States..

[Hatuey]

Should states be required recognize the individual rights of citizens that the federal government is required to recognize?

 

[WI Crippler]

Should states be required recognize the individual rights of citizens that the federal government is required to recognize?

I thought we figured that out in the mid-1800s.

 

[Hatuey]

I thought we figured that out in the mid-1800s.

Apparently there are some here who oppose the 14th amendment.

 

[WI Crippler]

Apparently there are some here who oppose the 14th amendment.

Can you direct me to the thread that made you pose this question, or pose some quotes. I don't know where you are coming from on this. I don't doubt you, I am just interested in seeing who they are, although I think I have a good idea.

 

[ARealConservative]

I oppose how the 14th amendment has been reconstructed after its passage.

I also oppose the 1964 Civil Rights legislation that brought us quotas.

 

[DeeJayH]

Can you direct me to the thread that made you pose this question, or pose some quotes. I don't know where you are coming from on this. I don't doubt you, I am just interested in seeing who they are, although I think I have a good idea.

right
too vague a point to start a thread on
please expand on the point you are raising

 

[Hatuey]

Can you direct me to the thread that made you pose this question, or pose some quotes. I don't know where you are coming from on this. I don't doubt you, I am just interested in seeing who they are, although I think I have a good idea.

If a state bans all things religion from having anything to do with all things state, then there is no Constitutional conflict. But 14th Amendment (which I don't even acknowledge as legitimate since it was ratified illegally, at the tip of a bayonet), in reversing everything the Constitution was designed to be, merely forces the states not to establish state religions as the federal government was forbade from establishing a national one. This has zilch to do with allowing Ten Commandment displays, school prayer, etc.

...................

 

[ARealConservative]

...................

So you think at the time the 14th amendment was passed the people voting for it understood it would drastically alter existing law on church/state issues?

 

[DeeJayH]

:thinking :shrug:
still not getting it

 

[Kushinator]

Under my interpretation, the 14th grants the Bill of Rights to the states.

But, we know this isnt the truth. Some states have heavy gun control, and even restriction of handguns in certain cities.

Now, if the Bill of Rights was actually upheld (isnt it mildly ironic considering 1865, 1920), there really wouldnt be a need for the 14th...

IMHO, way to much legislation...

 

[Hatuey]

So you think at the time the 14th amendment was passed the people voting for it understood it would drastically alter existing law on church/state issues?

Do you mean do the illerates of that time recognize what it would do?

Or did the politicians recognize what it would do? Obviously yes considering the reasons this amendment was brought up.

 

[ARealConservative]

Do you mean do the illerates of that time recognize what it would do?

Or did the politicians recognize what it would do? Obviously yes considering the reasons this amendment was brought up.

Many that voted on this amendment were in their graves when SCOTUS incorporated the Bill of Rights. Your time line is way out of sync.

 

[Hatuey]

Many that voted on this amendment were in their graves when SCOTUS incorporated the Bill of Rights.

Ummmm irrelevant. The 14th was created because states were violating the rights of African American citizens with things like the black code.

Your time line is way out of sync.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourte...onstitution#Civil_and_other_individual_rights

Prior to the adoption of this Amendment, the Bill of Rights was generally, though not universally, thought to act only as a restraint on federal governments, not those of the state, and a state's relations with its citizens and those of other states was legally restrained only by that state's constitution and laws and those provisions of the Constitution that limited the powers of the states. While many states modeled their constitutions and laws after the federal government's, those state constitutions did not necessarily include provisions comparable to the Bill of Rights. There is good reason to believe that the framers and early supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment believed that it would ensure that the states would be required to recognize the individual rights the federal government was already required to respect--in the Bill of Rights and in other constitutional provisions; all of these rights were likely understood to fall within the "privileges or immunities" safeguarded by the Amendment. However, the Supreme Court sought to limit the reach of the Amendment by holding in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) that the "privileges or immunities" clause was limited to "privileges or immunities" granted to citizens by the federal government in virtue of national citizenship. The Court further held in the Civil Rights Cases that the Amendment was limited to "state action" and thus did not authorize Congress to outlaw racial discrimination on the part of private individuals or organizations. Neither of these decisions has been overturned and in fact have been specifically reaffirmed several times.

 

[ARealConservative]

Ummmm irrelevant. The 14th was created because states were violating the rights of African American citizens with things like the black code.

Yes - and the legislation was not understood to have anything to do with the role states had on matters of religion. That happened much, much later.

What really sucks is the mentality at the time was to create language that would give free slaves the same rights as whites but they did not want the wording to grant Indians constitutional rights to guns.

 

[Hatuey]

Yes - and the legislation was not understood to have anything to do with the role states had on matters of religion.

Rofl - This is either the most naive argument ever or the silliest one to date. States were denying American citizens the rights given to them by the bill of rights. It would be ludicrous to say that the 14th was not created so that it would ensure that not even state/local governments had the right to take the bill of rights away from American citizens.

That happened much, much later.

Once again. Irrelevant.

What really sucks is the mentality at the time was to create language that would give free slaves the same rights as whites but they did not want the wording to grant Indians constitutional rights to guns.

Source?

 

[ARealConservative]

Rofl - This is either the most naive argument ever or the silliest one to date. States were denying American citizens the rights given to them by the bill of rights. It would be ludicrous to say that the 14th was not created so that it would ensure that not even state/local governments had the right to take the bill of rights away from American citizens.



Once again. Irrelevant.

Consent of the governed is irrelevant only to a flaming liberal

Good day.

 

[RightinNYC]

Should states be required recognize the individual rights of citizens that the federal government is required to recognize?

Of course.

The people who claim the 14th amendment was ratified illegally are just as nuts as the people who claim the 16th amendment was ratified illegally.

 

[ARealConservative]

Of course.

The people who claim the 14th amendment was ratified illegally are just as nuts as the people who claim the 16th amendment was ratified illegally.

This has nothing to do with a proper ratification Mr. Apologist.

 

[Ivan The Terrible]

I would like to find out more about this issue . Could someone give me a link with some background info?

 

[ARealConservative]

I would like to find out more about this issue . Could someone give me a link with some background info?

This gives a good background on it.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/personhood_timeline.pdf

Of the 14th Amendment cases
brought before the Supreme Court
between 1890 and 1910, 19 dealt with
African Americans, 288 dealt with
corporations.

:roll:

 

[Harshaw]

Of course.

The people who claim the 14th amendment was ratified illegally are just as nuts as the people who claim the 16th amendment was ratified illegally.

There's an argument. The former "Confederate" states were required to ratify it before being readmitted to the Union. Not being in the Union meant they weren't states, so they couldn't actually ratify anything.

Of course, I personally don't believe the "CSA" ever legally existed, and that the states never legally left the Union, so it's a moot point for me.

But there's an argument to be made, nonetheless.

 

[RightinNYC]

This has nothing to do with a proper ratification Mr. Apologist.

How was it improper?

Harshaw's argument is the only reasonable one I can envision, and even if there are questions of whether it was technically done the right way, I don't think it really matters.

I would think that someone like you who is so concerned with what people had in mind when they signed things would concede that the Southern states knew full well that they were ratifying the 14th, even if they didn't necessarily envision how it would be used in the future.

 

[ARealConservative]

How was it improper?

Harshaw's argument is the only reasonable one I can envision, and even if there are questions of whether it was technically done the right way, I don't think it really matters.

I would think that someone like you who is so concerned with what people had in mind when they signed things would concede that the Southern states knew full well that they were ratifying the 14th, even if they didn't necessarily envision how it would be used in the future.

I'm not debating whether the 14th amendment was ratified properly or not. My argument is that the actual effects of the 14th amendment has mutated into something that would of never been supported at the time of ratification.

Those voting for the 14th did not see church/state matters as being a problem needing correction anymore then they felt corporations needed personhood.

And here is the full truth - you are indoctrinated with this garbage. You must agree with these bad decisions to even have a chance in law school. So in your mind, you are quite well versed on these subjects, but your tutelage comes completely from others that were indoctrinated long before you were even born.

Color me unimpressed.

 

[RightinNYC]

I'm not debating whether the 14th amendment was ratified properly or not.

Okay, good.

My argument is that the actual effects of the 14th amendment has mutated into something that would of never been supported at the time of ratification.

And your belief of this is based on...? You've done a survey of the people who voted on this? You have historical evidence that indicates what they thought?

Even if we are to assume that you're correct, we're faced with the question of whether or not it really matters. Believe it or not, things have changed over the past 200+ years. As a result, the application of different portions of the Constitution has adapted to meet it.

Those voting for the 14th did not see church/state matters as being a problem needing correction anymore then they felt corporations needed personhood.

When the founders ratified the first amendment, did they intend to cover free speech over the telephone or internet? Of course not. But shouldn't we interpret it to protect these things?

And here is the full truth - you are indoctrinated with this garbage. You must agree with these bad decisions to even have a chance in law school. So in your mind, you are quite well versed on these subjects, but your tutelage comes completely from others that were indoctrinated long before you were even born.

Color me unimpressed.

That's just like, your opinion, man.

I could say the exact same thing about you. I could say that you've been indoctrinated by whoever taught you the garbage you believe, you've been misled, misinformed, and mistaken all the way through. But I won't, because it's not really an argument - just an easy way to avoid facing the fact that the vast majority of informed individuals think you're dead wrong.


You can call me an apologist, a sheep, whatever you like - but I'm right.

 

[ARealConservative]

And your belief of this is based on...? You've done a survey of the people who voted on this? You have historical evidence that indicates what they thought?

Yes, we do. We know that certain states supporting the ratification had laws on the books that would become unconstitutional. We have transcripts from people arguing for and against ratification - they don't deal with corporate personhood, seperation of church/state at all. Yoiur side of the argument has nothing to go on except that your apointed heroes made bad rulings.

We also have SCOTUS rulings that were completely ignored by later SCOTUS rulings even though they contradict each other.


Makes no sense

Even if we are to assume that you're correct, we're faced with the question of whether or not it really matters. Believe it or not, things have changed over the past 200+ years. As a result, the application of different portions of the Constitution has adapted to meet it.

I understand you have to defend a living constitution. That is the only way to make it out of modern day law school.

That's just like, your opinion, man.

Its my opinion that you have to agree with a living constitution to make it out of law school. Correct.

The problem is you know in your heart its true. You can justify it by saying you honestly agree with this concept, but you know those that dont agree seal their fate.