14th amendment clause 5 - for or against

[goldcatt]

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.

I've seen a few (but only a few, to be fair) posters in this forum come right out and say they don't mind if the State infringes on their rights, since if they don't like it they can just move to another State. Without the 14th you could leave the State but the State could use just about any means to pursue you, for any reason, as long as it was done in a manner consistent with FF&C. And its sister states would be forced to comply and enforce those rulings, regardless of whether it violated their own laws. Anti-14th folks think about that concept for a second then tell me establishing minimum standards of fair play within, between and among all States is such a bad idea.

Section 1 of the 14th should have been in place from the inception to ensure the rights of States to be free not from Federal interference in the areas where they hold sovereignty, but from infringement on that sovereignty and on the basic rights of their own citizens by other States.

 

[jillian]

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

Such a moron..

yes, you are. because polls consistently show that he's correct about that.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The entire 'amendment' is to be opposed as it was never Constitutionally ratified.

How do you suggest "opposing" it?

At every opportunity I educate the ignorant but teachable of the true history of this nefarious unratified lesion on the Constitution.

As of 2003, all 37 states that were in the Union at the time of its proposal have ratified the amendment. Are you retarded?

 

[SFC Ollie]

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.

Such as?

Oh gee off the top of my head, the new HC requirement for everyone to purchase health insurance. I expect this will be challenged in the Supreme Court. Since at least 14 states have already challenged it.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

I've seen a few (but only a few, to be fair) posters in this forum come right out and say they don't mind if the State infringes on their rights, since if they don't like it they can just move to another State. Without the 14th you could leave the State but the State could use just about any means to pursue you, for any reason, as long as it was done in a manner consistent with FF&C. And its sister states would be forced to comply and enforce those rulings, regardless of whether it violated their own laws. Anti-14th folks think about that concept for a second then tell me establishing minimum standards of fair play within, between and among all States is such a bad idea.

Section 1 of the 14th should have been in place from the inception to ensure the rights of States to be free not from Federal interference in the areas where they hold sovereignty, but from infringement on that sovereignty and on the basic rights of their own citizens by other States.

In other words - what you're saying - is that without incorporation, for instance, Louisiana could pass a law requiring that I attend Catholic Mass every Sunday under penalty of death - and if I miss a mass, I could not simply move to Mississippi and be done with it, as Mississippi would be required by full faith and credit to hand me over to Louisiana.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

Such as?

Oh gee off the top of my head, the new HC requirement for everyone to purchase health insurance. I expect this will be challenged in the Supreme Court. Since at least 14 states have already challenged it.

You aren't required to purchase health insurance. You are required to pay an income tax if you do not have insurance. I'm pretty sure the authority to tax income is in the 16th amendment of the U.S. Constitution - the document you took an oath to defend.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Such as?

Oh gee off the top of my head, the new HC requirement for everyone to purchase health insurance. I expect this will be challenged in the Supreme Court. Since at least 14 states have already challenged it.

Being challenged does not make it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will not overturn the Healthcare Law.

Was the Patriot Act unconstitutional?

 

[George Costanza]

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

Such a moron..

No - he is totally correct. Were you alive in the 1960's? Are you aware of what was going on in many (southern) states and what it took to finally stamp it out? If you have lived through that period in our history, you could never say what you are saying here.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

I've seen a few (but only a few, to be fair) posters in this forum come right out and say they don't mind if the State infringes on their rights, since if they don't like it they can just move to another State. Without the 14th you could leave the State but the State could use just about any means to pursue you, for any reason, as long as it was done in a manner consistent with FF&C. And its sister states would be forced to comply and enforce those rulings, regardless of whether it violated their own laws. Anti-14th folks think about that concept for a second then tell me establishing minimum standards of fair play within, between and among all States is such a bad idea.

Section 1 of the 14th should have been in place from the inception to ensure the rights of States to be free not from Federal interference in the areas where they hold sovereignty, but from infringement on that sovereignty and on the basic rights of their own citizens by other States.

In other words - what you're saying - is that without incorporation, for instance, Louisiana could pass a law requiring that I attend Catholic Mass every Sunday under penalty of death - and if I miss a mass, I could not simply move to Mississippi and be done with it, as Mississippi would be required by full faith and credit to hand me over to Louisiana.

Exactly, if Louisiana charged you with a crime because of it and presented evidence of that "proceeding" to Mississippi. And that sort of thing happened, and worse.

It's bad enough when you think about being charged with a crime that is actually legitimate in that State, but what happens when there are no requirements within the State for the courts to play fair? Trumped up charges and kangaroo justice for political or other reasons aren't out of the question. And that's just looking at the criminal side, not the consequences of a civil judgment or any other proceeding. It's hard to even imagine now, but at the time it was a matter of course. Food for thought.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

I've seen a few (but only a few, to be fair) posters in this forum come right out and say they don't mind if the State infringes on their rights, since if they don't like it they can just move to another State.

I have seen more than a few posters come right out and say this - only they usually say it with regard to the state infringing on other people's rights, and suggesting that if the other people don't like it, they can just move to another state.

Those are the kind of posters I am talking about.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

I've seen a few (but only a few, to be fair) posters in this forum come right out and say they don't mind if the State infringes on their rights, since if they don't like it they can just move to another State.

I have seen more than a few posters come right out and say this - only they usually say it with regard to the state infringing on other people's rights, and suggesting that if the other people don't like it, they can just move to another state.

Those are the kind of posters I am talking about.

Forest for the trees, my friend. But I'm pretty sure the 14th is safe, so let 'em howl at the wind if it makes them feel better.

 

[nraforlife]

THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 14th AMENDMENT

THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE 14th AMENDMENT

INTRODUCTION


The following is a treatise on the unconstitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment, based upon the most comprehensive research and documentation of every angle in the unlawful procedures involved in its purported adoption.

This work was done, and is offered with a realization that the federal courts are not ready to give consideration to the subject, because the U. S. Supreme Court and inferior courts have used the the 14th Amendment to enlarge upon their ungranted powers without limit or reserve.

Socialist organized and directed violent mass demonstrations and armed rebellion in the nation's capital and in many American cities are extorting from Congress more and more radical legislation. These "laws" threaten basic personal freedom, private property rights and encroach upon and destroy more and more the constitutional right of self-government by the people on state and local levels. Executive orders extend toward further federal control of every aspect of life in the Nation, either by shutting off federal funds to those who will not subscribe to their forced dictums or by court injunctive orders to the same effect......................................................

 

[goldcatt]

Right on cue, the Westboro troll. Go back to Topeka, I'm sure Fred misses you.

 

[rightwinger]

Socialist organized and directed violent mass demonstrations and armed rebellion in the nation's capital and in many American cities are extorting from Congress more and more radical legislation. These "laws" threaten basic personal freedom, private property rights and encroach upon and destroy more and more the constitutional right of self-government by the people on state and local levels. Executive orders extend toward further federal control of every aspect of life in the Nation, either by shutting off federal funds to those who will not subscribe to their forced dictums or by court injunctive orders to the same effect............................................ ..........

Tim McVeigh would be proud of you nra

 

[goldcatt]

Socialist organized and directed violent mass demonstrations and armed rebellion in the nation's capital and in many American cities are extorting from Congress more and more radical legislation. These "laws" threaten basic personal freedom, private property rights and encroach upon and destroy more and more the constitutional right of self-government by the people on state and local levels. Executive orders extend toward further federal control of every aspect of life in the Nation, either by shutting off federal funds to those who will not subscribe to their forced dictums or by court injunctive orders to the same effect............................................ ..........

Tim McVeigh would be proud of you nra

Save your breath, RW. Any troll who posts a piece that screams about property rights but assumes the States have an absolute right to take somebody else's money on their own terms and thumb their nose at them doesn't begin to understand their own propaganda.

 

[Madeline]

" It's just a Goddamn piece of paper"
Dubya 2003

I think your avatar sucks.

Took me ten minutes of scrolling to find it, but I'm nosey that-a-way.

Couldn't agree more, WillowTree.

Hey Dubya:

O, and I believe THIS is the flag you really wanted:

 

[Madeline]

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.

Such as?

New powers? Like what? Invisibility? X-ray vision?

C'mon SpidedrmanTuba, they meet, they carry on, once in awhile they pass a bill. That's pretty much all "granted by the Constitution", donca think?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 14th AMENDMENT

THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE 14th AMENDMENT

INTRODUCTION


The following is a treatise on the unconstitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment, based upon the most comprehensive research and documentation of every angle in the unlawful procedures involved in its purported adoption.

This work was done, and is offered with a realization that the federal courts are not ready to give consideration to the subject, because the U. S. Supreme Court and inferior courts have used the the 14th Amendment to enlarge upon their ungranted powers without limit or reserve.

Socialist organized and directed violent mass demonstrations and armed rebellion in the nation's capital and in many American cities are extorting from Congress more and more radical legislation. These "laws" threaten basic personal freedom, private property rights and encroach upon and destroy more and more the constitutional right of self-government by the people on state and local levels. Executive orders extend toward further federal control of every aspect of life in the Nation, either by shutting off federal funds to those who will not subscribe to their forced dictums or by court injunctive orders to the same effect......................................................

You're a total retard. There are no permanent fixtures in the Constitution.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

Such as?

New powers? Like what? Invisibility? X-ray vision?

C'mon SpidedrmanTuba, they meet, they carry on, once in awhile they pass a bill. That's pretty much all "granted by the Constitution", donca think?

Yes. I'm not sure why you're asking me that question though.

 

[nraforlife]

THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 14th AMENDMENT

THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF
THE 14th AMENDMENT

INTRODUCTION


The following is a treatise on the unconstitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment, based upon the most comprehensive research and documentation of every angle in the unlawful procedures involved in its purported adoption.

This work was done, and is offered with a realization that the federal courts are not ready to give consideration to the subject, because the U. S. Supreme Court and inferior courts have used the the 14th Amendment to enlarge upon their ungranted powers without limit or reserve.

Socialist organized and directed violent mass demonstrations and armed rebellion in the nation's capital and in many American cities are extorting from Congress more and more radical legislation. These "laws" threaten basic personal freedom, private property rights and encroach upon and destroy more and more the constitutional right of self-government by the people on state and local levels. Executive orders extend toward further federal control of every aspect of life in the Nation, either by shutting off federal funds to those who will not subscribe to their forced dictums or by court injunctive orders to the same effect......................................................

You're a total retard. There are no permanent fixtures in the Constitution.

Sure thing uncle.