Constitutional collapse: Why we could be on the verge of a democratic apocalypse

[bigheadfred]

As Donald Trump vilifies the press, the courts, immigrants, Muslims, Democrats, protesters and anyone who disagrees with him, it isn’t hard to imagine a modern-day Mussolini — or worse. But an even greater threat lies in Republicans’ march toward full control of state government. If they get there, they will have the frightening power to amend the Constitution into their own authoritarian image . . . or Ayn Rand’s.

Republicans now control 32 state legislatures and 33 governorships. They have majorities in both state legislative chambers as well as the governorships in 25 states. The Democrats have total control in only six states and legislative control in two more.

If Republicans achieve veto-proof control in 38 states, they can do something that has never been done before — hold a constitutional convention, and then ratify new amendments that are put forth. To date, all amendments have been initiated from Congress where two-thirds of both houses are required. In either case, 38 states would be needed to ratify the amendments. The Republicans are well on their way.

We know what they are likely to do: end collective bargaining, outlaw abortion, forbid progressive income, estate and Wall Street taxes; prohibit class action law suits, privatize social security, guarantee “free choice” in all school systems, and so on. They would do what they’ve always wanted to do: outlaw the New Deal and its social democratic programs. And if they get crazy enough, they could end separation of church and state and undo other portions of the Bill of Rights.

http://www.salon.com/2017/02/25/why-we-could-be-on-the-verge-of-a-constitutional-apocalypse_partner/

 888ohnoes

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Oh ffs...

[bigheadfred]

Oh ffs...

I take it you're not panicking? 

[EasyAce]

I know they won't, but if they decide to call a constitutional convention to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment,
I wouldn't exactly call that a disaster.

[Bigun]

I know they won't, but if they decide to call a constitutional convention to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment,
I wouldn't exactly call that a disaster.

Repeal of the 16th is a feature of the fairtax bill but cannot be accomplished by legislation alone.

[EasyAce]

Repeal of the 16th is a feature of the fairtax bill but cannot be accomplished by legislation alone.

Repeal of the Sixteenth can be done only by constitutional convention.

[Bigun]

Repeal of the Sixteenth can be done only by constitutional convention.

That isn't so.  It can be repealed in the exact same manner as it was allegedly adopted.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

It is also possible that it could be undone in court but going that route would require one of the states who allegedly ratified it to file suit and that is unlikely to happen at this point.

[240B]

I only clicked on the link to see which nutty website the headline came from.
I was not disappointed.

[DB]

Perhaps the idiot would like to show us where the "separation of church and state" is in the constitution... Liberalism is a religion truth be damned.

[EasyAce]

That isn't so.  It can be repealed in the exact same manner as it was allegedly adopted.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

I sit corrected. But wouldn't they have to do the repeal as an individual measure in Congress, before such a measure
as establishing a flat tax?

[Bigun]

I sit corrected. But wouldn't they have to do the repeal as an individual measure in Congress? I thought that was
what happened when the Twenty-First Amendment repealed the Eighteenth.

Yes indeed! Repealing a constitutional amendment requires that the Constitution be further amended.

There is a good case to be made that both the 16th and 17th were not properly ratified in the first place during the Wilson administration but no state that allegedly ratified either has yet seen fit to challenge that in court so I doubt that they ever will.

[Frank Cannon]

Yes indeed! Repealing a constitutional amendment requires that the Constitution be further amended.

There is a good case to be made that both the 16th and 17th were not properly ratified in the first place during the Wilson administration but no state that allegedly ratified either has yet seen fit to challenge that in court so I doubt that they ever will.

I like you. You know stuff and you are not a panic freak.

[Bigun]

I like you. You know stuff and you are not a panic freak.

 

I like you as well!  You drink good Scotch!

[Wingnut]

I take it you're not panicking? 

The Weird Trollish Fellow only takes a stand if it is against Trump.

T-1

[don-o]

they could end separation of church and state and undo other portions of the Bill of Rights.
 
 

Aw nuts. It was supposed to be a secret.

[Sanguine]

That's the problem with democracy: sooner or later it always collapses.

[andy58-in-nh]

Putting aside for a moment the author's post-modern, Salonesque air of timorous panic over a fantasized repeal of the Bill of Rights, one must wonder first, what exactly about a return to individual liberty so fills him with dread, and second, what is unconstitutional or even objectionable about most, if not all of what he so obviously fears?

The truth is that the Progressive Left has become unhinged from reason and detached from reality. It is nothing more than the triumph of their own ideology that is presently responsible for the parlous state of our Republic, and it is their insistence that America society continue its march in the same destructive direction that has served to impel those for whom honor, freedom, and human decency are still worthy goals, to object.   

[bigheadfred]

That's the problem with democracy: sooner or later it always collapses.

It isn't so much that democracy collapses but it is the laurels it is resting on that do.

[Sanguine]

It isn't so much that democracy collapses but it is the laurels it is resting on that do.

Democracies just don't last.  There is some finite population number and relatedness of the individuals that limit how long a democracy will last.

[Cripplecreek]

Democracies just don't last.  There is some finite population number and relatedness of the individuals that limit how long a democracy will last.

Too many people wanting their way no matter the consequences.

[bigheadfred]

Democracies just don't last.  There is some finite population number and relatedness of the individuals that limit how long a democracy will last.

Good thing we don't live in one. Or it might come crashing down around our ears any day now.  ^-^ 

Democracies fail because they are against human nature.

[bigheadfred]

Too many people wanting their way no matter the consequences.

Hedonism.

[Cripplecreek]

Good thing we don't live in one. Or it might come crashing down around our ears any day now.  ^-^ 

Democracies fail because they are against human nature.

Unfortunately we are becoming a democracy at the hands of both left and right ideologies.

[Oceander]

I know they won't, but if they decide to call a constitutional convention to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment,
I wouldn't exactly call that a disaster.

And just what would that do?  The answer is, not much.

I find it absolutely, utterly amazing - and amusing - that so many people who are so damned sure repealing the 16th Amendment will end the income tax haven't even bothered to read the two seminal Supreme Court cases that the 16th Amendment was intended to undo.

Why?  Because anyone who has actually bothered to read those cases would know that the Supreme Court stated, as a corollary to its holding, that an income tax on wages and compensation for services generally was constitutional as an excise tax.  The only, let me repeat that - THE ONLY - part of the income tax that was ruled unconstitutional was the tax as it applied to taxes on property and on the income derived from property.

What does that mean for repeal of the 16th?  It means that capital gains would no longer be subject to income tax, that dividends on stock would no longer be subject to income tax, that rents would no longer be subject to income tax, BUT THAT WAGES AND SALARIES WOULD STILL VERY MUCH BE SUBJECT TO INCOME TAX.

Think me wrong?  Go read the cases.  The two cases are known collectively as the "Income Tax Cases" - they consist of an opinion by the Supreme Court after hearing the case, and a second opinion of the Supreme Court upon a rehearing.

I admit the opinions are a little hard to follow for people who are only accustomed to reading opinions in the current format that's been used by the Supreme Court for about the last 60 years or so, but if you read them carefully you will realize this:

(a) the income tax was unconstitutional ONLY as it applied to income from real and personal property, but

(b) the entire law was ruled unconstitutional because the Court felt that Congress did not intend for only the unconstitutional parts to be struck out of an otherwise valid law.

Here are links to the two opinions:

First opinion after hearing the case:  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/157/429/case.html

Second opinion after rehearing:  https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/158/601/case.html

[driftdiver]

Wed better hope it doesn't because there is only one thing that will replace it.  A dictatorship.