How many of you out there know that the 16th Ammendment to the Constitution was not legally ratified?
931427
Hmmm.  I thought that was the 14th amendment.\n\nAnyway, yes I've heard of that.  Legal researchers have verified that the amendment to perperate a federal tax upon the people was never really legally ratified.\n\nAnd that's just the beginning of the fraud upon the people of this nation.  There's no real value to our money, since going off the gold standard in 1933.  AND the IRS and the Federal Reserve are quasi government agencies.--Don't even get me started, because there's plenty more.  This scandalous fraud is wayyy worse than the Enron fiasco and even the Emporer's New Clothes.  This is a fraud against the whole country, spanning several generations, and is continuing, unbeknownst to most.
549961
Well, the 3rd amendment - there aren't many issues with troops being quartered today.\n\nThe 18th amendment is also now completely irrelevant, as it was repealed by the 21st. \n\nThe rest all are fairly relevant, although it's arguable that some are more important than others.
1034108
An amendment, and heres a fun fact: the Constitution has been amended 18 times, most people would say 27
1098779
With three notable exceptions, I am pleased to see so many intelligent and rational arguments against the idiotic, discriminatory and deeply offensive attempts by this hateful administration and (most of) their "repugnican" allies to further divide the American people over the issue of gay marriage rights. Honestly, do we really need to pursue a Constitutional amendment to define marriage?! This is the theatre of the absurd writ large.\n\nI am sick and bloody tired of intolerant people trying to impose their narrow-minded views on me by wielding political power and threats of Constitutional amendments. Gay marriage and flag burning are so far removed from priority issues to sane and rational -- to say nothing of tolerant -- people that I almost have to laugh at this farce. But I am not laughing, because these people are serious -- and seriously evil.\n\nThankfully, they will fail in their shameful efforts to divide and distract the American people from the REAL issues of the day. But that doesn't make their gross misconduct any less reprehensible. Please vote in November and remember ALL of this when you consider your ballot. We have the chance to send a message to these hateful people and to show the world at large who we are and what we stand for. So please, let's get it right this time around.
716014
Yes. But this has become a gray area, because it used to be that the Federal law was limited by the Constitution to certain areas, and denied the rest. However, this has changed, and the Federal government is now, and has been for decades, legislating on things they have absolutely no constitutional authority to be meddling with.\n\nAnd the majority of Americans think this is a good thing, which it isn't, and they fail to connect this usurpation of powers with the  fact that they feel their freedoms and rights are being taken away. Un-believable.
293674
Article [XVIII].(See Note 16)\nSection 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. \n\nSection. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. \n\nSection. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. \n\nProposal and Ratification \n\nThe eighteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Sixty-fifth Congress, on the 18th of December, 1917, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated the 29th of January, 1919, to have been ratified by the legislatures of 36 of the 48 States. The dates of ratification were: Mississippi, January 8, 1918; Virginia, January 11, 1918; Kentucky, January 14, 1918; North Dakota, January 25, 1918; South Carolina, January 29, 1918; Maryland, February 13, 1918; Montana, February 19, 1918; Texas, March 4, 1918; Delaware, March 18, 1918; South Dakota, March 20, 1918; Massachusetts, April 2, 1918; Arizona, May 24, 1918; Georgia, June 26, 1918; Louisiana, August 3, 1918; Florida, December 3, 1918; Michigan, January 2, 1919; Ohio, January 7, 1919; Oklahoma, January 7, 1919; Idaho, January 8, 1919; Maine, January 8, 1919; West Virginia, January 9, 1919; California, January 13, 1919; Tennessee, January 13, 1919; Washington, January 13, 1919; Arkansas, January 14, 1919; Kansas, January 14, 1919; Alabama, January 15, 1919; Colorado, January 15, 1919; Iowa, January 15, 1919; New Hampshire, January 15, 1919; Oregon, January 15, 1919; Nebraska, January 16, 1919; North Carolina, January 16, 1919; Utah, January 16, 1919; Missouri, January 16, 1919; Wyoming, January 16, 1919. \n\nRatification was completed on January 16, 1919. See Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 376 (1921). \n\nThe amendment was subsequently ratified by Minnesota on January 17, 1919; Wisconsin, January 17, 1919; New Mexico, January 20, 1919; Nevada, January 21, 1919; New York, January 29, 1919; Vermont, January 29, 1919; Pennsylvania, February 25, 1919; Connecticut, May 6, 1919; and New Jersey, March 9, 1922. \n\nThe amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Rhode Island. \n  LOOKS TO ME LIKE THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT LIQUOR/PROHIBITION.
1046983
It was a stupid thing. Last year I did a report that showed it violated at least 3 amendments in the bill of rights. I think the only reason why it was passed was due to the paranoia to just kill all those terrorist. Some of the stuff that had "illegal" wiretaps were REPASSED this year. So yes, I do know the truth.
900356
No.  But it was promised because of their complaints that the Consitution lacked basic protections.  It was drafted by James Madison
1000534
To the US Constitution? 27 amendments have been ratified \n\nThe 27th Amendment was proposed back in the 1780s but only ratified in 1992.
319650
Its an "implied right".  Its not in the constitution.
984235
You better believe it.  The framers were very wise to include these contingencies in the Constitution.\n\nYou get your chance on Tuesday :-)
1083497
Yes- hahaha...totally know what you are getting at with the whole flag burning issue.  Don't worry- that amendment will never pass.
143610
U.S. "legalized" slavery may have ended in 1861, but please do not let us fool ourselves -- slavery, in many forms, still exists today . . . and I'm not talking "slave to my job" kind either.    :-(
1045068
Well, if it is, I wonder why I haven't visited it yet!\n\nGo go First Amendment!
782299
Well, my opinion is that the document is outdated.  It's just a piece of paper,  made by men after all, and yet it is revered as if made by the hand of God.  \n\nI think it should be considered to draw up a new constitution: One that wouldn't need exhaustive amounts of amendments, and would apply to the state of affairs in 2006 versus 1776.  It could also include and merge all the standing supreme court decisions, which would allow the justices to refer to the constitution instead of court precedent, a practice I find to be admirable but not necessarily wise.  (A decision handed down in the past may nonetheless have been in error.)\n\nI realize that this is an extremely radical viewpoint.  But nonetheless I think people should consider the fact that the constitution is more symbolic now than truly effective.
609035
Since marriage is a legal description of a state of affairs, not a right conferred by the constitution, it is possible no such amendment could ever be ratified in the first place. \n\nI think at best, an amendment like that could define marriage but never prevent gay people from having a union of the same status with another name.
347133
No. They tried that before (18th amendment), and it didn't work (repealed in the 21st amendment).