3 ms·

Congress doesn't pass any laws by itself [1], so of course I wasn't claiming it changed the Constitution alone. But Congress did indeed pass the 14th Amendment.

Congress doesn't pass any laws by itself [1], so of course I wasn't claiming it changed the Constitution alone. But Congress did indeed pass the 14th Amendment. [1] "In order to pass [ordinary] legislation and send it to the President for his or her signature, both the House and the Senate must pass the same bill by majority vote. If the President vetoes a bill, they may override his veto by passing the bill again in each chamber with at least two-thirds of each body voting in favor." https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-legislative-branch/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-governm...

btilly 4y ago
You found the procedure for something completely unrelated. The procedure for amendments is specified in https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/artic.... There are two procedures, only one of which has ever been used. In that procedure Congress *PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT* (with a 2/3 vote in both houses), then 3/4 of the states have to ratify it within 7 years. Also no involvement from the President is required. Therefore Congress never passed the 14th amendment. It *PROPOSED* it. And the distinction is significant because Congress itself lacks authority to amend the Constitution.
- robotresearcher 4y ago
  Your last message: > Therefore Congress never passed the 14th amendment Your previous message: > [Amendments] have to pass Congress and the Senate Which would be a contradiction given the existence of the 14th Amendment. So it seems like you're able to use 'pass' in the general sense of formally approve/propose/support when it's a reasonable shorthand. Me too.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Congress doesn't pass any laws by itself It does when it overrides a veto. > But Congress did indeed pass the 14th Amendment. No, it proposed it.
- robotresearcher 4y ago
  Sure. I see the distinction. I stand corrected. My point is unchanged: the legal position in effect from Roe until the Dobbs opinion was that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty through the 14th Amendment would include abortion. Congress, being a party to the Constitution, had thus already spoken on the matter. The new decision overturns that position.

btilly 4y ago

You found the procedure for something completely unrelated. The procedure for amendments is specified in https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/artic.... There are two procedures, only one of which has ever been used. In that procedure Congress *PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT* (with a 2/3 vote in both houses), then 3/4 of the states have to ratify it within 7 years. Also no involvement from the President is required. Therefore Congress never passed the 14th amendment. It *PROPOSED* it. And the distinction is significant because Congress itself lacks authority to amend the Constitution.

robotresearcher 4y ago
Your last message: > Therefore Congress never passed the 14th amendment Your previous message: > [Amendments] have to pass Congress and the Senate Which would be a contradiction given the existence of the 14th Amendment. So it seems like you're able to use 'pass' in the general sense of formally approve/propose/support when it's a reasonable shorthand. Me too.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Congress doesn't pass any laws by itself It does when it overrides a veto. > But Congress did indeed pass the 14th Amendment. No, it proposed it.

robotresearcher 4y ago
Sure. I see the distinction. I stand corrected. My point is unchanged: the legal position in effect from Roe until the Dobbs opinion was that the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty through the 14th Amendment would include abortion. Congress, being a party to the Constitution, had thus already spoken on the matter. The new decision overturns that position.