|
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States repealing the imperious Seventeenth Amendment.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by a majority of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution:
“Article —
“Section 1. Amendment Seventeen shall, upon the ratification of this amendment, be repealed in its entirety and shall henceforth be completely null and void.
“Sec. 2. In order to pass a new Constitution, any proposed Constitutional draft must pass according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Constitutional Amendment.
“Sec. 3. Should any draft pass, fulfilling the same requirements prescribed for Constitutional Amendments, then the current Constitution, including all of its subsequent amendments, shall be repealed in its entirety and shall henceforth be completely null and void.”
–House Representative YoutubeDizzle100(R) |
|
|
|
|
aye. #################### (Senator) Economics_Master |
|
|
hash tagged but my signature i self identify as a representative from now on. ## ######## shouldn't decide what chamber of congress i have to go to! Senator Economics_Master |
|
Zak_PakJoin Date: 2011-06-15
Post Count: 573 |
aye
|
|
|
|
nibbas this exact amendment failed the senate this morning; like i said before, the last thing we should be doing is making the process of replacing our constitution easier.
if a constitution can't get the approval of either the chief justice, the president, or the founder (keep in mind just one of the three), then it's simple: it shouldn't be our constitution and isn't worthy of being such otherwise it would've gotten the approval of one of them.
|
|
|
if anything you guys should be using your time more wisely and, here's an idea, making the process of replacing the >law of the land< easier by, for example, requiring two-thirds from the supreme court???
|
|
|
|
Senator, the sole reason the seventeenth amendment exists is because the author wanted to cement his personal legacy. At the time of ### ######## drafting he assumed he was going to assume the Presidency, which is exactly why the President is one of the only people who can grant permission for a new constitution. Further, I should stress the fact that the only thing you succeed in doing by opposing this is preserving FruCons. Tell me, do you desire to be the one to help keep one of the worst possible constitutions in place? I think it goes without saying that almost any proposed constitution would be better than what we have now. |
|
|
at the time of the current Constitution's drafting*
|
|
|
"if anything you guys should be using your time more wisely and, here's an idea, making the process of replacing the >law of the land< easier by, for example, requiring two-thirds from the supreme court???"
"requiring two-thirds from the supreme court???"
Senator, that's literally only one more vote required in the case of a full court or even a court with eight out of nine justices.
|
|
|
Yea
-House Minority Leader YoutubeDizzle100(R)
|
|
|
joyiscoldJoin Date: 2013-01-05
Post Count: 1018 |
Aye.
|
|
TruenksJoin Date: 2012-07-21
Post Count: 212 |
Abstain. |
|
|
######## it doesn't matter if that's the "sole reason it exists" because it's a good idea in the amendment and clearly senate agrees or the other amendment that did this exact same thing wouldnt have failed 4-0-10 /shrug |
|
|
### and? what's your point if it's "literally one more vote"? this is our constitution, the last thing we should be doing is making it EASIER to replace. |
|
|
Senator, my point is we most likely would not have this amendment otherwise. For as long ## ######### predecessor stood, no such amendment to restrict the ability to replace the Constitution ever came about by logical contemplation. |
|
|
My other point (on emphasizing that it would only increase the requirement by one more vote) was that the difference in raising the requirement of the Supreme Court would be mostly negligible. You questioned my point, so I ask what point would there be in that change?
|
|
|
i figured you'd learn by how that arguing the intent of the author of the constitution is hardly a valid point back when you tried to argue it in youtubedizzle100 v. united states, but let's see what this amendment had to go through again:
2/3 of congress
majority of supreme court
majority of federal court
so this amendment in frucons clearly wasn't just liked by fruit but by the supreme court, 2/3 of congress, and the federal court at that time as well
but that's not the reasoning i'm using for saying it's a good amendment, my reasoning is that if a constitution fails to get either the chief justice's, the president's, OR the founder's approval (and btw, you've been referencing the amendment like it only says the president's approval, but it doesn't, it says EITHER the founder, the chief justice, OR the president, implying one of the three can give approval) then it shouldn't be our constitution, plain and simple.
|
|
|
the answer to your second point on what would there be in that change is simple; making it harder to pass our constitution because that one vote could mean the difference between majority and two-thirds.
|
|
|
i figured that would be implied but unless you're stating a justice's vote means nothing then i guess you'd have a point (but that'd be a very dumb implication to make)
|
|
|
holy crap sudden it took you 8 days to open voting on this
|
|