Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Crabtownboy, Aug 21, 2015.
Why is it the 2nd amendment of the Constitution is sacred but the 14th is not?
Please explain by using very specific statistics given by reputable conservative sources that go into very specific & documented details (i.e., giving specific individual's names, dates, & exact quotations [including the precise venues where these detailed sources occurred]) that have caused you to believe that reputable conservative individuals LOVE the 2d Amendment and overtly HATE the 14th Amendment [Which was only allowed by the majority GOP-controlled US Congress to be presented to the sovereign US states that comprised the US at that time].
You've accused a good number of BB members by inferring that some of us here on BB do actually & overtly HATE the 14th Amendment.
Because it gives the GOP fodder for a certain demographic of its base.
Why do liberals lie about the 2nd and the 14th amendments ?
And what about the part where Dred Scott was ruled to be property by the Democrats? And what about where due process was denied unborn children? And where does the constitution say that the practice of s0d0my constitutes marriage?
The part the GOP now claims as their own. It is the GOP and conservatives now defending slavery. Conservative Radio Host Jan Mickelson Is Totally Cool With Bringing Back Slavery
Take it up with the Supreme Court. They made and have upheld the ruling.
So is this about the 2nd, or the 14th amendments, or the GOP's support of slavery ?
Which lie can I discuss and still be "on-topic" ?
Or do you just want agreement, and no discussion ?
You should save electricity and stop climate change.
The Democrats ruled that Dred Scott was not a human being just the same as you say that the unborn child is not a human being to this day. It is liberals who think that s0d0my is marriage.
Yet you say that one shock jock in Iowa doing a publicity stunt represents the GOP but you yourself are mum about white slavery.
I guess that you are one of these Bernie Sanders hippies from Woodstock who want to gentrify everyone with the term anchor fetus and the legalization of the sale of baby body parts as long as you can buy the stock on the stock market to keep up your increasingly hippie lifestyle.
How did you like Megan Kelly on Howard Stern when she said who she would sleep with and who she wouldn't?
Both. The question is why is the 2nd amendment considered sacred but the 14th is not considered sacred. After all conservatives are always screaming about following the Constitution and yet here they want it shredded.
In you opinion, is the Constitution flawed?
Because 2 is greater than 14?
Because the 2nd predates the 14th?
The 14th amendment does not guarantee birthright citizenship, you admitted such already.
And the GOP doesn't want to reintroduce slavery and to argue such reaches a level of immaturity and hate that I'm not going to address it further.
Talk show host encourages slavery...
You do understand the meaning of anology - dont you?
As far as the 14th - lets consider the reason for it....
If we are to take that totally literally - then children of foreign dignatarities, military, ect would automatically have USA citizenship - BUT THEY DONT.
Why must you always lie about what others believe?
Which of the 5 paragraphs of the 14th amendment do you think conservatives deny?
The first paragraph couldn't be more clear: 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.
In fact, it is you and your anti-constitutional ilk who despise the constitution as represented by the 2nd amendment. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
The Meaning of 'Shall Not Be Infringed'
As a result of Second Amendment dispute, it has been suggested that to infringe relative to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms means only to completely destroy the right, and that extensive "reasonable" regulations are legitimate and do not infringe the right. As an example, it has been claimed that a complete ban on certain types of firearms is a “reasonable” regulation and would not violate the "shall not be infringed" restrictive language. A contrary understanding is that infringe means to encroach upon or narrow the right in any way and that the purpose for the "shall not be infringed" language was to prevent regulation of the right.
An excellent method for determining how extensive the Bill of Rights protection based on the verb "infringe" was intended to be in the Founders' view is to rely on historical examples. What can be gleaned from their own use of this term in relation to other Bill of Rights proposals? Here are some of them.
James Madison's Usage
The Second Amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" language is exactly what was proposed as the first clause of the amendment by James Madison on June 8, 1789. In addition to that "infringe" based language, Madison also included this freedom of religion related protection in his Bill of Rights proposals to Congress: “nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” [The Origin of the Second Amendment p.654] Assuming that Madison's intention in preventing religious liberty from being “infringed” was to allow for considerable "reasonable" regulation by the federal government is illogical. In fact, it is clear that the intent of such language was to prevent any interference whatsoever by the government in such matters. The later change to “Congress shall make no laws” language buttresses this period understanding of "infringe" based protection.
Samuel Adams' Usage
Another person who used "infringe" in bill of rights proposals for the Constitution was Samuel Adams in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention. He attempted to protect freedom of the press and religion with this proposal: “that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience”. [OSA p.260] It is unthinkable that such usage by Adams indicated an intention to allow extensive reasonable regulations of freedom of the press and religious beliefs. Instead, such language was certainly intended as the strongest of limits upon government actions, just as in Madison's case with his infringe based restrictive proposals to Congress regarding freedom of religion and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Congressional Amendments Committee Usage
There is other informative period Bill of Rights related use of "shall not be infringed" language often overlooked today due to gun control advocates' historical arguments diverting away from the Second Amendment's actual Bill of Rights history. The Committee of Eleven, to which Madison's proposals were submitted by Congress, accepted his original use of "infringed" relative to freedom of religion as well as his "shall not be infringed" language relative to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Committee also added Madison's original Second Amendment restrictive language ("shall not be infringed") to other First Amendment rights – freedom of speech - freedom of the press - the right of peaceable assembly - the right to apply for redress of grievances. All of these, including Madison's “inviolable” freedom of the press and his right of the people to speak, of which they “shall not be deprived or abridged” [OSA p.654], were re-stated by the Committee as rights that “shall not be infringed”. [OSA p.680] Once again, it does not appear that such period usage indicated the Committee members understood that religious beliefs could be subjected to extensive reasonable regulations, or that they used "shall not be infringed" with the intention that it would condone extensive and reasonable regulation of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right of peaceable assembly, the right to apply for redress of grievances, or the right to keep and bear arms.
Interpreting this restrictive "infringe" based language in the manner that some advocates of gun control do for Second Amendment usage removes all meaning of the terminology and completely destroys any protective intent of the provision. Such interpretations leave the intended protected rights to be regulated exactly like any other subject placed under the government's power. Such views of the language completely ignore the developmental history of the Bill of Rights, a history that is remarkably well documented because the need for a U.S. Bill of Rights was publicly and privately discussed for more than two full years prior to Congress' proposal of the U.S. Bill of Rights amendments.
Shall Not Be Infringed - Shall Make No Laws
Another interesting period fact is that the style of restrictive language ultimately used in the First Amendment – "Congress shall make no laws" - was previously found mostly in Second Amendment related proposals.
The Pennsylvania Minority supported a proposal that: “no law shall be passed for disarming the people, or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals". [OSA, p.151]
The New Hampshire Ratifying Convention adopted proposals related to the subsequently adopted First and Second Amendments that stated:
"XI. Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.
XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion". [OSA, p.446]
The restrictive language of New Hampshire's amendment protecting religious freedom contains not only the very words later used as restrictive language in the First Amendment but also the very strongest of restrictions that is based on the verb "infringe". It is inconceivable that infringe was intended in New Hampshire's religious freedom amendment as intended to allow any regulation whatever.
The Strongest Possible Restrictive Language
First and Second Amendment protections were always given the very strongest possible restrictive language – no law shall be passed – shall make no law – inviolable – not be deprived or abridged – not be restrained - shall not be infringed - nor shall the right be infringed - shall make no laws touching - shall make no laws to infringe. The Second Amendment's “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" language was clearly not intended to allow for extensive reasonable regulation. Rather, it was intended to prevent all laws and regulations that would result in the people being deprived, abridged, restrained, narrowed, or restricted in the exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
DAVID E. YOUNG
Constitutional scholar, Editor of The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government and an Armed Populace 1787-1792, which was cited over one hundred times in the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals US v Emerson decision and six times in the U.S. Supreme Court's recent District of Columbia v Heller decision. Author of The Founders' View of the Right to Bear Arms: A Definitive History of the Second Amendment, the first period documented book length treatment of the Second Amendment.
Yep, but I do not believe he meant it as an analogy.
Salty, that one is simply. The Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. ruled they are not covered by the 14th amendment.
Lie. I am unabashedly conservative and don't want the citizenship requirements as expressed in the first paragraph of the 14th amendment to be changed. I am against any changes to the US Constitution.
I can't help but think you misunderstood US v Ark. SCOTUS held that the citizenship paragraph of the Fourteenth Amendment included everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress. (The exception is foreign diplomats living or working in an extra-territorial enclave at the time of the child's birth.)
In fact, the ruling, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), specifically dealt with the clause a very few people are proposing would limit the citizenship of children born in the US whose parents are here illegally. The SCOTUS held that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply meant they were not not subject to any foreign power.
According to Patrick Glen, (Glen, Patrick J. (Fall 2007). "Wong Kim Ark and Sentencia que Declara Constitucional la Ley General de Migración 285-04 in Comparative Perspective: Constitutional Interpretation, Jus Soli Principles, and Political Morality". University of Miami Inter-American Law Review 39 (1): 67–109) "The parameters of the jus soli (right of the soil) principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."
Good for you. However you do not speak for all conservatives and it is obvious that there are many conservatives who agree with Trump and others and do feel the 14th amendment should be repelled or modified.
Many have questioned it, but it still is in the Constitution and thus is the supreme law of the land.
Please consider the avoidance of broad-brush comments like what I've boldfaced. They make your statement inaccurate by implying that ALL conservatives think that way. There's too much about what "all conservatives" or "all liberals" (or "all Calvinists" on another subforum) want or believe, and real discussion gets trodden underfoot by emotion.
(Of course, this is the interent, so I'm probably trying to shovel sand against the tide.)
Why do liberals and neocons hate/fear the 1st and 4th amendments?
While we're at it, can we avoid question begging, i.e. "have you quit your addiction to cocaine?" Or in the case of the OP "Why is only part of the Constitution sacred"?
Of course. :laugh: