Nitpick: It is immune to amendment without the consent of the states affected, which in practice amounts to the same thing. (Article Five: The amendment process is described, “Provided . . . that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”)
That is merely a policy on which Congress has decided. It does not amount to, nor imply the existence of, any court ruling that foreigners’ Second Amendment rights are any lesser than or different from citizens’.
Not true. It’s the law of the land unless the SCOUS declares it unconstitutional. You’ve got it backwards.
You have. Just because a law/policy is in place and even unchallenged does not mean it is constitutional; only the courts get to make that call and only they can be cited as authorities in support of arguments about constitutional law, which this is.
It is the “law of the land,” but that doesn’t mean that the law does not violate a Constitutional right.
(reply to both you and BG)
Until it is tested in court, you can’t say that it does either. The null position is that a law is constitutional until it is challenged and that challenge is upheld.
So it looks like we don’t have any new James Madisons on the board. And that’s ok. I like the constitution just the way it is.
- The 16th Amendment should be repealed.
- An amendment creating a National Sales Tax (www.fairtax.org) should be created.
- An amendment that prohibits the government from spending, in any fiscal year, more than 99% of the revenues brought in during the previous fiscal year, except in time of war or national emergency, should be created.
- An amendment redefining citizenship as someone born in this country where at least one of the parents is a U. S. citizen should be created.
- An amendment setting term limits on Congress should be created. They get a maximum of 12 years in any combination of terms for the House and Senate.
My $0.02 worth
You are taking the position that, as a matter of constitutional law, the “civil rights” of the BoR do not extend to the benefit of noncitizens. You have the burden of proof on that point, and arguably discriminatory legislation or policies that have not been challenged are irrelevant to that purpose. The only authoritative opinions here are those of the courts.
Advise you to seek a less-inflated independent estimate.
I think that rather than term limits, what would be more effective is an optional public funding of elections that competes head to head with private funding. Part of the reason incumbents stay in is because they are capable of raising ever increasing amounts of money which is a big hurdle for those who would contest the office. If the money was equally available to qualified contenders and if the election was played out on an economically level playing field incumbents would lose that ordinary advantage.
Better yet, we need no amendments changed to do this. It could be voted on if the movement gets enough momentum to garner popular support.
What on Earth do you think should be done with the hundreds of millions in that last 1%?
Term limits are a bad idea, as the Michigan leg shows. Why kick out all of the competent people just because of a few bad apples? Sen Byrd should have retired long ago, true, but Carl Levin is an amazing senator, and I’d like himw to stay on for at least one more term.
A national sales tax would likely lead to a larger black market, and is more of a burden to the poor. I’m sure there’s a thread somewhere that outlines this.
Pay down the debt? Set up a reserve, so the Chinese wouldn’t have us by the short and curlies?
What makes you think they’re greedy? (N.B.: The biggest tax hike ever will not necessarily line the pockets of the pols who voted for it.)
Are you arguing against legal immigration entirely, or did you just word this poorly?
Of course, you could just amend Article Five to remove the clause you quoted and then you can just go ahead and amend to change the nature of the Senate. 
Zev Steinhardt
I’ve suggested that before in this forum, but I’m still not confident it would fly with the SCOTUS.
Let me just one of the things I think the Constitution does well is it specifically tries to make a majority almost meaningless. It seems designed to make sure no one, and no group, gets the necessary power to do much… Unless a very sizeable part of the nation agrees that it makes sense.
And that “check and balance” system… from the Exec-Leg-Jud down to the way the Congress is divided and how the EC works… it makes sense to me. And I’m in a state that has its votes watered down.
To sum up: It should be HARD to do anything. That way, hopefully, only the good ideas (or rounded out ones) would get passed.
But SCOTUS can’t overrule a Constitutional Amendment.
We’ve already seen that you can pass an amendment that is “unconstitutional” (in that it contradicts something already in the Constitution). That being the case, why can’t Article Five be amended and, more specifically, why would SCOTUS have any say in the matter? They can’t declare an amendment unconstitutional.
Zev Steinhardt
Of course they can, or Article Five means nothing in the first place. It’s just that the question has never come up before.