28th Amendment Shenanigans

[Jellybean]

California continues it's crusade to ruin everything.
Newsom trying to get 28th "freedom from gun violence" amendment introduced to nullify 2A.

[ABNAK]

First off, the Constitution is difficult to amend for a reason; good luck getting 3/5ths of state legislatures to ratify this bullshit. Secondly, they can FOAD. Thirdly, I don't GAF what they amend or laws they pass.....I really don't. Fvck them.

[Johnny Rico]

The fool is grandstanding. He's simply trying to raise his profile with an eye towards national office.

[eric0311]

Historically speaking… with the recent 20th and 21st century… Dictators usually find themselves surrounded by a mob/group of fighters… and either executed in a dirty ditch or captured, put on trial… and eventually executed. Historically speaking, of course… I wish him all the luck in his endeavors.

[Averageman]

The fool is grandstanding. He's simply trying to raise his profile with an eye towards national office.

And you know he's an idiot who has lived in California for so long he believes his own BS.
He steps in it everytime he gets in to it with the Governor of Florida, honestly De Santis would wipe the floor with him in any debate.
He should STFU and understand the Peter Principle and be happy.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Can you use an Amendment to take a right away? Plus the ‘real’ version has a full gun ban, so there is already a schism. THe age, waiting period, and ‘just’ AWB is interesting in that they could say that they are just restricting, not taking away the right. Still a huge hurdle to get it passed, and then the court challenges to it.

Put this in crystal clear context, could you propose a 29A that would put blacks back into slavery? Maybe just three days a week? They are still mostly free.

Or are their freedoms that aren’t given by the govt, but we have, and can’t be taken away?

[SteyrAUG]

Can you use an Amendment to take a right away? Plus the ‘real’ version has a full gun ban, so there is already a schism. THe age, waiting period, and ‘just’ AWB is interesting in that they could say that they are just restricting, not taking away the right. Still a huge hurdle to get it passed, and then the court challenges to it.

Put this in crystal clear context, could you propose a 29A that would put blacks back into slavery? Maybe just three days a week? They are still mostly free.

Or are their freedoms that aren’t given by the govt, but we have, and can’t be taken away?

You could do it easier than passing an amendment that nullifies one of the first 10, which are the Bill of Rights, which are the rights that are absolutely OFF LIMITS according to the constitution. The most massively unconstitutional SCOTUS ruling regards "eminent domain" when they ruled it could be done for "private use" IF they demonstrated serious benefit to the public. So some people lost their generational homes because their attractive beachfront property was going to provide lots and lots of jobs when the casinos and hotels went up.

It is to my recollection, the first time any ruling was in direct opposition to the specific wording of an amendment. Came in under Bush (43) at a time when the GOP had all the cards, the house, the senate and the presidency. I think they were too worried about gay marriage to notice.

A 29th amendment would likely be a "game on" moment.

The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, although many forms of slavery were already ended and new slaves had to be born of existing slaves. Congress passed an act to make it illegal for Americans to engage in the slave trade in 1800 and then in 1808 passed a law prohibiting the importation of slaves.

As the 13th is not found in the Bill of Rights, in theory it would be easy to revoke or modify that amendment than any of the first 10. Of course in practice the opposite is true because few actually understand the constitution in any meaningful way. Lots of people think abortion is covered by freedom of speech or expression.

[BrigandTwoFour]

It's obvious grandstanding, and anyone thinking through this logically understand why it's a catastrophically bad idea to pursue.

If CA agitates for an Article V convention, the conversations are not limited to only one law. Everything is on the table, from guns to immigration and voting. CA may have a large population, but as a state it is in the minority on a lot of social/cultural issues. Case in point, how many states are now permit less carry? There's a better chance that a 28th amendment actually does something like enacting preemption laws against states regarding constitutional amendments.

[markm]

The fool is grandstanding. He's simply trying to raise his profile with an eye towards national office.

Yep. How this fag can have the balls to draw attention to himself with how effed up his shithole state is, is comical.

[ABNAK]

Yep. How this fag can have the balls to draw attention to himself with how effed up his shithole state is, is comical.

Sadly, half the morons in this country would vote for him if he was the "D" nominee. As I have said ad nauseum here, half this country has their heads firmly planted up their asses. 50% +/- determines elections.....at least legitimate ones.