For Constitutionalists Only!

[goldcatt]

Um.. none of those amendments say that... they say these rights shall not be infringed.

The Second uses that language. The Ninth "reserves" unenumerated rights to the people. The Fourth explicitly states the "right" of the people to a whole list of things shall not be violated. The Sixth states the accused "shall enjoy" certain rights. The Seventh does not use the word "right", but refers to a long-standing common law right in accordance with the Framers' familiarity with and reliance on the dominant legal system of the time.

In other words, rights are granted, retained or affirmatively protected in these Amendments (and I'm sure I missed some others).

Which one of those says 'the right to ___ is hereby granted'?

Rights are not given. The Ninth amendment makes this clear. If right were given by the government, then only those rights enumerated or clearly derived would be granted. Amanedment Nine makes it clear that this is not the case. Man is assumed to have natural rights(your opinion ion this subject does not matter. It is not a philosophical discussion. The law is based on this assumption). Man's rights and liberties may not be infringed or restricted except as the law permits.

The law is restricts rights, it does not grant them, just as it grants authority to the central government, it does not restrict it (only those powers granted are are given, as opposed to the state having unlimited authority save for restrictions imposed.

These are very simple matters and crucial to any meaningful understanding of the Constitution, the law, or the nation of the Founding Fathers

You're absolutely right, we are not arguing philoisophy but law. Which is why completely ignoring not only the larger legal context of the time (not philosophical, but LEGAL) and the intervening 200+ years of constitutional interpretation makes your reasoning completely flawed. (See previous post).
You and several others try to derail a broad subject into narrow and trivial minutiae because it's where you live and how you think, in a single snapshot you believe encompasses 500 years of relevant legal history and thought, but it's not the reality of the law.
Now, you have every right to disagree with the last 200+ years of contitutional jurisprudence from any and all points on the spectrum, but to claim it somehow doesn't exist or doesn't count because it wasn't placed in the original document in the exact words you would use is where you fall off the track.

 

[JBeukema]

It's clear, Gold, you either never read or didn't understand anything I've said regarding the matter

 

[goldcatt]

It's clear, Gold, you either never read or didn't understand anything I've said regarding the matter

If I misunderstood, how exactly?

 

[GHook93]

1. When the Constitution was signed, there was some fear that it could lead to a repressive central government- so they passed the 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights, basic rights to protect citizens against abuse by the federal government.

True!

2. But in America, there are two government: the federal, and the government of the state in which we live. The Bill of Rights only limits what the federal government can do to us; there are no protections against human and civil rights violations by state governments. And state laws are the ones that affect our lives much more directly: police matters, public works, real estate, auto regulations, domestic relations, wills, and civil lawsuits, among other aspects of daily life.

There are also city and state governments. If you think they can't really effect you, then you have never been to Chicago, where the openly rape you!

The 14th amendment (specifically the Due Process Clause) and the case law followed it has established that the bill of rights also goes for State government. However, the Supremacy clause and the interstate commerce clause do much to supersede State laws.

But you bring up a great point on State Government abusing the people. For all the people that call out for State Government to have more authority cough cough Kevin Kennedy cough cough, they don't take into account the abuse State governments inflict onto the people. For starters take a look at your property tax bill (and in IL case your sales tax - 12% - that is communism)!

3. After the Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment was enacted to prohibit slavery. But in the South and in the North, state legislatures passed hundreds of laws discriminating against blacks, such as voting, holding office, using public facilities, testifying in court, etc.
So Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, which included: “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.”

Not necessarily true. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, Jim Crow laws were in effect and enforced well after the this. It took the courage of Martin Luther King Jr to get change to America. The real change came in the form of Fair Housing Act, the Civil Right Amendments (not to mention the Civil Right Amendment of 1868 was finally followed), the evil and unjust Plessy v. Ferguson "Separate but Equal Clause" was overturned by Brown v. the Board of Eduation. The 14th amendment was an important act, but with one disastrous clause (necessary for the time, but killing us now) in the birth right amendment that illegal aliens are abusing!

4. How is an amendment ratified? Article 5: “it does not become part of the Constitution unless it is ratified by three-quarters of the states (either the legislatures thereof, or in amendment conventions).”
The requisite number of states (28) ratified it in 1868. Maybe.

Article V, which is title Amending the Constitution: By 2/3 of both House mean 67 votes in the Senate (the D's currently have 60) and 290 in the house (th D's have 256 currently). OR by 2/3 of the state legislatures have to call for a constitutional convention (which would be a 2nd) and then they can change the constitution there!

5. But-
a. . When a fair vote was taken on it in 1865, in the aftermath of the Civil War, it was rejected by the Southern states and all the border states. Failing to secure the necessary three-fourths of the states, the Republican party, which controlled Congress, passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 which placed the entire South under military rule (designed to remove with "Military force'' the lawfully constituted State Legislatures of the 10 Southern States), and they were ‘forced’ to ratify.

Desperate times call for desperate matters. We just fought the bloodiest war in US history. More Americans died in that war than all our other wars combined. Those bastards tossed away the Union and had there coming ups! So they were forced into doing a fews things. Sorry if I say ! They made their bed, so it was time for them to lay in it!

b. The Joint Resolution proposing said amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress per Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

c. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution.

You do recognize these was an extraordinary time, correct? That there was a losing and a winning party! If there were not measure taken to protect the newly freed slaves, then a 2nd civil war might have occurred.

d. When the State of Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867, making the 10th state to have rejected the same, or more than one fourth of the total number of 36 states of the Union as of that date, thus leaving less than three fourths of the states possibly to ratify the same, the Amendment failed of ratification in fact and in law, and it could not have been revived except by a new Joint Resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives in accordance with Constitutional requirement.

States don't per se ratify an amendment, Congress does. 2/3 of the states can call for a constitutional convention and then vote on ratifying it then!

If you hadn't noticed, few states followed the Civil Rights Amendments of 1868/the 14th amendment until nearly a century later. Hell the courts utterly ignored them also!

e. Ohio and New Jersey-withdrew support after it was ratified.

Point? I do believe their Congressman voted for it!

So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury:

Was the Fourteenth Amendment legally and constitutionally ratified and enacted?

And, what are the ramifications if it is ruled unconstitutional?

Yes, below 2/3 of both houses and states ratified it by 1868.

Side Notes:
The Confederate States broke Article I Section 10 Clause 3 by raising armies, going into compacts with other states and engaging in war. This is grounds for the US government to take punitive measures against them.

Article II Section 3 Clause 2 gives Congress the power to decide how to punish treason. And its hard to argue that the confederate states weren't traitors.

Article I Section 6 Clause 1 states that Congressman will be compensated for their services, privileged from arrested and be allowed to attend session of Congress (meaning they can place a vote and debate issues), except for cases of treason, felony or breach of peace. I think taking part in the civil war for the seceding side counts as treason and a breach of peace!

They all eventually accepted it!

Nevertheless, it received the necessary State support in 1868 when it was ratified. Check the website I sited.

In 1968 30 states out 40 states ratified it, with only 27 states needed for the 2/3 vote! By 1870 you had 33 states (including TX) out of the 40 accepted it.

Note: 10 states were created after 1870: AK 1959, AZ 1912, CO 1876, HI 1959, ID 1890, ND 1889, OK 1907, SD 1889, WA 1889 and WY 1890!
Ratification of Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The 14th Amendment was ratified and entered into the constitution legally and justly!

 

[GHook93]

Congress didn't introduce it until June 13, 1866, so how was there a "fair vote" in 1865?

It was also ratified in 1868 when 30 out of the 40 states ratified it! 33 out of the 40 jumped on board in 1970 including TX! Note only 27 where needed!

Ratification of Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[GHook93]

In my opinion, the XIV Amendment was not properly ratified.

2/3 of the states were needed! 30 out of the 40 ratified it in 1868 (the year it was ratified), when only 27 where needed! With 33 jumping on board by 1970.

Just curious do you say this because: (A) You have trouble with simple math, (B) You don't give a shit about actual results, (C) Your mad that we can't now rape, rob and kill blackie and brownie without going to jail or (D) All of the Above!

 

[GHook93]

PC, not saying I doubt you, but why do you say the southern states were forced to ratify the amendment? In other words, link?

Ravi I respect Political Chic, because I think she is right on many issues. But here she is dead wrong. If her premise is correct, then why were 7 states allowed not to ratify the 14th amendment in 1868 (the only year it really matters, since ratification matters only in the year its ratified?

TX, VA, MS, DL, MY, KY and CA didn't ratify it in 1868 (note: CA waiting until 1959). And correct me if I am wrong but aren't TX, MS , VA, DL, MY and KY considered part of the South?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I wasn't referring to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. You are 100+ years late with that reference. I was referring to the free slaves. Due process was about them. That was the purpose. The debate and legislative intent records make it very clear. The courts have bastardized the real meaning and purpose of the XIV Amendment. And in doing so, they have ceded power to themselves, that was not theirs to have, in my opinion.

why do you think that each provision is only intended to address one specific problem?

it was clear, always, that no state could grant fewer constitutional protections than the federal constitution... or else the INTENT of the provision would be perverted by the states and was perverted by the states... with slavery... with jim crow laws.

and THAT is why the need for the amendment.

the constitution is not some fundamentalist bible... there are 200 years of constitutional construction which say so.....

Well that's exactly the problem, Jill.

These people truly do think that way.

They imagine that the floundering fathers bound the government and permanently answered each and every question every generation faced literally.

Why do they think that?

Because they are stupid.

Not their fault.

That's just how God made most of us.

So, because you disagree with me, I am stupid?

* Main Entry: 1stu·pid
* Pronunciation: \ˈstü-pəd, ˈstyü-\
* Function: adjective
* Etymology: Middle French stupide, from Latin stupidus, from stupēre to be numb, be astonished — more at type
* Date: 1541

1 a : slow of mind : obtuse b : given to unintelligent decisions or acts : acting in an unintelligent or careless manner c : lacking intelligence or reason : brutish
2 : dulled in feeling or sensation : torpid <still stupid from the sedative>
3 : marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting : senseless <a stupid decision>
4 a : lacking interest or point <a stupid event> b : vexatious, exasperating <the stupid car won't start>

— stu·pid·ly adverb

— stu·pid·ness noun
synonyms stupid, dull, dense, crass, dumb mean lacking in power to absorb ideas or impressions. stupid implies a slow-witted or dazed state of mind that may be either congenital or temporary <stupid students just keeping the seats warm> <stupid with drink>. dull suggests a slow or sluggish mind such as results from disease, depression, or shock <monotonous work that leaves the mind dull>. dense implies a thickheaded imperviousness to ideas <too dense to take a hint>. crass suggests a grossness of mind precluding discrimination or delicacy <a crass, materialistic people>. dumb applies to an exasperating obtuseness or lack of comprehension <too dumb to figure out what's going on>.
I am not a "these people," whatever you mean by that broad generality. If you wish to debate me, address me as the individual I am, and not with a "these people" label.

There is nothing in my posting that suggest I am stupid, if you actually believe in the notion that a word has a defined meaning.

Remove the broad generality and projection from your post, and the only thing of reason and substance left, is a period. You might want to ruminate over that salient point.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

In my opinion, the XIV Amendment was not properly ratified.

2/3 of the states were needed! 30 out of the 40 ratified it in 1868 (the year it was ratified), when only 27 where needed! With 33 jumping on board by 1970.

Just curious do you say this because: (A) You have trouble with simple math, (B) You don't give a shit about actual results, (C) Your mad that we can't now rape, rob and kill blackie and brownie without going to jail or (D) All of the Above!

If you were truly interested in my reasoning, and wanted to engage in honest debate with me, you wouldn't have posted this inane drivel. I am not going to waste any more time on any other posting from you, if this is all you have to offer.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

why do you think that each provision is only intended to address one specific problem?

it was clear, always, that no state could grant fewer constitutional protections than the federal constitution... or else the INTENT of the provision would be perverted by the states and was perverted by the states... with slavery... with jim crow laws.

and THAT is why the need for the amendment.

the constitution is not some fundamentalist bible... there are 200 years of constitutional construction which say so.....

Well that's exactly the problem, Jill.

These people truly do think that way.

They imagine that the floundering fathers bound the government and permanently answered each and every question every generation faced literally.

Why do they think that?

Because they are stupid.

Not their fault.

That's just how God made most of us.

Nah, they're not stupid. If they were stupid I wouldn't waste so much time arguing with them. They have a very, very narrow reading of a document that speaks in broad terms, but there's room in the language for all kinds of arguments. Which (I thought anyway) was the whole point of the thread from the beginning - making those arguments.
Of course, on this thread I've broken the first rule of political debate: Never attempt to argue the Constitution with a Libertarian without a bottle of excedrin handy!

If the Libertarian reference is to me, I am not a Libertarian. I refuse to wrap myself in a political label created by other people. I am my own person.

 

[jillian]

They do read the Constitution in a vaccum, relying solely on secondary sources, because they do not (based on their extremely narrow reading) accept the courts' constitutional power to interpret the COTUS. Instead, they rely on historical secondary sources representing one point of view among the many that went into building what we now know as the constitution. It's both selective and narrow, far too narrow really, but my point was it's a reasoned if flawed argument and not "stupid".

Honestly? I'm at the point where I really don't care what they think. That was done and dusted with Marbury v Madison (and yes, I know you know... I'm just venting)... As you pointed out, ultimately what the constitution is about is maintaining the balance of power and interfering as little as possible with people's liberty. It was not, as some here would have you believe, to keep government from providing services or overseeing the public welfare.

And, just as times changed so as to make slavery, segregation and not allowing women the vote unacceptable, time continues to change to allow adaptations not in the constitution, but how it is interpreted to apply to the issues arising today.

The Founding Fathers they rely on so much would roll over in their graves if they saw what these people were trying to do to this country.

 

[goldcatt]

Well that's exactly the problem, Jill.

These people truly do think that way.

They imagine that the floundering fathers bound the government and permanently answered each and every question every generation faced literally.

Why do they think that?

Because they are stupid.

Not their fault.

That's just how God made most of us.

Nah, they're not stupid. If they were stupid I wouldn't waste so much time arguing with them. They have a very, very narrow reading of a document that speaks in broad terms, but there's room in the language for all kinds of arguments. Which (I thought anyway) was the whole point of the thread from the beginning - making those arguments.
Of course, on this thread I've broken the first rule of political debate: Never attempt to argue the Constitution with a Libertarian without a bottle of excedrin handy!

If the Libertarian reference is to me, I am not a Libertarian. I refuse to wrap myself in a political label created by other people. I am my own person.

Nope, you weren't part of the discussion at the time.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Nah, they're not stupid. If they were stupid I wouldn't waste so much time arguing with them. They have a very, very narrow reading of a document that speaks in broad terms, but there's room in the language for all kinds of arguments. Which (I thought anyway) was the whole point of the thread from the beginning - making those arguments.
Of course, on this thread I've broken the first rule of political debate: Never attempt to argue the Constitution with a Libertarian without a bottle of excedrin handy!

If the Libertarian reference is to me, I am not a Libertarian. I refuse to wrap myself in a political label created by other people. I am my own person.

Nope, you weren't part of the discussion at the time.

Very good. Thank you for the clarification. The tenor of the debate has started a downward dissent, in my opinion.

 

[goldcatt]

They do read the Constitution in a vaccum, relying solely on secondary sources, because they do not (based on their extremely narrow reading) accept the courts' constitutional power to interpret the COTUS. Instead, they rely on historical secondary sources representing one point of view among the many that went into building what we now know as the constitution. It's both selective and narrow, far too narrow really, but my point was it's a reasoned if flawed argument and not "stupid".

Honestly? I'm at the point where I really don't care what they think. That was done and dusted with Marbury v Madison (and yes, I know you know... I'm just venting)... As you pointed out, ultimately what the constitution is about is maintaining the balance of power and interfering as little as possible with people's liberty. It was not, as some here would have you believe, to keep government from providing services or overseeing the public welfare.

And, just as times changed so as to make slavery, segregation and not allowing women the vote unacceptable, time continues to change to allow adaptations not in the constitution, but how it is interpreted to apply to the issues arising today.

The Founding Fathers they rely on so much would roll over in their graves if they saw what these people were trying to do to this country.

And of course you know where Marbury came from, and why. Which is why even if the later arguments are intelligent, they flow from a false premise and are therefore false from the beginning.

I have no problem with an originalist interpretation that doesn't deny reality, however. As I've said repeatedly I believe there is room for debate in the language. Just not enough room to engage in the fantasy of ignoring the last 220 years as somehow "unconstitutional" when Marbury was only an affirmation of hundreds of years of common law principles, the only system the much-vaunted Framers had ever experienced.

But I like to argue, so I'll take what I can get.

 

[goldcatt]

If the Libertarian reference is to me, I am not a Libertarian. I refuse to wrap myself in a political label created by other people. I am my own person.

Nope, you weren't part of the discussion at the time.

Very good. Thank you for the clarification. The tenor of the debate has started a downward dissent, in my opinion.

After ice cream, there's nowhere to go but down.

You know how I feel about this subject, BGG. I'm all for room for argument in constitutional interpretation without name-calling. But it's also necessary to point out errors. That's debate, not personal.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

Nope, you weren't part of the discussion at the time.

Very good. Thank you for the clarification. The tenor of the debate has started a downward dissent, in my opinion.

After ice cream, there's nowhere to go but down.

You know how I feel about this subject, BGG. I'm all for room for argument in constitutional interpretation without name-calling. But it's also necessary to point out errors. That's debate, not personal.

I have no problem with that gold. That is how it should be. But in my opinion, employing broad generalizations to make fun of others does not create an atmosphere that is conducive to good debate.

You are right, It is hard to beat a great bowl of ice cream. I will be treating myself to homemade ice cream later on today.

 

[goldcatt]

Very good. Thank you for the clarification. The tenor of the debate has started a downward dissent, in my opinion.

After ice cream, there's nowhere to go but down.

You know how I feel about this subject, BGG. I'm all for room for argument in constitutional interpretation without name-calling. But it's also necessary to point out errors. That's debate, not personal.

I have no problem with that gold. That is how it should be. But in my opinion, employing broad generalizations to make fun of others does not create an atmosphere that is conducive to good debate.

You are right, It is hard to beat a great bowl of ice cream. I will be treating myself to homemade ice cream later on today.

Overgeneralization will always happen. It's too easy to fall into, especially on a political board where most people identify themselves and each other with some political label or other. Never saw a forum where it didn't happen. Doesn't make it right, but it's not a mortal sin either.

Homemade? Now I'm really jealous.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

After ice cream, there's nowhere to go but down.

You know how I feel about this subject, BGG. I'm all for room for argument in constitutional interpretation without name-calling. But it's also necessary to point out errors. That's debate, not personal.

I have no problem with that gold. That is how it should be. But in my opinion, employing broad generalizations to make fun of others does not create an atmosphere that is conducive to good debate.

You are right, It is hard to beat a great bowl of ice cream. I will be treating myself to homemade ice cream later on today.

Overgeneralization will always happen. It's too easy to fall into, especially on a political board where most people identify themselves and each other with some political label or other. Never saw a forum where it didn't happen. Doesn't make it right, but it's not a mortal sin either.

Homemade? Now I'm really jealous.

I see that kind of behavior as unconstitutional gold.















Nothing like homemade. I don't require much in life. Homemade ice cream is one thing I do require. I believe most problems can be worked out over a bowl of ice cream.

 

[goldcatt]

I have no problem with that gold. That is how it should be. But in my opinion, employing broad generalizations to make fun of others does not create an atmosphere that is conducive to good debate.

You are right, It is hard to beat a great bowl of ice cream. I will be treating myself to homemade ice cream later on today.

Overgeneralization will always happen. It's too easy to fall into, especially on a political board where most people identify themselves and each other with some political label or other. Never saw a forum where it didn't happen. Doesn't make it right, but it's not a mortal sin either.

Homemade? Now I'm really jealous.

I see that kind of behavior as unconstitutional gold.















Nothing like homemade. I don't require much in life. Homemade ice cream is one thing I do require. I believe most problems can be worked out over a bowl of ice cream.

Nope, the right to overgeneralize on political message boards is absolutely one of those unenumerated rights referred to in the Ninth. As are the rights of flaming, abuse of smilies and beating upon trolls, as long as it's not done in a crowded theater of course. The Most High Supreme Court of the Interwebz ruled it in some case or other.

Settling arguments over a bowl of homemade ice cream sounds good to me. I used to like to settle things over a bottle of good tequila, but that led to one too many incidents like one I posted on another thread.

 

[The T]

If the Libertarian reference is to me, I am not a Libertarian. I refuse to wrap myself in a political label created by other people. I am my own person.

Nope, you weren't part of the discussion at the time.

Very good. Thank you for the clarification. The tenor of the debate has started a downward dissent, in my opinion.

And Opinion is like having a sphincter. Everyone has one.