This is a New Approach

Can a section of the Constitution itself be unconstitutional? The answer is yes.
Used to be the idea was just to get the SCOTUS to ignore the parts of the Constitution you didn't like. Is the 10th Amendment unconstitutional? It's certainly impossible to square with the left's agenda since FDR. As far as I know, though, no one has argued that it is unconstitutional; they've just elected to act as if it didn't exist.


Texan99 said...

The Constitution can contain internal inconsistencies, so you can always argue that one part of it is against another part of it. Then you can choose the part that's "real" and claim the other part is unconstitutional. Why these word games would be useful is beyond me. Wouldn't it be better to identify a fatal inconsistency and amend the document to remove the worse of the two conflicting parts?

E Hines said...

Plainly this guy is desperate for a publication in order to meet his quota for the year.

A couple of things: We are all aware by now that we do not vote directly for a candidate in a Presidential election.

Umm, we've all been aware of this since our third grade American History lessons, and this was gone into in considerable detail in our jr high Civics lessons.

Under Article II, Sect. 2 of the Constitution...the number of electors is determined by combining the number of members of the House of Representatives in each state and its two Senators.

Actually, this is in Art II, Sect 1. I'll grant him the typo, while noting that his sloppy proofreading might be contributory to his desperation to meet his quota. The larger matter here, though, is that number of members of the House of Representatives As Art I, Sect 2 clearly states, [t]he Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand...; this number has not been amended. Of course the good law professor is well aware of this clause, too, but for unknown reasons, he's chosen to elide any mention of it. The modern House of Representatives would seem to be unconstitutionally constituted, and his beef might lie here. But this reach may be too crackpot even for him.

Eric Hines

raven said...

If one absolutely has to have a civil war, then empowering 51% of the public to enslave the other 49% would be a good way to start.

Ymar Sakar said...

CW1 started because one political faction thought the other one was doing unconstitutional things. The problem with a compromise is that each faction can stake out a position and say "stopping slavery is Constitutional, given bans on importation and prevention of the spread to US Territories and Mexico" vs "slaves are protected property and growable votes, it can and should be spread to all US territories and Mexico, after annexation, creating a super slave bloc".

What didn't get resolved after the revolutionary war, had to be resolved in CW 1. And what didn't get resolved in CW 1, has to be resolved in CW 2.