The Second Amendment: In case they "forget" the other ones
The Second Amendment: Defending the other ones since 1791
I had originally written "the other nine", and I still think it sounds better, but it's technically inaccurate since there are 27 amendments; even if most of those not in the bill of rights are essentially procedural in nature, not necessarily related to fundamental rights and liberties...
...Well that, and the fact that I'm fundamentally opposed to:
- the 15th, 19th, and 24th amendments: Because they were unnecessary.
Once slavery was made unconstitutional by the 13th amendment, then all citizens who were of age (21 at the time), of all races, sexes, backgrounds, prior conditions of servitude etc... should have automatically and clearly been allowed to vote under the 14th amendment, without any requirement for literacy or taxes.
Any state laws to the contrary should have been struck down by the supreme court under the 14th amendment (and in fact they have been ever since. The 15th and 19th are generally ignored, and the 24th is usually invoked with dubious justification).
- the 16th Amendment: Because it establishes a de-facto slavery to the government.
Some taxes are of course necessary, however taxes on incomes, earnings, wages, and assets are fundamentally theft or slavery.
Additionally, the 16th amendment was never properly ratified, and was enacted fraudulently; and has since its enactment been enforced fraudulently as well, because it authorizes taxes on income not on wages.
Income, earnings, and wages are three different things by law and by centuries of precedent, but our government has chosen to treat the 16th amendment as if it authorizes all three. A tax on wages is involuntary servitude without compensation, the very definition of slavery.
- the 17th amendment: Because it fundamentally unbalanced our system of checks and balances on state and federal power in favor of the federal government.
The house of representatives was meant to represent the interests of the people as individuals, and the senate was meant to represent the interests of each state. This is why representatives are apportioned by population, but senators are apportioned two per state.
We were founded as a representative federated republic; and direct election of senators has essentially removed the middle out of those three; much to the detriment of our nation.
- the 18th and 21st amendments: Because they address an issue that is not properly a matter of law, but of morality. Passing the 18th amendment was against the principles we founded our government on, and should never have happened. The 21st therefore shouldn't have happened either.
Additionally, the 21st established in law the ability for the states to make their own prohibitions, which shouldn't have been a matter for the federal constitution to address, unless it was to prohibit such state laws to be made.
- the 22nd amendment: Because term limits are also fundamentally wrong under our system of government.
If the people are stupid enough to elect a scumbag over and over again; so long as that scumbag hasn't been disqualified by unlawful actions, then they should be able to run as often as they like.
In engineering (and in the military, which share a similar mindset towards problem solving), this type of law has a saying about it: this is a technical solution to a non-technical problem (also called a hardware solution to a software problem and other variations)
The problem is that the people are electing people they "shouldn't." The solution is not to make electing those people illegal; it's to educate the electorate better so they won't want to elect people they shouldn't.
- The 23rd amendment: Because the District of Columbia either IS a state, or it is not; you can't have it half way.
Giving DC representation in congress, electors in presidential elections, or any kind of position on the national stage is ridiculous. We don't allow New York City to have electors separate from it's state government, why would we allow Washington to do so.
This is not disenfranchisement, this is clearly a structural issue. A single city should not be given the status of a state in any way. We should either leave DC without representation (including in elections), or we should make it a state, with all the attendant rights and responsibilities of the people within.
- the 27th amendment: Because it is not a structural issue, which is what the constitution and it's amendments are intended to address.
Congress has the power to set it's own rules, and it's own policies, procedures, and compensation under article one section six. There is nothing in the constitution which prevents them from changing those rules once established.
This amendment was essentially grandstanding by politicians saying "see, we're so committed to "good government" and "reform" that we can't vote ourselves a pay raise without an election first".
I would have no issue with this amendment if it were simply a matter of law and congressional procedure. It should never have been proposed or passed as an amendment.
Man... all that from thinking about bumperstickers.