14th amendment clause 5 - for or against

Do you think Congress should use the authority granted in Amendment 14 Section 5?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 90.9%
  • No

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • I have no idea

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    11

SpidermanTuba

Rookie
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
6,101
Reaction score
259
Points
0
Location
New Orleans, Louisiana
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States 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 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

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.
?
 
Last edited:

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
210,811
Reaction score
37,187
Points
2,190
We would not have had a civil rights movement without it. If we left it up to the states, we would still have segregated water fountains
 
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
14,201
Reaction score
3,563
Points
185
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States 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 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.

I would emphasize a different part than you did.

Unless you are all bent out of shape by section 3...?
 
OP
SpidermanTuba

SpidermanTuba

Rookie
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
6,101
Reaction score
259
Points
0
Location
New Orleans, Louisiana
section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the united states 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 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.

i would emphasize a different part than you did.

Unless you are all bent out of shape by section 3...?
ok.
 

ihopehefails

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2009
Messages
3,384
Reaction score
228
Points
83
We would not have had a civil rights movement without it. If we left it up to the states, we would still have segregated water fountains
Thank goodness the constitution gives prohibits states from doing certain things but you guys still seem to think that a few limitations placed on the state seem to eliminate all other powers that they retain for themselves. Why you don't get that is something beyond me.
 

goldcatt

Catch me if you can!
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
10,330
Reaction score
3,037
Points
48
Location
CentralPA
Of course they should, and they do. Could you imagine the confusion if every little detail of what constitutes due process were left to the courts to determine after the fact and on a strictly case by case basis? *shudder*
 

nraforlife

Active Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
713
Reaction score
53
Points
28
The entire 'amendment' is to be opposed as it was never Constitutionally ratified.
 
OP
SpidermanTuba

SpidermanTuba

Rookie
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
6,101
Reaction score
259
Points
0
Location
New Orleans, Louisiana
The entire 'amendment' is to be opposed as it was never Constitutionally ratified.
Sorry bub, but as of 2003, all 37 states in the union at the time the 14th amendment was proposed have ratified it. If you removed all the former confederate states from that list, you'd still have 3/4. So even if you might have had a point about it not being ratified legally in 1868, that point is moot now. So pack up the white sheets and get over it.
 

SFC Ollie

Still Marching
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
28,897
Reaction score
7,514
Points
255
Location
Extreme East Ohio
It would be a welcome change if congress would use the powers granted them in the Constitution instead of making up new powers to use every other week.
 

George Costanza

A Friendly Liberal
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
5,188
Reaction score
1,160
Points
155
Location
Los Angeles area.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States 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 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

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.
?
Up until the end of the 19th Century, the Constitution was interpreted as only applying to the Federal government. Starting in the 1890's, the USSC began handing down a series of decisions which "incorporated" the Bill of Rights and applied them against state action.

Probably the most significant portion of the Bill of Rights involved in this procedure was the Due Process clause, as you have highlighted in your OP here. The civil rights legislation of the 1960's was based largely on application of the Due Process clause to strike down discriminatory state legislation and policies.

The Incorporation Doctrine has been (and still is) resolutely resisted by many in our society who see it as a stifling of "state's rights." What they wold have states doing, absent the Incorporation Doctrine, I don't even want to think about . . .
 

goldcatt

Catch me if you can!
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
10,330
Reaction score
3,037
Points
48
Location
CentralPA
I don't see how it's a stifling of States rights, if anything it should have been incorporated from the beginning to strengthen them.

Think about the real world ramifications of, just as one example, having a Full Faith and Credit requirement but no due process standard for the States. Each State was required to honor the proceedings of another, and yet there was nothing to make sure those proceedings were anything more than kangaroo "justice". So a State that actually did believe in due process and fair play was required to disregard its own principles and standards to honor and even use its own power to enforce pure garbage from a State that didn't. How is that respecting States' rights?

Think of it this way, before the due process provision of the 14th it was like having a law in place that the US MUST, with no exceptions and no questions asked, honor and enforce the court decisions of a place like Zimbabwe. Same principle. And some people think the Founders thought of everything. ;)
 
Last edited:

George Costanza

A Friendly Liberal
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
5,188
Reaction score
1,160
Points
155
Location
Los Angeles area.
I don't see how it's a stifling of States rights, if anything it should have been incorporated from the beginning to strengthen them.
People mean different things when they use the term "state's rights." As you are using it, yes, your premise is correct. But there are those in our society who want to use the states as their platform for continued bigotry and laws which illegally infringe upon the rights of others.

It is those kind of "state's rights" that are (and should be) stifled by the Incorporation Doctrine.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top