Post: #1

Based on the number of states whose electoral colleges voted for Trump, we were just a few states short of the number needed to repeal the 14th Amendment.

I think we'd be best off doing this at this point, since slavery is no longer a part of our economy, and the amendment has just been perverted by federal courts to promote radical-left causes such as abortion rights, same-sex marriage, birth-citizenship for illegals, absurd 'anti-discrimination' laws allowing gays to sue bakeries out of business, and attempts to allow men in dresses into girls' bathrooms.

Today the 14th is basically a leftist 'sacred cow', and getting rid of it would be one of the biggest blows to the ideology which is already showing signs of decline; it's be like their Battle of the Bulge.

Post: #2

Quit shit posting eddy.

Post: #3

Eh, I think it's an idea worth throwing out there now that Trump's in office. Can't see of any real downsides, beyond the far-left panic that it would 'lead to slavery' again, despite them not understanding anything about culture and economics, and how there's no economic incentive to 'put black people on plantations' anymore; welfare generations of impoverished blacks and Hispanics are closer to slave plantations anyway, there basically forced to vote their Democratic masters into office for fear of their welfare being cut off.

(For that matter if we count corporate sweatshop labor as 'slavery', then we own more slaves today than we did before the Civil War anyway).

Post: #4

You can't really think of any downsides to this?

Aloha!

Post: #5

It's obvious we need to get rid of the "if you're here and you have a kid, that kid is a citizen no matter what" nonsense. That's not what the 14th Amendment intended and was a later unchallenged "interpretation".

Post: #6

(01-20-2017 03:22 PM)Kona Wrote:  You can't really think of any downsides to this?

Aloha!

Well what do you think the downsides would be?

Sure theoretically it might mean that states and private businesses could institute their own discrimination laws, but the far-left nightmare that this would result in a return to "separate bathrooms for black and white people" is pretty nonsensical; especially given how left-wing 'identitarian' groups whether Black Lives Matter, or LGBT "rights", voluntarily segregate themselves from "the mainstream".

A lot of the mentality is one of leftists demonizing individual states and cities, with the silly notion that they're all so 'backward' that people need to rely on the federal government to protect them.

Post: #7

(01-20-2017 03:39 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 03:22 PM)Kona Wrote:  You can't really think of any downsides to this?

Aloha!

Well what do you think the downsides would be?

Rampant, widespread discrimination?

Can you really not see that?

Quote:Sure theoretically it might mean that states and private businesses could institute their own discrimination laws, but the far-left nightmare that this would result in a return to "separate bathrooms for black and white people" is pretty nonsensical; especially given how left-wing 'identitarian' groups whether Black Lives Matter, or LGBT "rights", voluntarily segregate themselves from "the mainstream".

There'd be absolutely nothing stopping that "far-left nightmare" (actually not even really "far-left" given how prominent the concern is in the middle of the spectrum as well - you don't need to be an SJW to worry about it) from coming true in the event that the 14th Amendment was repealed. There's nothing nonsensical about it, its a totally valid fear to have in the event of a repeal.

Frankly, I don't even really understand your argument here. You're saying that because left-wing identitarians already voluntarily segregate themselves, there's no issue with any potential for Jim Crow-style segregation to pop up.
This doesn't connect for me because the vast majority of those who would be impacted by a repeal are not left-wing identitarians. Most black folks in America, believe it or not, aren't BLM or even supportive of BLM. Many LGBT people are not SJWs.

There's endless downside here and, from the perspective of those who would be impacted (read: every racial, religious, and ethnic minority group in the USA, plus all women, plus every LGBT person in the country), zero upside.

Why would you expect people to take that gamble and just kind of hope it works out?

Quote:A lot of the mentality is one of leftists demonizing individual states and cities, with the silly notion that they're all so 'backward' that people need to rely on the federal government to protect them.

I support state's rights and I think they should be taken further (my hope is that Trump's court does this), but in this particular instance there's a fine line between curbing leftist handholding/government largesse and giving a greenlight to rampant discrimination.
Folks on the far left may have gone too far in some respects and changes are needed, but this is not the way to do it.

Post: #8

The birthright citizenship clause of the 14th has never been properly interpreted, I'm almost completely confident in that.

There is a strong chance that the current court plus Trump's appointee would interpret it as to its original meaning - that people born here to people that have deep ties to the country are citizens, not that anyone in the world can just come here, pop out a baby, and have it be granted citizenship.

Post: #9

Thank you for the common sense, Excelsior.

As a practical matter, why should we waste political capital repealing the 14th Amendment? Here are the two avenues for repealing an amendment:

Quote:The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

That is an extremely tall order. The amount of organizing and politicking to meet the threshold would be tremendous, not to mention that repeal would be largely symbolic as you still have the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment by which quite of bit of what you oppose has been held constitutional or necessary to meet constitutional standards.

Also, some constitutional protections you most likely favor were justified under the 14th Amendment. I'm not familiar at all with the Heller case (which incorporated the Second Amendment as against the states), but the NRA has repeatedly tried to use the protections afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment to protect gun rights (as the Fourteenth protects rights of free speech, free practice of religion and prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment).

I understand your frustration with how liberals have relied so heavily on the courts historically, but you are barking up the wrong tree here.

Post: #10

(01-20-2017 03:39 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 03:22 PM)Kona Wrote:  You can't really think of any downsides to this?

Aloha!

Well what do you think the downsides would be?

The ones Excelsior pointed out.

As a minority conservative, I am a bit worried when I read things like this post.

Since the right wingers have some pull now, are they going to use every chance they can to force this white supremacy stuff into existence?

Just read the first sentence of this post. Maybe not the ops intent but it says to me "Hey since our side has the votes, maybe its time to make state sanctioned descrimination legal again."

Aloha!

Post: #11

(01-20-2017 04:55 PM)2Wycked Wrote:  you still have the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment by which quite of bit of what you oppose has been held constitutional or necessary to meet constitutional standards.

It would actually be inert in relation to the states if the 14th went by the wayside. The 5th only applies to the federal government by itself, the 14th made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

At least as far as my understanding of the case law goes.

Quote:Also, some constitutional protections you most likely favor were justified under the 14th Amendment. I'm not familiar at all with the Heller case (which incorporated the Second Amendment as against the states), but the NRA has repeatedly tried to use the protections afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment to protect gun rights (as the Fourteenth protects rights of free speech, free practice of religion and prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment).

Yeah, they used the 14th in the Heller case to incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the states like they have the others in the Bill of Rights.

Post: #12

You guys think if we repeal the 14th Amendment white people are going to just start walking all over minorities again? There hasn't been (any of what is accepted as) negative systematic racism in this country for longer than most of us have been alive, but if we ditch the 14th amendment, that will all come back?

Why do you even want to live with white people then, if as soon as we can we're going to start making you use your own drinking fountains and bathrooms again?

While everyone's talking about what the 14th Amendment does, has anyone actually read it recently? Let's all get on the same page here.

Quote: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 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

Post: #13

(01-20-2017 04:56 PM)Kona Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 03:39 PM)EDantes Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 03:22 PM)Kona Wrote:  You can't really think of any downsides to this?

Aloha!

Well what do you think the downsides would be?

The ones Excelsior pointed out.

As a minority conservative, I am a bit worried when I read things like this post.

Since the right wingers have some pull now, are they going to use every chance they can to force this white supremacy stuff into existence?

Just read the first sentence of this post. Maybe not the ops intent but it says to me "Hey since our side has the votes, maybe its time to make state sanctioned descrimination legal again."

Aloha!

I think true "white supremacists" who consider non "Aryan" folks to be subhuman, and want to put blacks and Hispanics onto plantations or into concentration camps, are a fringe minority at best, and hardly represent the majority of right-wingers or nationalists. I think most would take a patriotic, manly black or Hispanic, over a limp-wristed white SJW "male".

Hell if anything I see more 'racial identity' politics day to day from minorities groups; the number of blacks who voted for Obama solely because he's black I've seen in far greater numbers than Caucasians who voted against Obama simply because he "isn't white".

Post: #14

(01-20-2017 05:19 PM)weambulance Wrote:  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.

Right, the original intent of this was to grant citizenship to the children of newly-freed slaves.

Since then it's been perverted by progressives to grant instant birthright citizenship to illegals and be used as a tool in their radical open borders policies.

Post: #15

(01-20-2017 05:07 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 04:55 PM)2Wycked Wrote:  you still have the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment by which quite of bit of what you oppose has been held constitutional or necessary to meet constitutional standards.

It would actually be inert in relation to the states if the 14th went by the wayside. The 5th only applies to the federal government by itself, the 14th made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

At least as far as my understanding of the case law goes.

Quote:Also, some constitutional protections you most likely favor were justified under the 14th Amendment. I'm not familiar at all with the Heller case (which incorporated the Second Amendment as against the states), but the NRA has repeatedly tried to use the protections afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment to protect gun rights (as the Fourteenth protects rights of free speech, free practice of religion and prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishment).

Yeah, they used the 14th in the Heller case to incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the states like they have the others in the Bill of Rights.

This is mostly correct. I came here just to post about incorporation under the 14th. The 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights to the states, whereas previously the Bill of Rights only applied to laws promulgated by the federal government. The Second Amendment is the most recent to be incorporated to the states, although it was actually the McDonald v. City of Chicago case where the court incorporated the second amendment to the states, not Heller.

As far as I know, all of Amendments 1-8 have been incorporated to the states with the exception of a few items relating mostly to criminal procedure under Amendments 6, 7, and 8. I'm also pretty sure the unincorporated issues have never made it up to SCOTUS in the last 100 years so they very likely would be incorporated if there was a case today. Fortunately, most, if not all, state constitutions protect the same rights of the accused as these Amendments.

It's also pretty clear the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to anyone born here. Only for children of citizens (specifically, kids of the freed slaves).

Post: #16

(01-20-2017 05:19 PM)weambulance Wrote:  You guys think if we repeal the 14th Amendment white people are going to just start walking all over minorities again? There hasn't been (any of what is accepted as) negative systematic racism in this country for longer than most of us have been alive, but if we ditch the 14th amendment, that will all come back?

Well there's the slippery slope theory. Why not repeal the 13th amendment as long as we're doing some repealin' ?

I think if anyone tries to actually do; his, they are going to look like real jackasses and race haters. That is actually the bulk of people that would support this, not these anti-anchor baby people.

(01-20-2017 05:19 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Why do you even want to live with white people then, if as soon as we can we're going to start making you use your own drinking fountains and bathrooms again?

Because America is as much mine as it is a white persons.

The drinking fountain situation wasn't that long ago. Its been out of existence a lot less time than it was in existence. To just forget things like that ever occurred and remove what restricts them for happening again is what concerns minority Americans aka myself.

Aloha!

Post: #17

(01-20-2017 05:54 PM)Kona Wrote:  

(01-20-2017 05:19 PM)weambulance Wrote:  You guys think if we repeal the 14th Amendment white people are going to just start walking all over minorities again? There hasn't been (any of what is accepted as) negative systematic racism in this country for longer than most of us have been alive, but if we ditch the 14th amendment, that will all come back?

Well there's the slippery slope theory. Why not repeal the 13th amendment as long as we're doing some repealin' ?

I think if anyone tries to actually do; his, they are going to look like real jackasses and race haters. That is actually the bulk of people that would support this, not these anti-anchor baby people.

(01-20-2017 05:19 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Why do you even want to live with white people then, if as soon as we can we're going to start making you use your own drinking fountains and bathrooms again?

Because America is as much mine as it is a white persons.

The drinking fountain situation wasn't that long ago. Its been out of existence a lot less time than it was in existence. To just forget things like that ever occurred and remove what restricts them for happening again is what concerns minority Americans aka myself.

Aloha!

No there's plenty of other reasons, such as people not believing a woman has a federal right to murder a baby, or that a couple of fags don't have the right to sue a bakery for refusing to make them a wedding cake.

For the record I'm pretty sure most states have their own anti-discrimination laws now anyway. The progressives just want people to believe that everybody but them is so 'wacist' that if the federal government didn't have control, then the states would all go back to forcing black people to work on plantations...

Post: #18

For example, the state of Texas already has its own state anti-discrimination laws on the books prohibiting employment discrimination based on race.

These laws would still remain on the books even if the federal 14th Amendment was repealed in full:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Do.../LA.21.htm

Sec. 21.051. DISCRIMINATION BY EMPLOYER. An employer commits an unlawful employment practice if because of race, color, disability, religion, sex, national origin, or age the employer

Post: #19

(01-20-2017 05:19 PM)weambulance Wrote:  You guys think if we repeal the 14th Amendment white people are going to just start walking all over minorities again? There hasn't been (any of what is accepted as) negative systematic racism in this country for longer than most of us have been alive, but if we ditch the 14th amendment, that will all come back?

After repeal, there would be absolutely nothing stopping a scenario in which state-sanctioned racial discrimination ran rampant. The Amendment makes that scenario impossible.
You seem to want to make that scenario possible. Many are not interested in rolling back their constitutional rights and embracing potential fundamental risks to their liberty. And, frankly, I really don't see any reason why they should be. I also don't see any reason we should be anxious to encourage them to be either.

Why should minorities, women, and LGBT folks embrace that risk and remove a guarantor of their equality in the eyes of the law?

Why are you so defensive when people suggest that removing one of the few key constitutional guarantors of said equality that all of those people have may not be ideal for those people?

Why does the mere suggestion that these folks should oppose a policy that, from their perspective, has endless downside and zero upside, seem to bother you so much?

Quote:Why do you even want to live with white people then, if as soon as we can we're going to start making you use your own drinking fountains and bathrooms again?

The attempt to equivocate a desire to maintain a constitutional guarantor of rights by minorities and other's affected to a fundamental distrust/dislike of all white people is asinine. Not all white people support rampant discrimination (which is part of why many are among those who support the maintenance 14th Amendment), and opposing a move that would enhance the viability of such discrimination spreading is a) not at all exclusive to non-whites and b) not at all indicative of one's opinion of all white people.

The opposition to the removal of the amendment is not based on some sort of pathological hatred or distrust of white people, but a desire to protect fundamental rights from state sanctioned discrimination and abrogation of liberty (which can come from and be directed at multiple different groups).

I don't see how on Earth it is that people are seriously arguing in favor of this.

Post: #20

What I care about is the removal of birthright citizenship for children who are born to non-citizens who happen to be on US soil. That is nonsensical.

Otherwise, I was responding directly to the fear mongering you yourself indulge in. You want to talk about asinine? How about acting like all that's stopping minorities from being penned and slaughtered is a fucking piece of paper. Get real.

Post: #21

Why does everyone hate on the concept of birthright citizenship so much? Just because some Mexicans and Asians sneak in to have babies? Seems to me that the easy and proper solution is to secure the border and only let foreigners in that are invited, and kick them out if needed.

Wouldn't you feel insecure not having guaranteed citizenship in the home country of your birth? What nationality are we if not where we are born?

Post: #22

American citizens are born to American citizens, regardless of what soil they're on at that exact time. So I don't know where you got that "not guaranteed citizenship" bit from.

Why on earth should we give citizenship to people born to non-citizens just because they're on US soil?

Post: #23

(01-20-2017 06:16 PM)weambulance Wrote:  What I care about is the removal of birthright citizenship for children who are born to non-citizens who happen to be on US soil. That is nonsensical.

Then I'm sure you can brainstorm some ways to generate that outcome that don't involve repealin the 14th amendment.

Quote:Otherwise, I was responding directly to the fear mongering you yourself indulge in. You want to talk about asinine? How about acting like all that's stopping minorities from being penned and slaughtered is a fucking piece of paper. Get real.

No, asinine is asking minorities and others protected by the 14th amendment to remove a key constitutional guarantor of their rights and just hope and pray that there are no negative consequences to doing so. You get real.

Post: #24

I did not say we should repeal the 14th Amendment wholesale at any point in this thread. Nor does repealing the 14th Amendment necessarily require removal of equal protection, obviously.

I'm sick of dealing with people who are inherently incapable of debating in good faith. Good day.

Post: #25

(01-20-2017 07:11 PM)Excelsior Wrote:  No, asinine is asking minorities and others protected by the 14th amendment to remove a key constitutional guarantor of their rights and just hope and pray that there are no negative consequences to doing so. You get real.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Do.../LA.21.htm

Sec. 21.051. DISCRIMINATION BY EMPLOYER. An employer commits an unlawful employment practice if because of race, color, disability, religion, sex, national origin, or age the employer

Texas state law right here as an example.

Why do you think without the federal government, that states are so 'wacist' and backward that minorities wouldn't be safe?