Curious about your opinions on repealing the 14th amendment

[Nash]

As you guys may be aware, although he's not running on this issue and although it's likely NOT going to happen if he's elected, Ron Paul wants to repeal the 14th amendment.

This is pretty major since if it is repealed state constitutions would replace the bill of rights in anything the states wish to enforce.

That means that unless you live in a state that wants to guarantee things like free speech or the right to privacy those things would go away.

Right now I don't agree with Ron Paul on this issue. I understand why he believes this (it's consistent with a pure federalist system and what the founders intended) but I'm wondering what other people's opinions are or why they might think it's a better way of doing things.

Note this particular issue is why liberals and Libertarians might not support Ron Paul and it's a major roadblock I've run into in getting people of this political vein to support him.

 

[Churchill2004]

He absolutely does not want to repeal the 14th Amendment- he wants to clarify the part about whether or not it Constitutionally enshrines "anchor babies" for illegal immigrants. He thinks that could be done without a Constitutional amendment (based on the part about being subject to the jurisdiction of the US) but he says he's willing to do a Constitutional amendment if necessary.

He's never argued for repealing the 14th Amendment as a whole.

 

[Nash]

His past writings suggest otherwise.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul259.html

If anything, the Supreme Court should have refused to hear the Kelo case on the grounds that the 5th amendment does not apply to states. If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases – not only when it serves our interests.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul99.html

We must be interested in the spirit of our Constitution. We must be interested in the principles of liberty. I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Instead, my colleagues should work to restore the rights of the individual states to ban flag burning, free from unconstitutional interference by the Supreme Court.

 

[Churchill2004]

He opposes the incorporation doctrine. I disagree with him on that, too, and luckily there's no hope of anything like what he wants on the issue happening, but he does not want the 14th Amendment repealed.

 

[Nash]

He opposes the incorporation doctrine. I disagree with him on that, too, and luckily there's no hope of anything like what he wants on the issue happening, but he does not want the 14th Amendment repealed.

The incorporation doctrine was a direct result of the 14th amendment. It is what guarantees free speech and privacy rights to everyone in this country even if state governments don't want to guarantee it. I believe he's been cited as saying the amendment was wrongly ratified (which is true) and therefore it shouldn't exist.

The reason I'm bringing this up is twofold 1) how does he guarantee everyone the right of expression if he doesn't support incorporation and 2) what the hell do I tell people when they bring this up. It's really difficult to defend.

 

[Fox McCloud]

you can't really defend him on it if he actively opposes it......I'll give you another example that puts it into perspective.

say I'm a Huckabee supporter, and I ask a question in the forums "what should I say to a pro-choice person who asks about Huckabee's support of the federal amendment banning abortion". Simple; you can't defend him on it.

the same goes with Ron; you can't defend him on everything.

Also, without the incorporation doctrine, there are a few things that the States cannot strip us of our rights, anyway...for example, the 2nd amendment. The wording is very clear that no entity can strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. The 1st amendment, on the other hand only applies to the Federal government (specifically Congress).

 

[SimpleName]

This issue greatly worries me. One of the very few things that I completely disagree with Paul on. What if states decide to become Christian based and force you into 2 hours of church everyday? Wouldn't that technically be possible? Coming from the other way, what if all the states decided to ban the building and future use of churches? Wouldn't that also technically be possible?

BTW, genuine questions, not rhetorical attempts to jab at Dr. paul's position.

 

[IndieRocker79]

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

i.e. the rights protected by Amendment I are not simply protected by Congress' inability to pass said laws, but also by Amendment IX and the clause about "or to the people" in Amendment X.

I'm sure there's also plenty of Supreme Court rulings to use as precedent prior to the passing of the 14th Amendment that would protect Amendment I against any state law passed to the contrary.

Also, the people have a say in state constitutional amendments, which would be virtually necessary for most states which include some notion of Amendment I within their constitutions. Removal of the incorporation segment of the 14th Amendment would not create all the chaos you think it would. And if your state did manage to do something stupid with it....MOVE!

 

[Nash]

This issue greatly worries me. One of the very few things that I completely disagree with Paul on. What if states decide to become Christian based and force you into 2 hours of church everyday? Wouldn't that technically be possible? Coming from the other way, what if all the states decided to ban the building and future use of churches? Wouldn't that also technically be possible?

BTW, genuine questions, not rhetorical attempts to jab at Dr. paul's position.

Yes these are all technically possibilities if the state you live in wants it that way. Without incorporation the bill of rights is no longer applicable to state laws.

But I'm not concerned about it because there is no way it's getting repealed. I also happen to live in a very liberal state so even if everything aligned perfectly and it went down that way it wouldn't impact me. I see it as a non-issue although I found it curious.

 

[jm1776]

Check your state Constitution. Most state Constitutions have the Bill or Rights embedded in them.

 

[.Tom]

His past writings suggest otherwise.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul259.html



http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul99.html

Sorry, but those comments just scare me.

I am a libertarian and have been supporting Dr. Paul this whole time, but I just now discovered this. I agree with him 95% of the time, but sometimes he's just wrong.

I guess I just disagree with his whole state's rights thing. I mean come on, it doesn't matter whether it's the states or the feds infringing on our rights. It's like he thinks coercion is okay when the states do it. That doesn't make any sense.

I mean what's the point of the first amendment if it only protects people who live in DC?

I hate to have to bring this up, but what about slavery? Was that okay because the Constitution didn't specifically forbid it?

Don't forget that he supports a state ban on sodomy:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

States don't have rights. Individuals have rights. And individuals can do whatever they want as long as they don't coerce (force of fraud) upon anyone else's same rights.

Again, I am a proud libertarian and I'm glad Dr. Paul is doing what he's doing, but this stuff is very anti-libertarian.

 

[SimpleName]

Check your state Constitution. Most state Constitutions have the Bill or Rights embedded in them.

After posting my last message, I thought about that and realized my argument was mostly useless. I mean, they could technically amend their constitutions, but chances are slim. At least in any near future. I would still rather have the Federal bill of rights, though. And just for the sake of argument...haven't we discussed the bill of rights being declaratory? If they are declaratory and granted by God or nature, should we allow states be able to take them away? I guess it could be up to the people of the states to make the moral choice, but ehh...still a bit sketchy.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Sorry, but those comments just scare me.

I am a libertarian and have been supporting Dr. Paul this whole time, but I just now discovered this. I agree with him 95% of the time, but sometimes he's just wrong.

I guess I just disagree with his whole state's rights thing. I mean come on, it doesn't matter whether it's the states or the feds infringing on our rights. It's like he thinks coercion is okay when the states do it. That doesn't make any sense.

I mean what's the point of the first amendment if it only protects people who live in DC?

I hate to have to bring this up, but what about slavery? Was that okay because the Constitution didn't specifically forbid it?

Don't forget that he supports a state ban on sodomy:

[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html[/URL]

States don't have rights. Individuals have rights. And individuals can do whatever they want as long as they don't coerce (force of fraud) upon anyone else's same rights.

Again, I am a proud libertarian and I'm glad Dr. Paul is doing what he's doing, but this stuff is very anti-libertarian.

Good to know there are still some other principled libertarians still on this board other than me.

 

[Bradley in DC]

I mean what's the point of the first amendment if it only protects people who live in DC?

I hate to have to bring this up, but what about slavery? Was that okay because the Constitution didn't specifically forbid it?

States don't have rights. Individuals have rights. And individuals can do whatever they want as long as they don't coerce (force of fraud) upon anyone else's same rights.

Again, I am a proud libertarian and I'm glad Dr. Paul is doing what he's doing, but this stuff is very anti-libertarian.

Give it some thought.

The point was to restrict the federal government--and protect everyone from the federal government restricting those rights.

Slavery was allowed--in fact the constitution specifically forbad them from interfering for the first years.

Rights: yes, exactly. And the constitution merely said that it wasn't granting the federal government authority to restrict those individual rights.

 

[constituent]

If the 14th amendment was to extend the protections of the bill of rights to protections not only from the federal government, but from state governments as well, then what was the point?

Was the "supremacy clause" not adequate for that purpose?

 

[.Tom]

Well, any country that allows slavery is not a libertarian country. And any Constitution that allows slavery is not a libertarian Constitution.

I guess the reason I even decided to post this was that I have been agreeing with Dr. Paul probably 99% of the time the past two years, being very active in his campaign. But now that I have just recently read some of this, I'm having trouble reconciling my libertarianism with his strict Constitutionalism.

Here's my main beef with Ron Paul: I'm not sure he cares as much about individual liberty as he says he does.

Please don't flame me for this, let me explain.

His main concern seems to be making sure the Constitution is followed, not really caring about individual liberty. It's almost as if he hates the federal government more than he cares about individual rights. He is principled, honest, and the only legitimate politician in Washington, but I'm having my doubts about his morals.

For example, I wonder what he would do if he was a governor. Hasn't he said that he would vote to ban drugs and prostitution in his state?

How the HELL is that respecting an individual's liberty? It's now okay for him to ban it because it's in his state?

That just shows to me that he doesn't really have any problem morally with restricting people's behavior, as long as it doesn't happen at the federal level.

Although I don't necessarily agree with his state's rights thing, if he would at LEAST say that he would vote libertarian in his own state, I could possibly see where he's coming from.

But the fact that he would find it morally acceptable to vote against individual liberty in his own state makes me question whether his moral compass really cares about individual rights.

Or does his hypocritical moral compass only care about protecting those rights from the federal government?

Because as soon as it's in his own state, he thinks he has the right to tell other individuals what to do.

That's not consistent, it's morally and ethically hypocritical, it's illogical, and it quite frankly makes me want to vomit.

I hate to bash on Dr. Paul, I really do, because he introduced me to libertarianism. But we have to remember that you can't follow a person, you have to follow ideas. History has proven this to be true, so I'm going to stick with what I really believe.

Again, don't flame. I'm just trying to see things from a critical perspective.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

So far I haven't seen a good description here of what the 14th Amendment really did. It was pure legal trickery.

Before the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, Americans were only known as Citizens (with a capital "C") of the united States of America (American Citizen, or American, for short). If you were born in America, you were born a sovereign with inalienable rights. It was a common understanding among the people. Up until then, slavery was still accepted in America. Slaves were not Citizens, state or national, but were merely considered the personal 'property' of the slave holders. The 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, just 3 years before the 14th. The 13th amendment abolished slavery. But that created a new problem. The newly freed slaves were not Citizens of any state or country, because they were just property, and property did not have citizenship. To solve the problem, the 14th amendment was passed. This amendment created a new class of citizenship. This new class was legally called: 'United States citizen', (with a small "c"). NOT 'United States of America Citizen', but just 'United States citizen'. Notice that the U.S. citizen is spelled with a lower case 'c'. This is to show a lower class of citizenship. This class of citizen (U.S. citizen) is a privilege granted by the federal government, and not a sovereign inalienable right.

For more details on this and other legal frauds used to strip our rights, see my thread here.

Here are some case cites:

“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
[Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)]


A person residing within the District of Columbia or in one of the territories may be a citizen of the United States, but not one of any of the states.
[Pope v. Williams, 98 Md. 59, 56 A. 543, 66 L.R.A. 398, 103 Am.St.Rep. 379, affirmed in 193 U.S. 621, 48 L.ed. 817, 24 S.Ct. 573. ]


State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380; 6 S. 602 (1889)

"A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right to declare who are its citizens.


... citizens of the District of Columbia [see 8 U.S.C. 1401] were not granted the privilege of litigating in the federal courts on the ground of diversity of citizenship. Possibly no better reason for this fact exists than such citizens were not thought of when the judiciary article [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted. ... citizens of the United States** ... were also not thought of; but in any event a citizen of the United States** , who is not a citizen of any state, is not within the language of the [federal] Constitution.

[Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914 (1918)]

 

[constituent]

"A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right to declare who are its citizens.

Wow, you just made my immigration case. Thanks.

 

[slothman]

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 1:
First, Anchor Babies are not just citizens of the US but also of Texas, Ca, or wherever.
Second, I personally think this part should remain.
I know people here don't like it but that seems mainly because the babies would be a detrement(sp) on the country and take free schooling and health care until they can afford it on their own.

@section 2:
It uses the word "equal".
I still don't know what the 2 values are.
Or in other words, "equal to what".