Is the 14th Amendment dangerous to liberty?

[Anarchist420]

I've really become fed up with the 14th Amendment, and basically how the Federal Government gets to redefine the whole Bill of Rights.

I realize that there's a possibility of some states becoming a theocracy, or banning handguns outright, but that's not as dangerous as giving the Federal Government the ability to violate the 2nd Amendment by saying the Assault Weapons ban and the Brady Bill are Constitutional. Basically, we have these activist judges who say that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states, but AT THE SAME FUCKING TIME, they ignore "the right of the people to keep and bear and arms shall not be infringed" by saying the Brady bill is Constitutional, or that the Assault Weapons ban is Constitutional. It's basically become Constitutional for the Federal Government to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but not the states, even though the States, from an originalist perspective are allowed to and the Federal Government isn't.

We also need to remember how the 14th Amendment was ratified: Through military force.

In my opinion, the 14th Amendment has immensely increased the power of the Federal Government.

Wouldn't it be better to have the states, as originally intended, regulate the Bill of Rights, than for the Federal Government to step out of its bounds and nullify it? It would be better for just a few states to become a theocracy than for the whole damn nation to become a theocracy, right (Remember, the "Congress shall make no law" clause has been replaced by "conservative" John Roberts to mean "the States shall make no law, but the Federal Goverment can do whatever it damn well pleases against the wishes of the people who founded this nation")?

I wish they'd just repeal all post-CounterRevolution Amendments, so that the Old Republic could be restored.

 

[Brainonska511]

YAAnarchist420T

 

[glenn1]

I wish they'd just repeal all post-CounterRevolution Amendments, so that the Old Republic could be restored.

Yeah, the right of women to vote is awful. With the exception of the 16th (income tax), I don't have a problem with the later amendments.

 

[classy]

Are you serious?

 

[spidey07]

The interpretation of it can get really dicey. It was great at the time, but the consequences leads to this whole concept of incorporation. Then you get to the "subject of the jursidiction thereof" part.

I'd say this is one of the most controversial amendments. The intentions are well understood, the consequences of it and subsequent SC interpretations are far reaching.

OP - I remind you regarding 2nd, this concept of incorporation is what is leading to restoring 2a rights. Have patience, the recent SC ruling on making the 2nd a fundamental right will stop all that you are complaining about.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

 

[spidey07]

Are you serious?

It's a very real concern that can be interpreted in FAR REACHING consequences. aka, anchor babies.

The 14th is the left's favorite one, except when it can be used against them, specifically the 2nd.

 

[Moonbeam]

When I feel fed up I know that something is threatening to come into consciousness that is a feeling of how worthless I was made to feel. From this I can learn and grow by probing, allowing that feeling to bloom and take me back. For you it is a stimulus to complain about the external world. No change occurs in you or it.

 

[JSt0rm]

 

[irishScott]

the fu....

 

[Cogman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg1t5f5u4Yo&feature=related

 

[JSt0rm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhQA-06kSLU&feature=related

 

[Cogman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhQA-06kSLU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRewcZXEMb8

 

[bullbert]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRewcZXEMb8

You are Herbert.

 

[MotF Bane]

End women's suffrage! :awe:

 

[First]

Why do I always think of this when reading Anarchist420 threads: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JlVqfC8-UI

 

[Anarchist420]

Yeah, the right of women to vote is awful. With the exception of the 16th (income tax), I don't have a problem with the later amendments.

I never said that, and, the Constitution, prior to and after the ratification of the 19th Amendment, mentions nothing about women.

OP - I remind you regarding 2nd, this concept of incorporation is what is leading to restoring 2a rights. Have patience, the recent SC ruling on making the 2nd a fundamental right will stop all that you are complaining about.

Not really. In the DC v Heller case, self-proclaimed originalist Clarence Thomas upheld the courts decision that things like the brady bill were Constitutional.

End women's suffrage! :awe:

I'm not against women's suffrage, I just think the states should be able to decide who votes. I don't like nationalized democracy. I think that if MA wants to prohibit males from voting, then that's fine. Personally, if I were a state legislator, I would make a failed attempt at pushing legislation through to not have anyone but Ron Paul on VA's Presidential ballots in 2012.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Personally, if I were a state legislator, I would make a failed attempt at pushing legislation through to not have anyone but Ron Paul on VA's Presidential ballots in 2012.

You are the coolest libertarian ever.

 

[sandorski]

I never said that, and, the Constitution, prior to and after the ratification of the 19th Amendment, mentions nothing about women.


Not really. In the DC v Heller case, self-proclaimed originalist Clarence Thomas upheld the courts decision that things like the brady bill were Constitutional.


I'm not against women's suffrage, I just think the states should be able to decide who votes. I don't like nationalized democracy. I think that if MA wants to prohibit males from voting, then that's fine. Personally, if I were a state legislator, I would make a failed attempt at pushing legislation through to not have anyone but Ron Paul on VA's Presidential ballots in 2012.

You are dangerous to Liberty.

 

[Rainsford]

...
I'm not against women's suffrage, I just think the states should be able to decide who votes. I don't like nationalized democracy. I think that if MA wants to prohibit males from voting, then that's fine. Personally, if I were a state legislator, I would make a failed attempt at pushing legislation through to not have anyone but Ron Paul on VA's Presidential ballots in 2012.

WHY don't you like nationalized democracy? While the idea of totally independent states doing whatever the hell they want, regardless of what any other state is doing, has a certain traditionalist appeal; the fact is that we are a far more interconnected country (and world) than at any time in history...including during the time our nation was founded.

The real problem is that state level democracy (as opposed to the nationalized variety) simply doesn't work when we are all citizens of the entire country and not just any particular state. Now obviously we could change how that works, but if you REALLY want independent states, going from Maryland to Virginia would have to be like traveling to another country. In other words, if Virginia is just run by and for Virginians, the rest of us really have to be treated as foreigners, not fellow citizens. Practically, and legally, you can't have it both ways.

 

[hal2kilo]

WHY don't you like nationalized democracy? While the idea of totally independent states doing whatever the hell they want, regardless of what any other state is doing, has a certain traditionalist appeal; the fact is that we are a far more interconnected country (and world) than at any time in history...including during the time our nation was founded.

The real problem is that state level democracy (as opposed to the nationalized variety) simply doesn't work when we are all citizens of the entire country and not just any particular state. Now obviously we could change how that works, but if you REALLY want independent states, going from Maryland to Virginia would have to be like traveling to another country. In other words, if Virginia is just run by and for Virginians, the rest of us really have to be treated as foreigners, not fellow citizens. Practically, and legally, you can't have it both ways.

The Balkans worked so well.

 

[Anarchist420]

WHY don't you like nationalized democracy? While the idea of totally independent states doing whatever the hell they want, regardless of what any other state is doing, has a certain traditionalist appeal; the fact is that we are a far more interconnected country (and world) than at any time in history...including during the time our nation was founded.

The real problem is that state level democracy (as opposed to the nationalized variety) simply doesn't work when we are all citizens of the entire country and not just any particular state. Now obviously we could change how that works, but if you REALLY want independent states, going from Maryland to Virginia would have to be like traveling to another country. In other words, if Virginia is just run by and for Virginians, the rest of us really have to be treated as foreigners, not fellow citizens. Practically, and legally, you can't have it both ways.

The Founder of this nation said that Virginia was his country.

Anyways, I don't like nationalized democracy because, to quote the Founder again, "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

I favor state's rights over centralism because we were founded as a confederation, and a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have. The smaller a government, the less it can do.

People within states tend to have more consensus among each other than people within the entire nation have with each other.

 

[Rainsford]

The Founder of this nation said that Virginia was his country.

Anyways, I don't like nationalized democracy because, to quote the Founder again, "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."[/quotes]

Fair enough, I guess...that's the danger of a democracy without rules protecting minority rights (which we have at both a state and federal level, so I don't know what you're complaining about). But that danger is equally present at the state level...enshrining states' rights does NOTHING to protect against the tyranny of the majority. In fact, it's federalism that protected minority rights in many states during the civil rights movement. The states were run by racist assholes who I don't think exemplify the best of democracy...or a good example of why states' rights are the best possible ideal.

I favor state's rights over centralism because we were founded as a confederation, and a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have. The smaller a government, the less it can do.

Again, a state is just as able to be "too big" as a federal government. If you want to argue for limited government, fine. But handing power to a huge government in your state capital doesn't seem to be a huge improvement to handing power to the government in Washington DC. States' rights is treated as a magical cure for overreaching government, but there are plenty of examples where that's obviously not the case.

People within states tend to have more consensus among each other than people within the entire nation have with each other.

Do they? Big cities tend to be a lot alike no matter where you go, as do rural areas. I'm not sure Dallas and New York City are farther apart than Dallas and Bug Dick, Texas.

In any case, my problem with states being totally independent still stands. If I'm a citizen of the United States, shouldn't I have at least SOME say as to what goes on in Texas? After all, I can move there and become a citizen of THAT state with no official approval. Does it really make sense to argue that Texas is for Texans when it's so easy to join or leave that particular group?

The problem with relying on the founders for every bit of wisdom is that they lived in a MUCH different time than we do. In their day, states really WERE dramatically different from each other, and the whole reason we had to try twice to get a United States at all was because everyone identified with their home state and treated every other state like a foreign country. The nation was founded on the idea that Virginia and Maryland were more like Germany and France than anything else.

That's not the case any more, even in states like Texas that loudly and obnoxiously proclaim their independence. I've lived in 7 states since I was born, and payed taxes in 4 of them...and I'm by no means unusual in that regard. States governing themselves might sound appealing, but it's not realistic given how interconnected we all are.

 

[hal2kilo]

The Founder of this nation said that Virginia was his country.

Anyways, I don't like nationalized democracy because, to quote the Founder again, "a democracy is nothing more than mob rule where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

I favor state's rights over centralism because we were founded as a confederation, and a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have. The smaller a government, the less it can do.

People within states tend to have more consensus among each other than people within the entire nation have with each other.

Unfortunately, it only takes either 34 or 40 percent depending on the type of vote in the Senate for minority mob rule over the majority.

 

[MotF Bane]

I'm not against women's suffrage, I just think the states should be able to decide who votes. I don't like nationalized democracy. I think that if MA wants to prohibit males from voting, then that's fine. Personally, if I were a state legislator, I would make a failed attempt at pushing legislation through to not have anyone but Ron Paul on VA's Presidential ballots in 2012.

I was actually being sarcastic. Now I'm not - you're a lunatic.