El cuento del rey Nomoralidad
Response to Bardali comment g5u6dzy
Just click on the link. Is that so hard?
Response to comment by Bardali that was deleted by moderators:
Guess you are afraid I read it, which makes sense given your idiotic arguments
Bardali
No, I’m not afraid that you will read it. If I were afraid that you might read it, I wouldn’t post it on a website where anyone can read it. My arguments are not idiotic. Your arguments are idiotic.
Anyway, if you don’t want to read it, that’s fine. It is publicly available for anyone who wants to follow the thread of the argument.
Response to Bardali comment g3plbxp
Remember when you and that other guy were insisting the OAS report proved the Bolivian election was rigged. And then even the NYT admitted it was non-sense 😛
Bardali
Bardali, when exactly did I insist that the OAS report proved that the Bolivian election was rigged and what exactly did I write? Please provide a link.
BTW You wrote: «Yes, but there is nothing in the Consitution [sic] that suggest [sic] an Amendment can repeal another amendment.» (referring to the U.S. Constitution) https://twitter.com/BardaliSays/status/1287430587104538626
That was a very weird argument to make considering that the 21st Amendment has already repealed the 18th Amendment. The fact that one amendment can repeal another comes from the meaning of the word «amendment.» Here is the definition from the 1st edition of Black’s Law dictionary:
In practice. The correction of an error committed in any process, pleading, or proceeding at law, or in equity, and which is done either of course, or by the consent of parties, or upon motion to the court in which the proceeding is pending.
Any writing made or proposed as an improvement of some principal writing.
In legislation. A modification or alteration proposed to be made in a bill on its passage, or an enacted law; also such modification or change when made.
Since the Constitution did not redefine the word amendment, there is no reason to believe that the writers of the Constitution intended any meaning other than a standard definition, such as can be found in a dictionary. Likewise, there is no reason to believe that other words like «we, people, order, to,» etc. that appear in the Constitution mean something other than their standard dictionary definitions.
Here is the definition of «repeal» from the 1st Edition of Black’s Law dictionary: «The abrogation or annulling of a previously existing law by the enactment of a subsequent statute which declares that the former law shall be revoked and abrogated.»
I invite you again to answer the questions you’ve been avoiding at https://worldnews2.news.blog/2020/04/07/constitutional-issues/
Other links everyone should read:
- https://worldnews2.news.blog/2020/08/12/what-redditors-say-about-bardali/
- https://twitter.com/BardaliSays
- https://www.marketwatch.com/story/russian-trolls-have-adapted-their-methods-since-2016-and-continue-to-mislead-and-spread-social-discord-ahead-of-2020-elections-2020-08-14
- https://www.reddit.com/r/NormanFinkelstein/comments/idgcbe/normans_perspective_on_freedom_of_speech/
- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-facebook-russia/facebook-says-russian-influence-campaign-targeted-left-wing-voters-in-u-s-uk-idUSKBN25S5UI?il=0
- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-facebook-russia/duped-by-russia-freelancers-ensnared-in-disinformation-campaign-by-promise-of-easy-money-idUSKBN25T35E
- https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43255285
- https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2017/10/27/former-russian-troll-describes-night-shift-as-bacchanalia-a59398
It looks like your response was reported and removed, but I can still see it by visiting your profile.
You wrote:
When exactly did I insist that the OAS report proved that the Bolivian election was rigged and what exactly did I write? Please provide a link.
el_reconocimiento
My apologies, you argued that you were a superior authority on the constitution than the Supreme Tribunal of Justice of Bolivia, and the other clown argued the OAS report proved there was fraud.
Bardali
That was a very weird argument to make considering that the 21st Amendment has already repealed the 18th Amendment.
el_reconocimiento
You realize that the 21st amendment was the first time and you are not actually referring to the constitution of why that was allowed?
Bardali
Here is the definition of «repeal» from the 1st Edition of Black’s Law dictionary
el_reconocimiento
Yet, the 18th amendment is still in the constitution did you not admit it? So you are fighting wind-mills again, because you are sadly not capable of understanding the basic argument
Bardali
On top of it all starting with your insane logic that the Supreme Court in the US nor the Bolivian Supreme Tribunal of Justice are apparently able to judge, but you are the judge of what the constitution is.
Bardali
I believe that «the people» are the source of legitimate authority. I wrote: «But if Bolivians want the president to be able to serve more than 2 consecutive terms, they should amend the Constitution. The referendum to make exactly this kind of amendment was defeated.» The referendum was decided by the Bolivian people.
The reason why the idea of a convention could bring legitimacy to the proposed Constitution and to the Philadelphia Convention’s decision to violate the Articles highlights the first major subject of the volume—a subject that doubles as the architectural foundation of constitutional amendment rules: the constituent power. The theory of constituent power springs from the thought of Emmanuel Joeph Sieyès, an 18th century French theorist who argued that the people were the fountain of legitimate authority. Sieyès distinguished the pouvour constituantfrom the pouvoir constitué, the former referring to the people themselves acting in their constitution-making capacity and the latter to the institutions the people create—institutions that are authorised only to change the Constitution within the constitutional framework created by the people themselves.
– The Foundations and Traditions of Constitutional Amendment edited by Richard Alberi, Xenophon Contiades, and Alkmene Fotiadou
Ultimately, matters in Bolivia will continue to be decided by the people of Bolivia. Take a look athttps://www.reddit.com/r/BOLIVIA/comments/ila00z/un_artículo_de_nyt_por_anatoly_kurmanaev_y_maría/
Here is the top comment:
Voy a repetir las veces que sea necesario cada vez que salga esto. No importa en mi opinión si el informe de la OEA fue erróneo o no. Los zurdos tratan de legitimizar a Evo Morales, cuando éste es un criminal. El no debía ser un candidato en primer lugar. La constitución solo permite una reelección, es decir un 2do mandato. Morales apuntaba a SU CUARTO mandato. Violó la constitución, violó la independencia de poderes, violó el resultado del referéndum que tenía carácter vinculante e hizo lo que le dio la gana. Y luego de eso vino estás acusaciones de fraude electoral? No es de sorprenderse que la población en general pensará eso dado a la reputación que se hizo de violar la ley sin ningún tipo de repercusión.
mindfreak79
Let’s return to one of your questions:
You realize that the 21st amendment was the first time and you are not actually referring to the constitution of why that was allowed?
Bardali
Yes, obviously, that was the first time. Any particular reason to bring up this obvious fact? Also, I referred to the word «amendment» in the Constitution, which it did not redefine, so there is no reason to believe that the writers intended any meaning other than a standard definition, such as can be found in a dictionary. Likewise, there is no reason to believe that other words like «we, people, order, to,» etc. that appear in the Constitution mean something other than their standard dictionary definitions.
Yet, the 18th amendment is still in the constitution did you not admit it?
Bardali
The 18th Amendment is in the Constitution, but it has been repealed by the 21st Amendment. Here is the definition of «repeal» from the 1st Edition of Black’s Law dictionary: «The abrogation or annulling of a previously existing law by the enactment of a subsequent statute which declares that the former law shall be revoked and abrogated.» This statement is wrong (in more than one way): https://twitter.com/BardaliSays/status/1287430587104538626
you are sadly not capable of understanding the basic argument
Bardali
No, you are the one who is sadly not capable of understanding the basic argument. Take note of the fact that your comment was reported and removed. See also:
La suprema fuente de autoridad legítima en Bolivia
Aquí está el artículo 168 de la Constitución boliviana:
El periodo de mandato de la Presidenta o del Presidente y de la Vicepresidenta o del Vicepresidente del Estado es de cinco años, y pueden ser reelectas o reelectos por una sola vez de manera continua.
Lo siguiente es la traducción de un extracto de la versión inglesa del artículo de Wikipedia sobre Evo Morales:
A Morales se le había permitido servir tres mandatos consecutivos como presidente debido a un fallo de 2013 de la Corte Suprema de que el primer mandato de Morales no contaba para el límite de mandato, porque había tenido lugar antes de la ratificación de la Constitución de 2009. A pesar de la declaración de Morales en 2014 de que no intentaría alterar la Constitución para poder cumplir un cuarto mandato, en 2015 Morales comenzó a explorar esfuerzos legales para hacer posible un cuarto mandato.
El partido de Morales, el Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS), patrocinó un esfuerzo para enmendar la constitución por votación nacional. El 26 de septiembre de 2015 un referéndum fue autorizado por una sesión combinada de la Asamblea Legislativa Plurinacional con una votación de 112 a 41. El 21 de febrero de 2016 se llevó a cabo el referéndum sobre una enmienda constitucional para permitir que los presidentes sirvan tres mandatos consecutivos, que hubiera permitido a Morales postularse para un cuarto mandato (el tercero según la nueva constitución). La enmienda constitucional propuesta perdió por poco.
A pesar de la derrota del referéndum y de la afirmación anterior de Morales de que no buscaría un cuarto mandato si perdiera el referéndum, en diciembre de 2016 el MAS nominó a Morales como su candidato para las elecciones presidenciales de 2019, afirmando que buscarían varias maneras para garantizar la legalidad de la candidatura de Morales. En septiembre de 2017, MAS solicitó a la Corte Suprema la abolición de los límites de mandato, basándose en el razonamiento de que los límites de mandato eran una violación de los derechos humanos en virtud de la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos (Pacto de San José), un tratado multilateral vinculante. En noviembre, la Corte Suprema aceptó los fundamentos de la petición. El fallo permitió a Morales presentar su solicitud como candidato presidencial al Tribunal Electoral de Bolivia, que luego aceptó su solicitud y aprobó su candidatura.
Los críticos afirmaron que ambos tribunales habían estado repletos de leales a Morales, algunos de los cuales recibieron posiciones favorables en el gobierno después de estas decisiones.
¿Un cuarto mandato consecutivo de Evo Morales habría sido una flagrante violación del artículo 168? La Corte Suprema dictaminó que el límite de mandato era una violación de los derechos humanos. Bardali preguntó: «¿Quién decide qué significa la constitución sino la Corte Suprema?»
La respuesta es el pueblo boliviano. Todo boliviano debería leer el artículo 168 y decidir por sí mismo si un cuarto mandato consecutivo de Evo Morales violaría la Constitución. ¿Qué se esperaría si el pueblo boliviano llegara a la conclusión de que se había ocurrido un intento de violar la Constitución, posiblemente debido a problemas de corrupción? ¿Deberíamos sorprendernos de ver un levantamiento popular? Tenga en cuenta que la legitimidad del artículo 168 fue reforzada por la gente en el referéndum.
El pueblo boliviano es la suprema fuente de autoridad legítima en Bolivia.
La razón por la cual la idea de una convención podría otorgar legitimidad a la Constitución propuesta y a la decisión de la Convención de Filadelfia de violar los artículos destaca el primer tema principal del volumen, un tema que funciona como la base arquitectónica de las reglas de enmienda constitucional: el poder constituyente. La teoría del poder constituyente surge del pensamiento de Emmanuel Joeph Sieyès, un teórico francés del siglo XVIII que sostenía que el pueblo era la fuente de la autoridad legítima. Sieyès distinguió el pouvour constituant del pouvoir constitué, el primero refiriéndose al pueblo que actúa en su capacidad de hacer una constitución y el segundo a las instituciones que el pueblo crea, instituciones que están autorizadas solo para cambiar la Constitución dentro del marco constitucional creado por el pueblo.
The Foundations and Traditions of Constitutional Amendment editado por Richard Alberi, Xenophon Contiades y Alkmene Fotiadou
También puede ver:
La suma de votos blancos y nulos para elegir este domingo a 52 magistrados del poder Judicial de Bolivia superaban el 65 por ciento, según un recuento oficial, un hecho que según la oposición muestra el descontento ciudadano hacia el gobierno, impulsor de este proceso.
https://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/en-las-elecciones-judiciales-de-bolivia-fueron-mas-los-votos-blancos-y-nulos-158258
La presidenta del Tribunal Supremo Electoral (TSE), Khatia Uriona, emitió un informe sobre la base del 80% del total de la votación, la cual ratificó las tendencias de voto previas: un alto contenido de rechazo a los candidatos, casi desconocidos y seleccionados por el Parlamento, controlado por el oficialismo.
https://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/en-las-elecciones-judiciales-de-bolivia-fueron-mas-los-votos-blancos-y-nulos-158258
https://worldnews2.news.blog/2020/09/19/response-to-bardali-comment-g3plbxp/
The ultimate source of legitimate authority in Bolivia
Here is Article 168 of the Bolivian Constitution:
El periodo de mandato de la Presidenta o del Presidente y de la Vicepresidenta o del Vicepresidente del Estado es de cinco años, y pueden ser reelectas o reelectos por una sola vez de manera continua.
English translation:
The term of office for the President or the Vice President is five years, and they
may be reelected only once to a consecutive term.
The following is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article on Evo Morales:
Morales had been allowed to serve three consecutive terms as president due to a 2013 ruling by the Plurinational Constitutional Court that Morales’ first term did not count towards the term limit, because it had taken place prior to the ratification of the 2009 constitution. Despite Morales’ declaration in 2014 that he would not attempt to alter the constitution so that he could serve a fourth term, in 2015 Morales began exploring legal efforts to make a fourth term possible.
Morales’ party, the Movement for Socialism (MAS), sponsored an effort to amend the constitution by national vote. A referendum was authorized by a combined session of the Plurinational Legislative Assembly on September 26, 2015, by a vote of 112 to 41. On February 21, 2016 the referendum was held on a constitutional amendment to allow presidents to serve three consecutive terms, which would have allowed Morales to run for a fourth term (third under the new constitution). The proposed constitutional amendment narrowly lost.
Despite the referendum loss and Morales’ earlier claim that he would not seek a fourth term if he lost the referendum, in December 2016 MAS nominated Morales as their candidate for the 2019 presidential election, stating that they would seek various avenues to ensure the legality of Morales’ candidacy. In September 2017, MAS petitioned the Plurinational Constitutional Court to abolish term limits, based on the reasoning that term limits are a human rights violations under the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), a binding multilateral treaty. In November, the Court accepted the grounds of the petition. The ruling enabled Morales to submit his application as a presidential candidate to the Bolivian Electoral Tribunal, who then accepted his application and approved his candidacy.
Critics claimed that both courts had been stacked with Morales loyalists, some of whom received favorable positions in the government following these decisions.
Would a fourth consecutive term for Evo Morales have been a blatant violation of Article 168? The Plurinational Constitutional Court ruled that the term limit was a human rights violation. Bardali asked, «Who decides what the constitution means if not the Supreme Court ?»
The answer is the people of Bolivia. Every Bolivian should read Article 168 and decide for himself or herself whether a fourth consecutive term for Evo Morales would violate the Constitution. What would one expect if the Bolivian people reached the conclusion that an attempt to violate the Constitution had occurred, possibly due to corruption issues? Should we be surprised to see a popular uprising? Note that the legitimacy of Article 168 was reinforced by the people in the referendum.
The people of Bolivia are the ultimate source of legitimate authority in Bolivia.
The reason why the idea of a convention could bring legitimacy to the proposed Constitution and to the Philadelphia Convention’s decision to violate the Articles highlights the first major subject of the volume—a subject that doubles as the architectural foundation of constitutional amendment rules: the constituent power. The theory of constituent power springs from the thought of Emmanuel Joeph Sieyès, an 18th century French theorist who argued that the people were the fountain of legitimate authority. Sieyès distinguished the pouvour constituant from the pouvoir constitué, the former referring to the people themselves acting in their constitution-making capacity and the latter to the institutions the people create—institutions that are authorised only to change the Constitution within the constitutional framework created by the people themselves.
The Foundations and Traditions of Constitutional Amendment edited by Richard Alberi, Xenophon Contiades, and Alkmene Fotiadou
See also:
The sum of blank and null votes to elect 52 judges this Sunday exceeded 65 percent, according to an official count, a fact that according to the opposition shows citizen discontent towards the government, the instigator of this electoral process.
https://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/en-las-elecciones-judiciales-de-bolivia-fueron-mas-los-votos-blancos-y-nulos-158258
The president of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), Khatia Uriona, issued a report based on 80% of the total vote which ratified the previous voting trends: a high content of rejection of the candidates, who were almost unknown and selected by a Parliament that is controlled by the ruling party.
https://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/en-las-elecciones-judiciales-de-bolivia-fueron-mas-los-votos-blancos-y-nulos-158258
https://worldnews2.news.blog/2020/09/19/response-to-bardali-comment-g3plbxp/
What redditors say about Bardali
(comments made in direct messages regarding https://www.reddit.com/user/Bardali)
dasredditnoob: «He’s most likely not acting in good faith and his arguments make little sense. Also, his profile seems like it’s based out of St. Petersburg.»
ssbmhero: «He is either ignorant or malicious. Either way his ideas paint a propaganda picture of the current world that, if acted upon, will lead to great suffering.»
Randomabcd1234: «a brainwashed moron»
Randomabcd1234: «clearly not acting in good faith»
Nakhon-Nowhere: «an ultra-defensive, semi-insane hater»
duder2000: «What a twat»
uber_neutrino: «a real nutbar»
uber_neutrino: «unintelligent life»
tit_wrangler: «full of crap»
The_Lost_Jedi: «clearly grossly biased and pushing an agenda»
sweatybronson: «Bardali is bad at thinking»
Note: if you object to being quoted here, please let me know.
Response to Bardali comment fmsuyo1 (Respuesta al comentario fmsuyo1 de Bardali)
Bardali wrote: «Did you read anything I wrote ?»
My response: Yes. Is there anything in particular you think I didn’t read? I answered your question – now, why don’t you answer my questions?
Why are you avoiding the questions I asked at https://worldnews2.news.blog/2020/04/07/constitutional-issues/
?
Bardali escribió: «¿Leyó algo de lo que escribí?» Mi respuesta: sí. ¿Hay algo en particular que cree que no leí? Respondí su pregunta. Ahora, ¿por qué no responde mis preguntas? ¿Por qué está evitando las preguntas que hice en https://worldnews2.news.blog/2020/04/07/constitutional-issues ?
Constitutional Issues
Bardali and I have been arguing over U.S. constitutional law in the context of a more general argument about Evo Morales serving three consecutive presidential terms and running for a fourth.
First, let me point out that Bardali has not answered the following questions:
It is really very unlikely that the 13th Amendment will be repealed. Is any Congressperson currently proposing to do this?
…
In this case, would you say, “since the Supreme Court said it was OK to disregard the Constitution, that’s fine, Trump can continue being President as long as he keeps winning elections”?
…
Do you think that a repeal of the 13th Amendment is likely?
…
What do you think the probability of a repeal would be in the next (say) 5 years?
…
My major points still stand: 1) I think it is pretty far-fetched that the 13th Amendment would be repealed. 2) “in the 21st Century, almost every country has legally abolished chattel slavery” and this shows the world’s general distaste for slavery, though some forms of slavery are accepted in the case of prisoners. If you disagree with my major points, again, what do you think the probability is of a repeal of the 13th Amendment within (say) 5 years?
I would welcome a response from Bardali to these questions.
Bardali stated «MW [Merriam-Webster] has literally 0 legal authority.»
I wonder how Bardali would reconcile this belief with the following:
Judges, like the rest of us, turn to dictionaries when they’re not sure about the meaning of a word. Or they turn to dictionaries when they’re sure about a word’s meaning, but they need some confirmation. Or they turn to a dictionary that defines a word the way they want it defined, rejecting as irrelevant, inadmissible, and immaterial any definitions they don’t like.
The Supreme Court has referred to dictionaries in its opinions over 664 times. In recent years, almost every major case and many minor ones find the justices, or their clerks, thumbing through Webster’s Third or the Oxford English Dictionary. And it’s not just high-profile cases like District of Columbia v. Heller, the one about the Second Amendment, where definitions of words like militia and bear arms came into play. While he was writing an opinion in a patent case, Chief Justice John Roberts looked up words in five different dictionaries. When was the last time you looked up a word in more than one dictionary?
…
In 2003, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11e), an authority frequently cited by the courts, added same-sex unions to its definition of marriage:
1a (1) the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.
Bardali, if you’re reading this, let me ask you directly: «How do you reconcile your belief that «MW has literally 0 legal authority» with the fact that Supreme Court justices frequently refer to dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster in their rulings?»
Bardali made the claim: «Yes, but there is nothing in the Consitution [sic] that suggest [sic] an Amendment can repeal another amendment.» See https://twitter.com/BardaliSays/status/1287430587104538626
Bardali, first of all, the 21st Amendment has already repealed the 18th Amendment. Do you not accept that as reality? Secondly, the fact that one amendment can repeal another comes from the meaning of the word «amendment.» Here is the definition from the 1st edition of Black’s Law dictionary:
In practice. The correction of an error committed in any process, pleading, or proceeding at law, or in equity, and which is done either of course, or by the consent of parties, or upon motion to the court in which the proceeding is pending.
Any writing made or proposed as an improvement of some principal writing.
In legislation. A modification or alteration proposed to be made in a bill on its passage, or an enacted law; also such modification or change when made.
Since the Constitution did not redefine the word amendment, there is no reason to believe that the writers of the Constitution intended any meaning other than a standard definition, such as can be found in a dictionary. Likewise, there is no reason to believe that other words like «we, people, order, to,» etc. that appear in the Constitution mean something other than their standard dictionary definitions.
Here is the definition of «repeal» from the 1st Edition of Black’s Law dictionary: «The abrogation or annulling of a previously existing law by the enactment of a subsequent statute which declares that the former law shall be revoked and abrogated.»
Bardali also claimed that «Chattel slavery is perfectly legal in the US, as long as it’s part of a punishment.» See https://twitter.com/BardaliSays/status/1287430992265912320
No, chattel slavery is not perfectly legal in the U.S. as long as it’s part of a punishment. You cannot buy, sell, or inherit prisoners as chattel. Nor are their children automatically enslaved. See https://aaregistry.org/story/chattel-slavery-in-america-a-definition/ That would be cruel and unusual punishment, prohibited by the 8th Amendment. As for the argument that the 13th Amendment overrides the 8th Amendment, I repeat:
Is there a conflict between the 8th Amendment and the 13th Amendment on this matter? We would need to look at the wording of the two Amendments carefully.
8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
13th Amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
The 13th Amendment indicates that slavery and involuntary servitude are allowable punishments for crimes, but it does not explicitly state that chattel slavery or other cruel and unusual forms of slavery are allowable. Currently, we have prison labor working as slaves or in slave-like conditions, but not in chattel slavery, and this seems to comply with both the 8th and 13th Amendments. It would be another matter if the 13th Amendment explicitly repealed the 8th Amendment or if it said something like “except as a punishment, which may even be cruel and usual…”
Reviewing Granholm v. Heald should help to clarify the applicable legal reasoning:
The context of the 21st Amendment, they wrote, was to return to the status quo that existed before Prohibition, making it clear that the states had the power to regulate alcohol however they wished, including banning alcoholic beverages entirely within the state if desired. Before Prohibition, the states did not have the power to violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, and the 21st Amendment was not intended to grant them this power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granholm_v._Heald
We can similarly say that the 13th Amendment was not intended to grant the power to inflict cruel and unusual punishment and if that had been the intention, it needed to make an explicit statement to that effect to make that clear, just like the 21st Amendment explicitly states that it repeals the 18th Amendment.
Bardali also wrote «Who decides what the constitution means if not the Supreme Court ?»
Ultimately «the people» are the «fountain of legitimate authority.»
The reason why the idea of a convention could bring legitimacy to the proposed Constitution and to the Philadelphia Convention’s decision to violate the Articles highlights the first major subject of the volume—a subject that doubles as the architectural foundation of constitutional amendment rules: the constituent power. The theory of constituent power springs from the thought of Emmanuel Joeph Sieyès, an 18th century French theorist who argued that the people were the fountain of legitimate authority. Sieyès distinguished the pouvour constituant from the pouvoir constitué, the former referring to the people themselves acting in their constitution-making capacity and the latter to the institutions the people create—institutions that are authorised only to change the Constitution within the constitutional framework created by the people themselves.
– The Foundations and Traditions of Constitutional Amendment edited by Richard Alberi, Xenophon Contiades, and Alkmene Fotiadou
Previously, I wrote «If the 13th Amendment were to be repealed, I would not accept the repeal and I’m sure that I am not alone in this – this could be a civil war scenario. However, considering that “in the 21st Century, almost every country has legally abolished chattel slavery” (Wikipedia), this seems like a pretty far-fetched scenario to me. For something like that to come to pass in this modern age, a major subversion of the will of the people would have to have occurred. Probably military intervention or popular uprisings would remove the proponents of a repeal of the 13th Amendment from power well before another civil war could develop.»
If the 13th Amendment were to be repealed, I believe that the people would assert their constituent power and would rise up to set things right.
The Crisis in Bolivia: Part 2 (Tangential Discussion)
I posted the following at /r/guns:
Please help me settle an argument about what gunowners would do if the 2nd Amendment were repealed
I wrote: «If a 28th (or whatever) Amendment repealed the 2nd Amendment, I doubt gun enthusiasts would argue that the 2nd Amendment should override the later amendment repealing it. Instead, I believe they would focus on trying to pass a 29th Amendment restoring the right to bear arms.»
/u/Bardali wrote in response: That explains a lot, you seem to have no clue.
Additional context: /u/Bardali: Yes, but there is nothing in the Consitution that suggest an Amendment can repeal another amendment.
/u/el_reconocimiento: Again, note that this kind of confusion regarding the 18th and 21st Amendments never comes up in real-life legislative or judicial settings.
/u/Bardali: Pretty fucking sure it would if either abortion was banned by constitutional amendment or if the 2nd was repealed by amendment.
See – https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/dvm4f7/argentine_presidentelect_slams_us_over_bolivia/f7j4qpr/ – https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/dvm4f7/argentine_presidentelect_slams_us_over_bolivia/f7jdtcn/ – https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/dvm4f7/argentine_presidentelect_slams_us_over_bolivia/f7kjsf2/ – https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/dvm4f7/argentine_presidentelect_slams_us_over_bolivia/f7la7a5/
So, in the unlikely scenario that the 2nd Amendment were repealed by a 28th Amendment, would you A) argue that the 2nd Amendment takes precedence over the 28th Amendment or B) focus on trying to pass a 29th Amendment restoring the right to bear arms?
I deleted the post afterwards because it really should have gone into the biweekly politics thread of /r/guns, but I got responses and took screenshots before I deleted it. I can post the screenshots to imgur if someone want to see them. I’ll summarize the responses here:
Repealing the 2nd would be a very very good way to trigger another civil war when half the states put up their middle finger to the coasts and refuse to comply.
As to the actual question, newer would take precedence, as we saw with prohibition and the repeal thereof.
First of all, a constitutional amendment can do anything legally speaking. That has never been in dispute. The 17th ammendment flat out strips the states of representation as political bodies and moves that power to the people. The 21st amendment directly nullifies the 18th.
What would happen if the 2nd (or likely any bill of rights amendment) were repealed would be mass noncompliance and possibly an attempted coup or revolution.
In addition to possibilities A and B, I should have also included a possibility C that would have along the lines of what I wrote would happen if the unlikely event the 13th Amendment were repealed. Anyway, you can see that they accept that «newer would take precedence, as we saw with prohibition and the repeal thereof», but believe that there would be «mass noncompliance and possibly an attempted coup or revolution.»
Clearly, Bardali is the clueless one here.
The Crisis in Bolivia
Here is Article 168 of the Bolivian Constitution:
El periodo de mandato de la Presidenta o del Presidente y de la Vicepresidenta o del Vicepresidente del Estado es de cinco años, y pueden ser reelectas o reelectos por una sola vez de manera continua.
If the Constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land and the Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the Constitution rather than make new laws, then something strange has happened here. It seems that the Constitution is unconstitutional.
One good reason for term limits is that an entrenched political leader may be able to unduly influence the other branches of government in order to convert a democracy into a dictatorship.
Before anyone accuses me of representing right-wing interests in this matter, I should say that if the Bolivian people elect a new leader who is also left-wing or someone who is even further to the left than Evo Morales, I don’t see a problem with that. And a third non-consecutive term for Evo Morales would have been OK, too. But if Bolivians want the president to be able to serve more than 2 consecutive terms, they should amend the Constitution. The referendum to make exactly this kind of amendment was defeated.
Ultimately “the people” are the “fountain of legitimate authority.”
The reason why the idea of a convention could bring legitimacy to the proposed Constitution and to the Philadelphia Convention’s decision to violate the Articles highlights the first major subject of the volume—a subject that doubles as the architectural foundation of constitutional amendment rules: the constituent power. The theory of constituent power springs from the thought of Emmanuel Joeph Sieyès, an 18th century French theorist who argued that the people were the fountain of legitimate authority. Sieyès distinguished the pouvour constituant from the pouvoir constitué, the former referring to the people themselves acting in their constitution-making capacity and the latter to the institutions the people create—institutions that are authorised only to change the Constitution within the constitutional framework created by the people themselves.
– The Foundations and Traditions of Constitutional Amendment edited by Richard Alberi, Xenophon Contiades, and Alkmene Fotiadou
The Bolivian people made their decision in the referendum.
Having a president serve a 3rd consecutive term when the Constitution expressly prohibits it saps confidence in the rule of law and the impartiality of the Supreme Court.
Suppose Donald Trump wins a second term and then calls for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment, so he can run for more terms. The proposed repeal is defeated in Congress. The Supreme Court rules that Trump can run for a third term anyway because the 22nd Amendment violates Trump’s «human rights.» In this case, would you say, «since the Supreme Court said it was OK to disregard the Constitution, that’s fine, Trump can continue being President as long as he keeps winning elections»? I would not. I would not support a third term for Trump, especially when the 22nd Amendment prohibits it.
I would not. I would not support a third term for Trump, especially when the 22nd Amendment prohibits it.
Who decides what the constitution means if not the Supreme Court ? If the 22nd Amendment violates other provisions of the constitution, why would that not be possible that it’s over turned ?
Take slavery, what if Trump passes a constitutional amendment that says black people are slaves again, would you then argue that the 13th amendment is obsolete
Take slavery, what if Trump passes a constitutional amendment that says black people are slaves again, would you then argue that the 13th amendment is obsolete
If the 13th Amendment were to be repealed, I would not accept the repeal and I’m sure that I am not alone in this – this could be a civil war scenario. However, considering that «in the 21st Century, almost every country has legally abolished chattel slavery» (Wikipedia), this seems like a pretty far-fetched scenario to me. For something like that to come to pass in this modern age, a major subversion of the will of the people would have to have occurred. Probably military intervention or popular uprisings would remove the proponents of a repeal of the 13th Amendment from power well before another civil war could develop.
Note the ways in which this scenario is different from what happened in Bolivia. In Bolivia, there was an obvious term limit violation. Term limits are a common and perfectly reasonable measure adopted by many governments – in stark contrast to slavery. Also, if the 13th Amendment were repealed, we would have to scrutinize the legislators who voted for the repeal and investigate whether there might have been some irregularities in the elections for the pro-slavery legislators. The possible corruption of legislators and the electoral process for legislators would be a key focus in this scenario. In contrast, it is mainly the Bolivian Supreme Court that is under the spotlight in the Bolivian issue.
Courts and legislatures have their roles, but can be subverted – we must be especially wary of this possibility if it looks like a country is headed towards dictatorship. So, should we agitate for revolution or military intervention every time something happens that we don’t agree with? No, but some things are too egregious to ignore. I would neither support a 3rd term for Trump in violation of the Constitution nor would I support a return of chattel slavery.
However, considering that «in the 21st Century, almost every country has legally abolished chattel slavery»
Slave labour still exists in US prisons. So it’s hardly far fetched.
If you want more relevant examples, one could think of a anti-abortion amendment passing, which would contradict other constitutional rights, or an amendment passing limited the 2nd amendment for gun rights. Depending on how things are written down it doesn’t seem weird at all that the SC would have to weigh different constitutional rights.
It is really very unlikely that the 13th Amendment will be repealed. Is any Congressperson currently proposing to do this?
Yes, slave labor exists in prisons. This is explicitly allowed by the 13th Amendment.
Penal labor in the United States, including a form of slavery or involuntary servitude, is explicitly allowed by the 13th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This form of legal slavery is only allowed when used as punishment for committing a crime. The 13th Amendment states that «neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.»
Source: Wikipedia
As for your other points, have you had a chance to look at Article V of the Constitution and the 18th and 21st Amendments?
As for your other points, have you had a chance to look at Article V of the Constitution and the 18th and 21st Amendments?
Yes, that’s the point the 18th and 21st, the 18th is only amendment to ever be repealed like that. Since the US constitution can’t actually be changed, just amendments added. As far as I can tell there is nothing in Article 5 that suggest that a new amendment overrules an old amendment, but perhaps I am missing something there.
Yes, slave labor exists in prisons. This is explicitly allowed by the 13th Amendment.
Yes, so slavery is not abolished, hence it’s not all that crazy to think about slavery in the US.
I’m not saying that is crazy to think about slavery in the U.S. I’m saying that it is very unlikely that the 13th Amendment will be repealed.
As far as I can tell there is nothing in Article 5 that suggest that a new amendment overrules an old amendment, but perhaps I am missing something there.
You might find it helpful to look at what Merriam-Webster has to say about constitutional amendments:
What is a constitutional amendment? An amendment is essentially a correction. It comes in many varieties, up to and including the process of altering something through either parliamentary or constitutional procedure. In the United States, the word is often used specifically of a change to the U.S. Constitution. A constitutional amendment may be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives or through a constitutional convention with majority votes in two-thirds of state legislatures. Once it is ratified by Congress, it must be approved by three-fourths (i.e., 38 of 50) of the states.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amendment
We can say that 21st Amendment essentially corrects the earlier 18th Amendment. Also, consider how the 18th and 21st Amendments are handled in practice. Do any lawmakers or judges say, «the 18th Amendment prohibits the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors but the 21st Amendment is in conflict with it, so some kind of special interpretation is needed to resolve the conflict»? No. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment and there is no ambiguity.
I’m not saying that is crazy to think about slavery in the U.S. I’m saying that it is very unlikely that the 13th Amendment will be repealed.
I agree with the general point. You just suggested it was unlikely because chattel slavery was abolished. Which seems a bad explanation given slavery still exists in the US.
You might find it helpful to look at what Merriam-Webster has to say about constitutional amendments:
I would prefer the constitution.
We can say that 21st Amendment essentially corrects the earlier 18th Amendment. Also, consider how the 18th and 21st Amendments are handled in practice
Ok suppose the conservative court rules that this is a misinterpretation of the law, and that the first Amendment should stand rather than the second if they deal with the same topic/issues.
The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment and there is no ambiguity.
Well there is, since that’s not constitutional law now is it ? Unless the supreme court ruled on it, it’s perfectly possible (if very unlikely) that the SC would say that the 21st Amendment is not constitutional since it violated the 18th and the 18th is still a part of the constitution unless a constitutional convention takes place to kick it out.
I agree with the general point. You just suggested it was unlikely because chattel slavery was abolished. Which seems a bad explanation given slavery still exists in the US.
A kind of slavery that is expressly permitted by the 13th Amendment still exists in the U.S. The 13th Amendment abolishes chattel slavery. The fact that penal labor still exists does not imply that a repeal of the 13th Amendment is likely. I quoted Wikipedia in saying that «in the 21st Century, almost every country has legally abolished chattel slavery.» The word «chattel» is key. In other words, the human race has basically decided that chattel slavery is wrong. I did not write «in the 21st Century, almost every country has legally abolished slavery in every form.»
Do you think that a repeal of the 13th Amendment is likely? What do you think the probability of a repeal would be in the next (say) 5 years? Note that a repeal would not have any impact on penal labor because the 13th Amendment already permits it.
I would prefer the constitution.
The Constitution uses a lot of terms that it does not define. For example, «We», «People», «Tranquility», «Defense», «Amendment», etc. Why doesn’t it define them? They are part of the English language. So, if want to know what these words mean, we should look them up in a dictionary. An amendment is essentially a correction (or a change), according to Merriam-Webster. That means that it is correcting some kind of flaw in an earlier text.
The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment and there is no ambiguity.
Well there is, since that’s not constitutional law now is it ?
The 21st Amendment is part of the Constitution and it literally says that it repeals the 18th Amendment. There is no ambiguity because it is understood (from the definition of the word «amendment») that the later amendment is correcting or changing an earlier document.
Ok suppose the conservative court rules that this is a misinterpretation of the law, and that the first Amendment should stand rather than the second if they deal with the same topic/issues.
This would mean that the court had failed to understand the point that the later amendment was correcting an earlier document. This would raise suspicion about the judgment and impartiality of the court. Again, note that this kind of confusion regarding the 18th and 21st Amendments never comes up in real-life legislative or judicial settings.
In other words, the human race has basically decided that chattel slavery is wrong. I did not write «in the 21st Century, almost every country has legally abolished slavery in every form.»
Did I say you said that ? Because you seem really confused here. Arguing against a phantom. Chattel slavery is perfectly legal in the US, as long as it’s part of a punishment. So you’re still wrong.
So, if want to know what these words mean, we should look them up in a dictionary.
No, we should ask the Supreme Court because a dictionary has no legal power whatsoever and often the dictionary definition is not the legal definition.
An amendment is essentially a correction (or a change), according to Merriam-Webster. That means that it is correcting some kind of flaw in an earlier text.
MW has literally 0 legal authority.
The 21st Amendment is part of the Constitution and it literally says that it repeals the 18th Amendment.
Yes, but there is nothing in the Consitution that suggest an Amendment can repeal another amendment.
This would mean that the court had failed to understand the point that the later amendment was correcting an earlier document.
No, it means they would interpret the constitution strictly and not allow actions not described by the constitution. If you actually want to change the constitution you need to have a constitutional convention. Not just «add» to the constitution.
Again, note that this kind of confusion regarding the 18th and 21st Amendments never comes up in real-life legislative or judicial settings.
Pretty fucking sure it would if either abortion was banned by constitutional amendment or if the 2nd was repealed by amendment.
Did I say you said that ?
I did not claim that you said I said that. I was emphasing the distinction between chattel slavery and other forms of slavery.
Chattel slavery is perfectly legal in the US, as long as it’s part of a punishment.
I will concede the point that the 13th Amendment does not prohibit chattel slavery in the case of punishment. I wrote «The 13th Amendment abolishes chattel slavery» in error. However, I don’t quite agree with «chattel slavery is perfectly legal in the US, as long as it’s part of a punishment.»
«Chattel slavery is the most common form of slavery known to Americans. This system, which allowed people — considered legal property — to be bought, sold and owned forever, was supported by the US and European powers in the 16th – 18th centuries.» https://freedomcenter.org/enabling-freedom/five-forms-of-slavery
Modern prison labor slavery involves forced labor and low wages, but I have not heard of prisoners being bought and sold as chattel in the modern era in the U.S. Would it really be legal to buy and sell prisoners and issue ownership documents for them?
While the 13th Amendment does not prohibit chattel slavery in the case of punishment, I think it would be prohibited by the 8th Amendment since it would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
Is there a conflict between the 8th Amendment and the 13th Amendment on this matter? We would need to look at the wording of the two Amendments carefully.
8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
13th Amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
The 13th Amendment indicates that slavery and involuntary servitude are allowable punishments for crimes, but it does not explicitly state that chattel slavery or other cruel and unusual forms of slavery are allowable. Currently, we have prison labor working as slaves or in slave-like conditions, but not in chattel slavery, and this seems to comply with both the 8th and 13th Amendments. It would be another matter if the 13th Amendment explicitly repealed the 8th Amendment or if it said something like «except as a punishment, which may even be cruel and usual…»
My major points still stand: 1) I think it is pretty far-fetched that the 13th Amendment would be repealed. 2) «in the 21st Century, almost every country has legally abolished chattel slavery» and this shows the world’s general distaste for slavery, though some forms of slavery are accepted in the case of prisoners. If you disagree with my major points, again, what do you think the probability is of a repeal of the 13th Amendment within (say) 5 years?
No, we should ask the Supreme Court because a dictionary has no legal power whatsoever and often the dictionary definition is not the legal definition.
MW has literally 0 legal authority.
See
«The Supreme Court has referred to dictionaries in its opinions over 664 times. In recent years, almost every major case and many minor ones find the justices, or their clerks, thumbing through Webster’s Third or the Oxford English Dictionary.»
«In 2003, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11e), an authority frequently cited by the courts, added same-sex unions to its definition of marriage:
1a (1) the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.»
There doesn’t seem to be much confusion about the meaning of the word amendment – the way the Constitutional Amendments (and amendments in other kinds of legal documents like leases, etc.) are interpreted is consistent with dictionary definitions of the word «amendment.»
Yes, but there is nothing in the Consitution that suggest an Amendment can repeal another amendment.
Again, this comes from the meaning of the word «amendment» – and the 18th Amendment has already been repealed. Pretty much everyone except you accepts that amendments can repeal other amendments.
No, it means they would interpret the constitution strictly and not allow actions not described by the constitution. If you actually want to change the constitution you need to have a constitutional convention. Not just «add» to the constitution.
Adding to the Constitution is a kind of change and later text can make reference to earlier text.
Pretty fucking sure it would if either abortion was banned by constitutional amendment or if the 2nd was repealed by amendment.
If a 28th (or whatever) Amendment repealed the 2nd Amendment, I doubt gun enthusiasts would argue that the 2nd Amendment should override the later amendment repealing it. Instead, I believe they would focus on trying to pass a 29th Amendment restoring the right to bear arms. Well, go ahead and believe whatever you want to believe – we might not ever see this scenario play out.
I hope you get a chance to test your beliefs about amendments in court someday – maybe with a lease, employment contract, or sales contract, etc. that has been amended. If you’re in the U.S., you could try suing liquor stores under your theory that the repeal of the 18th amendment was unconstitutional since «there is nothing in the Consitution [sic] that suggest [sic] an Amendment can repeal another amendment.»
Modern prison labor slavery involves forced labor and low wages, but I have not heard of prisoners being bought and sold as chattel in
It’s still legal, and following your logic the 13th allowing slavery would take precedence anyway so chattel slavery is most definitely legal.
We can agree that judges are not punishing people by turning them into chattel slaves as they are legally allowed according to you. Unless the 8th takes precedence but that would show your premise to be wrong.
If a 28th (or whatever) Amendment repealed the 2nd Amendment, I doubt gun enthusiasts would argue that the 2nd Amendment should override the later amendment repealing it.
That explains a lot, you seem to have no clue.
I hope you get a chance to test your beliefs about amendments in court someday – maybe with a lease, employment contract, or sales contract, etc. that has been amended.
That would be useless as there are (somewhat) clear laws that deal with this. This is however not the case for the Constitution.
Second, not all contract amendments are legal either. Would you suggest if we amend my contract to turn me into a slave that takes precedence ? Nope.
If you’re in the U.S., you could try suing liquor stores under your theory that the repeal of the 18th amendment was unconstitutional since «there is nothing in the Consitution [sic] that suggest [sic] an Amendment can repeal another amendment.»
Sure, but why would I make the country a worse place ?
It’s still legal, and following your logic the 13th allowing slavery would take precedence anyway so chattel slavery is most definitely legal.
We can agree that judges are not punishing people by turning them into chattel slaves as they are legally allowed according to you. Unless the 8th takes precedence but that would show your premise to be wrong.
Let me repeat what I wrote:
Is there a conflict between the 8th Amendment and the 13th Amendment on this matter? We would need to look at the wording of the two Amendments carefully.
8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
13th Amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
The 13th Amendment indicates that slavery and involuntary servitude are allowable punishments for crimes, but it does not explicitly state that chattel slavery or other cruel and unusual forms of slavery are allowable. Currently, we have prison labor working as slaves or in slave-like conditions, but not in chattel slavery, and this seems to comply with both the 8th and 13th Amendments. It would be another matter if the 13th Amendment explicitly repealed the 8th Amendment or if it said something like «except as a punishment, which may even be cruel and unusual…»
If the 13th Amendment explicitly repealed the 8th Amendment or if it said something like «except as a punishment, which may even be cruel and unusual…», then there would be a direct conflict between the amendments and the newer amendment would take precedence just as with the 18th Amendment and the 21st Amendment. However, the wording of the 13th Amendment is a prohibition of slavery with an exception for punishment, but, again, it does not explicitly state that chattel slavery or other cruel and unusual forms of slavery are allowable. Currently, we have prison labor working as slaves or in slave-like conditions, but not in chattel slavery, and this seems to comply with both the 8th and 13th Amendments. The 13th Amendment does not need to override the 8th Amendment because it is possible to comply with both amendments. In contrast, the 21st Amendment explicitly repeals the 18th Amendment.
I do not believe that chattel slavery is a legal of punishment because it would constitute cruel and unusual punishment, however, other forms of slavery that are not considered to be cruel and unusual punishment are definitely legal forms of punishment.
Would you suggest if we amend my contract to turn me into a slave that takes precedence ?
The amendment would take precedence over other earlier parts of the contract that it might be in direct conflict with, but would not take precedence over the Constitution, which is outside the contract.
If you’re in the U.S., you could try suing liquor stores under your theory that the repeal of the 18th amendment was unconstitutional since «there is nothing in the Consitution [sic] that suggest [sic] an Amendment can repeal another amendment.»
Sure, but why would I make the country a worse place ?
If you really think the 21st Amendment should not be able to repeal the 18th Amendment and the 18th Amendment should be repealed by another method, then you would get this process started. Clearly, the will of the people is that prohibition be repealed, so in the unlikely scenario that that you were successful in challenging the 21st Amendment, lawmakers would seek another method to repeal the 18th Amendment.
World News 
Debe estar conectado para enviar un comentario.