Personally, I think the Bill of Rights and the original constitution are more sacred than amendments added later. This is just my opinion. The 14th was not created to make a class of anchor babies - it was created to prevent backdoor slavery by states denying individuals born on this soil the full rights and opportunities afforded everyone else. The difference is slaves from Africa and the Caribbean came here against their will. I don't know if we need a 14th anymore that has Civil War relevant language built into it. It wasn't really a problem until Hernadez v Texas, but I'm fairly certain the justices at the time didn't see the implications of their ruling. The real problem is that much of our Constitution is built around the concept of race, and later the protection of races, and I think that does more harm than good when what we really want is to eliminate the notion of race from a legal evaluation of a person.
The problem isn't that we are being flooded with Mexicans, the problem is that we are being flooded with aliens who don't want to be American, or that they want to change what American means into their nationality. It's not about race at all, but because the 14th exists it must be viewed through the legal glasses of racial equality. And that's the problem. Nobody is complaining about the 1.5 million Korean Americans, or that 3 million Chinese Americans. They come over here and assimilate, and in a couple generations they are simply Americans that have their own treasured cultural identity just like everyone else. It's worth noting that Chinese get smuggled into this country illegally just like Mexicans, and they form street gangs just like Mexicans, but it's not a national problem. Why do you think that is? Racism?
I think the problem with the 14th is that by virtue of its legal language and the precedent set by subsequent rules, it turns something that isn't about race at all, into something that cannot be talked about without mentioning race.
Seems pretty clear cut to me.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.
This will not end well IMO. I hope Arizona will be smart about this one, and nuke it.
Oh wait... guess I should shut up. I don't pay taxes.
Last edited by djones520; 06-13-2010 at 09:53 AM.
Read United States vs Wong Kim Ark, the US claimed that Children were subject to the citizenship laws governing of their Parents country of origin. Wong claimed that he was an American Citizen based on his birth in the US and not subject to Chinese Citizenship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...._Wong_Kim_ArkIn a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.
- only a white male would be able to vote (15th and 19th)
- your rights could be violated by the State, just not the Federal Government (14th which extends the Bill of Rights to cover the states)
- Slavery would still be legal (13th)
- Voting rights could be denied after 18 due to age (26th)
- Those in DC still disenfranchised (23rd)
The framers of the Constitution purposefully gave a means to change the Constitution as they knew that it might need to be (ie Slavery) plus it was a way to get it passed as they would need the Bill of Rights added in order for the Constitution to get passed. They did make it hard and need the consent of a "super-majority" (3/4) of the States to get one passed, but still gave it some flexibility.
Last edited by m00; 06-13-2010 at 03:17 PM.
Most of the recent ones are more procedural than anything, How senators are elected, succession after the President, etc. so yes, I get that, but when you get into the middle amendments, they start giving those Rights to Individuals and telling the States they can't infringe on them anymore than the Federal Government can. That might infringe on the States right to make laws, but protects the individual. In your argument that should be held with just as much sacredness as the original 10 Amendments.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|