Anti-Gay Amendment Question

[Proudlib]

I need a little help on this one. Outside of the stupid flag burning proposal under Bush I(to negate the First Amendment) can anyone think of a another proposed Constitutional amendment specifically intended to negate the freedoms guareented by another amendment or article? (In this case the ridiculous anti-gay marriage amendment was designed to make sure gays and lesbians are denied their 14th Amendment Equal Protection rights)

Interesting that liberals propose amendments to give more people more rights, and the conservatives drum up stuff to take them away. It's a trend that's hard to miss.

[Literate Tar Heel]

1. I don't know about "proposed"

but I did hear a liberal commentator make a comment yesterday about how if it passed it would be the first amendment that specifically restricts the rights of citizens and a quick glance of the amendments seems to show that is true (with the exception, I suppose of the 18th (prohibition), which was repealed by the 21st)

[trof]

2. One. Volstead Act. Prohibition.

Which was a miserable failure and later repealed.
The 18th Amendment is also credited by some to have been the reason for the rise in so-called "organized crime", tha mob.

[Proudlib]

4. Prohabition

Did facilitate a rise in the power of organized crime. The gangsters controlled the supply and there was plenty of demand.

What gets me sick about this amendement, which I know will never pass but that's besides the point, is that the Repukes are openly campaigning to take rights away from people. The issue for me isn't even gay marriage. The issue is that we have a party that making no bones about the fact that it wants to institutionalize discrminiation against a minority.

Someone PLEASE send the Repukes a copy of The Federalist Papers and have them read them v e r y s l o w e l y.

[RoyGBiv]

3. Hundreds probably...

I have no idea if anyone has ever collected a full listing of the proposed amendments that never passed to the point of being sent to the states for ratification. There are dozens, sometimes hundreds, each congressional session that are proposed, however. Many of these seek to curtail various aspects of the Bill of Rights. A lot of them are in response to some Supreme Court or other court ruling; the two you mention are among these. Few of these proposals get much press.

There have been six amendments sent to the states that have not been ratified. In 1861, an amendment passed the House and Senate that would have protected slavery. That's the most blatant attempt to constitutionally ensure certain people never had any rights at all.

On Edit: Googled it, and there are lots. In the 107th Congress, an amendment was proposed that would have repealed entirely the 8th Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) and replaced it with language prohibiting incarceration for minor traffic offenses.

There have also been attempts to repeal the 2nd amendment (this by Democrats) and to repeal the 16th (income tax) 22nd (term limits) and 26th (voting rights for 18 year-olds) amendments in the last decade or so.

[Proudlib]

5. Thanks For The Info

I didn't know about the 1861 amendment.

I'm sure many amendments are proposed each session but I doubt many are voted on.

[RoyGBiv]

6. Slavery Amendment...

Here's the language:

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

It's a sweeping endorsement of slavery and would have made ridding the country of it horribly difficult due to the prohibition of amendments.

It was a strained attempt to mollify the South and end the secession crisis. It never had any hope of actually being ratified, especially given the circumstances. Only two states did so.

Just as a constitutional curiosity, it would still technically be possible for this amendment to be ratified since there was no language in the bill itself placing a time limit for its ratification. (That's how we got the 27th amendment. It was originally proposed in 1789 and not ratified until 1992.) Should the bizarre universe in which this could happen come into being, this would create some really weird legal questions.

[Proudlib]

7. Frightening Language

Taken to its logical extreme that Amendment would have institutionalized "states rights" and negated the whole friggin' Constitution as it pertains to individual freedoms. Any state could pass any law to discriminate against any group by calling it a "domestic institution", and it would have been perfectly legal.

Don't let a Bushie see the wording. It may give them an idea or 2.