stokes
.338 Win Mag
Not too mention their apparent ability to rig an election process.
Newsom proposes 28th constitutional amendment to restrict gun access
- Thread starter livingston
- Start date
Except that it's not. Two completely different positions. Two different reasons for use. One is federal office the other is state. Penalties are very different. Etc.
Jmac00
.475 A&M Magnum
first, Newsome ( Henceforth, TBK as *the asshole* ) will need to find at least 34 states to consider this idea. ( my comments are in orange )
Step 1. Passage by Congress. Proposed amendment language must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses. ( never going to happen )
Step 2. Notification of the states. The national archivist sends notification and materials to the governor of each state.
Step 3. Ratification by three-fourths of the states. Ratification of the amendment language adopted by Congress is an up-or-down vote in each legislative chamber. A state legislature cannot change the language. If it does, its ratification is invalid. A governor’s signature on the ratification bill or resolution is not necessary.
Step 4. Tracking state actions. Proposed amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the states in order to take effect. Congress may set a time limit for state action. The official count is kept by Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives. Legislatures must return specific materials to show proof of ratification. ( this would require 38 states to approve )
Step 5. Announcement. When the requisite number of states ratify a proposed amendment, the archivist of the United States proclaims it as a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Actual certification is published immediately in the Federal Register and eventually in the United States Statutes-at-Large.
( the important point )
State legislatures often call upon Congress to propose constitutional amendments. While these calls may bring some political pressure to bear, Congress is under no constitutional obligation to respond. The U.S. Constitution does not contain a provision requiring Congress to submit a proposed amendment upon request by some requisite number of states.
the assholes proposal is going nowhere, fast. With 27 states as Constitutional Carry, its very doubtful the asshole can get the another 11 states to even consider this idea.
Step 1. Passage by Congress. Proposed amendment language must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses. ( never going to happen )
Step 2. Notification of the states. The national archivist sends notification and materials to the governor of each state.
Step 3. Ratification by three-fourths of the states. Ratification of the amendment language adopted by Congress is an up-or-down vote in each legislative chamber. A state legislature cannot change the language. If it does, its ratification is invalid. A governor’s signature on the ratification bill or resolution is not necessary.
Step 4. Tracking state actions. Proposed amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the states in order to take effect. Congress may set a time limit for state action. The official count is kept by Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives. Legislatures must return specific materials to show proof of ratification. ( this would require 38 states to approve )
Step 5. Announcement. When the requisite number of states ratify a proposed amendment, the archivist of the United States proclaims it as a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Actual certification is published immediately in the Federal Register and eventually in the United States Statutes-at-Large.
( the important point )
State legislatures often call upon Congress to propose constitutional amendments. While these calls may bring some political pressure to bear, Congress is under no constitutional obligation to respond. The U.S. Constitution does not contain a provision requiring Congress to submit a proposed amendment upon request by some requisite number of states.
the assholes proposal is going nowhere, fast. With 27 states as Constitutional Carry, its very doubtful the asshole can get the another 11 states to even consider this idea.
Understand what you are saying. Apparently it does need to be correct due to the corruption of the current words.
JaguarJaguarGolf
6.5 Creedmoor
What is the process for a Convention of States?
Is it true no member of Congress may participate?
Is it true no member of Congress may participate?
Amen Brother.
I will never forget election night 2020.
People that sit back and pooh-pooh this and say "oh that'll never happen" either don't fully appreciate the manipulation and control exerted over the masses and institutions or they need to clutch to the paradigm that they best cope with and endure the incremental changes like a frog in a pot. How much of what is happening today would have been met with the same dismissive response just 5 or 10 years ago? Never say never and don't underestimate the power of an empowered collective of stupid.
IMO that's a dangerous mindset. The Founding Fathers realized it and included these words in our Declaration of Independence:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
What they were basically saying is, we've put up with crap but now we've reached our tipping point. But it took them some time to reach it and before that I'm sure there was a lot of "oh the King will never do that" or "it'll get better" type reasoning until they got there. Today, it just pushes our tipping point out further and further.
While I agree this is mostly political grandstanding, I'll ask this today - Is an idea dangerous based solely on its likelihood of succeeding? And what does that answer look like in another 5 or 10 years?
RedBreast21
6.5 Creedmoor
It didn't restrict, it repealed it. That is what Gavin is eluding to. Utah actually added during ratification of the 21st that states could have laws governing the sale of alcohol which was not in the 18th. I know of no amendment that simply added language to and existing amendment and thereby changing original amendment definition, which I believe Gavin is purposing.
JaguarJaguarGolf
6.5 Creedmoor
The first 10 amendments are the Bill of Rights.
These are rights we acquire the moment we are born. They exist whether the Constitution exists or not. They exist whether the USA exists or not. They exist whether they are recognised by the governing forces where you live or not. The people of North Korea have these same rights, they are denied by an oppressive government.
These are rights we acquire the moment we are born. They exist whether the Constitution exists or not. They exist whether the USA exists or not. They exist whether they are recognised by the governing forces where you live or not. The people of North Korea have these same rights, they are denied by an oppressive government.