Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Grandpa's Amendments cont.

As i continued to watch quietly he continued to write;

Article V
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. The Supreme Court may render this Article and any other Article of this Constitution useless by application of the theory of a “Living Constitution”.

Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. The one exception to this would be in the nomination of any candidate for office. It would also require that any person holding office to place the rulings of the Supreme Court above his personal religious beliefs when such rulings are in conflict of those religious beliefs when making any decisions of government.

Article VIII
Nothing in this Constitution nor in any amendment is to be construed as a restraint upon the Supreme Court from interpreting it so as to redistribute any of the powers given, declared or undeclared, in order to meet the applicability standards of the day for government as they see it fitting without explicit permission of the States.



17 comments:

statusquobuster said...

To get needed reforms through constitutional amendments (not by Supreme Court decisions) we must force Congress to obey the Constitution and let the nation use for the first time what the Founders gave us the option for: an Article V convention of state delegates to conside proposals for amendments. Learn the facts at www.foavc.org and become a member.

The Griper said...

we don't need to force Congress to let us hold a Constitutional Convention. All that is necessary is that 2/3 of the states apply for it. it isn't Congress that needs prodding but the States.

tweetey30 said...

Sorry Griper missed this yesterday when reading the top set. Your grandfather was an amazing man then..

The Griper said...

i hope, tweety, that you don't think this is how he would have it written. it is satirical.

Gayle said...

And a great piece of political satire it is, Griper, although it's not entirely satire, unfortunately. :( For instance, an you know because that's why you wrote it, Clinton committed perjury and it was no big deal. This revised constitution would indeed make the Democrats so hysterically happy! *sigh*

The Griper said...

yes,gayle, and that set a dangerous precedent for future impeachments also on my opinion.

and i didn't leave the republicans out either. i think religion had a lot to do in this years nominations too.

but, overall, you know me, gayle, always happy to help out in the cause of socialism.

Lista said...

Hi Griper,
To be honest with you, I've been feeling a little confused about some of what you write because there appears to be an emphasis on the constitution and the established law, as well as leaders making decisions and "voting their conscience", more so than focusing on the will of the people, yet I do think that leaders should pay attention to the will of the people and to popularity polls. Obviously, the people can not be the "Commander in Chief" because they do not have all the facts, yet if public opinion remains continually in opposition of a certain war, I do not believe that such should be totally ignored.

What you said about the Supreme Court, though, is right on, for the Supreme Court right now has far too much power, and when you think about it, it was not the people, or even the states, but the Supreme Court, that established the pro-abortion position in our country in the Woe vs. Wade case, and also in California, it was not the will of the people, but the Supreme Court, that made homosexual marriage legal in California.

And yes, that perjury issue is a bad one.

Perhaps the reason why religion has become such an important issue in the nominations of presidential candidates is because religion and particularly Christianity has been so under attack lately, that we feel that an important part of our defense is to put a Christian in the presidency. Though, I would have accepted Romney (A Mormon) as an O.K. option because he stood for a lot of the same things politically as the Christians do.

The Griper said...

lista,
yes i do focus on the Constitution. it is the Constitution that determines where power lies on any issue not the will of the people, whether that power lie in the hands of the federal government, state government or in the hands of the people.

and representatives act upon the will of the people because the people choose by vote the man that they think closely follows their idea on issues. but the candidate is not abiding by the will of the people. he is abiding by his own ideas. the people are voting for the man whose ideas are closest to theirs. that is what campaigns are for. so, that the candidate can reveal his own ideas in hopes that they will be popular enough to get elected.

a while back i had a post on this particular issue. if you look back to june 8th of 2007 you'll see a five parter on the issue of conscious vs the will of the people.

remember one thing, lista, a follower of leaders cannot follow by leading and leaders cannot lead by following the followers. who are the leaders of this nation?

and good leaders do not ignore the will of the people, though at times it may appear that way. it is always taken into consideration when decision time comes but that does not mean a good leader will be submissive to it. a good leader will do what he thinks is best for the nation even if it means going against the will of the people. if our representatives voted in accordance to the will of the people, we would have no need for elections.

Lista said...

I do understand what you're saying, Griper, it's just that it is so frustrating to find political leaders that appear to have lost touch with the people, for the Government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people and for the people" and sometimes it seems like our leaders have forgotten that.

It's frustrating too, to realize that perhaps as many as 49% of the people in each state can be left without representation in the congress. This fact bothers me at times.

You make a very good point in that "A follower of leaders cannot follow by leading and leaders cannot lead by following the followers.", yet you also said that "Good leaders do not ignore the will of the people."

Another thing that a good leader will do is to try and explain his position to the public so that he will not lose their respect and support. This is why a good leader needs to also be a good speaker. It is important to preserve the respect and trust of the people, not just because it feels better, but also because it is good for the nation.

The Griper said...

lista,
"It's frustrating too, to realize that perhaps as many as 49% of the people in each state can be left without representation in the congress. This fact bothers me at times."

i don't understand you here. how are not the minority represented in a democratic process? the representative voted into office represents the totality of his district. and this is another reason for conscience over the will of the people.

"for the Government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people and for the people" and sometimes it seems like our leaders have forgotten that."

or else the people do not understand the meaning of that Lincoln phrase.

Hitler was a good speaker.

remember another Lincoln phrase. "you can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time but you cannot fool all the people all the time."

Hitler proved you only need to fool all the people some of the time to get what you want. so, being a good speaker is not necessarily a good trait unless you have the other attributes of good leadership to go along with it.

obama has proven he is a good speaker but would he make a good leader?

Lista said...

I never realized to what extent the "minority" is often left without representation until we moved to the "North State". That is what those of us in Northern California call ourselves.

I've always felt out voted as a conservative individual in a liberal state, yet now that I live in the North State, I have realized that entire counties are out voted by those in the cities and this doesn't seem right. It feels to me like Northern California is without representation in our country. The city folk are represented, but not those of us in the North. We are out voted again and again and again.

I guess I was thinking more about the waning popularity of Bush when I made my comment about the value of being a good speaker. Bush could do better in this department and unfortunately, I think McCain has the same problem. Romney was much better. Darn it! I'm still upset that he dropped out.

The Griper said...

lista,
"I never realized to what extent the "minority" is often left without representation until we moved to the "North State". That is what those of us in Northern California call ourselves."

the minority are being represented. they just are not being represented in a manner that they'd like. that is why they call it a "majority rules" form of government. but i'll admit that your complaint is on of the pitfalls of a two-party political system as we have.

Lista said...

If people would all migrate to states which have like minded people in them, than perhaps more or our interests would be represented, yet as it is now, there are people with quite diverse opinions in every state and if you are not in agreement with the majority in that state than your interests are not going to be honored.

The first time that I heard the term "North State", though, I realized that it sort of does make a statement. I wonder why they didn't go farther with the idea than they did.

The Griper said...

lista,
"I wonder why they didn't go farther with the idea than they did."

if you are meaning separating from the whole state and becoming a separate state there is a problem. the Constitution will not allow it. read article IV secton 3.

Karen said...

HAHAHA! Excellent, Griper, and oh so true.

The Griper said...

glad you enjoyed it karen it was a fun write too

Gayle said...

In regard to your answer to my comment... LOL!

Followers

Words of Wisdom of my visitors

Grab This Widget

Gas Buddy

Search for gas prices by US Zip Code

 

Design by Amanda @ Blogger Buster