Constitutional Question

[ConHog]

In re the 14th Amendment to the Constitution;

Section one of the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the U.S. 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 U.S.; 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."

What is the original intent of the author(s) of The Constitution?

Why in the first two phrases use the word "CITIZENS" and in the last two phrases use the words "ANY PERSON"?
If the intent was to allow a law such as 1070 wouldn't the authors use the word "Citizens" exclusively?

because it was intended that the rights cotained in the constitution be granted to all people... including those who were not citizens. for example, if someone is here on a visa, and they get arrested, they are still entitled to due process, etc., though due process may vary depending upon what interests were at stake.

I believe it was intended that SOME rights were meant to be extended to all people. For instance even if you're here on a visa, you are not entitled to carry a weapon.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wherein the language of the amendment do you find such an intent? If not in the amendment, where did you learn that it was intended exclusively for freed slaves?
Does the language mean only free slaves have the rights named? Does it suggest persons in the 21st century are denied such rights?

IMO the proof that the 14th referenced the freed slaves re the citizenship clause lies in the fact that it is surrounded by the 13th and 15th. otherwise that's a HUGE coincidence.

Did the 14th amendment apply to Indians yet? Or were they not considered persons?

No I do not think the Indians were American citizens or even thought of as such.
Elk versus Wilkins (1884) the Supreme Court

In 1887 Congress passed the Dawes Act which allowed Indians to become citizens if they had abandoned their tribes and adopted the habits of civilized life. It was generally assumed that "civilized life" meant that they could speak English, had become Christian, and were actively engaged in farming. In 1924 and again in 1940, Congress passed legislation granted citizenship to all Indians.

 

[goldcatt]

IMO the proof that the 14th referenced the freed slaves re the citizenship clause lies in the fact that it is surrounded by the 13th and 15th. otherwise that's a HUGE coincidence.

Did the 14th amendment apply to Indians yet? Or were they not considered persons?

No I do not think the Indians were American citizens or even thought of as such.
Elk versus Wilkins (1884) the Supreme Court

In 1887 Congress passed the Dawes Act which allowed Indians to become citizens if they had abandoned their tribes and adopted the habits of civilized life. It was generally assumed that "civilized life" meant that they could speak English, had become Christian, and were actively engaged in farming. In 1924 and again in 1940, Congress passed legislation granted citizenship to all Indians.

Indians had to deal with their status as subject nations, which explains the separate treatment. Doesn't make it right, but the intricacies of Indian law are another thread altogether.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In re the 14th Amendment to the Constitution;

Section one of the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the U.S. 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 U.S.; 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."

What is the original intent of the author(s) of The Constitution?

Why in the first two phrases use the word "CITIZENS" and in the last two phrases use the words "ANY PERSON"?
If the intent was to allow a law such as 1070 wouldn't the authors use the word "Citizens" exclusively?

the amendment has more than one clause. some of it deals with those traitorous bastards of the Confederacy.

and if the amendment was meant to be solely for slaves, it would say so. it doesn't.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

---

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law or a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Go to hell son of a bitch

14th Amendment dealt with insurrectionists -- traitors: the Confederacy.

It's enshrined in the US Constitution.

This is why southern cons hate the Constitution. It shames their bullshit culture.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

as with most things the fear brokers and the wingnuts peddle, much is left out. Like the fact that all of the Constitution has been made up of compromises everyone agreed they would later honor.

Other senators, including Senator John Conness,[9] supported the amendment, believing citizenship should cover all children born in the United States. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

yep

 

[Flopper]

Because the writers are human and they make mistakes. Maybe this is heresy to some, but it's true. Whether it be the Constitution, the Bible, or any other such document there are parts that are just not worded correctly and are confusing and unclear. For the Bible we have ministers and priests to interpret and for the Constitution we have the Supreme Court.

Exactly so, the 2nd is a perfect example of said mistake, I mean does anyone believe they really meant for it to be so confusing?

no mistakes in the documents. the only mistakes are in the readings of it.

the 14th dealt with the traitorous bastards of the Confederacy. and the authors knew about children born here of non citizens. if it were only for slaves they would have written it that way. they didn't.

that is why the fear brokers are talking about changing the amendment. they want to make babies criminals.

---

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law or a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

There are many sections of the constitution that were written to deal with a specific problem of the day. Yet we apply it apply it to all types legislation. The 14th was the foundation of the civil rights act which is probably not what the writers had in mind.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Exactly so, the 2nd is a perfect example of said mistake, I mean does anyone believe they really meant for it to be so confusing?

no mistakes in the documents. the only mistakes are in the readings of it.

the 14th dealt with the traitorous bastards of the Confederacy. and the authors knew about children born here of non citizens. if it were only for slaves they would have written it that way. they didn't.

that is why the fear brokers are talking about changing the amendment. they want to make babies criminals.

---

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law or a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

There are many sections of the constitution that were written to deal with a specific problem of the day. Yet we apply it apply it to all types legislation. The 14th was the foundation of the civil rights act which is probably not what the writers had in mind.

By your reasoning the proliferation of firearms able to kill tens of human beings in seconds was probably not what the founders had in mind.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Exactly so, the 2nd is a perfect example of said mistake, I mean does anyone believe they really meant for it to be so confusing?

no mistakes in the documents. the only mistakes are in the readings of it.

the 14th dealt with the traitorous bastards of the Confederacy. and the authors knew about children born here of non citizens. if it were only for slaves they would have written it that way. they didn't.

that is why the fear brokers are talking about changing the amendment. they want to make babies criminals.

---

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law or a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

There are many sections of the constitution that were written to deal with a specific problem of the day. Yet we apply it apply it to all types legislation. The 14th was the foundation of the civil rights act which is probably not what the writers had in mind.

odd huh? how laws like all actions have unintended consequences?

the people who voted on the 14th had different ideas what was meant. compromises do that. this bullshit about what was intended is just that -- bullshit.

and so IT goes...

 

[goldcatt]

Exactly so, the 2nd is a perfect example of said mistake, I mean does anyone believe they really meant for it to be so confusing?

no mistakes in the documents. the only mistakes are in the readings of it.

the 14th dealt with the traitorous bastards of the Confederacy. and the authors knew about children born here of non citizens. if it were only for slaves they would have written it that way. they didn't.

that is why the fear brokers are talking about changing the amendment. they want to make babies criminals.

---

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law or a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

There are many sections of the constitution that were written to deal with a specific problem of the day. Yet we apply it apply it to all types legislation. The 14th was the foundation of the civil rights act which is probably not what the writers had in mind.

On the contrary, I'd say it was exactly what they had in mind.

Remember slavery was only a aymptom of the tensions that led to the Civil War, not the cause. The cause was a lack of cohesion between the States, and the separate States claiming their residents as their own citizens over whom they had primary control rather than American citizens.

If you're a States Righter you'll disagree, and we can have that discussion.

But the Civil War was the inevitable end result of many big, uncooperative dogs walking one human. Section One of the Fourteenth is designed to put the human back in charge in two ways: It makes the citizens of the several States its own, and it places an obligation on the States to follow a central set of rules for their treatment of those citizens. Without the clarity of the 14th citizenship and DP/EP Clauses, the application of the Comity Clause and the privileges and immunities of United States citizenship could be questioned by the States....again.

It basically addresses both the balance implied in the 9th and the power and control issue that was the primary cause of the conflict.

The former Confederate States may have seen that as punishment, but in actuality it set the stage for all citizens to be granted equal treatment under the Federal laws. And what was the Civil Rights Act but a vehicle for enforcing that equal treatment?

 

[jillian]

In re the 14th Amendment to the Constitution;

Section one of the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the U.S. 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 U.S.; 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."

What is the original intent of the author(s) of The Constitution?

Why in the first two phrases use the word "CITIZENS" and in the last two phrases use the words "ANY PERSON"?
If the intent was to allow a law such as 1070 wouldn't the authors use the word "Citizens" exclusively?

because it was intended that the rights cotained in the constitution be granted to all people... including those who were not citizens. for example, if someone is here on a visa, and they get arrested, they are still entitled to due process, etc., though due process may vary depending upon what interests were at stake.

I believe it was intended that SOME rights were meant to be extended to all people. For instance even if you're here on a visa, you are not entitled to carry a weapon.

interesting. i think it's safe to say that's one they wouldn't extend at all... under any circumstances.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

In re the 14th Amendment to the Constitution;

Section one of the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the U.S. 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 U.S.; 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."

What is the original intent of the author(s) of The Constitution?

Why in the first two phrases use the word "CITIZENS" and in the last two phrases use the words "ANY PERSON"?
If the intent was to allow a law such as 1070 wouldn't the authors use the word "Citizens" exclusively?

the amendment has more than one clause. some of it deals with those traitorous bastards of the Confederacy.

and if the amendment was meant to be solely for slaves, it would say so. it doesn't.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

---

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law or a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

the 14th dealt with the insurrectionist traitors: the Confederates

 

[Flopper]

no mistakes in the documents. the only mistakes are in the readings of it.

the 14th dealt with the traitorous bastards of the Confederacy. and the authors knew about children born here of non citizens. if it were only for slaves they would have written it that way. they didn't.

that is why the fear brokers are talking about changing the amendment. they want to make babies criminals.

---

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law or a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

There are many sections of the constitution that were written to deal with a specific problem of the day. Yet we apply it apply it to all types legislation. The 14th was the foundation of the civil rights act which is probably not what the writers had in mind.

On the contrary, I'd say it was exactly what they had in mind.

Remember slavery was only a aymptom of the tensions that led to the Civil War, not the cause. The cause was a lack of cohesion between the States, and the separate States claiming their residents as their own citizens over whom they had primary control rather than American citizens.

If you're a States Righter you'll disagree, and we can have that discussion.

But the Civil War was the inevitable end result of many big, uncooperative dogs walking one human. Section One of the Fourteenth is designed to put the human back in charge in two ways: It makes the citizens of the several States its own, and it places an obligation on the States to follow a central set of rules for their treatment of those citizens. Without the clarity of the 14th citizenship and DP/EP Clauses, the application of the Comity Clause and the privileges and immunities of United States citizenship could be questioned by the States....again.

It basically addresses both the balance implied in the 9th and the power and control issue that was the primary cause of the conflict.

The former Confederate States may have seen that as punishment, but in actuality it set the stage for all citizens to be granted equal treatment under the Federal laws. And what was the Civil Rights Act but a vehicle for enforcing that equal treatment?

I think we are talking about is a principal. The writers were addressing slavery, not people who were free but with abridged rights. However as you read the 14th, it seems clear that had the writers been alive today, they would have agreed that the civil rights act was exactly in keeping with the 14th amendment. I think too many people want to literally interpret the constitution without considering that the writers could not be explicit on current matters of our day because they were not of our day.

 

[goldcatt]

There are many sections of the constitution that were written to deal with a specific problem of the day. Yet we apply it apply it to all types legislation. The 14th was the foundation of the civil rights act which is probably not what the writers had in mind.

On the contrary, I'd say it was exactly what they had in mind.

Remember slavery was only a aymptom of the tensions that led to the Civil War, not the cause. The cause was a lack of cohesion between the States, and the separate States claiming their residents as their own citizens over whom they had primary control rather than American citizens.

If you're a States Righter you'll disagree, and we can have that discussion.

But the Civil War was the inevitable end result of many big, uncooperative dogs walking one human. Section One of the Fourteenth is designed to put the human back in charge in two ways: It makes the citizens of the several States its own, and it places an obligation on the States to follow a central set of rules for their treatment of those citizens. Without the clarity of the 14th citizenship and DP/EP Clauses, the application of the Comity Clause and the privileges and immunities of United States citizenship could be questioned by the States....again.

It basically addresses both the balance implied in the 9th and the power and control issue that was the primary cause of the conflict.

The former Confederate States may have seen that as punishment, but in actuality it set the stage for all citizens to be granted equal treatment under the Federal laws. And what was the Civil Rights Act but a vehicle for enforcing that equal treatment?

I think we are talking about is a principal. The writers were addressing slavery, not people who were free but with abridged rights. However as you read the 14th, it seems clear that had the writers been alive today, they would have agreed that the civil rights act was exactly in keeping with the 14th amendment. I think too many people want to literally interpret the constitution without considering that the writers could not be explicit on current matters of our day because they were not of our day.

I would disagree that the 14th addressd only slavery. Look at the entire Amendment in context, Section 1 was included here rather than with the 13th for a reason. What does the rest of the 14th do?

I agree with the rest though.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

On the contrary, I'd say it was exactly what they had in mind.

Remember slavery was only a aymptom of the tensions that led to the Civil War, not the cause. The cause was a lack of cohesion between the States, and the separate States claiming their residents as their own citizens over whom they had primary control rather than American citizens.

If you're a States Righter you'll disagree, and we can have that discussion.

But the Civil War was the inevitable end result of many big, uncooperative dogs walking one human. Section One of the Fourteenth is designed to put the human back in charge in two ways: It makes the citizens of the several States its own, and it places an obligation on the States to follow a central set of rules for their treatment of those citizens. Without the clarity of the 14th citizenship and DP/EP Clauses, the application of the Comity Clause and the privileges and immunities of United States citizenship could be questioned by the States....again.

It basically addresses both the balance implied in the 9th and the power and control issue that was the primary cause of the conflict.

The former Confederate States may have seen that as punishment, but in actuality it set the stage for all citizens to be granted equal treatment under the Federal laws. And what was the Civil Rights Act but a vehicle for enforcing that equal treatment?

I think we are talking about is a principal. The writers were addressing slavery, not people who were free but with abridged rights. However as you read the 14th, it seems clear that had the writers been alive today, they would have agreed that the civil rights act was exactly in keeping with the 14th amendment. I think too many people want to literally interpret the constitution without considering that the writers could not be explicit on current matters of our day because they were not of our day.

I would disagree that the 14th addressd only slavery. Look at the entire Amendment in context, Section 1 was included here rather than with the 13th for a reason. What does the rest of the 14th do?

I agree with the rest though.

If the 14th amendment only concerned itself with slavery...was hat because thecivil war was only a bout slavery?

The 14th addressed the crap the insurrectionist traitors brought upon the USA.

The Confederacy was filled with traitors. that fact is addressed in the 14th.

 

[goldcatt]

I think we are talking about is a principal. The writers were addressing slavery, not people who were free but with abridged rights. However as you read the 14th, it seems clear that had the writers been alive today, they would have agreed that the civil rights act was exactly in keeping with the 14th amendment. I think too many people want to literally interpret the constitution without considering that the writers could not be explicit on current matters of our day because they were not of our day.

I would disagree that the 14th addressd only slavery. Look at the entire Amendment in context, Section 1 was included here rather than with the 13th for a reason. What does the rest of the 14th do?

I agree with the rest though.

If the 14th amendment only concerned itself with slavery...was hat because thecivil war was only a bout slavery?

The 14th addressed the crap the insurrectionist traitors brought upon the USA.

The Confederacy was filled with traitors. that fact is addressed in the 14th.

Dante, I disagree. The Civil War was not about slavery, it was sold that way but it was a fight over power between and among the States as well as between the State and Federal governments.

The 14th, if you look at it in context, sets limits on what former Confederates could do - but also gives a process by which they and the States they come from could be rehabilitated. Citizenship and P&I go hand and hand with that. In order to be rehabilitated, the citizens of the Confederate States had to be clearly and without any question be American citizens first. And the States themselves had to be functioning under Federal procedure, meaning the same Due Process the Feds followed.

Take a good look at it, the entire Amendment in context with teh Comity Clause, and think about what they were acomplishing here. If it were only about giving citizenship to slaves, it would have been included in the 13th. That was not so. Why? Because they were addressing the real underlying issues, not just the surface tension.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I would disagree that the 14th addressd only slavery. Look at the entire Amendment in context, Section 1 was included here rather than with the 13th for a reason. What does the rest of the 14th do?

I agree with the rest though.

If the 14th amendment only concerned itself with slavery...was hat because thecivil war was only a bout slavery?

The 14th addressed the crap the insurrectionist traitors brought upon the USA.

The Confederacy was filled with traitors. that fact is addressed in the 14th.

Dante, I disagree. The Civil War was not about slavery, it was sold that way but it was a fight over power between and among the States as well as between the State and Federal governments.

The 14th, if you look at it in context, sets limits on what former Confederates could do - but also gives a process by which they and the States they come from could be rehabilitated. Citizenship and P&I go hand and hand with that. In order to be rehabilitated, the citizens of the Confederate States had to be clearly and without any question be American citizens first. And the States themselves had to be functioning under Federal procedure, meaning the same Due Process the Feds followed.

Take a good look at it, the entire Amendment in context with teh Comity Clause, and think about what they were acomplishing here. If it were only about giving citizenship to slaves, it would have been included in the 13th. That was not so. Why? Because they were addressing the real underlying issues, not just the surface tension.

I'm tired. I actually misread where you were coming from.

 

[goldcatt]

If the 14th amendment only concerned itself with slavery...was hat because thecivil war was only a bout slavery?

The 14th addressed the crap the insurrectionist traitors brought upon the USA.

The Confederacy was filled with traitors. that fact is addressed in the 14th.

Dante, I disagree. The Civil War was not about slavery, it was sold that way but it was a fight over power between and among the States as well as between the State and Federal governments.

The 14th, if you look at it in context, sets limits on what former Confederates could do - but also gives a process by which they and the States they come from could be rehabilitated. Citizenship and P&I go hand and hand with that. In order to be rehabilitated, the citizens of the Confederate States had to be clearly and without any question be American citizens first. And the States themselves had to be functioning under Federal procedure, meaning the same Due Process the Feds followed.

Take a good look at it, the entire Amendment in context with teh Comity Clause, and think about what they were acomplishing here. If it were only about giving citizenship to slaves, it would have been included in the 13th. That was not so. Why? Because they were addressing the real underlying issues, not just the surface tension.

I'm tired. I actually misread where you were coming from.

It's late here too. I might not have been clear. But....we agree!