Judge Napolitano: the 17th Amendment is Unconstiutional

[tpreitzel]

By your logic, all the amendments beyond the Bill of Rights are unconstitutional. After all, the 12th amendment, for example, would be "unconstitutional" because altered the original way Vice Presidents are chosen despite the fact the process is already outlined in Article 2. In fact, why have Article 5 at all? The Founding Fathers created a perfect document, right?

The 17th amendment is similar to the 12th amendment as they both alter the process of something. It is constitutional and part of the U.S. Constitution. But a bad amendment? I totally agree.

Basically correct if those amendments violated original intent, but there's a difference between intention and process ... As I've stated, amendments via Article 5 can occur to clarify text, but NEVER alter original intent. I'd have to look closely at Article 2 again to say whether you're correct or not in this specific instance. Wouldn't life be great with just the Bill of Rights?

For example, violation of original intention would be doing away with the VPOTUS all together thereby altering the form of government. Process is simply altering the manner in which the VPOTUS is selected. If the change in process alters the form of government (original intent) as did the 17th amendment, then the amendment is unconstitutional.

"They also generally agree that courts must apply original intent in order to preserve the representative democracy created by the federal Constitution." - Free Dictionary

 

[Major_C_Natural]

Basically correct if those amendments violated original intent ... Wouldn't life be great with just the Bill of Rights?

12th amendment?
13th amendment? (Many of the Founding Fathers wanted to keep slavery. ORIGINAL INTENT!!!!!11!1!1)
14th amendment?
15th amendment?
19th amendment? (Jefferson stated, "The appointment of a woman to office is an innovation for which the public is not prepared, nor am I.")
And so and so forth.

The original meaning of the U.S. Constitution should be followed. But original intent?

 

[tpreitzel]

12th amendment?
13th amendment? (Many of the Founding Fathers wanted to keep slavery. ORIGINAL INTENT!!!!!11!1!1)
14th amendment
15th amendment
18th amendment (Jefferson did not believe women should be part of politics)
And so and so forth.

You apparently missed my post on the 13th amendment. #55 Very similar arguments could be made for all of these listed amendments especially the 19th. I do believe the 18th amendment the enactment of prohibition, eh?

 

[FrankRep]

13th amendment? (Many of the Founding Fathers wanted to keep slavery. ORIGINAL INTENT!!!!!11!1!1)

Slavery was not the original intent of the Constitution. It was a compromise to get the southern states on board to accept the Constitution.

The 13th amendment fixed the compromise.

 

[Major_C_Natural]

Slavery was not the original intent of the Constitution. It was a compromise to get the southern states on board to accept the Constitution.

The 13th amendment fixed the compromise.

The Southerners who designed and signed the U.S. Constitution did not have their own original intent? They are Founding Fathers as well; you cannot pick and choose whose intent you want to use when interpreting the Constitution.

 

[FrankRep]

The Southerners who designed and signed the U.S. Constitution did not have their own original intent? They are Founding Fathers as well; you cannot pick and choose whose intent you want to use when interpreting the Constitution.

The Southern Slave owners were tricked into the Constitution.

Slavery violates the whole idea of Liberty.

 

[Major_C_Natural]

The Southern Slave owners were tricked into the Constitution.

Slavery violates the whole idea of Liberty.

Nice try. And yes, slavery is indeed a violation. But the U.S. Constitution did not originally allow the Federal government to ban slavery. Nor, did the individual States ended slavery themselves even though they could have.

 

[tpreitzel]

Nor, did the individual States ended slavery themselves.

Which doesn't mean they wouldn't have eventually.

 

[tpreitzel]

Anything else?

 

[FrankRep]

Nice try. And yes, slavery is indeed a violation. But the U.S. Constitution did not originally allow the Federal government to ban slavery. Nor, did the individual States ended slavery themselves even though they could have.

Slavery violates Section 4;Clause 1 of the Constitution.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.​

 

[Major_C_Natural]

Slavery violates Section 4;Clause 1 of the Constitution.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.​

The Guarantee clause requires all State governments to be "republican" but does not specify how. Hell, if we went by original intent, then slaves would be considered "property" and could not even vote since they are not a "citizen".

Which doesn't mean they wouldn't have eventually.

And what makes you absolutely sure when slavery still exists modern-day?

 

[FrankRep]

The Guarantee clause requires all State governments to be "republican" but does not specify how. Hell, if we went by original intent, then slaves would be considered "property" and could not even vote since they are not a "citizen".

The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Where does slavery fit in?

 

[Major_C_Natural]

The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Where does slavery fit in?

The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution.

 

[FrankRep]

The Declaration of Independence is not part of the Constitution.

And people are not "Property."

 

[Major_C_Natural]

And people are not "Property."

By definition, slaves are property of others.

 

[FrankRep]

By definition, slaves are property of others.

I don't support Slavery, sorry. People are not "property."

 

[tpreitzel]

And what makes you absolutely sure when slavery still exists modern-day?

If so, then we transferred power to the federal government via the 13th amendment for no reason, right?

 

[Major_C_Natural]

I don't support Slavery, sorry. People are not "property."

I do not support it either. That does not change the definition though.

If so, then we transferred power to the federal government via the 13th amendment for no reason, right?

Institutionalized slavery is long gone in the U.S. thanks to the enforcement of the 13th amendment. It still exists institutionalized in several African counties, for example.

 

[tpreitzel]

I do not support it either. That does not change the definition though.

Institutionalized slavery is long gone in the U.S. thanks to the enforcement of the 13th amendment. It still exists institutionalized in several African counties, for example.

True, but this thread is referring to the US Constitution, not some arbitrary country on the African continent.

 

[Major_C_Natural]

True, but this thread is referring to the US Constitution, not some arbitrary country on the African continent.

The point is that if institutional slavery exists even to today, what would make you sure that the States chose to end slavery without the 13th amendment?