Similarly, long-term bans for mental-health reasons should eventually be subject to reexamination, especially if the encounter with mental-health authorities was voluntarily initiated by the patient, rather than precipitated by anti-social behavior.

To protect Constitutional Rights (notably the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures by criminals), States should have some broader authority to enroll individuals into their “unorganized militia” in spite of rigid and illogical Federal restrictions.

thought the 14th had a limitation to males in there somewhere…

understand, that is an attempt at bad humor, not a serious comment.

So clearly a deliberative process existed whereby some amendments were deemed to die after 7 years, and others could go on to be eternal zombies. Indeed there are several amendments still kicking around, that could still be ratified after the manner of number 27.

@ Robert–

You play into the hands of “intactivists” by blurring the distinction between male circumcision and female genital mutilation (FGM). As usually practiced, FGM is more like having your male organ cut off (and relying on artificial methods if necessary to impregnate your wife).

I would not object to a mild form of FGM, a symbolic nick no more debilitating than male circumcision. But the current drastic form is more like the religious rite of human sacrifice, a violation of civil rights subject to Federal authority by the “equal protection” of the Fourteenth Amendment (but *not* by the interstate commerce clause).

Babies die and are others are injured in Baptisms. Should we ban them next?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1298129/Baby-dies-minutes-immersed-times-baptism.html

and

https://joelbieber.com/wp-blog/2010/08/injury-during-baptism/

I personally think that Female Genital procedures for religious reasons are odd, but as a Jewish person who is glad he’s circumcised, I will remain silent on this issue. I don’t want to see the “intactivists” get empowered.