The Vague and Ambiguous US Constitution

[Union8448]

The Vague and Ambiguous US Constitution

It is up to us, the living to decide the path foward not the dead founding fathers in whose time only propertied white men were deamed worthy of being the pubic in republic, the decision makers.

The Irony And Deceit Of Constitutional ‘Original Intent’ Arguments​

By David K. Sutton (from The Left Call)​

If there is one “original intent” we know of the Founding Fathers it is that they wrote the constitution intentionally vague. This is an important distinction to understand. What is or isn’t constitutional is decided by the judicial branch. This is because most legislative provisions simply are not mentioned in the constitution, therefore it is up to the judicial branch to interpret the words of the constitution, if these provisions face legal challenge.​

E.J. Dionne reminds us of the preamble to the United States Constitution. It reads:​

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

Dionne reminds us of the importance of those first few words, “We the People.” It is up to us to decide the path of this great country. It is no longer in the hands of the Founding Fathers. They crafted a framework that we can build on to move the country forward. This is why those who subscribe to an ideology of strict original intent have it wrong. The only intent we can ascertain is from the written text of a purposely vague document, the constitution. Beyond that it is up to “We the People” to make the country adapt and work better for all citizens as times change “in Order to form a more perfect Union.” There was no original intent when it comes to ... any number of important issues that we now face. If we get bogged down in arguments over original intent we ironically lose sight of the real original intent.​

38 states acting together could repeal the Constitution. They could kick out the 12 non ratifiers and form a new American Republic. Its not self enforcing if the courts and legislature don't want to enforce it. In 1861 the legislature enforced it and the Executive had what it needed to enforce it.

 

[5fish]

38 states acting together could repeal the Constitution.

No, they can only call for a Constitutional Convention to rewrite or amend the Constitution. This means each state would send a delegation of people to the Constitutional Convention.

 

[5fish]

Here is a link to the committee of the 13 in 1860 trying to use the amendment process to avert a war... The committee could not agree on an amendment to forward to Congress. The link shows the amendments that were proposed within the committee... Douglas offered two amendments, Jeff Davis offered an amendment, Toomsbs offered an amendment, Seward offered an amendment and others offer amendments as well...

The Committee of Thirteen

On December 18, 1860, a committee of the United States Senate was formed to investigate the possibility of a "plan of adjustment" that might solve the growing secession crisis. Called the Committee of Thirteen because of the number of its members, it failed to agree on any one proposal but did have a number of ideas presented to it. The most prominent one was John Crittenden's proposal, which is treated separately on this web site. Some of the others are given in this document, with text taken from the journal of the committee (Senate Report #288, 36th Congress, 2nd Session). I have also added a proposal by Rep. Thomas Hindman, made to a similar House committee.

On motion of Jefferson Davis, it was decided that no proposal would be reported as adopted unless supported by a majority of the Republicans and a majority of the Democrats serving on the committee. Under this restriction, the committee was unable to agree upon a satisfactory "plan of adjustment" and reported so to the Senate, on December 31, 1860.

 

[Union8448]

No, they can only call for a Constitutional Convention to rewrite or amend the Constitution. This means each state would send a delegation of people to the Constitutional Convention.

i think they could rewrite the entire document including the amendment process and expel any non ratifying states.

 

[Union8448]

Here is a link to the committee of the 13 in 1860 trying to use the amendment process to avert a war... The committee could not agree on an amendment to forward to Congress. The link shows the amendments that were proposed within the committee... Douglas offered two amendments, Jeff Davis offered an amendment, Toomsbs offered an amendment, Seward offered an amendment and others offer amendments as well...

The Committee of Thirteen

On December 18, 1860, a committee of the United States Senate was formed to investigate the possibility of a "plan of adjustment" that might solve the growing secession crisis. Called the Committee of Thirteen because of the number of its members, it failed to agree on any one proposal but did have a number of ideas presented to it. The most prominent one was John Crittenden's proposal, which is treated separately on this web site. Some of the others are given in this document, with text taken from the journal of the committee (Senate Report #288, 36th Congress, 2nd Session). I have also added a proposal by Rep. Thomas Hindman, made to a similar House committee.

On motion of Jefferson Davis, it was decided that no proposal would be reported as adopted unless supported by a majority of the Republicans and a majority of the Democrats serving on the committee. Under this restriction, the committee was unable to agree upon a satisfactory "plan of adjustment" and reported so to the Senate, on December 31, 1860.

Under any plan of adjustment, slavery was getting numerically weaker in Delaware, and politically weaker in Maryland and Missouri. If the agreement allowed amendment of the FSA and allowed regulation of the interstate slave trade, its game on. The Republicans have a permanent issue on which to win more national elections. Each reapportionment was going to limit the power of slave state section of the US. With the 3/5th compromise in place, further elections would concentrate on Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Most of the western states were too unpopulated to make much difference. Missouri would also become a swing state as it was tending towards being a paid labor Democratic state. Inside the US, slavery was a political dead end.

 

[5fish]

i think they could rewrite the entire document including the amendment process and expel any non ratifying states.

No, the old constitution stays in place until the Constitutional Convention completes its work. If the convention amends or rewrites our Constitution, it will go to the states for ratification, and if it is ratified or not the old Constitution stays in force until the process comes to a conclusion.