Quote:
|
Your claim of fraud during ratification may have merit, but an ammendment can change any aspect of the Constitution.
|
Very true. An amendment may change any aspect of the Constitution. It may do this by adding to or repealing something. This may work for any part of the Constitution. For instance if in 1913 thirty-six states had followed thier own state laws concerning voting on an amendment, had not changed any of the wording, had the governors sign the bill, and sent it back to Congress repealing the aportionment clause and all of the amendments contrary to the new amendment, the amendment would have been legally ratified and be a valid law. But that's not what happened.
Quote:
|
You can claim that income tax violates your human rights, and therefore shouldn't be in the Constitution, but claiming that it is unconstitutional on its face is fatuous.
|
I'm sorry but the statement I made concering the fact that the income tax amendment is unconstitutional on its face is an accurate one.
Neither amendments (laws), nor any other law, or court decision may contradict any part of the Constitution. This is clear in Article 6 paragraph two.
Quote:
|
The founding fathers put the amendment process in place so as not to bind future generations with the fashions of the time. This is a good thing, but it also allows future generations to make mistakes. Nothing in the Constitution is untouchable by ammendment.
|
I agree. The founders made the Constitution so we could change it. It may be changed by adding to it or taking away from it. Any part of it may be added to or taken away, but only within the areas that government has legal authority to govern and may never limit the rights of citizens. The Constitution was made to limit government and not to define or limit the rights of citizens.
The powers of government are EXTREMELY limited, especially the federal government.