Constitutional Discussions
I vote for repealing the 14th.
I second the motion.
Actually, isn't there already fierce debate and good cause to question whether the 14th amendment was legally ratified?
03 - you mentioned that the 14th amendment basically nullified the concept of state sovereignty. But the Supreme Court found in favor of Sheriff Richard Mack when he sued the federal gov't and refused to enforce the Brady Bill gun laws in AZ. I thought the basis for his refusal was the 10th amendment.
So it would appear that the 10th amendment still has teeth to support the idea of state sovereignty. Or does this apply only to county sheriffs within a state and not the state itself?
I second the motion.
Actually, isn't there already fierce debate and good cause to question whether the 14th amendment was legally ratified?
-gemstatemom
The "debate" about the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment is the same one concerning the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, that being that the southern Representative and Senators serving in Congress was strongly populated by "carpetbaggers" who were recent emigrants to the South, and were "appointed" by the occupying Union military commanders. While your position of the veracity of those concerns is still determined primarily by your own geographical origins and loyalty, the fact remains that they were duly sworn members of Congress, and as such those Amendments are still as valid as all of the others.
03 - you mentioned that the 14th amendment basically nullified the concept of state sovereignty. But the Supreme Court found in favor of Sheriff Richard Mack when he sued the federal gov't and refused to enforce the Brady Bill gun laws in AZ. I thought the basis for his refusal was the 10th amendment.
So it would appear that the 10th amendment still has teeth to support the idea of state sovereignty. Or does this apply only to county sheriffs within a state and not the state itself?
-gemstatemom
In Printz v United States, the aspect of the case that was declared unconstitutional was the federal requirement that State and local LEO's perform the background checks for compliance with a federal law, and it was this aspect, along with a few others that were declared unconstitutional because it violates the concept of "double security" that Madison spoke of in Federalist 51, but the remainder of the Bill remains in effect to this day.
Personally I would have argued that the entire Bill was unconstitutional, not only on 10th Amendment grounds, but also on 2nd Amendment grounds.
The Second Amendment clearly states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The fact that, according to the Militia Act of 1792, and again as codified in 10 USC 311 and 32 USC 313, ever able bodied male, between the ages of 17 and 45, to age 64 if he has served in the armed forces is a member of the unorganized militia, and as such it is his duty to, as confirmed in US v Miller (1939), to have a weapon of military grade or that could be used in the defense of the nation. Therefore it is every Americans right to keep and bear whatever weapons he sees fit, and to do so without "permission" of the government, or having their background 'checked' since that "permission" is already granted by the Second Amendment.
I hope that helps, but if you have any other questions, please feel free to ask and I'll do what I can to assist you.
I vote for repealing the 14th.
-veritas
Actually, and this is an often misunderstood stance, I'd like to see ALL of them after the 11th repealed, and let's simply deal with the express verbiage in the Constitution. Now, of course liberals will automatically attack me claiming that I must support slavery, or want women back "barefooted, pregnant, and in the kitchen" and nothing could be further from the truth. I oppose ALL forms of slavery, and if women want to wear shoes or fuzzy slippers while they're in the kitchen so that their feet don't get cold, or to ensure that they don't burn themselves with hot grease, that would only be prudent in my book.
The "debate" about the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment is the same one concerning the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, that being that the southern Representative and Senators serving in Congress was strongly populated by "carpetbaggers" who were recent emigrants to the South, and were "appointed" by the occupying Union military commanders. While your position of the veracity of those concerns is still determined primarily by your own geographical origins and loyalty, the fact remains that they were duly sworn members of Congress, and as such those Amendments are still as valid as all of the others.
-03shooter
Shooter - my understanding, limited as it is, is that the question was not the legitimacy of the individuals elected to congressional seats. The question arises in the ratification of the amendments by the individual states. There is a great deal of debate over whether the required number of states (2/3?) actually voting to ratify these amendments, and for some, like the 17th (dealing with income taxes) the federal gov't simply declared it as 'in effect' (not ratified). I haven't studied numerous sources to determine the veracity of this claim...still trying to do my due diligence, but I mention it here to further discussion.
Shooter - my understanding, limited as it is, is that the question was not the legitimacy of the individuals elected to congressional seats. The question arises in the ratification of the amendments by the individual states. There is a great deal of debate over whether the required number of states (2/3?) actually voting to ratify these amendments, and for some, like the 17th (dealing with income taxes) the federal gov't simply declared it as 'in effect' (not ratified). I haven't studied numerous sources to determine the veracity of this claim...still trying to do my due diligence, but I mention it here to further discussion.-gemstatemom
Ok gem, sorry for the misunderstanding. The 14th Amendment was indeed ratified by 30 of the 37 states by July of 1868, so it's ratification is not in question. Subsequently, by 2003, all 50 states have ratified it.
As to the 16th Amendment dealing with the income tax (not the 17th, that's the election rather than appointment of Senators), it was ratified by 42 of the 48 states, so it's ratification is similarly not in question. Interestingly enough though, the remaining 8 states have either rejected it, or failed to bring it up for ratification.
As for your research, you can start with Wiki (but be careful, it's not "bullet-proof"), and then go on to their linked sources and cites. From there I can only suggest that you start building a substantial library of source material.
I think it's interesting that in a previous post marriage is defined as a "right" - that doesn't track for me.
Napolitano's version of the definition of a "right" works for me:-osufan
I'm a great fan of Judge Napolitano and have been for years, and having read all of his books, I believe he would agree with Chief Justice Warren as reflected in the Loving case that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
As I pointed out to emel in an earlier post, if you were a society of one, who would say what your rights were and were not, and the same continues over to the smallest societies in which marriage is a personal decision of which the only possible limiting factor would be the parent's giving, or not, consent to the marriage of two people who love each other, and wish to pledge themselves to each other for the remainder of their lives, therefore marriage IS a basic human right which only other men may limit, but not to grant, and then only if you allow them to.
Marriage is NOT a basic human right, and talk of it as such in the context of same sex unions is silly.
To begin with, if marriage was a right, it would not be subject to parental permission and perhaps the biggest clinker of all, the consent of the other party. In other words, if marriage is a right it only exists with pairs of people. One person's "right" to marry does not trump another person's "right" to say "no."
More to the point, with respect to the cite of CJ Warren and the Loving case, "...Marriage...fundamental to our very existence and survival..." is clearly an implied reference to the role of the institution of marriage when it comes to procreation and the continuation of our species in general, and the formation of the traditional U.S. family [as it was then understood] to perpetuate the American way of life.
The whole notion of marriage is rooted in natural law. To alter such a basic human construct is akin to saying that cannibalism is ok. Sorry for the gross comparison, but like same sex marriage, there are no instances in the human record where cannibalism was the norm or widely accepted in any society for reasons that seem quite obvious.
Marriage is NOT a basic human right, and talk of it as such in the context of same sex unions is silly.
To begin with, if marriage was a right, it would not be subject to parental permission and perhaps the biggest clinker of all, the consent of the other party. In other words, if marriage is a right it only exists with pairs of people. One person's "right" to marry does not trump another person's "right" to say "no."
More to the point, with respect to the cite of CJ Warren and the Loving case, "...Marriage...fundamental to our very existence and survival..." is clearly an implied reference to the role of the institution of marriage when it comes to procreation and the continuation of our species in general, and the formation of the traditional U.S. family [as it was then understood] to perpetuate the American way of life.
The whole notion of marriage is rooted in natural law. To alter such a basic human construct is akin to saying that cannibalism is ok. Sorry for the gross comparison, but like same sex marriage, there are no instances in the human record where cannibalism was the norm or widely accepted in any society for reasons that seem quite obvious.
-causeaneffect
C&E, as I am going to play "hardball" with your response, I am going to ask you to carefully read my reply before responding, as it will all be made clear in the fullness of time.
To claim that marriage is NOT a basic human right is to ignore the history of mankind. Throughout the time that humans have been on the face of God's green earth, people have "married" without permission of anyone else, and only their own consent being necessary. Look to the most basic and ancient societies as proof of this. Before governments, if a man and a woman agreed that he would go out and hunt for food and protect her and her children, and in exchange she will prepare the beasts he brings home, clean and tan the hides for clothing and shelter, maintain their camp, and a bit of "belly rubbing" from time to time in exchange, who is to deny them? Were they not "married" in fact, if not by 'license"? In Genesis, we find that after Cain slew Able and was cast out that he "knew" his "wife" and begat Enoch, but since this happened AFTER God cast Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden, WHO MARRIED THEM? It certainly wasn't God as he had done for Adam and Eve, especially given the sin that Cain had committed, and it wouldn't have been Adam since this was after Cain had been cast out, so the question remains, WHO "married" them? By what "authority" were they "married"? Is it your contention that Cain wasn't "married" to his "wife"? As far as parental permission, such is only required if the participants in the marriage are under the age of majority, but once they are of the age of majority, they need no permission from anyone, so "that dog won't hunt" either.
You claim that the purpose of marriage is procreation, yet you ignore the several 800lb gorillas in that room. The first being, if procreation is the purpose of marriage, what of those couples who cannot procreate? Are we to assume that you would have their marriages to be declared null and void since it obviously provides no purpose to the state? What of couples who simply choose not to procreate? Are we to assume that you would compel them to procreate against their will? Given the facts of that most repugnant decision of SCOTUS, since it is the womans prerogative whether or not to carry her child to term, obviously we cannot compel them to procreate, so that's out, so are we to similarly deny them the "right" to marry, or dissolve their union since they will not produce chidren for the state? Are we to assume by your assertion that the purpose of marriage is to procreate that women are to be nothing more than "uterine clown cars" whose sole purpose is to pop out as many children 'for the state' as they can before they can no longer serve any useful purpose for the state, and must then be cast out into the street like yesterdays trash? Further, if the purpose of marriage is to be for procreation, would it not be far more beneficial for the state to mandate that our daughters be married off at the onset of menarche? Given that men can procreate throughout our lives, but women only have a limited amount of years of fertility, and if procreation is the goal, then we must DEMAND that our daughters begin procreating as soon as possible so that they may produce as many new citizens for 'the state' before they can no longer do so, and then must be cast out into the street like yesterdays trash!!!
No, marriage IS a basic human Right, an institution that, at it's core is nothing more than an agreement between two people to pledge themselves to each other regardless of their ability, or desire to procreate, and as such, and to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin from the miniseries John Adams (although I have found no such utterance by Franklin in any of his writings that I have access to), "The question is not whether by allowing homosexuals to marry that we should make something that is not, but whether we should declare a fact something which already exists."
As far as cannibalism is concerned, that's a non-sequitur because A) it would require that homicide be made legal, or B) it would require that someone be willing to donate their body to such a cause. Now in the case of the former, homicide has never been legal in any civilized society, and in the case of the latter...well... if someone is willing to do so, and someone else is willing to consume them, that's their decision, and something the government should not be involved with as, contrary to the beliefs of some, we are not the property of the government, and therefore may do as we see fit provided that it does not infringe on anyone else.
SPOILER ALERT!!!
C&E I appreciate your civility in this discussion while I've been playing "Devils Advocate", therefore I will assist you by directing you to THIS thread for your consideration. The terms you are looking for in your argument are "Community Standards" and "Compelling State Interest", so if I may be so bold as to suggest, you should read up on those concepts and apply those to your argument. Be forewarned however that I am prepared to debate those points as well, but I have no doubt that it will then become a far more enlightening one.
03, you need to define "civilized society". The Aztec were very advanced, yet many thought it was an honor to be sacrificed or "murdered" for the gods! Then to go forward with your "alone on an island" theory, who shall I marry if I am alone? Therefore, was Adam created with the "right" to marry? I think marriage is a human invention and outside of mating, does not pertain to natural law. Many things in nature mate and some are monogamous, but there is nothing official about it. Our founders looked at 4 things when developing our form of government. They looked at the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons and Jewish laws. From that, they filtered them through the prism of natural law which is a revelation to all men in the fact, the things that no matter how many times they are tried have a certain and satisfactory outcome which is beneficial to the society as a whole. I argue gay marriage would not stand the same test!
03, you need to define "civilized society". The Aztec were very advanced, yet many thought it was an honor to be sacrificed or "murdered" for the gods!
-veritas
While there is no doubt that the Aztecs were "advanced", they were hardly "civilized" as their penchant for human sacrifice clearly testifies.
That is why I used the "smallest society" analogy, rather than the "alone on an island" analogy.Then to go forward with your "alone on an island" theory, who shall I marry if I am alone?
-veritas
Therefore, was Adam created with the "right" to marry?
-veritas
Consult your Bible and see what it has to say. Ask your Priest and see what he has to say about it. Or is it your contention that the church is wrong, and that marriage is nothing but a religious construct foisted upon us by an overarching church in contradiction of God's will? Is it your contention that God had no intention of his children being "married", and therefore wished for his childrend to simply produce a bunch of "bastard children"? OK, seriously now, marriage is the state of two people pledging themselves to each other for life, regardless of any particular ceremony, which is why when a couple "lives" together without a formal ceremony it is called "Common Law Marriage". Even the government recognizes that they are in fact married, and if they break up and go to court, the court considers them to have been married, and will order the property to be divided, child support to be paid, and in some cases even ALIMONY!
I think God would disagree with you on that one, or again, is it your contention that Adam and Eve weren't "married" with God performing the ceremony? Am I to understand that you're taking a "positivist law" rather than a "natural law" approach to this discussion? This ought to be interesting!I think marriage is a human invention and outside of mating, does not pertain to natural law.
-veritas
And many things in nature mate and run just like us too, and they don't even buy a round of drinks first, so your point is...?Many things in nature mate and some are monogamous, but there is nothing official about it.
-veritas
Our founders looked at 4 things when developing our form of government. They looked at the Romans, the Anglo-Saxons and Jewish laws. From that, they filtered them through the prism of natural law which is a revelation to all men in the fact, the things that no matter how many times they are tried have a certain and satisfactory outcome which is beneficial to the society as a whole. I argue gay marriage would not stand the same test!
-veritas
Actually, the founders also looked to ALL of the ancient writers (including the Greeks), as well as the new writers of the "Age of Enlightenment", which is why they rejected the possibility of making yet another Theocracy and chose instead to give us a government under which ALL of it's citizens have the right of maximum Liberty.
Also the conventional wisdom throughout Europe was that America would never last, and that we'd end up begging to be reunited with Great Britain after a short time, in other words that we would not stand the test, but we have. Again you neglect to remember that the prism of natural law they looked through showed many of them that slavery had a certain satisfactory outcome that was beneficial to the society as a whole, just as it did for chattel servitude for women, yet we have since then shown the error of that thinking, and are we not a far better society as a result?
All of this brings us back to the most salient question, which none of you have addressed directly; WHAT aspect of allowing homosexuals to have an official wedding ceremony, and to have their relationship officially recognized by 'the state' will in ANY way directly interefere with ANY of YOUR Rights and Liberties? We can all come up with hundreds, if not thousands of reasons (of varying validity) why anyone exercising their Rights interferes with ours, but unless we can show how it directly does so, then we must allow them to do whatever they wish.
OK, here's one for you; where in the Constitution does it grant Congress the authority to expend our tax dollars on relief efforts in Haiti?
Let me guess, it is in the "general welfare clause". That seems to be the funnel through which all government largess flows!
Let me guess, it is in the "general welfare clause". That seems to be the funnel through which all government largess flows!
-veritas
Actually, it's a "trick question", so allow me to present James Madisons view on the subject. In 1792 during the Haitain slave revolt, many French were forced to flee for their lives from Haiti and come here, and while here Congress undertook to pass legislation authorizing the expendature of $15,000.00 for their relief. In his objection to the legislation, Madison said;
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
As to the concept of using the General Welfare Clause as justification for Congress providing relief for people, Madison was clear in that as well as he said in response to proposed legislation to support Cod fishermen;
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
Then there's always the wit and wisdom of Benjamin Franklin, who wrote the following as part of an article entitled "On the price of corn, and the management of the poor" which was published in the London Chronicle on November 26, 1766. His understanding of the end result of "welfare", or "charity" as a doctrine of government is just as relevent today as it was then, and in fact proves the timelessness of the problems associated with policies of long-term "welfare" and "charity".
For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing [Welfare]. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? -- On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependance on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.
McCain Feingold is DEAD!! SCOTUS rules that the First Amendment is alive and well, and "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
We The People DO have the right to speak, to use the press to get our message out, and to use our freedom of assembly to combine with others and to use that combined financial power to petition the government for a redress of grievance by telling our elected mis-representatives that if they don't stop treading on us, that we're going to FIRE THEM!!!
Yes, they made the right decision! We are all now on a more equal footing. Where in the past certain organizations and corporate entities could not use their monies for free speech. Companies like GE who own NBC could use their media megaphone right up to the final minutes of an election!
I think there are still limitations to individuals that want to contribute that should be removed, but just because something sounds "fair" or a "good idea", we can not institute laws that are unconstitutional.
Yes, they made the right decision! We are all now on a more equal footing. Where in the past certain organizations and corporate entities could not use their monies for free speech. Companies like GE who own NBC could use their media megaphone right up to the final minutes of an election!
I think there are still limitations to individuals that want to contribute that should be removed, but just because something sounds "fair" or a "good idea", we can not institute laws that are unconstitutional.-veritas
OK, from my reading of the decision, there haven't been any changes to the levels of corporate donations to campaigns, the only thing that has changed...BACK...is that We The People can once again run ads for or against candidates in the 30 days prior to a primary and the 60 days prior to a general election.
Does something need to be done to deal with campaign finance? Of course, but taking a huge steaming dump on the Constitution isn't the way to get it done.
