The United States needs 10th amendment judges.

[Galloism]

What does that say about states abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States?

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. They simply enforced this clause by making everyone federal citizens and thus meaning the federal government could force states to treat persons from other states the same as their own.

I think you're going to have to run that by me again - that doesn't seem to make much sense.

[Grinning Dragon]

You do realize the 14th amendment was a super amendment to the constitution, taking all the previous rights amendments that bound the federal government and applied them to the states, yes?

Interestingly enough, the lawmakers who crafted the 14th Amendment readily admitted, it was intended as a direct reversal of a 35-year old ruling of the Supreme Court, the 1833 case, Barron v. Baltimore.

[Take One For the Roe]

@OP, I agree more power should be given to the states, but I think you take it too far. Like others have said we are not a confederacy. At a minimum, the bill of rights should be what unites us as a country. I have no problem with devolving as much power to the states as possible, but not in violation of rights explicitly laid out in the constitution.

[Torisakia]

Given the corruption, I would not be surprised to see SCOTUS strike down the First Amendment. Might as well do away with the Third Amendment while they're at it.

I do, however, support dissolving the United States and letting the states fend for themselves. Might do some good for the world as a whole.

[HISPIDA]

You do realize the 14th amendment was a super amendment to the constitution, taking all the previous rights amendments that bound the federal government and applied them to the states, yes?

No it didn't the incorporation doctrine is bullshit it simply required states to treat everyone the same under the law without regard for race or citizenship status. It did not require states to apply the bill of rights.

my brother in Christ what in heaven's name are you implying

[WayNeacTia]

You do realize the 14th amendment was a super amendment to the constitution, taking all the previous rights amendments that bound the federal government and applied them to the states, yes?

No it didn't the incorporation doctrine is bullshit it simply required states to treat everyone the same under the law without regard for race or citizenship status. It did not require states to apply the bill of rights.

Apparently you missed the class where they discuss Article 4 Paragraph 2 of the Constitution. You know... The Supremacy Clause. As I have said before, you are one county, not 50 independent countries.

[The Archregimancy]

I have an even better idea.

Instead of trying to govern a continent-spanning country with a population of over 300 million people via an outdated late 18th-century document written in very different socio-political and demographic circumstances - and which has been amended only 27 times, with no newly proposed amendments* passed for over 50 years - why not throw out the current constitution and replace it with something a bit better suited to 2022? Just cut the constitutional Gordian knot and replace this dated document that's given far too much reverence to be healthy for a 21st-century democracy.

I know, that's a wildly impractical proposal under current political circumstances; it's simply not going to happen with US politics in their present state. But having the longest continuously operating constitution in the world - one that's barely been amended since it was first written (contrast amendments to, for example, the second-oldest operating constitution, the Norwegian constitution of 1814) - isn't necessar=Having the worlds' oldest written constitution in continuous use isn't necessarily a point of pride, especially when it's debateable whether it's still in any way fit for purpose.

Edit:

1) Link corrected

2) The * after 'newly proposed amendments' was supposed to have a footnote along the lines of 'phrasing designed to allow for the unusual length of the ratification process for the 27th amendment'

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

I have an even better idea.

Instead of trying to govern a continent-spanning country with a population of over 300 million people via an outdated late 18th-century document written in very different socio-political and demographic circumstances - and which has been amended only 27 times, with no newly proposed amendments* passed for over 50 years - why not throw out the current constitution and replace it with something a bit better suited to 2022? Just cut the constitutional Gordian knot and replace this dated document that's given far too much reverence to be healthy for a 21st-century democracy.

I know, that's a wildly impractical proposal under current political circumstances; it's simply not going to happen with US politics in their present state. But having the longest continuously operating constitution in the world - one that's barely been amended since it was first written ([url]contrast amendments to, for example, the second-oldest operating constitution, the Norwegian constitution of 1814[/url]) - isn't necessar=Having the worlds' oldest written constitution in continuous use isn't necessarily a point of pride, especially when it's debateable whether it's still in any way fit for purpose.

I think your link got mangled somehow

[The Two Jerseys]

No it didn't the incorporation doctrine is bullshit it simply required states to treat everyone the same under the law without regard for race or citizenship status. It did not require states to apply the bill of rights.

my brother in Christ what in heaven's name are you implying

That states have to be equal-opportunity tyrants.

[Mossadeghist Iran]

What about Ninth Amendment judges, ones who will uphold the principle of unenumerated rights? Well?

Or Article One, Section One judges, to uphold the legislative monopoly of Congress at the federal level?

[Mossadeghist Iran]

I have an even better idea.

Instead of trying to govern a continent-spanning country with a population of over 300 million people via an outdated late 18th-century document written in very different socio-political and demographic circumstances - and which has been amended only 27 times, with no newly proposed amendments* passed for over 50 years - why not throw out the current constitution and replace it with something a bit better suited to 2022? Just cut the constitutional Gordian knot and replace this dated document that's given far too much reverence to be healthy for a 21st-century democracy.

I know, that's a wildly impractical proposal under current political circumstances; it's simply not going to happen with US politics in their present state. But having the longest continuously operating constitution in the world - one that's barely been amended since it was first written (contrast amendments to, for example, the second-oldest operating constitution, the Norwegian constitution of 1814) - isn't necessar=Having the worlds' oldest written constitution in continuous use isn't necessarily a point of pride, especially when it's debateable whether it's still in any way fit for purpose.

Edit:

1) Link corrected

2) The * after 'newly proposed amendments' was supposed to have a footnote along the lines of 'phrasing designed to allow for the unusual length of the ratification process for the 27th amendment'

We just need a Constitutional Convention. The only question is....who is a delegate and who is not? Because you get some right-wingers, and well, you can predict the results.

[Thomasi]

What about Ninth Amendment judges, ones who will uphold the principle of unenumerated rights? Well?

Or Article One, Section One judges, to uphold the legislative monopoly of Congress at the federal level?

9th amendment doesn't actually have any thing to enforce, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, okay but that literally mean nothing. It's more of an ideal than actionable.

Congress has a monopoly in the federal government of legislating.

[Mossadeghist Iran]

What about Ninth Amendment judges, ones who will uphold the principle of unenumerated rights? Well?

Or Article One, Section One judges, to uphold the legislative monopoly of Congress at the federal level?

9th amendment doesn't actually have any thing to enforce, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, okay but that literally mean nothing. It's more of an ideal than actionable.

Congress has a monopoly in the federal government of legislating.

You're joking, I hope. The whole point of the Ninth Amendment is to protect and guarantee any rights not explicitly asserted elsewhere in the Constitution. There's no part of the Constitution, aside from maybe the Preamble, that's just window dressing or garnishment. In other words, what it has to enforce is the stuff that the Framers feared would be denied because they were overlooked in other parts of the Constitution.

[American Legionaries]

9th amendment doesn't actually have any thing to enforce, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, okay but that literally mean nothing. It's more of an ideal than actionable.

Congress has a monopoly in the federal government of legislating.

You're joking, I hope. The whole point of the Ninth Amendment is to protect and guarantee any rights not explicitly asserted elsewhere in the Constitution. There's no part of the Constitution, aside from maybe the Preamble, that's just window dressing or garnishment. In other words, what it has to enforce is the stuff that the Framers feared would be denied because they were overlooked in other parts of the Constitution.

But what rights exist that aren't codified in the other amendments? That seems an awfully contentious point, doesn't it?

[Mossadeghist Iran]

You're joking, I hope. The whole point of the Ninth Amendment is to protect and guarantee any rights not explicitly asserted elsewhere in the Constitution. There's no part of the Constitution, aside from maybe the Preamble, that's just window dressing or garnishment. In other words, what it has to enforce is the stuff that the Framers feared would be denied because they were overlooked in other parts of the Constitution.

But what rights exist that aren't codified in the other amendments? That seems an awfully contentious point, doesn't it?

It is contentious, but far better to err on the side of more rights rather than less.

[American Legionaries]

But what rights exist that aren't codified in the other amendments? That seems an awfully contentious point, doesn't it?

It is contentious, but far better to err on the side of more rights rather than less.

Given that a 'right' can be any such thing someone wants, I don't think we can make such a blanket statement safely.

[Gig em Aggies]

What about Ninth Amendment judges, ones who will uphold the principle of unenumerated rights? Well?

Or Article One, Section One judges, to uphold the legislative monopoly of Congress at the federal level?

9th amendment doesn't actually have any thing to enforce, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people, okay but that literally mean nothing. It's more of an ideal than actionable.

Congress has a monopoly in the federal government of legislating.

Not shit because they are the Legislative Branch who the hell else do you think legislates? Not the Courts they just interpret the laws from a legal standpoint, not the President he’s basically just a CEO but instead of a company it’s a country he’s in charge of.

[Risottia]

...
12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13. To provide and maintain a Navy;

14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
...

Which means the USAF needs to be disbanded.

[Risottia]

I have an even better idea.

Instead of trying to govern a continent-spanning country with a population of over 300 million people via an outdated late 18th-century document written in very different socio-political and demographic circumstances - and which has been amended only 27 times, with no newly proposed amendments* passed for over 50 years - why not throw out the current constitution and replace it with something a bit better suited to 2022? Just cut the constitutional Gordian knot and replace this dated document that's given far too much reverence to be healthy for a 21st-century democracy. ...

Eh, but it would make sense.

I think they should just get back to being an English colony. Eventually they'll get some kind of devolved government and a First Minister of their own.

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

...
12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13. To provide and maintain a Navy;

14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
...

Which means the USAF needs to be disbanded.

...and Space Force

[Risottia]

Which means the USAF needs to be disbanded.

...and Space Force

https://c.tenor.com/y13XEZAGKf8AAAAC/pu ... -putin.gif

[Ifreann]

OP has essentially no understanding of the Bill of Rights, clearly, if they are asking for its removal.

I fully understand and the fact of the matter is that I personally think my state would be better off not shackled by the bill of rights, what I think would change is spreading anti vaccine bullshit would be punished, firearms probably fully banned and police would use be allowed to use mass surveillance to fix the issues in Baltimore (which the federal district court struck down 7-6 it was a drone surveillance program that they were going to use to find and track down people with illegal weapons or who had warrants).

Some states would become theocracies, some would be flourishing democracies, and others would be oligarchies. Don't like your states policies move, no need to go though immigration customs.

Maybe if you don't like living in a country in which all people are protected by the Constitution then you should move somewhere else.

[Thomasi]

I fully understand and the fact of the matter is that I personally think my state would be better off not shackled by the bill of rights, what I think would change is spreading anti vaccine bullshit would be punished, firearms probably fully banned and police would use be allowed to use mass surveillance to fix the issues in Baltimore (which the federal district court struck down 7-6 it was a drone surveillance program that they were going to use to find and track down people with illegal weapons or who had warrants).

Some states would become theocracies, some would be flourishing democracies, and others would be oligarchies. Don't like your states policies move, no need to go though immigration customs.

Maybe if you don't like living in a country in which all people are protected by the Constitution then you should move somewhere else.

Maybe if you don't like living in a federation then you should move to a unitary state.

[Ifreann]

Maybe if you don't like living in a country in which all people are protected by the Constitution then you should move somewhere else.

Maybe if you don't like living in a federation then you should move to a unitary state.

I do. And so do you. You seem not to like it. And your own proposed solution to that problem is to move. So, you know. Get packing.

[Thomasi]

Maybe if you don't like living in a federation then you should move to a unitary state.

I do. And so do you. You seem not to like it. And your own proposed solution to that problem is to move. So, you know. Get packing.

The US isn't Unitary its a federal system. This country was never intended to be ruled under a single unitary code of laws. The United States more like the EU a union of sovergn states. The states (Original ones) predated the federal government and as such the federal government is the child of the states not the other way around.