# Throwing Out Amendments **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 14, 2002, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757 "2002-12-14T18:21:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![owlofcreamcheese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/97f17d/32.png) [@owlofcreamcheese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/owlofcreamcheese)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/1 "2002-12-14T18:21:49Z")
In order, what are a few constitutional amendments that removeing would do the least damage to the current way of life. Or which of the important ones would be most bareable to lose. (odviously loseing any is horrible, but which are the lesser of evils to lose? like if we had to black one out or face nuclear holocaust) ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/2 "2002-12-14T18:23:41Z")
I’d say we could lose the one about illegal alcohol and the one that made it legal again. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/3 "2002-12-14T18:36:10Z")
Removing the 9th would have little or no impact. Judges would take it for granted anyhow. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/4 "2002-12-14T19:08:41Z")
There’s never been a Supreme Court case on the 3rd. Maybe never a federal case at all. If we got rid of it probably no one would notice. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/5 "2002-12-14T20:14:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Removing the 9th would have little or no impact. Judges would take it for granted anyhow. I am **so** glad to see that **December** subscribes to the Warren/Douglas/Brennan school of jurisprudence. Mr. Bork’s comment on why he considered the Ninth a nullity seems to approximate the stance of Justices Scalia and Kennedy, though I could be in error in ascribing this view to them, since I’m not as wellread on contemporary jurisprudence as I might be. > [@](#): > > There’s never been a Supreme Court case on the 3rd. Maybe never a federal case at all. If we got rid of it probably no one would notice. I think you’re wrong here, but I don’t have cites. Anyone with the interest and time to Google out the answer? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/6 "2002-12-14T20:25:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*I think you’re wrong here, but I don’t have cites. Anyone with the interest and time to Google out the answer? \*\* It appears that SCOTUS has never seen a case, but the [2nd Circuit](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/engblom.html) has. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/7 "2002-12-14T20:26:08Z")
I remember reading about this in 12th grade. [Engblom v. Carey](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/engblom.html): > [@](#): > > \*\*UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUIT > 677 F.2d 957 > May 3, 1982, Decided > > Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, and KAUFMAN and MANSFIELD, Circuit Judges. > Opinion by MANSFIELD\*\* > > In this action, brought…by two correction officers at the Mid-Orange Correctional Facility (“Mid-Orange”) in Warwick, New York, against the Governor and various officials of the State of New York, plaintiffs-appellants contend that their due process and Third Amendment rights were violated during a statewide strike of correction officers in April and May of 1979 when they were evicted from their facility-residences without notice or hearing and their residences were used to house members of the National Guard without their consent. For the first time a federal court is asked to invalidate as violative of the Third Amendment the peacetime quartering of troops “in any house, without the consent of the Owner.” District Judge Robert W. Sweet granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that appellants did not have a sufficient possessory interest in their facility-residences to entitle them to protection under the Third Amendment and the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We affirm the dismissal of the due process claim on the ground that adequate post-deprivation procedures were afforded to protect appellants’ rights. We reverse the dismissal of the Third Amendment claim on the ground that issues as to material facts rendered summary judgment inappropriate. Apparently, this is the only federal case dealing with the 3rd amendment. ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/8 "2002-12-14T20:27:18Z")
Goddamnit, **DMC**. Same link, even. I knew I shouldn’t have previewed. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/9 "2002-12-14T20:34:26Z")
'Tis strange but true, **Poly** : [http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/con014.pdf](http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/constitution/con014.pdf) "There has been no Supreme Court explication of this Amendment, which was obviously one guarantee of the preference for the civilian over the military. In fact, save for the curious case of Engblom v. Carrey, 677 F.2d 957 (2nd Cir. 1982), on remand 572 F.Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y.), affd. per curiam 724 F.2d 28 (2nd Cir. 1983), there has been no judicial explicatin at all." ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/10 "2002-12-14T20:35:30Z")
D’oh! I gotta speed up my typing. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/11 "2002-12-14T20:36:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pravnik \* > \*\*There’s never been a Supreme Court case on the 3rd. Maybe never a federal case at all. If we got rid of it probably no one would notice. \*\* I take it then, that if some situtation, or civil disorder comes up in the future, that you would not mind if we sent all the troops to live in your house? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/12 "2002-12-14T20:36:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\*I am **so** glad to see that **December** subscribes to the Warren/Douglas/Brennan school of jurisprudence. Mr. Bork’s comment on why he considered the Ninth a nullity seems to approximate the stance of Justices Scalia and Kennedy, though I could be in error in ascribing this view to them, since I’m not as wellread on contemporary jurisprudence as I might be. \*\* I recall Bork’s comment re the 9th Amendment during his confirmation hearings, but I have never understood just what he meant. Upon googling, I found [this page](http://www.talkleft.com/archives/000595.html) which may explain his answer. As I understand it, for some people, **Ninth Amendment --\> Right to Privacy --\> Right to Privacy in sexual and reproductive matters.** Bork’s answer may have meant that he doesn’t agree with this interpretation of the right to privacy. (My first response meant that I thought judges could get to the same place even without the 9th Amendment.) I was also interested in the discussion of how judges should identify the unenumerated Constitutional rights. A poster on that cite opines: > [@](#): > > One of those methods (the one of which I approve) would be to assert that rights protected by it from governmental abuse are those rights that were generally recognized as such when the Ninth Amendment was ratified in 1791. This idea looks logical, but I’ve never seen it before, so I’m guessing it doesn’t hold sway in legal circles. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/13 "2002-12-14T20:46:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Susanann \* > \*\*I take it then, that if some situtation, or civil disorder comes up in the future, that you would not mind if we sent all the troops to live in your house? \*\* If they’ll help clean, I’ll take em right now! Seriously, my only point is that there’s never been a case on it, save for one anomaly. I don’t know if that’s because the only thing keeping the 101st Airborne from sleeping on my couch is the pesky 3rd Amendment and they’re moving in the day it gets repealed. Maybe they would. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/14 "2002-12-14T20:58:13Z")
Another one: we’ve strayed so far from the text of the 11th Amendment over the years (originally designed to overturn Chisolm v. Georgia) that SCOTUS eventually said that sovereign immunity comes not from the 11th but is “inherent in the document itself”. It’s concievable that we could get rid of the 11th with no change to sovereign immunity law. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/15 "2002-12-14T21:06:33Z")
Well, Barb and I had rental property back when the Army base near our town expanded about 200-fold (from being a reserve training site to housing a full active-duty division), and we attempted to rent our property at slightly under fair market rates with the proviso that we would not rent to military families at that rate – the idea we had being that the low-income people were being forced out of housing (verifiable fact, according to local agencies) by landlords anxious to make higher rentals from military families. We were informed that, while the rental agencies thought we were kind people for wanting to do so, we could not do that under fair housing law. I thought about making it a Third Amendment case but decided against it. Too bad – I could have been a federal precedent!! ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/16 "2002-12-14T22:55:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by owlofcreamcheese \* > **In order, what are a few constitutional amendments that removeing would do the least damage to the current way of life.** Why, the Second Amendment, of course! \ ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/17 "2002-12-14T23:24:00Z")
The 11th amendment we could do without. It wouldn’t be so bad if citizens of one state should be able to sue another state in court. ---
**Author:** ![RobertTB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@RobertTB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RobertTB)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2002, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/18 "2002-12-14T23:32:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blalron \* > \*\*The 11th amendment we could do without. It wouldn’t be so bad if citizens of one state should be able to sue another state in court. \*\* Excellent. The ability to launch more lawsuits is just what America needs! My vote goes for (if we have to) ditching the III and XXII. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2002, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/19 "2002-12-15T01:25:35Z")
In my opinion the ammendment that “would do the least damage to the current way of life and which would be most bareable to lose”, is the 16th ammendment. I fully support that congressman in Texas that submits a bill to repeal it each session. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2002, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757/20 "2002-12-15T01:41:35Z")
I’m afraid that Number XXII is here to stay. There are a significant number of people in the country who LOVE term limits. I don’t see why anyone wants to get rid of XI. Why should the Federal courts have to impose judgments on other states if there is no Federal issue? Amendment XVII is superfluous because Congressional pay raises don’t take effect immediately on their passage anyway. Congress already was standing for election before they went into effect. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/throwing-out-amendments/142757.md?page=2)