Moore: Getting Rid of All Of The Amendments After The 10th Amendment Would “Eliminate Many Problems”

Moore has previously said he would criminalize homosexuality, strip LGBT citizens of rights, bar Muslims from Congress, and apply “God’s law” over the Constitution in the imposition of Christian values.
In his appearance on the extremist radio program “Aroostook Watchmen” with Maine residents Jack McCarthy and Steve Martin,  Moore explored their shared view that 9-11 was a possible government conspiracy. One of the hosts said he would like to see an amendment that would void all the amendments after the Tenth. Moore readily agreed and said
“That would eliminate many problems. You know people don’t understand how some of these amendments have completely tried to wreck the form of government that our forefathers intended.”
Moore cited the 17th Amendment as an example but the host turned to the 14th Amendment as “only approved at the point of the gun.”  Moore again agreed and said:
“Yeah, it had very serious problems with its approval by the states,” Moore replied. “The danger in the 14th Amendment, which was to restrict, it has been a restriction on the states using the first Ten Amendments by and through the 14th Amendment. To restrict the states from doing something that the federal government was restricted from doing and allowing the federal government to do something which the first Ten Amendments prevented them from doing. If you understand the incorporation doctrine used by the courts and what it meant. You’d understand what I’m talking about.”
Note many of us do know what the incorporation doctrine is and know that Moore was criticizing the extension of core protections like equal protection and due process to the states.
Many voters are struggling to ignore the immorality in voting for a man like Moore in the face of multiple allegations of misconduct with young girls coming from almost a dozen women and an array of witnesses from neighbor to former colleagues to security officers.  To their credit, more Republicans came forward this weekend to denounce Moore.  This includes Alabama’s Republican Senator Richard Shelby.  Putting aside those allegations, there remain deeply disturbing and dangerous views of Moore about the rights of citizens.  Ironically, these are rights that protect us from the abuses of the government, a rally cause for many conservative and libertarian voters.  That is why Moore is not simply a moral but a legal hazard for this country.

171 thoughts on “Moore: Getting Rid of All Of The Amendments After The 10th Amendment Would “Eliminate Many Problems””

  1. My opinion on issues created by Roy Moore
    Dated 12-21-2017
    Article [I] (Amendment 1 – Freedom of expression and religion)
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Freedom of speech; what is that? Is it only for the educated or the rich? Is it only for the press and the local and national news?
    In my opinion freedom of speech is a challenge not to offend someone or a powerful organization. So is that freedom of speech, not being able to voice one’s opinion on an issue for fear that someone will be offended.
    I will attempt to voice my opinion because I would like my opinion posted, because I have just as much of a right according to the constitution to free speech as everybody does.
    What really scares me about Roy Moore is not only the way he abused young women and got away with it. But the fact that he was a powerful Man and used that power to his advantage to do whatever he wanted and got away with it.
    To me He was never serving the people, but He was serving His self, I cannot help but wonder how many people he prosecuted and pass judgment on that were innocent according to the Law. How many times did He violate peoples constitutional right to judge them on His beliefs. How many lives did he destroy because He felt that He was above the Law. In my opinion anyone that feels they are above the Law is a threat to justice.
    He may have escaped the laws that should have treated him the same way anybody would have been prosecuted for his actions against young Women, but nobody will escape the judgement of Jesus Christ in the end.
    1 Corinthians 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.
    If he has changed His ways, then I say God bless, but He will still be held accountable for his actions.
    Having people with this attitude in our Government is what suppresses our constitutional rights and justice. Change will never happen when people in power will not allow change because of the way they think. Selfish people take care of their needs not the needs of the people.
    Justice comes for those that can afford to buy justice, the poor people only get a plea agreement. Attorneys control what goes before the bar and if you cannot pay them what they demand to prove innocence they do not waste their time on you. So, justice is out the back door.
    Article XIV (Amendment 14 – Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection)
    1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Moore wants to get ride of this Amendment, not surprising. Many states in the south would like to. Still too this day southern states do not like due process of the law or procedural due process. Check out some case law on this issue and you will see what I am talking about.
    So then in my opinion there is three prosecutions that take place in our free society, first there is the media then the people who listen to the media then the courts who pass final judgment.
    If I have offended anyone by voicing my constitutional right of freedom of speech, then I apologize because that is not my intention.

  2. While I found Roy Moore to be a poor candidate for any federal office, there are several issues I can agree with on abolishing all the Amendments after the Tenth Amendment.

    Please note that I don’t agree with the idea of eliminating all of them, but there are a few that I do think are wrong.

    The Fourteenth Amendment had parts that were right at the time, but have outlived their usefulness. I agree that the idea of setting the concept of those born in the United States, and living within the United States at the time of adoption, was good. But I also think that clause should have had an expiration date. At most, that clause should not have lasted into perpetuity; it should have had a 20-year limit. I choose that number because the original drafts of the Constitution included a provision that there would be a 20-year limit on slavery from the date of adoption of the Constitution.

    The Sixteenth Amendment that established the concept of the Income Tax would be best if it were abolished. I don’t like the concept that a person has to first turn over almost all their financial information to the government under penalty of perjury, and then is subject to having further inspection of that information. This is against the idea of self-incrimination, in my view. It has made financial privacy almost impossible, just because of all the reporting by those who pay us. And it has made many investments cost-prohibitive, because of the forced compliance by those outside our own borders. Taxation should be as anonymous as possible. I have long advocated for the Fair Tax, and still stand by that plan.

    I would be satisfied if the nation did away with the direct election of United States Senators. The Senate was never intended to be a democratic institution; it was a branch of the legislature that was to represent the various States within the United States. Instead, it has morphed into a second House of Representatives, with the increase in political campaigning, and the increased amounts of funding coming from out-of-state sources. It has caused the States to be treated as mere administrators of federal law, with almost no distinction between states except for the levels of taxation.

    The Eighteenth Amendment suffered the fate it so richly deserved when the Twenty-First Amendment was approved.

    The Nineteenth Amendment should never have been necessary, UNLESS the Constitution originally stated that only males over the age of 21 should be allowed the right to vote. If it didn’t say that, then this was not needed; it was based upon a misinterpretation that equated “men” with the male sex instead of with mankind.

    I will add that just because I didn’t mention someone’s favorite or least-favorite Amendment that I would eliminate, doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be in my cross-hairs for elimination. I just wanted to target the most egregious examples of overreach that I could think of at 8:00 in the morning.

    1. kevinbeck2015 – when the 10 Amendments to the Constitution were sent out, there were actually 12, two didn’t get passed. One was the direct election of Senators which would be added later. The other, which we really need is 1 Congressperson for every 50,000 citizens in a state. The second one would make it impossible to control the House. In fact, the House stopped at 435 because they were tired of remodeling the chambers. Since then we have been stuck with 435 and some states only getting one representative while others, like Arizona, are under-represented. Sure you would still have to run for election every two years, but you only have 50,000 voters to please. My town has 250,000 people, at least half are voters. My town would get two representatives on their own, maybe 5. Right now we share a representative with 8 other communities.

      Think about trying to lobby a House with that many members? Or bribe them? They would only have to sit on one committee, not several. You could actually work from your local office, not the House office and vote from there by secure internet connection.

  3. Getting rid of Moore would eliminate many problems. Too bad that won’t happen tomorrow.

    1. When da Moore goes before ethics it will bring problems for him and his mentor T rump. More accusers will come forward for da both
      Of them.

  4. In my opinion: Words are thrown around too easily, no accountability. Definitions/ meanings are changed to suit the definer. Example: Molestation is now called sexual assault with no penetration, teenagers dating and uneducated about how to say NO is called sexual assault. Complimenting a “woman” is called sexual assault – I’m sure you can get my point. The 9th Commandment states “Thou shall not bear false witness” and the worse of them are the ones we look up to.

    1. didn’t watch. Try making a comment relevant to the article instead of trying to promote yourself on youtube

  5. I do not know much about Moore, but what I’ve heard is concerning. I am a Constitutionalist who favors robust individual rights. What little I have learned has left me wondering why Alabama could not or would not come up with a better candidate long before this 11th hour. His popularity seems like a backlash and sticking it in the eye of Liberals. That’s not the way to get the best candidate.

    There are certainly issues and discrepancies with the accusations, which bear investigating to get the most accurate picture. Aside from that, I do not agree with Moore on his position on the Constitution, and other issues, and hope that the state produces a better defender of our Constitution and Liberty in future.

    May I also call your attention to the successful new movie, Call Me By Your Name,” in which an adult 24 year old grad student has a gay affair with a 17 year old teenager while interning for the boy’s father in Italy. I read one glowing review that actually remarked off handedly that, “Alas, only one adult was involved.” Oh, “alas” is it? Which is it? Hollywood seems to suffer from split personality. On the one hand, Hollywood lavishes praise and standing ovations on convicted pedophile child rapist Roman Polansky. On the other, they finally tarred and feathered Weinstein, all while absurdly claiming ignorance for decades of the worst kept secret in history. Now, all of sudden, actors have heard about the casting couch. Once Hillary lost the election, Bill became the albatross they had to cut loose, and this late discovery of conscience is the only way to do it. I wonder if the girl in that video who claimed she needed an ambulance because HRC lost, and someone had better fix this right now, also discovered her conscience?

    Is it right or wrong to pursue an of-age teenager? Because most of the accusations against Moore involved people who, although they were teenagers, were of legal age. You wouldn’t deduce that from the headlines which, again, might feed into this backlash which bolsters people like Moore to stick it to the media. Personally, I still consider it inappropriate, but it’s not illegal. In Canada, for example, the AOC is 16 for the entire country. As for his fitness for office, I am only concerned with non consensual acts with people of any age, and if he had relations with anyone, consensual or otherwise, under the AOC. Whether he is elected or not, he will still be accountable.

Comments are closed.