Questions about the Constitution, Laws, the role of the SCOTUS, and the Amendment process?

I could take several forms. Here’s one way.
Let’s say we wanted to get rid of the well regulated militia clause.

Amendment 28 - Amendment 2 shall be read as follows “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

.>
.
.
Too open ended a question. If you could be more informative as to what outcome you were trying to achieve it would be better.

  1. Is the intent to clarify that there is an unlimited right to keep and bear arms?

  2. Is the intent to clarify that separate the rights of “keeping arms” ownership is different then “bearing arms” (public carry)?

  3. Is the intent to restrict private ownership of arms that meat certain classifications?
    .
    .
    .
    .
    How each would look would be vastly different.
    .
    .
    .
    (Not supporting any of the three personally, just pointing out that desired outcomes impact how they would “look”.)
    .
    .
    .
    .>>>>

It would look and work however the wording of the amendment dictates. I don’t get what’s confusing about that.

What I meant was whether the 2nd Amendment would still be “part” of the Constitution if Amended? Does it go away completely? Or would the new Amendment and the 2nd be legally joined?

.>

No it will not go away, it will still be part of the Constitution. If a later amendment “repeals” the 2nd Amendment it will still be there, just not operative.

Again without an example of what text you are talking about it’s kind of hard to answer your question. If a later amendment says that people no longer have the right either to own or bear firearms, the 2nd will still be in the text but it will become superseded by the XXX Amendment. On the other hand this proposed amendment could clarify that keeping and bearing arms is not contingent upon being part of a militia. On the gripping hand this proposed amendment could clarify that keeping and bearing arms IS contingent upon being part of a militia. In such cases the original 2nd would remain operative but under limits defined by the XXX Amendment.

So unless you provide a specific example there isn’t really a specific answer.

.>

OK, let us start with the following.

There are but two methods by which to amend our Constitution. The first is by Congress submitting amendments to the States for ratification; the second is by the States calling for a convention as outlined in Article V, and is the method Madison warned against as follows:

”If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress appointed to administer and support as well as to amend the system; it would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partizans on both sides; it wd. probably consist of the most heterogeneous characters; would be the very focus of that flame which has already too much heated men of all parties; would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts but inadmissible in other parts of the Union might have a dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric. Under all these circumstances it seems scarcely to be presumable that the deliberations of the body could be conducted in harmony, or terminate in the general good. Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a Second, meeting in the present temper of America and under all the disadvantages I have mentioned.”___ Madison’s letter to George Lee Turberville, dated November 2, 1788.

Keep in mind when Madison wrote the above, our existing Constitution was in effect ___the threshold of needing nine states’ approval for our existing Constitution to become law was satisfied on June 21, 1787 when New Hampshire ratified it and meet the nine state threshold ___ and Madison, in his letter, was referencing the desires of Anti-Federalist who at the time wanted a convention “convened” under Article V to adopt a Bill of Rights and other amendments.

Aside from that, the convening of a convention under Article V, especially considering the violent political partisanships of today ___ socialism vs our free market system ___ , it is abundantly obvious to be a dangerous idea based upon Madison’s observations and the following list of particulars which must be answered:

  1. there is no way to control an Article V convention once convened;

  2. that Congress, State Legislatures and our Supreme Court [the very folks who now cause our misery] would have extraordinary manipulative powers over a convention and its doings should one be called;

  3. that every snake on earth with self-interests such as the Southern Poverty Law Center; U. S. Chamber of Commerce; George Soros; our Global Governance Crowd and others whose desire is to overturn our Constitution’s defined and limited powers, would be attracted to the convention as a delegate;

  4. that an entirely new constitution and new government could be drawn up by the Convention;

  5. that the convention could write a provision for a new government to assume existing states debts, especially unfunded state pension liabilities which are now a ticking time bomb, and use it to bribe a number of state Legislatures into weakening our existing first ten amendments, and grant various new and oppressive powers to a new federal government, in return for the new federal government assuming state pension debt liabilities. Keep in mind during the 1787 Convention a provision was made to have the federal government assume all state debts suffered during the revolutionary war . . . a very enticing offer!

  6. that having a constitutional convention does absolutely nothing to correct the root cause of our miseries which is a failure to compel our existing federal government to be obedient to our existing Constitution;

  7. And that we don’t even know the mode of ratification the convention may adopt to approve their doings, which could in fact be a mere majority vote in our existing Congress. I say this because the Delegates sent to the convention in 1787 ignored the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect, and by its very wording was forbidden to be altered but by a unanimous consent of the States. Instead of following the Articles of Confederation, the Convention of 1787 arbitrarily decided that the new constitution and new government they created would become effective if a mere nine States ratified what they did.

SEE:
Articles of Confederation

XIII.

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

The bottom line is, there are many unanswered questions concerning the consequences should an Article V convention be called, and for that reason it appears the safest method to alter our Constitution is by Congress submitting amendments to the States for ratification.

JWK

President Trump, by the terms of our Constitution, is empowered “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

Good post John.

The constitutional amendment process is fundamentally broken and has been replaced by de facto amendment by judicial fiat.

The so-called Equal Rights Amendment that you reference is a prime example; it was rejected by the states, but the Supreme Court has been acting as if it had been ratified. The court has “interpreted” the 14th amendment includes the Equal Rights Amendment. Of course that interpretation can be reversed simply if a majority on the court decides to change the interpretation.

My, my, bless your heart… You poor thing, having to suffer under judicial fiat… I’ll bet if the conservative court starts overturning all kinds of stuff you agree with the whole judicial process will suddenly be a magical incarnation of the founders themselves…

Actually the explanation you provided was exceptionally helpful and answered my questions.

Are you saying the SCOTUS could decide that the statement “jurisdiction there of” does not apply to people here illegally? And hence determine that birthright citizenship not apply to the children of illegal immigrants?

A pleasure.

(BTW - Bonus points to anyone that knows where “gripping hand” as a third option comes from without using Google.)
.
.
.
.
.>>>>