalent.
quote:Further, once passed, the People cannot do anything about it, short of passing another amendment. The courts will be the ones having the discussion.
The last time I checked, the courts were there at the service of the People and to interpret the Constitution with regard to laws. Has something changed?
quote:
quote:Dagonee, did you see my previous post regarding the wording of other Amendments? I'm curious about what you feel are the differences in vagaries or wording between this proposed amendment and already established ones.
Briefly, I don't think it's very different. It is the similarity to the 14th in particular that makes me think this amendment would eventually be used to further restrict government power to protect the unborn.
But hasn't the 14th already been used as such in congressional argument?
What I am saying is I reject setting the precedent of attaching current hot-button issues that our elected politicians should be working on to a Constitutional Amendment. That just feels too much to me like trying to get our foundational document to do the job our elected officials should be doing. I would reject any proposal that had any mention of issues like abortion, gay marriage, immigration reform, or even fighting terror. Such wording would weaken our Constitution in the long run, in my opinion.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: I'd like to think you're right, we would get SSM or at least SSU but I don't have that much faith in the courts.
By necessity an ERA would start getting exceptions. We've talked about them right here in this thread. And if we can make an exception for bathrooms or the draft, we can certainly make exceptions to keep a sinful minority from getting married.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The wording seems to me to be intentionally ambivalent.
It's intentionally ambiguous about whether it will apply to abortion, but it's crystal clear that if it does apply, it will only apply in one direction.
The ambiguity is why I don't like it.
quote:The last time I checked, the courts were there at the service of the People and to interpret the Constitution with regard to laws. Has something changed?
The People have tried time and time again, through their elected representatives, to restrict abortion, and the courts have overridden them.
quote:What I am saying is I reject setting the precedent of attaching current hot-button issues that our elected politicians should be working on to a Constitutional Amendment. That just feels too much to me like trying to get our foundational document to do the job our elected officials should be doing. I would reject any proposal that had any mention of issues like abortion, gay marriage, immigration reform, or even fighting terror. Such wording would weaken our Constitution in the long run, in my opinion.
Elected officials cannot do anything (ok, almost anything) with respect to abortion because of how the foundational document is interpreted. Right now, the Constitution as interpreted by the courts, might as well say, "Neither the United States nor any of the several States may place an undue burden on the right of a woman to obtain an abortion."
The ONLY way to change this is via constitutional amendment or a decades-long run of pro-life presidents who do a better job selecting justices than Bush I did.
It's not accurate to say that "abortion is left up to the people" right now.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand your point, Dagonee, I really do. I don't mean this question as a challenge, but as a clarification: Are there any other constitutional amendments that specifically proscribe or limit their own interpretation?
(I am probably wording this incorrectly, so feel free to respond to the question the way it should have been asked. I mean to ask whether this sort of amendment, with your addition, would be a new thing. Not that that would rule it out, just curious.)
---
Edited to add: My apologies if this was discussed specifically before -- I skimmed and didn't see it, but I could have easily missed it.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I understand your point, Dagonee, I really do. I don't mean this question as a challenge, but as a clarification: Are there any other constitutional amendments that specifically proscribe or limit their own interpretation?
Yes: "This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution." Amendment XVII.
Several other places affect how other sections of the Constitution are to be construed:
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." Article IV, Section 3.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Amendment IX.
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." Amendment XI (regarding construction of "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." in Article III).
All of these are qualitatively different than what I'm proposing in some ways, but they represent the same legal idea: "Someone could reasonably interpret X as meaning Y, but we didn't mean Y when we wrote it."
Edit: and that's a very good question, one I didn't know the answer to until you asked. The legal concept is one I use almost every single day, and I've seen it in dozens of statutes, but I hadn't checked to see if it was used in the Constitution.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Yes [example] ... Several other places affect how other sections of the Constitution are to be construed: [examples] ... All of these are qualitatively different than what I'm proposing in some ways, but they represent the same legal idea: "Someone could reasonably interpret X as meaning Y, but we didn't mean Y when we wrote it."
You and I differ in our opinions on some of these matter of content (how is that for gentle hand wave? ), but my main concern about this additional wording was if it were to be a new standard for constitutional amendments. Not that this would rule it out, but that I'd have to think about it more carefully.
Given the precedence, I don't have that concern. And since I want the amendment to be put forth and have no real quibble to the amendment you put forth, then you get it by me.
Of note, I also want intent to be straightforward and clear as possible in these matters. The debates are onerous and wearying, but that's where the work gets done.
quote:Edit: and that's a very good question, one I didn't know the answer to until you asked. The legal concept is one I use almost every single day, and I've seen it in dozens of statutes, but I hadn't checked to see if it was used in the Constitution.
Thanks. Appreciate the work.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like your arguments, Dagonee, even though I think we're reaching a fundemental difference in the interpretation that isn't likely to be reconciled just by us talking about it.
quote:Dagonee said: Elected officials cannot do anything (ok, almost anything) with respect to abortion because of how the foundational document is interpreted. Right now, the Constitution as interpreted by the courts, might as well say, "Neither the United States nor any of the several States may place an undue burden on the right of a woman to obtain an abortion."
The ONLY way to change this is via constitutional amendment or a decades-long run of pro-life presidents who do a better job selecting justices than Bush I did.
It's not accurate to say that "abortion is left up to the people" right now.
I don't think it is accurate to say that "abortion would be left up to the people" even with your wording added to the proposed amendment, though. Of course it is up to the legislators to vote on laws and the courts to interpret them. That's one of the things I like about much of the wording within the Constitution and how it applies to the separate branches of government. It covers the very broad, and leaves the detail-ridden issues to the responsibility of the people- through their elected and appointed branches of government.
Basically, I'm saying I would be resistant to abortion being mentioned in any capacity in any Amendment. There is simply too much risk and a poor precedent set with it, in my opinion.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I like your arguments, Dagonee, even though I think we're reaching a fundemental difference in the interpretation that isn't likely to be reconciled just by us talking about it.
I agree.
quote:Basically, I'm saying I would be resistant to abortion being mentioned in any capacity in any Amendment. There is simply too much risk and a poor precedent set with it, in my opinion.
I'm pretty sure we each understand where the other is coming from and have simply reached the center of disagreement here.
Question: If such an addendum were put in the amendment over your objection (and assuming you support the amendment in general) would you vote for the amendment or against it? In other words, is this principle you are articulating more or less important than the amendment itself?
quote:Given the precedence, I don't have that concern. And since I want the amendment to be put forth and have no real quibble to the amendment you put forth, then you get it by me.
Hurrah!
quote:The debates are onerous and wearying, but that's where the work gets done.
I agree. Certain issues can cause a standstill on related matters - that's what motivated me to post this thread. I think there's great value in saying "We disagree about this very important issue. We are not minimizing the importance of this disagreement nor altering our views concerning it. Instead, we are putting it aside briefly to accomplish this other important thing on which we can agree."
It also allows more precise defining of the areas of disagreement, which I am always in favor of.
I think this may all be moot, because I suspect those opposed to same sex civil marriage will make the opposition to this amendment insurmountable.
Edit: Very nice hand wave, by the way. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think this may all be moot, because I suspect those opposed to same sex civil marriage will make the opposition to this amendment insurmountable.
I suspect you are correct.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee: Question: If such an addendum were put in the amendment over your objection (and assuming you support the amendment in general) would you vote for the amendment or against it? In other words, is this principle you are articulating more or less important than the amendment itself?
That's a very good question, and one I find very difficult to answer. I think the importance of the amendment is greater, but the principle behind the extra wording makes me leery of it being the best option to vote it in now and get such an important amendment in place. I wouldn't want to rush it and have something lesser than what the Constitution deserves.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think this may all be moot, because I suspect those opposed to same sex civil marriage will make the opposition to this amendment insurmountable.
I suspect you are correct.
I understand this - I disagree with Pixiest that courts are unlikely to interpret it to require at least totally equal civil unions. So I think those who think the same sex civil marriage issue very important pretty much have to oppose it.
quote:That's a very good question, and one I find very difficult to answer. I think the importance of the amendment is greater, but the principle behind the extra wording makes me leery of it being the best option to vote it in now and get such an important amendment in place. I wouldn't want to rush it and have something lesser than what the Constitution deserves.
I understand this, too. I see a gaping wound in the Constitution right now regarding fetal protection and hate the thought of doing something else to it without fixing it.
****
I've been thinking about public funds going to women-only domestic violence shelters. Many of them don't even let men know where they are located - they are truly all-women operations. I wonder how they would fair.
Protecting people from abuse is clearly a compelling state interest. The question would be if the means are narrowly tailored.
Haven't reached a conclusion on this one and would love to hear thoughts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the court can rule without regard to the language of the Constitution in Roe, and against the language of the Constitution in Kelo, it doesn't really matter much what that language is on issues they care about. And they care about abortion.
The point about women's shelters is interesting. We already discriminate on race in order to fight race discrimination. You could probably discriminate on sex to fight sex discrimination too. So if ERA passes we get women's shelters and government contracts for women-owned business, like now, and attempts at equal money spent on school sports like we have now from Title IX.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Dagonee, what if we wrote it in a way that limited abortion but allowed civil unions? (kidding. mostly.)
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The last time an Amendment was added to address the current issue we had Prohibition.
This is false. Almost every amendment was created to address a specific issue at the time. Much of the Bill of Rights was created to address specific fears associated with America's former British rulers. The British forced Americans to house soldiers, so they made an amendment against that. They punished people for their religious views, so Americans made an amendment against that. And so on.
Similarly, almost every amendment since then was a reaction to some specific problem. The most recent amendment (27th) was created very specifically to address how Congress was giving itself raises. The one before that (26th) was an answer to the question of why soldiers being sent to war could not vote.
The Equal Rights Amendment appears to be aimed at the hot button issue of gender equality, but it doesn't seem able to solve it in any real way. The law is not the big discriminator against women. It is individuals and private organizations that appear to be most guilty of that - and they would not be changed by this amendment.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Hey Dagonee, what if we wrote it in a way that limited abortion but allowed civil unions? (kidding. mostly.)
You mean, what if it gave me what I wanted on two separate issues?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The most recent amendment (27th) was created very specifically to address how Congress was giving itself raises.
Technically it was created in 1789 when the bill of rights was drafted - it was the second ever submitted to state legislatures for ratification.
quote:The Equal Rights Amendment appears to be aimed at the hot button issue of gender equality, but it doesn't seem able to solve it in any real way. The law is not the big discriminator against women. It is individuals and private organizations that appear to be most guilty of that - and they would not be changed by this amendment.
I tend to agree it would have little practical effect outside of the same sex civil marriage issue. If the legal result is changing sex from an intermediate scrutiny to a strict scrutiny distinction, there are only a few areas that will change. It will make it harder to justify affirmative action for women; the VMI case would have been easier to decide; the statutory rape distinction I mentioned on the previous page might have to change.
Physical requirements for jobs would have to be better justified to survive constitutional scrutiny, but that standard is already in place (in general) in the statutes. It would be harder (or impossible) to use sex as a proxy for those physical requirements.
Race is currently a strict scrutiny distinction, but the Supreme Court has acknowledged very few instances of genuine differences between races that can justify legal distinctions (only the history of past discrimination, basically). There will be more distinctions between the sexes that justify legal distinctions arising out of the undeniable differences of biology/reproduction. They will simply receive tighter scrutiny than in the past.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Hey Dagonee, what if we wrote it in a way that limited abortion but allowed civil unions? (kidding. mostly.)
You mean, what if it gave me what I wanted on two separate issues?
Good answer! Still, you have to see how this would go over in Congress and the public at large, which is where I was aiming it. The debate over both issues in the public sphere seem to be focused on a "one way or the other" approach that is ridiculously reduced to the point of sound bytes. Do you think an amendment proposal like that would challenge such debates?
quote:Xaposert posted: This is false. Almost every amendment was created to address a specific issue at the time. Much of the Bill of Rights was created to address specific fears associated with America's former British rulers. The British forced Americans to house soldiers, so they made an amendment against that. They punished people for their religious views, so Americans made an amendment against that. And so on.
That would be a very loose and frankly revisionist interpretation of how those other amendments made it into the Constitution. As for the Bill of Rights, I never said they didn't address specific issues, but you are apparently unaware that the Constitution came long after the Revolutionary War was over. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written that way precisely because the first draft, the Articles of Confederation, were too knee-jerk in their implementation and eventually caused divisiveness in the nation, not unity. You are aware that the Constitution was adopted nearly ten years after the United States was officially formed, right? I'd say that your sermon falls a little short when looked at with an honest look at the document itself.
quote:Similarly, almost every amendment since then was a reaction to some specific problem.
I never said otherwise. I said they weren't adopted when an issue was a heated debate in the public and political sphere, like abortion, like gay marriage, and so on. Prohibition was the last instance of that.
quote:The most recent amendment (27th) was created very specifically to address how Congress was giving itself raises.
And what? "The 27th Amendment was originally proposed on September 25, 1789, as an article in the original Bill of Rights. It did not pass the required number of states with the articles we now know as the first ten amendments. It sat, unratified and with no expiration date, in constitutional limbo, for more than 80 years when Ohio ratified it to protest a congressional pay hike; no other states followed Ohio's lead, however. Again it languished, for more than 100 years.
In 1978, Wyoming ratified the amendment, but there was again, no follow-up by the remaining states. Then, in the early 1980's, Gregory Watson, an aide to a Texas legislator, took up the proposed amendment's cause. From 1983 to 1992, the requisite number of states ratified the amendment, and it was declared ratified on May 7, 1992 (74,003 days)."
It took nearly 10 years to ratify most recently, and sat as a proposed amendment for a century. Yeah, I can see how that one was just rushed through Congress.
quote:The one before that (26th) was an answer to the question of why soldiers being sent to war could not vote.
Indeed: "The United States was in the throes of the Vietnam War and protests were underway throughout the nation. Draftees into the armed services were any male over the age of 18. There was a seeming dichotomy, however: these young men were allowed, even forced, to fight and die for their country, but they were unable to vote. The 14th Amendment only guaranteed the vote, in a roundabout way, to those over twenty-one.
The Congress attempted to right this wrong in 1970 by passing an extension to the 1965 Voting Rights Act (which itself is enforcement legislation based on prior suffrage amendments) that gave the vote to all persons 18 or older, in all elections, on all levels. Oregon objected to the 18-year-old limit, as well as other provisions of the 1970 Act (it also objected to a prohibition on literacy tests for the franchise). In Oregon v Mitchell (400 U.S. 112), a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled that the Congress had the power to lower the voting age to 18 for national elections, but not for state and local elections. The case was decided on December 1, 1970. Within months, on March 23, 1971, the Congress passed the text of the 26th Amendment, specifically setting a national voting age, in both state and national elections, to 18. In just 100 days, on July 1, 1971, the amendment was ratified."
Six years, at least one SCOTUS case, and in case you missed my wording previously this Amendment extended already defined rights that existed in the Constitution, it didn't add any.
quote:The Equal Rights Amendment appears to be aimed at the hot button issue of gender equality, but it doesn't seem able to solve it in any real way. The law is not the big discriminator against women. It is individuals and private organizations that appear to be most guilty of that - and they would not be changed by this amendment.
The Amendments aren't supposed to be an answer to problems in the same way laws are. They are meant to establish and define our rights as citizens of this nation, not set legal boundaries. A law can potentially deny you something, but only under the interpretation that it does not conflict with the rights and freedoms defined in the Constitution. Laws from the Legislative Branch work top-down from the government to the people in establishing ground rules. The Constitution works bottom-up guaranteeing rights and freedoms that cannot be denied by any branch of government, and defines how government is to operate.
Care to try again?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Such a snotty phrase does not belong in polite or intelligent conversation. If you have a point, you don't need to act like a nine-year-old for that to be apparent.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps, as Dagonee has illustrated, you should not make predetermined assumptions about what other people believe on a variety of issues, Jutsa.
posted
Frankly, I haven't participated in many of the threads that you have because you seem determined to turn each discussion into a pissing contest. Perhaps you could take some pointers from 'nanny-trolls' on your posting style. You occasionally make good points. However, they are often hard to see since they are mixed in with insults and a lack of willingness to concede points that you were wrong on, especially in your discussion with Iran with Rakeesh.
As an observer, not a participant, you come across as having a chip on your shoulder and trying to pick a fight, FWIW.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are aware that the Constitution was adopted nearly ten years after the United States was officially formed, right? I'd say that your sermon falls a little short when looked at with an honest look at the document itself.
quote:It took nearly 10 years to ratify most recently, and sat as a proposed amendment for a century. Yeah, I can see how that one was just rushed through Congress.
quote:Six years, at least one SCOTUS case, and in case you missed my wording previously this Amendment extended already defined rights that existed in the Constitution, it didn't add any.
quote:Care to try again?
Yes, I will try again to explain my point. All of your points seem to show only that previous amendments weren't rushed into law - which doesn't go against anything I've said. My point was NOT that amendments should be rushed into law quickly. My point was that there is no good reason to put an amendment in the Constitution unless it is likely to solve some current or potential future problem. Even the 200-year-old amendment solved a specific problem, even if it did take so very long to be ratified into law.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: Yes, I will try again to explain my point. All of your points seem to show only that previous amendments weren't rushed into law - which doesn't go against anything I've said. My point was NOT that amendments should be rushed into law quickly. My point was that there is no good reason to put an amendment in the Constitution unless it is likely to solve some current or potential future problem. Even the 200-year-old amendment solved a specific problem, even if it did take so very long to be ratified into law.
Amendments are not there to solve problems, they establish and define. I've pointed this out. Dagonee has pointed this out, and his original proposed addition to the text is meant to keep it from being used to solve a problem. Much of the discussion between others seems to have this as a foregone conclusion. You are the one talking about it solving problems. The only way that applies is as an effect, not a cause.
An effect, not a cause. The last Amendment to be introduced to solve a specific problem was Prohibition. You have yet to provide an argument proving otherwise. The examples you attempted to use did not solve problems, they extended and defined things already in place.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee has pointed this out, and his original proposed addition to the text is meant to keep it from being used to solve a problem.
Let me be very clear about something: I want a constitutional amendment granting states and the federal government the power to protect the unborn. I can see this being classified as solving a current problem or about defining and extending rights to a class of people* explicitly denied such protection by SCOTUS decisions. The 14th amendment was actually aimed at very specific problems - Dred Scott, discriminatory laws, etc. If you look at each sentence, it's very easy to identify the specific actual harm being addressed.
It did so by providing a framework, and I would consider a protection of the unborn amendment to be a very similar amendment. But it seems to me that it would also be addressing an existing problem. Can you clarify whether it's the motive of correcting a specific problem via amendment that you find objectionable or the whether an amendment that addresses such a motive through frame-work-driven means would avoid your objection?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you clarify whether it's the motive of correcting a specific problem via amendment that you find objectionable or the whether an amendment that addresses such a motive through frame-work-driven means would avoid your objection?
It is similar to my preference for ambivalence in wording to specific issues, like abortion as an example. Definition and extension as a framework make the document and the separate amendments able to last, to withstand obvious social changes that are inevitable. Adding politics-driven issue statements into the document lessens the probability that the document will remain as equally socially applicable 50, 100, or 200 years from now because it assumes a specific stance on an issue. Providing a basis or a framework in the document, however, leaves the ability for interpreting and possibly further deciding the limits to those issues to the people for whom the document is written, most often through their representatives and sometimes through the judiciary.
For example, during the writing of the Constitution blacks and women did not have equal voting rights, but the wording they used at the time was such that the 15th and 19th Amendments were extensions rather than establishment of rights in each case. This is not to say that all of the individuals who contributed to or ratified the Constitution would have agreed at the time that such an interpretation should be viable. They probably didn't, or at least there were probably some who didn't.
Basically, I would be highly suspicious of any proposal to add anything to the Constitution that doesn't leave within its wording sufficient open-ness to extension and definition in subsequent generations. So far, they look to have worked like that, with one exception that was eventually repealed (Prohibition). My concern with a women's rights amendment that had language regarding abortion, marriage, or similar issue is that it would be setting that amendment up to be repealed if social tides change one way or the other significantly enough. That would not have to happen if the extra language is not attached, and the issues could still be debated and their interpretations with regard to the Constitution reviewed.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure how my addendum could ever lead to repeal of the amendment if social tides change.
The language states that this amendment is not about abortion. It'd be like repealing the eleventh amendment because views on abortion changed - something that would make no sense, because the 11th has nothing to do with abortion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
), but my main concern about this additional wording was if it were to be a new standard for constitutional amendments. Not that this would rule it out, but that I'd have to think about it more carefully.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Good answer! Still, you have to see how this would go over in Congress and the public at large, which is where I was aiming it. The debate over both issues in the public sphere seem to be focused on a "one way or the other" approach that is ridiculously reduced to the point of sound bytes. Do you think an amendment proposal like that would challenge such debates?![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
