quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

the constitution was made up of men
not god
The constitution has been amended more than a few times,
it isnt the moses tablets
LMAO

Yes. It has been amended more than a few times. It is not God. It isn't the thing you call the "Moses tablets". 

But understand that constitutional amendments must not contradict the existing Constitution. So, one does not "change" the Constitution ever. For example women's sufferage did not contradict the existing law. There was no constitutional article that said women cannot vote. But, if there were then women would not vote ever; you could not amend the Constitution to remove something it already says is law. So I guess the Constitution is like Mose's tablets since existing Articles are set in stone.      

LYAO or not. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

the constitution was made up of men
not god
The constitution has been amended more than a few times,
it isnt the moses tablets
LMAO

Yes. It has been amended more than a few times. It is not God. It isn't the thing you call the "Moses tablets". 

But understand that constitutional amendments must not contradict the existing Constitution. So, one does not "change" the Constitution ever. For example women's sufferage did not contradict the existing law. There was no constitutional article that said women cannot vote. But, if there were then women would not vote ever; you could not amend the Constitution to remove something it already says is law. So I guess the Constitution is like Mose's tablets since existing Articles are set in stone.      

LYAO or not. 

Actually prohibition was done by amendment so was it's repeal.
Income tax required an amendment because the constitution forbade a direct tax.
That said while it can be changed. It is, and should be very difficult to amend. Any 13 states can stop an amendment so those who say all we need to do is amend the constitution clearly have no idea what they are up against.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

the constitution was made up of men
not god
The constitution has been amended more than a few times,
it isnt the moses tablets
LMAO

Yes. It has been amended more than a few times. It is not God. It isn't the thing you call the "Moses tablets". 

But understand that constitutional amendments must not contradict the existing Constitution. So, one does not "change" the Constitution ever. For example women's sufferage did not contradict the existing law. There was no constitutional article that said women cannot vote. But, if there were then women would not vote ever; you could not amend the Constitution to remove something it already says is law. So I guess the Constitution is like Mose's tablets since existing Articles are set in stone.      

LYAO or not. 

Actually prohibition was done by amendment so was it's repeal.
Income tax required an amendment because the constitution forbade a direct tax.
That said while it can be changed. It is, and should be very difficult to amend. Any 13 states can stop an amendment so those who say all we need to do is amend the constitution clearly have no idea what they are up against.

Not accurate, my friend.

Prohibition.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits outlawing substances, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits substances. The amendment to outlaw and then allow therefore does not conflict with any article.

Income Tax.
The Constitution allows taxing for  certain purposes but does not prohibit additional taxation. The admendment adding taxation is like the amendment allowing women's sufferage or the right to bear arms. These are all things not prohibited by Constitution article, and in the case of bearing guns and other questions, the founders thought these were things that did not need to be said. But later, when some sought to remove the right to bear arms, it became necessary to spell it out in an amendment, a clarifying amendment, one that spells out somthing inherent in the Constitutional articles when written, those written before the amendments. Notice no original article is changed or removed by an amendment. So, it is impossible to remove or change the articles. These articles are in stone, one cannot take rights away. Even the Bill of Rights, certain amendments, do not conflict with the original articles.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

These articles are in stone,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

the constitution was made up of men
not god
The constitution has been amended more than a few times,
it isnt the moses tablets
LMAO

Yes. It has been amended more than a few times. It is not God. It isn't the thing you call the "Moses tablets". 

But understand that constitutional amendments must not contradict the existing Constitution. So, one does not "change" the Constitution ever. For example women's sufferage did not contradict the existing law. There was no constitutional article that said women cannot vote. But, if there were then women would not vote ever; you could not amend the Constitution to remove something it already says is law. So I guess the Constitution is like Mose's tablets since existing Articles are set in stone.      

LYAO or not. 

Actually prohibition was done by amendment so was it's repeal.
Income tax required an amendment because the constitution forbade a direct tax.
That said while it can be changed. It is, and should be very difficult to amend. Any 13 states can stop an amendment so those who say all we need to do is amend the constitution clearly have no idea what they are up against.

Not accurate, my friend.

Prohibition.
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits outlawing substances, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits substances. The amendment to outlaw and then allow therefore does not conflict with any article.

Income Tax.
The Constitution allows taxing for  certain purposes but does not prohibit additional taxation. The admendment adding taxation is like the amendment allowing women's sufferage or the right to bear arms. These are all things not prohibited by Constitution article, and in the case of bearing guns and other questions, the founders thought these were things that did not need to be said. But later, when some sought to remove the right to bear arms, it became necessary to spell it out in an amendment, a clarifying amendment, one that spells out somthing inherent in the Constitutional articles when written, those written before the amendments. Notice no original article is changed or removed by an amendment. So, it is impossible to remove or change the articles. These articles are in stone, one cannot take rights away. Even the Bill of Rights, certain amendments, do not conflict with the original articles.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

These articles are in stone,

Nothing is set in stone, muscles, except your views.

Grow up

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Sorry I am so late in a reply.

Very well. Which original article has been changed? Not amended. Changed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

Constitution, Article I, Section 9 (excerpt):

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Amendment XVI:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

FR

Constitution, Article I, Section 9 (excerpt):

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Amendment XVI:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Sorry I am so late in replying

These do not conflict. The first deals with direct taxation for special needs of the Government, like war, and prevents one state from being taxed more than their population and general wealth can support. The second not so much, it deals with indirect taxation of the state, taxing on individuals income for example.

We might mention also:

Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;

Here you see why the House is so important and how the income tax was proposed and then passed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Sorry I am so late in a reply.

Very well. Which original article has been changed? Not amended. Changed.

What do you see as the difference between changed and amended. To me it looks like a distinction without a difference. Spock would not approve.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

What color is the sun in your world?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Sorry I am so late in a reply.

Very well. Which original article has been changed? Not amended. Changed.

What do you see as the difference between changed and amended. To me it looks like a distinction without a difference. Spock would not approve.

I understand why you suggest this. But Spock would understand that to change something means you can simply add something that clarifies or protects the original meaning of the Constituion by amending it. For example, women's right to vote is an amendment that does not change any original article, there is no article that says "only men can vote". So we have an amendment that does not conflict with an original article. Same for all the amendments. They cannot conflict with the original Constituion. One cannot "amend" the Consitution to take away the meaning of an original article,

Finally, perhaps a better example. One cannot do away with the Senate by a constitutional amendment; it would be illegal to do so since the original Constituional article is written in stone and defines the Senate and it's role in the U.S. Government. One could however write and amendment that the Senate will always meet year round even on Christmas and it would be legal since it does not conflct with the original article setting up the Senate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Sorry I am so late in a reply.

Very well. Which original article has been changed? Not amended. Changed.

What do you see as the difference between changed and amended. To me it looks like a distinction without a difference. Spock would not approve.

I understand why you suggest this. But Spock would understand that to change something means you can simply add something that clarifies or protects the original meaning of the Constituion by amending it. For example, women's right to vote is an amendment that does not change any original article, there is no article that says "only men can vote". So we have an amendment that does not conflict with an original article. Same for all the amendments. They cannot conflict with the original Constituion. One cannot "amend" the Consitution to take away the meaning of an original article,

Finally, perhaps a better example. One cannot do away with the Senate by a constitutional amendment; it would be illegal to do so since the original Constituional article is written in stone and defines the Senate and it's role in the U.S. Government. One could however write and amendment that the Senate will always meet year round even on Christmas and it would be legal since it does not conflct with the original article setting up the Senate.

Explain the amendment repealing the prohibition amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Sorry I am so late in a reply.

Very well. Which original article has been changed? Not amended. Changed.

What do you see as the difference between changed and amended. To me it looks like a distinction without a difference. Spock would not approve.

I understand why you suggest this. But Spock would understand that to change something means you can simply add something that clarifies or protects the original meaning of the Constituion by amending it. For example, women's right to vote is an amendment that does not change any original article, there is no article that says "only men can vote". So we have an amendment that does not conflict with an original article. Same for all the amendments. They cannot conflict with the original Constituion. One cannot "amend" the Consitution to take away the meaning of an original article,

Finally, perhaps a better example. One cannot do away with the Senate by a constitutional amendment; it would be illegal to do so since the original Constitutional article is written in stone and defines the Senate and it's role in the U.S. Government. One could however write an amendment that the Senate will always meet year round even on Christmas and it would be legal since it does not conflct with the original article setting up the Senate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Sorry I am so late in a reply.

Very well. Which original article has been changed? Not amended. Changed.

What do you see as the difference between changed and amended. To me it looks like a distinction without a difference. Spock would not approve.

I understand why you suggest this. But Spock would understand that to change something means you can simply add something that clarifies or protects the original meaning of the Constituion by amending it. For example, women's right to vote is an amendment that does not change any original article, there is no article that says "only men can vote". So we have an amendment that does not conflict with an original article. Same for all the amendments. They cannot conflict with the original Constituion. One cannot "amend" the Consitution to take away the meaning of an original article,

Finally, perhaps a better example. One cannot do away with the Senate by a constitutional amendment; it would be illegal to do so since the original Constitutional article is written in stone and defines the Senate and it's role in the U.S. Government. One could however write an amendment that the Senate will always meet year round even on Christmas and it would be legal since it does not conflct with the original article setting up the Senate.

Only if Spock decided to make up his own definitions of words.