A political system which does not contain an effective provision for a peaceable decision of all controversies arising within itself, would be a Govt in name only. Such a provision is obviously essential; and it is equally obvious that it cannot be either peaceable or effective by making every part an authoritative umpire. The final appeal in such cases must be to the authority of the whole, not to that of the parts separately and independently. This was the view taken of the subject, whilst the Constitution was under the consideration of the people. [See Federalist No. 39.] It was this view of it which dictated the clause declaring that the Constitution & laws of the U. S. should be the supreme law of the Land, anything in the constn or laws of any of the States to the contrary notwithstanding. [See Art. VI.]
Bam! Nail number one. "See Federalist No. 39", says Madison. Take that Mr. Cantor, Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Beck, Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Romney, Mr. Huckabee, Mrs. Palin, etc.
It gets better. Look at these words from James Madison, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, in 1823.
Believing as I do that the General Convention regarded a provision within the Constitution for deciding in a peaceable & regular mode all cases arising in the course of its operation, as essential to an adequate System of Govt. that it intended the Authority vested in the Judicial Department as a final resort in relation to the States, for cases resulting to it in the exercise of its functions, (the concurrence of the Senate chosen by the State Legislatures, in appointing the Judges, and the oaths & official tenures of these, with the surveillance of public Opinion, being relied on as guarantying their impartiality); and that this intention is expressed by the articles declaring that the federal Constitution & laws shall be the supreme law of the land.
Bam! Nail number two. Please see Article V, of the Constitution, Mr. Cantor, Mr. Limbaugh, Mr. Beck, Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Romney, Mr. Huckabee, Mrs. Palin, etc. There is already a constitutional amendment process, available to the States, written into the body of the supreme Law of the Land. And, there's that pesky reference to Article VI again, as well.
Here's the truth behind this "Repeal Amendment" nonsense. The Republicans hate about half the Constitution and want to go in there and slice and dice it. Article I, Section 8; Article V; Clause 2 of Article VI; Amendments 14, 16, and 17; are all in the Republican's crosshairs.
What are the chances that an amendment like this would ever make it through the United States Congress? None. Zero, zilch, nada. They should be calling this the Jim Crow Jr. Amendment. It's not just unconstitutional, it's retrogressively "anti-Constitutional".
But, nice try Mr. Cantor.
Case closed.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
2
