The Constitution is a Living Document

[sweetwater5s9]

The Constitution provides for adding amendments and it is clear on the process.   That is the only way the document is "living".

[1965hawks]

So you agree the Constitution is indeed a living document rather than an inflexible document etched in stone that can't be adjusted to reflect contemporary thought. Isn't that what you're admitting here, sweetwater5s9?

[duke_john]

Is what hawkshit does here qualify as a debate?  I thought the buffoon was doing stand up comedy.

[sweetwater5s9]

Yes, you can amend the Constitution.

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. 

Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

[sweetwater5s9]

The 27th amendment is unique in that it took nearly 200 years since it was proposed to actually be ratified by the states.  The 27th amendment deals with pay raises or decreases for members of Congress. 

You may wonder why an amendment could be ratified almost 200 years after its proposal.  In the Supreme Court case of Coleman v. Miller the court ruled that if the amendment had an unspecified date, then the state legislatures could approve the amendment at any time.  You may remember that some amendments, such as the 21st amendment repealing Prohibition specified a frame of seven years that would render the amendment “inoperative.”  The amendment that would become the 27th amendment did not have such a provision, which allowed the final states, Missouri, Michigan, New Jersey and Illinois to all ratify the amendment in May of 1992 and force its ratification over the objections of some elected officials. 

Only 38 states were required to ratify the amendment, but Kentucky found out that it had ratified the amendment decades earlier and the few remaining states all ratified the amendment in quick succession before the Archivist of the United States certified the amendment.  Congress would then pass a resolution agreeing the amendment was valid, ending the challenges to it.

http://kids.laws.com/27th-amendment

[1965hawks]

The Constitution is a living document and what you've posted in replies #111 and #112 are good examples that support that argument. If the Constitution were not a living document, it could not be amended to apply to contemporary issues. Thanks for making my point.

[D2D]

Again, 1965hawks reads what isn't written!

Saying the Constitution can be amended only through constitutional means doesn't mean it is a living document that changes with the direction of the political winds!

[KensanIV]

Our forefathers when the wrote that document understood the facts that it could have been wrong or some of it changed.  That is why they added that provision called Amendments to the Constitution. They made it particularly difficult to change on purpose... and since it was written, there have actually changed it very few times...considering how old the document is and how many years it has been the foundation of this nation.


Just for a giggle.  They still have all references to God on our buildings in DC. As well we have outlawed the Ten Commandments from public buildings... regardless of what the courts have ruled.

Did you ever notice that we still ask you to raise your hand and swear on a bible that you are telling the truth in any testimony Or as well when being sworn into office (or the military) you still have to use that Holy Book.

Sort of a dichotomy, don't you think?

[Dan]

Hawk,

The constitution can only be amended by amendments.  Not by creative interpretation.  If you want to change the constitution, do it the right way, through the statutory process.

[sweetwater5s9]

Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).

[1965hawks]

D2DOOFAS: Again, 1965hawks reads what isn't written! Saying the Constitution can be amended only through constitutional means doesn't mean it is a living document that changes with the direction of the political winds!

No, D2DOOFAS. Truth is, your D2DUMB ass is lying again. When did I ever say the constitution "can only be amended by constitutional means?" Your pal, the bombastic and long-winded and bombastic sweetwater5s9, has been the the only one babbling  about amending the Constitution in this thread. Remember? Evidently it's your D2DOOFAS ass that's reading what isn't there, but that comes as no surprise to me. Your penchant for hallucinating in this forum is well-documented.

[duke_john]

More ad hominems from hawkiepoop, without him addressing the issue.