The United States needs 10th amendment judges.

[Thomasi]

Not for the 13th because it was passed during the civil war when the other states left the union, the 15th is also under the same logic as the 14th, and would need to be passed, which even as someone who's half African American I'd be fine with because I'm in MD and it wouldn't affect me lol.

Edit- They litterally held state legislators at gun point for force the passing of the 14th and 15th amendments.

Southern states were not allowed back into the union without accepting the 13th amendment.

Well yeah because it was already passed and codified with the union states, the confederate states weren't in the union at the time. 13th passed in 1863.

[Asardia]

Southern states were not allowed back into the union without accepting the 13th amendment.

Well yeah because it was already passed and codified with the union states, the confederate states weren't in the union at the time. 13th passed in 1863.

The 13th was ratified in December 1865

[Thomasi]

Well yeah because it was already passed and codified with the union states, the confederate states weren't in the union at the time. 13th passed in 1863.

The 13th was ratified in December 1865

I am corrected, I still consider it different because they had the choice not to, and remain territories, it wasn't forcefully enacted like the 14th amendment was with the literal army forcing legislators to pass it.

[Ethel mermania]

The 13th was ratified in December 1865

I am corrected, I still consider it different because they had the choice not to, and remain territories, it wasn't forcefully enacted like the 14th amendment was with the literal army forcing legislators to pass it.

You mean remain under militarily occupation. I am not questioning Congress's right to do so.

I am questioning how it wasn't with a gun to their head, when in fact quite literally it was.

[Thomasi]

I am corrected, I still consider it different because they had the choice not to, and remain territories, it wasn't forcefully enacted like the 14th amendment was with the literal army forcing legislators to pass it.

You mean remain under militarily occupation. I am not questioning Congress's right to do so.

I am questioning how it wasn't with a gun to their head, when in fact quite literally it was.

They weren't yet reinstated as states which means they didn't have an affect on the amendment process they could have refused and the north would have passed it anyway so it was just them agreeing to the new rules, the 14th and 15th amendments were passed when the southern states were reinstated as states and they had their local governments threatened with arrest or execution if they didn't ratify the amendments.

So its a different situation.

[Mossadeghist Iran]

The US isn't a federation of dozens of nations.

Weird that the Constitution is the supreme law, then.

The 13 colonies that founded America were not sovereign states prior to founding the US. They were colonies. They became independent by founding the United States and winning the resulting war. And they added more state by conquering, murdering, and colonising their way west.

Between the revolution and the ratification of the constitution, the states were sovereign. The Colonies saw themselves as independent states ( drove George Washington nuts). The states never completely gave up sovereignty after the constitution, but it is limited.

The current federal court system has under its jurisdiction enforcement and interpretation of the 10th amendment. Not really seeing the point of more courts

I beseech you to read the Articles of Confederation, because even that much weaker document created a “perpetual union” and not independent states.

[Ethel mermania]

Between the revolution and the ratification of the constitution, the states were sovereign. The Colonies saw themselves as independent states ( drove George Washington nuts). The states never completely gave up sovereignty after the constitution, but it is limited.

The current federal court system has under its jurisdiction enforcement and interpretation of the 10th amendment. Not really seeing the point of more courts

I beseech you to read the Articles of Confederation, because even that much weaker document created a “perpetual union” and not independent states.

A union of sovereign states.

From the wiki

A guiding principle of the Articles was to establish and preserve the independence and sovereignty of the states. The weak central government established by the Articles received only those powers which the former colonies had recognized as belonging to king and parliament.

[James_xenoland]

While not exactly what your talking about, today's rulings do take a sizeable step in the direction of putting the federal government back into it's proper constitutional place. But yeah though, I certainly agree that both the 9th and 10th amendments need to be centered behind a MAJOR refactoring and rethinking of current federal government operation... conceptually and legally.

[Mossadeghist Iran]

I beseech you to read the Articles of Confederation, because even that much weaker document created a “perpetual union” and not independent states.

A union of sovereign states.

From the wiki

A guiding principle of the Articles was to establish and preserve the independence and sovereignty of the states. The weak central government established by the Articles received only those powers which the former colonies had recognized as belonging to king and parliament.

The sovereignty of said states is somewhat overstated when you consider that a “perpetual union” is inherently indivisible.

[Neon Lunar Eclipse]

What the USA really needs is a new constitution.

[American Legionaries]

What the USA really needs is a new constitution.

Good luck.

[Digital Planets]

What the USA really needs is a new constitution.

Nah, our current constitution is fine, we'll just start another civil war instead.

[Thomasi]

What the USA really needs is a new constitution.

The US really needs a parliamentary system even something as simply as allowing the house of reps to remove the president via simple majority would be a huge improvement.

Though ideal would be Proportional house which elects the Prime Minister, and a senate that DIDN'T have equal power. If a bill passes the house, the senate can veto bills via voting, and if they veto the House needs to revote and get higher percentage of votes in favor than the senate voted against.

The President is elected via popular vote, and only has reserve powers over the government and runs the civil service.

[Green Nape]

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?

The 14th amendment sucked

[El Lazaro]

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 Jesus Christ almighty, did you just argue against the bill of rights? And furthermore, are you saying states can strike out the 2nd and ban firearms for they do not need to apply the bill of rights?

This isn’t an uncommon view. Some conservatives acknowledge they lost the culture war fights, so they want to use nullification to attack civil liberties at the state level.