quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

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.

Umm. . . no. Bills and amendments have different processes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Except for the distinctions you just make up.

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: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

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.

Umm. . . no. Bills and amendments have different processes.

True. Which is why after Section 7 was written the income tax does not have to be in the Constitution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

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.

Amendment 17 supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution. So. . . you are wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

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.

Umm. . . no. Bills and amendments have different processes.

True. Which is why after Section 7 was written the income tax does not have to be in the Constitution.

What are you talking about? The 16th amendment is IN the Constitution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

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.

Amendment 17 supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution. So. . . you are wrong.

Hardly. These articles define the legislature and the amendment does not. This is one of those 'clarifying' amendments that clarifies how these houses are elected whereas the articles you refer to did not specifically give citizens the right to vote for legislators in the manner they are elected. For any amendment to "superceed", as you say, it would have to replace the article entirely, it would have to redefine the legislature. Naturally, that did not happen since that would be, let us say it together, "Un-constitutional"".

Wrong? I am never wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

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.

Umm. . . no. Bills and amendments have different processes.

True. Which is why after Section 7 was written the income tax does not have to be in the Constitution.

What are you talking about? The 16th amendment is IN the Constitution.

Glad you asked.
Americans had been paying income taxes, starting in 1861, to pay for the War for States Rights, using the original Constitution article. The 16th Amendment was passed in 1909 to clarify the origiinal article, to overcome a challenge made to the income tax since it was not exactly levied as the Constitution specified, proportionally based on population of the specific state. Many consider the amendment illegal, tax protests still continue in modern times and it is challenged from time to time even today.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

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.

Amendment 17 supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution. So. . . you are wrong.

Hardly. These articles define the legislature and the amendment does not. This is one of those 'clarifying' amendments that clarifies how these houses are elected whereas the articles you refer to did not specifically give citizens the right to vote for legislators in the manner they are elected. For any amendment to "superceed", as you say, it would have to replace the article entirely, it would have to redefine the legislature. Naturally, that did not happen since that would be, let us say it together, "Un-constitutional"".

Wrong? I am never wrong.

No.

Article I, § 3, Clauses 1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Amendment 17: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

That is NOT "clarifying." That is changing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Let's put a nail in the discussion of if you can change the Constitution, change the the context most of you suggest is possible. The change you suggest is rewriting it or parts of it, doing away with some of the original. But such changes are not possible. That statement seems to make no sense to many of you when we disuss how Senators are elected or revenue but lets remember the Constitution articles also created the three branches of our Government so if the Constitution could be changed that would mean we could change it not to just make your favorite desire legal now but to actually remove the office of the President, or one or two houses of the Legislature or even the Supreme Court since they were also created by Article 3 of the Constitution. So, what chance would you have in changing these Articles? Zero because even if enough states ratified the Amendment, the Supreme Court has the last say and they will automatically decide any change that reverses a Constitutional Article is, you guessed it, unconstitutional. Checks and balances are also defined in the Constitution and this is one check, to prevent anyone from reversing or re-writing the Constitution.

Bye.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas


Not in substance. Review the context first. Prior to this Amendment, the Senators were choosen by the people using the legislature as a convienent means of electing the less numerious senators; it made no sense to do a one citizen per vote election for only two senators back in the days when communication was primitive In 1912, when this Amendment was passed, it made sense to ahve Now, allow Senators to be still choosen by the people but now they directly do so because the infrastructure allows for this. So this Amendment both clarifies that Senators are choosen by the people and also makes it standard for Senators to be directly elected now that it is possible.

So no, this did not change or chip away at the original article in substance. Senators were always chosen by the people, at one time through the legislature and now through direct vote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Let's put a nail in the discussion of if you can change the Constitution, change the the context most of you suggest is possible. The change you suggest is rewriting it or parts of it, doing away with some of the original. But such changes are not possible. That statement seems to make no sense to many of you when we disuss how Senators are elected or revenue but lets remember the Constitution articles also created the three branches of our Government so if the Constitution could be changed that would mean we could change it not to just make your favorite desire legal now but to actually remove the office of the President, or one or two houses of the Legislature or even the Supreme Court since they were also created by Article 3 of the Constitution. So, what chance would you have in changing these Articles? Zero because even if enough states ratified the Amendment, the Supreme Court has the last say and they will automatically decide any change that reverses a Constitutional Article is, you guessed it, unconstitutional. Checks and balances are also defined in the Constitution and this is one check, to prevent anyone from reversing or re-writing the Constitution.

Bye.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Let's put a nail in the discussion of if you can change the Constitution, change the the context most of you suggest is possible. The change you suggest is rewriting it or parts of it, doing away with some of the original. But such changes are not possible. That statement seems to make no sense to many of you when we disuss how Senators are elected or revenue but lets remember the Constitution articles also created the three branches of our Government so if the Constitution could be changed that would mean we could change it not to just make your favorite desire legal now but to actually remove the office of the President, or one or two houses of the Legislature or even the Supreme Court since they were also created by Article 3 of the Constitution. So, what chance would you have in changing these Articles? Zero because even if enough states ratified the Amendment, the Supreme Court has the last say and they will automatically decide any change that reverses a Constitutional Article is, you guessed it, unconstitutional. Checks and balances are also defined in the Constitution and this is one check, to prevent anyone from reversing or re-writing the Constitution.

Bye.

The stupid is starting to burn.

The Constitution comes with instructions on how to change it.

It is Article 5

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.



In fact, the Bill of Rights is an ADDITION to the Constitution. It was not part of the original text, much to Madison's dismay.