Author Topic: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment  (Read 777 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85,420
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Offline Chieftain

  • AMF, YOYO
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,633
  • Your what hurts??
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2014, 04:08:03 PM »
The key word here is "former"......

 :smokin:

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2014, 04:32:44 PM »
This is exactly why a convention of states wouldn't turn out like it's current supporters think it would.  The left would love to get a shot at it.
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 85,420
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2014, 05:02:16 PM »
Do I read this as he only wants to undo the Bill of Rights? :shrug:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim tribute to patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. . . . reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principles."
George Washington

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."
Benjamin Franklin

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2014, 06:17:02 PM »
Do I read this as he only wants to undo the Bill of Rights? :shrug:

As with most of the left, he wants to change the First and Second Amendments, with respect to Citizens United and gun rights. 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline kevindavis

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,228
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2014, 06:53:12 PM »
This is why I'm glad it takes and arm and a leg to amend the Constitution...
“If he will lie to or mislead his wife and daughter, those with whom he is most intimate, what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public? Private conduct does have public consequences.”
Franklin Graham

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 49,962
  • TBR Illuminati
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2014, 01:14:39 PM »
This is why I'm glad it takes and arm and a leg to amend the Constitution...

exactly.  and why the persistent calls from the right for a constitutional convention are so misguided.

Offline kevindavis

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,228
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2014, 07:41:55 PM »
exactly.  and why the persistent calls from the right for a constitutional convention are so misguided.


A con con in this day and age will be the mother of all mistakes..
“If he will lie to or mislead his wife and daughter, those with whom he is most intimate, what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public? Private conduct does have public consequences.”
Franklin Graham

Offline evadR˛

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2014, 08:35:51 PM »
The only part I would like to rewrite is where supreme court justices are appointed for life.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline kevindavis

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,228
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2014, 08:40:55 PM »
“If he will lie to or mislead his wife and daughter, those with whom he is most intimate, what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public? Private conduct does have public consequences.”
Franklin Graham

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 20,885
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2014, 08:41:50 PM »
exactly.  and why the persistent calls from the right for a constitutional convention are so misguided.


A con con in this day and age will be the mother of all mistakes..

The current thought is not for a constitutional convention but rather for an article V convention of the states. There's a difference in scope and objective. There would be no attempt to rewrite the Constitution, but rather to propose an amendment(s) to constrain the fedgov to follow the Constitution as written. It's the states attempt to reestablish federalism, to make the federal government a servant of the United States rather than what it has become: a national government lording over the states.

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 49,962
  • TBR Illuminati
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2014, 09:15:35 PM »
The current thought is not for a constitutional convention but rather for an article V convention of the states. There's a difference in scope and objective. There would be no attempt to rewrite the Constitution, but rather to propose an amendment(s) to constrain the fedgov to follow the Constitution as written. It's the states attempt to reestablish federalism, to make the federal government a servant of the United States rather than what it has become: a national government lording over the states.

unfortunately that is not what would happen.  unless a sufficient number of calling states specify - using exactly the same language - what is to be considered, either those limitations will not apply and it will be a general, no holds barred convention, or it won't happen at all.

so unless all of these states are prepared to call for a convention now using the language of already-proposed amendments - that is the only way to effectively corral a convention - it won't happen.  And the more specific the language used to try and restrict the scope of the convention, the greater the chances that there won't be sufficient states going along with it, the more likely it is the convention will simply fail to be called.

and that's before we even get to the quite reasonable argument that the states cannot, in fact, limit a state-called convention to only certain predetermined issues; the Constitution only says that Congress must call a convention if a sufficient number of states call for one, it neither permits, nor expressly prohibits, the states from putting limits; furthermore, the Constitution says that Congress must call a convention at the request of the states for the purpose of proposing amendments, and that language definitely implies that the states cannot call a convention to consider only a single topic, but can only call a general convention at which any amendment whatsoever can be proposed and, if backed by a sufficient number of delegates, put to the states and the people for ratification.

I, for one, do not want to find ourselves stuck in a tarpit of our own making, having given progressives the venue for rewriting the Constitution to their liking.

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2014, 09:40:30 PM »
You're exactly right Oceander.  While it sounds great from the standpoint of conservatives (which I humbly consider myself), there is nothing that would prevent the convention from debating all sorts of issues including gun rights and First Amendment rights that exist today.  While it takes 34 states to petition, to my knowledge there is no precedent for what limits would exist on debates.  If Congress could limit the convention's agenda, then Article V's intent of making the two methods of amending the Constitution equal would have failed. To get 38 states (necessary for ratification) to agree on anything seems remote at best.

And I know the proponents don't want to use the term "constitutional convention", but it seems to me that such a convention called for purposes of amending the Constitution is exactly that.

Yes it would be a tarpit. 
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Offline Fishrrman

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 14,126
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2014, 09:51:28 PM »
evadR wrote:
[[ The only part I would like to rewrite is where supreme court justices are appointed for life. ]]

I don't think ANY judge, in ANY court, should get an appointment "for life".

Yes, I understand why that concept came about -- to ensure (or at least try to ensure) an independent judiciary free of political pull.

In the case of Supreme Court justices, how about a single, twenty-year term -- after which Congress could re-confirm them for another ten-year term.

I would hazard a guess that most persons nominated for the position of Supreme Court justice are already around (or past) 40 years of age. A twenty year term would essentially grant them a "full-career" position past the age of 60. At that point they could either retire or request a reconfirmation, which would take them past 70. That's "long enough" for a justice to be in the High Court seat.

I'd like to see something similar for federal court judges, as well.

Unlike others in this forum, I have no fear of a Convention of the States, and what might come out of it.

We will not get things "fixed" at the most fundamental levels in this country withOUT one.

My opinion only, and I realize yours may be different...

Offline evadR˛

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2014, 10:38:27 PM »

I'm rather mixed about that, however, I would make the Presidential term a one six year term and have the Senators be appointed by the states again.
The repeal of the 17th amendment is essential.
The presidential term thing, I've got to think on that one. At first glance, seems like a good idea.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline evadR˛

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2014, 10:43:53 PM »
evadR wrote:
[[ The only part I would like to rewrite is where supreme court justices are appointed for life. ]]

I don't think ANY judge, in ANY court, should get an appointment "for life".

Yes, I understand why that concept came about -- to ensure (or at least try to ensure) an independent judiciary free of political pull.

In the case of Supreme Court justices, how about a single, twenty-year term -- after which Congress could re-confirm them for another ten-year term.

I would hazard a guess that most persons nominated for the position of Supreme Court justice are already around (or past) 40 years of age. A twenty year term would essentially grant them a "full-career" position past the age of 60. At that point they could either retire or request a reconfirmation, which would take them past 70. That's "long enough" for a justice to be in the High Court seat.

I'd like to see something similar for federal court judges, as well.

Unlike others in this forum, I have no fear of a Convention of the States, and what might come out of it.

We will not get things "fixed" at the most fundamental levels in this country withOUT one.

My opinion only, and I realize yours may be different...
I like your proposals RE: Judges except it would be 20 years and out for me.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline MACVSOG68

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,807
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2014, 08:28:22 AM »
"Unlike others in this forum, I have no fear of a Convention of the States, and what might come out of it."

I would suggest it's more of a difference in expectations than fear.  How do you see such a convention producing the desired results?
It's the Supreme Court nominations!

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 27,617
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2014, 09:18:51 AM »
The current thought is not for a constitutional convention but rather for an article V convention of the states. There's a difference in scope and objective. There would be no attempt to rewrite the Constitution, but rather to propose an amendment(s) to constrain the fedgov to follow the Constitution as written. It's the states attempt to reestablish federalism, to make the federal government a servant of the United States rather than what it has become: a national government lording over the states.

And we all remember what happened when such a convention was convened under the Articles of Confederation don't we!

Offline evadR˛

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,197
Re: Former Supreme Court Justice call for rewriting the First Amendment
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2014, 10:06:01 AM »
And we all remember what happened when such a convention was convened under the Articles of Confederation don't we!
Yeah, but we're a lot smarter than that now, right?
And we learn from history, right? ::wink wink::
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf