N
NewGuy
Guest
- Thread starter
- #101
Originally posted by gop_jeff
OK, NewGuy, I know you are a very very very very strict Constitutionalist. However, how is the 14th Amendment unconstitutional if it's in the Constitution??
The original Constitution was a complete document with a complete balance of power as illustrated in its entirety.
As such, they very quickly realized that it was impossible for common (often illiterate) folk to know how they had rights when reading it. Also, it became clear there would be a lot of debate about it.
This perspective was referenced in some of the founding documents I will have to try to locate. In any case, it was for this reason a clarity was required. -This clarification is the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights was nothing new, but a clarification of the powers of citizens when taking the Constitution as a whole in context and relating it to the common person. It grants them power. They are the final check and balance.
Since this clarity was required, and offered nothing new, but merely a spotlight on relevant parts, the clarity was listed as ammendments for the purpose of noting there was no CHANGE, (as dictated by the 9th, and the Constitution its self.) but simply a clarification.
When an ammendment is added, therefore, it is for CLARITY of understanding. -NOT for CHANGING. -NOT for INTERPRETING.
As such, if an ammendment were added saying :
People who wear red shoes may not stand on a street corner and yell "you suck".
Then this is a clear violation of 2 things:
1. freedom of speech, and
2. "All men are created equal" and the "inalienable rights" bit as well.
Therefore, this ammendment would be unconstitutional, and is null and void.
The 14th, if in violation of the original document, by all rights, would be the same fate.
Does that help?