XPost: alt.politics.religion, alt.politics.usa.constitution, misc.education   
   From: user@nowhere.com   
      
   On 10/24/2010 8:33 PM, Strabo wrote:   
   > On 10/21/2010 1:54 PM, cpt banjo wrote:   
   >> On Oct 21, 11:49 am, Beam Me Up Scotty> Everyth...@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> So applying an amendment to the people and the States when it is clearly   
   >>> directed at ONLY the Federal government, would violate the 9th   
   >>> Amendment.   
   >>   
   >> Hogwash. The 9th doesn't protect rights retained by the States, only   
   >> those retained by the people. The 14th is, and was intended to be, a   
   >> limitation on State Power. Moreover, since the 14th was adopted after   
   >> the 9th, it trumps the 9th to the extent of any conflict.   
   >>   
   >   
   > If a proposed amendment is in conflict with an existing power,   
   > the proposed is unconstitutional. The 16th and 17th amendments   
   > are examples of unlawful proposals. Otherwise each amendment   
   > stands alone and the order of amendments is irrelevant.   
      
   You forgot about the 12th, 20th, 21st, 22nd and 25th - all of which   
   conflict with a prior power.   
      
   What a preposterous idea it is that once a power is in the Constitution,   
   it can't be altered.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)