Unratified amendments (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 03:06:38 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Unratified amendments (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which amendment(s) proposed by congress would you like to see ratified?
#1
Congressional Representaion Amendment
 
#2
Titles of Nobility Amendment
 
#3
Slavery Protection Amendment
 
#4
Child Labor Amendment
 
#5
Equal Rights Amendment
 
#6
DC Representation Amendment
 
#7
None of the above
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 38

Calculate results by number of options selected
Author Topic: Unratified amendments  (Read 16731 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« on: November 10, 2005, 11:09:32 PM »

The first is pointless. The rest are bad.

None of the above.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2005, 06:42:10 PM »

The one good thing about the Child Labor Amendment is that it might make it clear just how haywire the Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence has gone.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2005, 06:22:16 AM »

The slavery ammendment, having now nothing to do with slavery, is great.
The amendment states:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

What are the "domestic institutions" of a state? The amendment strikes me as excessively vague, and might have become a pretext for judicial activism, just like the due process clause. Moreover, it restricts future constitutional amendments, thereby reducing constitutional flexibility.

Marriage certainly would fall under the domestic institution proviso, but I agree that clause is rather vague and subject to interpretation, and the zero admendment part gives me the willies since there would be no recourse other than revolution if a Supreme Court ever misinterpreted it.  The right of revoultion is a necessary and proper right, but we should never structure our laws such that it may someday become necessary.

Actually, it could just be repealed by another amendment.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2005, 06:52:54 AM »

The fourth I'm very glad was not ratified, but it's interesting nonetheless because it shows that even as late as the 1920s congress knew it couldn't do outrageous things like regulating child labor without clear constitutional justification.

Actually, that was intended to effectively overturn the Supreme Court's ruling in Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918).

Why are you "very glad" the child labor amendment was not ratified?
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2005, 11:58:46 PM »

The Fourteenth Amendment clearly was not understood to grant anyone suffrage.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2005, 05:34:27 PM »

The Fourteenth Amendment clearly was not understood to grant anyone suffrage.
Was not then or is not now?

I believe the modern interpretation to be incorrect. The plain text of the amendment would make that apparent.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 14 queries.