Thread: Constitutional amendments needed

I would agree amending the 14th amendment ...depending on what it says.(the amendment) You do realize the 14th amendment was what gave the slaves their rights as citizens. It also made everyone citizens..juristic citizens which put we the people under the jurisdiction of the government..which means we are now subject to those statutes. I would say yes the 14th amendment should be amended. Good luck getting that done. I do believe 3/4 of the states must ratify...THAT is why they dont' like amending ..it is VERY difficult to accomplish with 50 states. Remember, MOST of the amendments were ratified when there were 13 states. This is why politicians ignore the constitution and write all these bills and acts...which generally overstep their authority.

There is a representative in Arizona , I think, who has had a bill on the floor since the 90's called The Enumerated Powers Act. He can't get enough sponsors. The bill calls for congress people to have to cite which of the enumerated powers in Article I Section 8 justifies each part of any bill they write. Believe me, they are NOT being cooperative in Washington. If we could get behind this and pressure our representatives and senators to sponsor this bill...it would be much more difficult for the polecats in Washington to do their backroom deals and push bills through congress. This would reallly be protection for We the People and we would spend much less time phoning and taxing to block the garbage they try to force upon us.

***phoning and FAXING

Enumerated Powers Act
Would Require Congress to Cite Constitutional Authority






Washington, May 19, 2005 - The Enumerated Powers Act, H.R. 2458, requires that all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted. This measure will force a continual re-examination of the role of the national government, and will fundamentally alter the ever-expanding reach of the federal government. For too long, the federal government has operated without constitutional restraint. In doing so, it has created ineffective and costly programs, massive deficits year after year, and a national debt totaling nearly $7 trillion. The Enumerated Powers Act will help slow the flood of unconstitutional legislation and force Congress to reexamine the proper role of the federal government. For these reasons, every Congress since the 104th Congress I have introduced the Enumerated Powers Act (H.R. 2270 - 104th, H.R. 292 - 105th, H.R. 1018 – 106th, H.R. 175 — 107th, H.R. 384 — 108th). At the beginning of the 105th Congress, the House of Representatives took an important first step by incorporating the substantive requirement of the Enumerated Powers Act into the House rules. Today, the House must cite the constitutional authority for each bill in report language accompanying the legislation. However, the full effect of the Enumerated Powers Act will not be realized until it is incorporated into actual law. Our Founding Fathers believed that granting only specific legislative power to the national government would be a powerful mechanism for protecting our freedoms, while allowing us to achieve the objectives best accomplished through a national government. Congress should honor and abide by the principles embodied in the Constitution – no more, no less. Respecting the Tenth Amendment, which reserves all powers not granted to the national government to the states, or the people, will ensure that the Constitution continues to truly guide our nation.

http://johnshadegg.house.gov/News/Docum ... ntID=13333

tinybobidaho wrote:

I believe the Constitution gives States the right to say who lives within its borders, not the federal government.

The federal government is responsible for immigration.

Originally Posted by MW

tinybobidaho wrote:

I believe the Constitution gives States the right to say who lives within its borders, not the federal government.

The federal government is responsible for immigration.

Yes, but the Constitution doesn't really delegatege that authority to the Federal Government. (14th Amendment aside, for a second.)

But the full faith and credit clause means that it has to be under federal jurisdiction, no matter how it is accomplished. If it is not, then all the illegals would come to California or Illinois, get their citizenship, and voila!

Originally Posted by AngelaTC

Originally Posted by MW

tinybobidaho wrote:

I believe the Constitution gives States the right to say who lives within its borders, not the federal government.

The federal government is responsible for immigration.

Yes, but the Constitution doesn't really delegatege that authority to the Federal Government. (14th Amendment aside, for a second.)

But the full faith and credit clause means that it has to be under federal jurisdiction, no matter how it is accomplished. If it is not, then all the illegals would come to California or Illinois, get their citizenship, and voila!

Is this wide open border under Dubya not a direct voilation of his oath of office ? Impeachable ? To hell with Pelosi . There must be a way to limit Cheney and BushCo's power ?

There must be a way to limit Cheney and BushCo's power?

Unfortunately, the executive branch has been growing in power since Theodore Roosevelt (and arguably Lincoln, depending how far you want to take it). What the founders did not really plan on was how willingly Congress would relinquish its power to the Executive. They were more worried about the Judicial branch.

If you are wanting to limit the power of the presidency, then action must be taken to rule various Executive Orders unconstitutional, which have accumulated over the years, such as Executive Order 10990, 10995, 10998, etc. And then of course Congress must start becoming a little more provincial and guard its duties. The undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are good examples of executive abuse of power.

Here's the 1996 law I was thinking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_Im ... ct_of_1996

Originally Posted by MW

tinybobidaho wrote:

I believe the Constitution gives States the right to say who lives within its borders, not the federal government.

The federal government is responsible for immigration.

*******
Instead of a constitutional amendment, can the federal government pass a law something like this that applies to a person's social security number:

"Social security number must be presented by anyone applying for public and private housing, for employment, for public and private educational benefits, and for public social services."

We take for granted---and it seems logical--- that a person needs to write his Social Security number on his employment application.

So why don't we require persons to write their Social Security numbers when they apply to rent a house or an apartment? mirse

I am wondering if the Full Faith and Credit clause can circumvent a states constitution. Here is an example. Take the case of gay marriage. Mass. allows gay marriage but that marriage is not recognized in Florida. If that doesn't fall under the full faith and credit clause, why would immigration?