Ready to Amend the Constitution?

[HairyEyeball]

Granted, it may require some 'polishing', but isn't it about time we demanded a little more fealty to the Constitution and a little less posturing (and indications of functional synapses) from the Screecher of the House, the Majority Feeder of the Senate, and clueless clowns like Upchuck Schumer, Donny Turban, Barak Hussein OhChit et al?

Amendment XXVIII_to the

Constitution of the United States of America

The Constitution of the United States being by definition the Supreme Law of the Land; and by ratification of such Constitution and concurrent entry into the Republic each of the joint and several States having acknowledged such supremacy; and by sworn oath or affirmation every elected member of the government of the United States, of any State, District, Protectorate or Territory of the United States and implicitly or explicitly any political subdivision of such State, District, Protectorate or Territory has obligated by such supremacy; there can be no law, ordinance, regulation or directive enacted or enforced at any level of government contravening a provision of said Constitution, nor any law, ordinance, regulation or directive enacted nullifying the letter, intent nor spirit of said Constitution; save by Amendment approved by a two-thirds majority of both Houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States, as set forth in Article V of the Constitution. Further, any previous Amendment in conflict with the stated intent and purpose of the Constitution, regardless of prior ratification, shall be deemed null and void, and stricken from enforcement by the provisions of this Amendment.

Any subsidiary law, ordinance, regulation or directive enacted or enforced by the government of the United States, as well as any law, ordinance, regulation or directive enacted or enforced by any State, District, Protectorate or Territory of the United States of America, or by any subsidiary county, parish, municipality, or analogous council or government, shall become null and void and unenforceable on its face by the provisions of this Amendment.

Any elected or appointed official, of the government of the United States of America or of any recognized subsidiary government within the purview of the Constitution of the United States of America who attempts to enact or enforce any such law in violation of said Constitution shall be immediately removed from office, and upon conviction under the provisions of this Amendment, shall be liable under Article I, Section 6 of said Constitution for Treason against the Constitution, and any Judge or Justice who upholds a law, ordinance, regulation or directive offensive to the Constitution on its face shall be removed from the Bench and similarly tried; the penalty to be no less than ten years in prison and a fine levied of no less than five hundred thousand dollars.

Ninety days following the ratification of this Amendment by the requisite thirty-eight of the joint and several States, all specifications of this Amendment shall be effective, and enforcement will commence under the direction of the senior Police official of each State, District, Protectorate or Territory.

[Billyd]

HE, reads just fine as is. The last thing you want is for some lawyer to get a hold of it.

That is the beauty of our Constitution, written in plain language so that anyone who deigns to read it may understand it. Now, if we could only get our hired help to actually read the thing.

[PDudkowski]

Hairy, can't agrue with the premiss. I love the Constitution and shudder every time I hear some fringe group trying to amend it to fit their social agenda. However, our nation has fought a war over states' rights and if any issue would stall such a change, that would be it.

Is there any issues in particular that prompted this draft of amendment XXVIII? My guess would be the Bill of Rights. One, two or all of them could be a flash point for most Americans.

[03_SHOOTER]

The only thing that I would add would be (given their record of sophistry) a VERY specific admonishment that affirmative Congressional powers are to be limited to ONLY those things SPECIFICALLY enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, including a VERY specific definition of what the words "general welfare" mean since they've obviously never read their Jefferson or Madison.

[HairyEyeball]

Thanks, gentlemen - that's why it's open for comment. As to the idea that a 'constitutional lawyer' hit it with jeweler's rouge, the intent was merely to suggest, if necessary, any necessary modification of language without altering the meaning. Here in Arizona, for example, there are certain language criteria proposed legislation must meet (read 'legal boilerplate') before being introduced (and when necessary, altered to mean what it's intended to).

When this is dropped (as in 'introduced'), I want the full impact understood and felt, rather than diverted by 'legal maneuvering' over the placement of a comma.