#amend the U.S. Constitution

[us-cj]

𝖘𝖎𝖈 𝖘𝖊𝖒𝖕𝖊𝖗 𝖙𝖞𝖗𝖆𝖓𝖓𝖎𝖘

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. — U.S. Constitution Second Amendment

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age... — 10 U.S. Code § 246

Patrick Henry

* “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

George Mason

* “To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”

James Madison

* “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”

* “The ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone.”

Noah Webster

* “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”

Samuel Adams

* “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”

Richard Henry Lee

* “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

Thomas Jefferson

* “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.”

* “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”

* “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

* “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”

**********************************

No emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution.

----------------------------------------------

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) which yet stands to this day: "The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism..."

----------------------------------------------

Volume 16, American Jurisprudence 2d, § 52: “It is sometimes argued that the existence of an emergency allows the existence and operation of powers, national or state, which violate the inhibitions of the Federal Constitution. The rule is quite otherwise.

No emergency justifies the violation of any of the provisions of the United States Constitution. An emergency, however, while it cannot create power, increase granted power, or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved, may furnish the occasion for the exercise of power already in existence, but not exercised except during an emergency... The Constitution of the United States is the law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances”

----------------------------------------------

Volume 16, American Jurisprudence 2d, § 177: "The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement.

It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

----------------------------------------------

“All laws, rules and practices which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void ...if any statement within any law which is passed is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional.” Marbury v. Madison, 5th U.S. 2 Cranch 137, 180.

----------------------------------------------

"Even a state of war and the declaration of secession by the people cannot suspend the Constitution or remove its protection." Houston County v Martin, 232 Ala 511, 169 So. 13.

[thejakeformerlyknownasprince]

Sorry to ask, but can I have some more context on how the third amendment (roughly: citizens can't be forced to provide quarter to soldiers) relates to American bloated military and disproportionate influence on international wars? (as mentioned in the tags on the 'yeerks lose earth and lose the war' post)

Oh yeah, so! The 3rd Amendment, also called the Quartering Act, says the U.S. government can't quarter (house) military members in private homes. That's the literal text of the Constitution, and (unlike the 1st) it's rarely broken or disputed.

HOWEVER. There's a legal argument that the amendment means the U.S. shouldn't keep an active military in peacetime, and/or that it shouldn't force civilians to devote civilian resources to maintaining the military. Since we're in a country that thinks it's okay to have children go hungry and schools beg for money from cereal companies, while also spending billions of USD to build mostly- or completely-obsolete tanks and grenades, there's an argument that we're in violation of the spirit of the 3rd Amendment. Not a legal scholar, but that's my best understanding of the issue.

[whenweallvote]

On This Day in 1913: The 17th Amendment was ratified, giving VOTERS the power to elect U.S. Senators instead of letting the state legislatures decide.

As women and people of color won the right to vote, they took their power to the ballot box and voted for Senators that better represented the diversity of our country.

The power should be in the hands of the people. ✊🏽

Exercise YOUR power at the ballot box this year. Register to vote at weall.vote/register.

[malenipshadows]

   The US set a chilling record earlier this month amid a spate of recent mass shootings: This year marks the third in a row that the country has recorded more than 600 multiple-victim shootings, according to gun violence data.    The Club Q shooting in Colorado Springs that left five people dead and 17 wounded on Sunday marked the 601st mass incident in 2022, according to The Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit that tracks and records shootings and gun violence throughout the country.    The archive calls mass shootings an "American phenomenon," and defines the incidents as any attack in which there are at least four victims shot, injured, or killed by a gun, excluding the perpetrator. [Remainder omitted.]

[princesssarcastia]

okay listen. airing a u.s. political pet peeve here.

setting aside the issue of to-vote-for-biden-or-to-not-vote-for-biden in 2024 and the arguments for and against,

please don't lie to people and tell them voting for a third party presidential candidate is a good idea. please....please don't do that. it won't work. it won't help you. if you want to vote for a third party candidate as a "fuck you" to the republicans or the democrats or both, okay. go for it. but don't tell people that will help, don't expect it will help, it will do exactly nothing.

vote third party in your village, town, school district, city, county, state elections! vote for third-party candidates in your u.s. house races! in those kinds of races a third-party or nonpartisan candidate can have a decent chance of winning, depending. but it 100% won't work for president, and outside some very specific circumstances, probably also won't work in the u.s. senate.

the "third-party" presidential candidates running with most actual established political parties (green party, libertarian party) are not your friends any more than trump or biden are.

[deadpresidents]

Do you agree with the idea that one of the more politically astute things Biden could've done in early 2021 was push for an amendment that limited presidents (including himself) to a single term?

I ask this as someone who feels that a Biden-Trump rematch in 2024 is very much not in the national interest. Such an amendment would've guaranteed two different nominees next year, and more broadly, I think there are arguments for limiting presidents to just one term (second terms have been pretty awful in the modern era, if we consider Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and G.W. Bush).

Btw, I realize presidents don't have a formal role in the amendment process, but I think if Biden had gotten enough Dems behind it, there might have been enough support in Congress to send it to the states. In early 2021, the GOP would've almost been happy to have Trump term-limited, and ambitious Republicans like Scott, Cruz, and Rubio probably would've supported such an amendment.

That's an interesting question. From our perspective, I can totally understand the reasoning behind it, too. And that would have been a better time to attempt it for the reasons you pointed out.

However, I just think it's nearly impossible to amend the Constitution, especially in the political climate we've been living in for the past decade. It's also difficult to imagine any President actively seeking to impose further term limits on themselves. These are people who work practically the entire lives in order to get into that particular job, so it would require a superhuman act of selflessness to get them to advocate for changing the Constitution so that they only serve one term. We can't even get modern Presidents (or serious candidates for the Presidency) to voluntarily pledge to only serve a single term, so I just don't see any of them trying to change the Constitution to legally prohibit running for re-election. President Biden had been seeking the Presidency for at least 35 years, with three official campaigns for the job, before he finally was elected in 2020. I don't think there was ever a realistic chance of him voluntarily giving up a chance at a second term. And I wouldn't be so sure that ambitious legislators who have obviously been eyeing the Presidency for years would have supported a single term limit. You know how there are people who are opposed to raising taxes on the super wealthy because they are still holding out hope that they'll someday strike it rich? I'm guessing there would be a similar line of thinking and members of Congress with Presidential aspirations wouldn't want to support a single term limit just in case they eventually find themselves in the White House.

I've written about this before, but my personal opinion is actually in support of eliminating Presidential term limits altogether. As I've said in the past, the Founders did not explicitly place term limits on the President, and while most Presidents before FDR followed George Washington's tradition of serving two terms and retiring, term limits weren't imposed until after World War II. The Constitution was amended 21 times for over 150 years before Presidential term limits were finally instituted. And, even then, it was largely because Franklin D. Roosevelt won four straight Presidential elections. I question whether the Founders would see it as a proper balance of power to place term limits on the Executive Branch, but not on the Legislative or Judicial branches. So, my personal belief has been that there should either be term limits on the President, Congress, AND the Supreme Court, or there should be no limits at all. Of course, that might result in someone shitty, like Donald Trump, running for a third term, but it also provides options that voters otherwise wouldn't have. Imposing a two-term limit on Presidents may prohibit a terrible President from being elected a third time, but it also might prevent someone proven to be a good, responsible, popular leader from continuing in office.

Ultimately, the decision should be left to the voters, but I sure would feel better about 2024 if Barack Obama could be on the ballot again. We place limits on who can be candidates for what is arguably the most powerful and important job in the world, and then we complain because we don't like our choices. We prohibit the only people in the world who have actually DONE the job of President (and seemingly should have some understanding and experience on how to do that job) from being President for more than two four-year terms. Yet, nearly all of our Supreme Court Justices leave the bench by dying, and many of the most powerful legislators (in both parties) are alarmingly old and frail -- and probably running for re-election. Barack Obama has been term-limited from running for President since leaving office in 2017. Obama was 55 years old when he left office; he'll be 63 on the next Inauguration Day, in 2025 -- eight years after leaving office and sixteen years after his first inauguration. That's still younger than Ronald Reagan (69), George H.W. Bush (64), Donald Trump (70), and Joe Biden (78) were when they were first inaugurated as President!

So, if we're going to amend the Constitution regarding term limits, I say get rid of all of them or impose them on every branch of the federal government.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prohibits people subjected to domestic violence restraining orders from having firearms, taking a step back from its recent endorsement of a broad right to possess a gun.

The court on an 8-1 vote ruled in favor of the Biden administration, which was defending the law — one of several federal gun restrictions currently facing legal challenges.

The ruling indicates that some longstanding gun laws are likely to survive despite the court's 2022 decision that expanded gun rights by finding for the first time that there is a right to bear arms outside the home under the Constitution's Second Amendment.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that since the United States was founded "our nation's firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms."

The provision at issue in the case "fits comfortably within this tradition," he added.

In reaching its conclusion, the court did not embrace some of the arguments made by the Biden administration in defense of the law, including that the government can disarm people who are not "responsible."

Although the vote was lopsided, with only conservative Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting, the ruling nevertheless exposed divisions among the justices on the gun rights issue, with five justices writing separate concurring opinions explaining their views.

The 2022 decision, in a case called New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, said gun restrictions had to be analyzed based on a historical understanding of the right to bear arms. As such, the decision raised questions about many existing gun restrictions that gun rights activists say are not anchored in historical tradition.

One of those other laws, which bars users of illegal drugs from possessing firearms, has drawn scrutiny in part because Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son, has been charged with violating it and has mounted a constitutional challenge.

The three liberal justices on the conservative-majority court were all in the majority while making it clear they disagree with the 2022 ruling.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was appointed by President Joe Biden after that decision was issued, said the new case "highlights the apparent difficulty faced by judges on the ground" in deciding which gun laws should be upheld in light of the earlier ruling.

The case before the justices concerned Zackey Rahimi, a Texas man whose partner obtained a restraining order against him in February 2020. He argued that he cannot be prosecuted under the federal gun possession restriction in light of what the Supreme Court concluded.

Rahimi’s ex-partner, with whom he shares a child, obtained a restraining order after an incident in an Arlington, Texas, parking lot in 2019. Rahimi allegedly knocked the woman to the ground, dragged her to his car and pushed her inside, causing her to knock her head on the dashboard, prosecutors said in court papers. He also allegedly fired a shot from his gun in the direction of a witness.

Even while the protective order was in place, Rahimi was implicated in a series of shootings, including one in which he allegedly fired bullets into a house using an AR-15 rifle, prosecutors allege.

Rahimi faces state charges in the domestic assault and a separate assault against a different woman. But the case before the justices concerns his separate prosecution by the Justice Department for violating the federal gun possession law.

Rahimi ultimately pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison.

The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals applied the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Rahimi’s case and concluded last year that the law “fails to pass constitutional muster.”

[signode-blog]

Can a Convicted Donald Trump Still Run for the Presidency? Exploring Legal and Practical Implications.

Can a Convicted Donald Trump Still Run for the Presidency? The question of whether a convicted Donald Trump can still run for the presidency has stirred considerable debate and curiosity among legal experts, political analysts, and the general public. This discussion is particularly pertinent given Trump’s controversial tenure, ongoing legal challenges, and the polarizing nature of his…

[ivygorgon]

📈 Exclusion of Donald Trump from future ballots under Fourteenth Amendment hit 2,000 signers! https://resist.bot/petitions/PGOQGM

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, specifically Section 3, disqualifies individuals who engage in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution from holding office. This provision is applicable to former President Donald Trump due to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election and the subsequent attack on the U.S. Capitol. This disqualification operates independently of criminal proceedings, impeachment, or legislation. Legal scholars William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen support this interpretation. It's crucial to uphold the Constitution faithfully, even if it may lead to social unrest. Therefore, it is requested that the name of Donald Trump be excluded from future ballots in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment. This action will demonstrate a commitment to protecting our constitutional democracy.

▶ Created on August 25 by @resistbot Action Fund · 2,029 signers in the past 7 days

Text Sign PGOQGM to WhatsApp / Messenger / APPLE MESSAGES / SMS

[anders-hawke]

exam today 🫠

[jbfly46]

Arguments Against Online Misinformation

"I am the physical manifestation of the spirit of the Sun, and the accumulation of all knowledge on Heaven and Earth." "A deeply ironic reinforcement of right-wing misinformation" - Newsweek ARGUMENTS:

Posting misinformation in the public sphere does not fall under 1st Amendment protections as it is the equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

The constitutional amendments are presupposed on the use of an individual's free will. The social media cognitive functioning feedback loop negates an individuals ability to use free will.

[kp777]

Trump Is Blocked From The GOP Primary Ballot In Two States. Who's Next?

[squashfolded]

”This happened to me while I was watching a sunny ep" hmm?

GET OUT OF MY HOUSE

[filosofablogger]

On My Soapbox Yet Again

You probably figured that after Wednesday’s school shooting in Georgia, I’d be back on my soapbox about the gun crisis in the U.S.  Well, here I am and here’s the soapbox … My solutions may seem a bit radical to some, but desperate times call for desperate measures, and if children continually getting shot & killed in school doesn’t make for desperate times, then I don’t know what does.  Nearly…

[deadpresidents]

If trump somehow wins reelection in 2024 and resigns before his term is up would he be eligible to run for a third term?

No.

The 22nd Amendment explicitly states that "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice...", so even if he didn't serve the full eight years of his two terms, a President who has won two elections is Constitutionally ineligible to win a third election.

It's technically possible for someone to serve more than eight years if they assumed the office and completed the unexpired term of their predecessor, as long as they hadn't served more than two years of that unexpired term. As an example, Lyndon B. Johnson succeeded to the Presidency upon the assassination of President Kennedy in November 1963 and completed the remainder of JFK's unexpired term -- 1 years, 59 days. LBJ was elected to a four-year term in his own right in 1964 and could have run for another four-year term in 1968, which would have given him a little over nine years in the White House, but he chose not to seek re-election.

On the other hand, Gerald Ford succeeded Richard Nixon in August 1974 upon Nixon's resignation. Ford completed the final 2 years, 164 days of Nixon's unexpired term. If Ford had won the 1976 election and served a four-year term of his own right, he would have been ineligible to seek re-election in 1980 because he had served more than two years of Nixon's unexpired term.

Incidentally, I've seen many people over the years suggest or argue that a President who serves two terms and exhausts their Constitutional eligibility for re-election can potentially run for Vice President and then just assume the Presidency by way of the President's resignation, impeachment and removal, or death in office. But, again, the Constitutional is explicitly clear about this and the Twelfth Amendment states that "no personal constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." So, if someone is ineligible to become President they are also ineligible to become Vice President.