Judge Napolitano: the 17th Amendment is Unconstiutional

[bobbyw24]

Napolitano: "The 17th Amendment is the only part of the Constitution that is unconstitutional"

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011020004

 

[RCA]

All amendments are constitutional Judge.

 

[FrankRep]

Tea Party Wants to Dump 17th Amendment?

There is a sizable bloc of Tea Party supporters calling for repeal of the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The 17th Amendment establishes direct, popular election of U.S. Senators, superseding Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 1 and 2 which empowered state legislatures to elect senators. by Joe Wolverton II​

Should We Repeal the 17th Amendment?

Representative Louie Golmert of Texas has recently proposed that United States senators be elected as they once were, by the legislatures of the states. This would require a repeal of the 17th Amendment, which requires direct election of senators by the people. by Bruce Walker​

Repeal Direct Election of Senators?

Mike Lee, the Republican nominee for the Senate in the Utah election this year, supports repealing the 17th Amendment. “People would be better off if senators, when they deliver their messages to Washington, remember the sovereignty of the state,” Lee told reporters recently. by Bruce Walker​

 

[TonySutton]

All amendments are constitutional Judge.

Watch the video to better understand what he is saying.

 

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

All amendments are constitutional Judge.

Actually, the 16th and 17th Amendments may not have been properly ratified. Thus, they would be by definition unConstitutional.

 

[RonPaulCult]

All amendments are constitutional Judge.

Exactly! I watched this whole video and I see what he is saying. I probably even agree with him about it. But he can't call something that is currently in the constitution unconstitutional. He sounds like an idiot. Just say it doesn't belong in the constitution.

 

[FrankRep]

All amendments are constitutional Judge.

Judge Napolitano is correct. Watch the video.

 

[osan]

Napolitano: "The 17th Amendment is the only part of the Constitution that is unconstitutional"

[url]http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011020004[/URL]

BuhWHA?!

How can a provision of the Constitution be unconstitutional?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Do you guys really think if an amendment were passed that legalized dictatorial power to the President that it would be Constitutional?

Get real. When something is deemed "unconstitutional," it is against the Founders' original intent. The belief of "anything in the Constitution is okay and Constitutional" is a living Constitution argument.

 

[FrankRep]

BuhWHA?!

How can a provision of the Constitution be unconstitutional?

Yes, actually. Listen to Judge Napolitano.

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201011020004

 

[Modern_Matthew]

Good luck getting Rand Paul appointed without the 17th Amendment.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Considering Rand is a states' rights guy, you very likely could get him in without the 17th Amendment.

Furthermore, more power would be concentrated locally, and state politicians would be more important.

 

[FrankRep]

Good luck getting Rand Paul appointed without the 17th Amendment.

Good State Representatives would want a States Rights guy like Rand to represent the state.

 

[tpreitzel]

Considering Rand is a states' rights guy, you very likely could get him in without the 17th Amendment.

Furthermore, more power would be concentrated locally, and state politicians would be more important.

State politicians might actually have a voice in the US Congress again as constitutionally required and explained in the Federalist Papers.

 

[Acala]

Not

Assuming it was properly ratified, it is not unconstitutional. I watched the video and he is just being cute with his language.

The Constitution is, by its own terms, amendable. Any changes made pursuant to that provision become part of the Constitution - even if they are stupid and inconsistent with the ideas of the Founders.

 

[roho76]

State politicians might actually have a voice in the US Congress again as constitutionally required and explained in the Federalist Papers.

I agree. Isn't it precedent that no laws can supersede those that come before it? It specifically says that the Senators are to be chosen by the state legislators. Whereas the 16th Amendment doesn't create any new powers to tax so is not in violation of the constitutionality of apportioned taxes.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Assuming it was properly ratified, it is not unconstitutional. I watched the video and he is just being cute with his language.

The Constitution is, by its own terms, amendable. Any changes made pursuant to that provision become part of the Constitution - even if they are stupid and inconsistent with the ideas of the Founders.

Thank you for making the living Constitution argument, rendering it null and void.

Might as well say that if Communism took hold in America that it is acceptable and American, since that is what Americans wanted.

You full well know that declaring something unconstitutional means it is not in line with Original Intent. It's not "being cute" with language.

 

[tpreitzel]

Instead of the petty BS criteria we use to elect congressmen, we need to add this one very important question:

If you are elected as a congressmen, would you insist any nominees to the Supreme Court adhere to the founder's original intent as explained in the Federalist Papers in cases of dispute over interpretation of the US Constitution?

 

[Promontorium]

Thank you for making the living Constitution argument, rendering it null and void.

Might as well say that if Communism took hold in America that it is acceptable and American, since that is what Americans wanted.

You full well know that declaring something unconstitutional means it is not in line with Original Intent. It's not "being cute" with language.

I disagree. If you use the term "unconstitutional" to refer to everything you think shouldn't be in the Constitution, even if it clearly is in there, you dilute the definition.

The US Constitution by its design affords change, any legal change to the Constitution is inherently "Constitutional" it might be contradictory, which often is by design, it might be irrational, or evil, or "communist", but the Constitution puts very few limits on what can be altered, making any alteration not restricted "Constitional".

As far as I can tell here is what the Constition restricts from being changed:

"no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." (Article 5 "Amendments")

That's it.

If Congress passed a reinstituted slavery Amendment, it'd be "Constitutional".

This is why my constitution forbids any Amendment that limits anyone's rights or expands on the federal government's authority. The US Constitution failed to place such restrictions and it is dishonest to suggest otherwise. Perhaps a new Amendment should be passed to limit future Amendments.

 

[Acala]

Lol

Thank you for making the living Constitution argument, rendering it null and void.

You don't understand the "living Constitution" argument. The living Constitution argument is that the Constitution AS WRITTEN needs to be "interpreted" by judges to reflect changes in the country and the world. The living Constitution argument holds that amendment is not necessary and that the Constitution can be "adjusted" by court rulings.

Might as well say that if Communism took hold in America that it is acceptable and American, since that is what Americans wanted.

I didn't say anything about what is acceptable. The issue is what is Constitutional. If the Constitution were amended in accordance with its own terms to enforce some kind of communist economic system, then, yes, it would be Constitutional. It would not be acceptable to me, but that wasn't the question.

You full well know that declaring something unconstitutional means it is not in line with Original Intent. It's not "being cute" with language.

Saying that something is unconstitutional means that it is in conflict with, and overruled by or unauthorized by, the provisions of the Constitution. The Constitution itself cannot be unconstitutional. Lawful amendments are part of the Constitution.

Original intent is used to understand the meaning of the original provisions of the Constitution if they are not clear. If the Constitution is amended as provided by the terms of the Constitution itself, then the amendment becomes part of the Constitution, but the meaning of the amendment, if unclear, would be interpreted with the help of the intent of the people who drafted and voted in favor of the amendment.

So I was actually being charitable when I said the Judge was being cute. He was actually being flat out wrong. The 17th amendment, assuming it was ratified in compliance with the Constitution, is PART of the Constitution. It is an ill-advised and undesirable part, but a part nonetheless. The Constitution itself cannot be unconstitutional.