Constitutional Amendments need changing? WTF!!

[funjumper101 15]

There seems to be a groundswell of right wing nitwittery around the idea that there is something terribly wrong with the US Constitution, specifcally the 14th amendment.

Apparently there are some real America haters that want to repeal parts of the 14th amendment.

Do the right wingers here support these ideas, or are you all writing and calling your elected officials to tell them to cut the crap?

Funny that one of the people who has been quoted is the child of an illegal Australian immigant. He ended up a citizen due to the 14th, but wants to screw over other people in similar situations. That makes him a good republican, as best I can tell...

[billvon 2,450]

>There seems to be a groundswell of right wing nitwittery . . .

Ironically the GOP website is still bragging that they are the ones who CREATED it! From http://www.gop.com/index.php/learn/accomplishment/:

===========
Republicans passed the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment guarantees due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens. It enshrines in the Constitution provisions of the GOP’s 1866 Civil Rights Act. The original purpose of the 14th Amendment was to defend African-Americans from their Democrat oppressors in the post-Civil War South.

The principal author of the 14th Amendment was U.S. Rep. John Bingham (R-OH). In Congress, all votes in favor of the 14th Amendment were from Republicans, and all votes against it were from Democrats.

In 1868, the Republican Governor of New Jersey vetoed an attempt by the Democrat-controlled legislature to rescind the state's ratification of the 14th Amendment.
============

But I guess it's understandable, what with all the terrorist babies being popped out. From a GOP representative:

=========
I talked to a retired FBI agent who said that one of the things they were looking at were terrorist cells overseas who had figured out how to game our system. And it appeared they would have young women, who became pregnant, would get them into the United States to have a baby. They wouldn't even have to pay anything for the baby. And then they would turn back where they could be raised and coddled as future terrorists. And then one day, 20, 30 years down the road, they can be sent in to help destroy our way of life.
==========

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

There seems to be a groundswell of left wing nitwittery around the idea that there is something terribly wrong with the US Constitution, specifcally the 2nd amendment.

[scruffy 0]

Not associating with those who would want to repeal the 14th by any stretch of the imagination.

I wouldn't lose any sleep if congress repealed the 16th and 17th amendments however.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Not associating with those who would want to repeal the 14th by any stretch of the imagination.

I wouldn't lose any sleep if congress repealed the 16th and 17th amendments however.

OK the 16th is federal income tax.

The 17th provides for direct election of US Senators by the people of the state, instead of being elected by the state legislature. Why would you not want that?

[scruffy 0]

Quote

The 17th provides for direct election of US Senators by the people of the state, instead of being elected by the state legislature. Why would you not want that?

Well I'll tell you. It's all about the the original intent of our bicameral legislature. Have you ever considered why the house of representatives is comprised of numbers that represent the populations of states, and the senate a static 2 regardless of state populations? The Senate, as I understand it, was never intended to represent the American people, but rather to represent the state legislatures in congress, hence senators originally being appointed by legislatures and not the product of direct vote. This, coupled with the staggered election process, ensured that senators, similarly to the house of lords in the British parliament, would not be influenced by the reactionary sentiments of the American people. The Senate could let cooler heads prevail without worrying their jobs depended on pandering to mob rule (remember we do not live in a democracy, our founding fathers hated the idea of democracy)

So at the end of the day, why I don't support the 17th amendment is based on the premise that it makes it easier for the hoi polloi to have a negative impact on our government through being reactionary, our states have no formal representation in our government as originally intended (while foreign nations do through their ambassadors), and it demeans the very idea of having a bicameral legislature.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Republicans passed the 14th Amendment

Remember, the R's in the Civil War era were the progressives, now they are the regressives, so the big two have flipped. It's no surprise that the R's want to limit/revoke the 14th today.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

There seems to be a groundswell of left wing nitwittery around the idea that there is something terribly wrong with the US Constitution, specifcally the 2nd amendment.

Yes, the original writings of the 2nd doesn't allow for private gun ownership. Fortunately "activist" justices have read that into it.

[scruffy 0]

Quote

Yes, the original writings of the 2nd doesn't allow for private gun ownership. Fortunately "activist" justices have read that into it.

I would love for you to show something to back that statement up with, because I can't find a single textualist or O.I. argument to back that up with following the writings of our founders.

I can however quote you several to the contrary:

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the right of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; ...or to prevent the people from petitioning , in a peaceable and orderly manner; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions." - Sam Adams

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." - George Washington

"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedomof the press." - Thomas Jefferson

O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone..." - Patrick Henry

Peace, love and hoppiness

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I would love for you to show something to back that statement up with, because I can't find a single textualist or O.I. argument to back that up with following the writings of our founders.

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.

In the event of militias are these rights supported. And even then, the militia must be well regulated. Totally diff context, they didn't have standing armies then.

The 2nd gives you the right to own firearms in conjunction with militia activity, and it must be well regulated. Fortunatley the justices have interpreted it to include personal firearm onwership.

[mccurley 0]

Being a Canadian, and living overseas, I have never been a student of American politics.

But it has always seemed to me, to be pretty damn obviuos that the right to bear arms was intended as the right of the people (in general) to protect thier country from tyrants, (such as the British in the colonies to the north).
This has scince been perverted to the right of every Tom, Dick, and Nut case to own a weapon, and then perverted further to the point were some serious fire power can be in the hands of the general public.

Hunting and target shooting weapons OK, but do people really need assault type weapons?

Flame away!!!

Watch my video Fat Women
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRWkEky8GoI

[scruffy 0]

Ignoring O.I. and O.M. and just looking at the 2A textually that doesn't really hold water with me.

The amendment isn't saying "the right of the militia shall not be infringed" (well regulated or not is immaterial), it is directly contrasting "the people" with "the militia."

Let remember the context in which our constitution was written, revolution was kind of on the minds of our founding fathers. So why the use of the word "the people"? It can only be logically assumed from the contrast, other uses of the phase "the people" and that pesky comma separating the clause of the militia and the people that our founding fathers understood there may be a time when the people may have to revolt again. In order for that ability to be available to "the people" our founding fathers made it an inalienable right to keep and bear arms that the militia (which has to exist to protect a free sovereign state from other nations) could not take away.

Don't assume because I realize the textual significance of this contrast I'm implying that the people today have any reason to "refresh the tree of liberty" so to speak, I'm just merely noting that was clearly the O.I. to endow the people with the ability to do so.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Yes, the original writings of the 2nd doesn't allow for private gun ownership. Fortunately "activist" justices have read that into it.

I would love for you to show something to back that statement up with, because I can't find a single textualist or O.I. argument to back that up with following the writings of our founders.

Just to save you time - Lucky is rarely interested in facts, makes up many on his own, and believes himself to be an expert on a wide variety of subjects despite great evidence to the contrary.

There are better people here to argue the collectivist fantasy on the 2nd. They're wrong, of course, but at least they'll put up an argument.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yes, the original writings of the 2nd doesn't allow for private gun ownership. Fortunately "activist" justices have read that into it.

I would love for you to show something to back that statement up with, because I can't find a single textualist or O.I. argument to back that up with following the writings of our founders.

Just to save you time - Lucky is rarely interested in facts, makes up many on his own, and believes himself to be an expert on a wide variety of subjects despite great evidence to the contrary.

There are better people here to argue the collectivist fantasy on the 2nd. They're wrong, of course, but at least they'll put up an argument.

Oh don't kid yourself, he would argue with a tree if the tree would listen to him . . . his argument would not be any more valid, but he would still give it his all, over and over and over and over and over and over again, all at once in a string of replies.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Republicans passed the 14th Amendment

Remember, the R's in the Civil War era were the progressives, now they are the regressives, so the big two have flipped. It's no surprise that the R's want to limit/revoke the 14th today.

Other than the fact that it was the R's that overwhelmingly voted for it, while the Dem's filibustered against it, you mean?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

There seems to be a groundswell of left wing nitwittery around the idea that there is something terribly wrong with the US Constitution, specifcally the 2nd amendment.

Yes, the original writings of the 2nd doesn't allow for private gun ownership. Fortunately "activist" justices have read that into it.

Yeah, whatever you say, Chief Justice Lucky.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Republicans passed the 14th Amendment

Remember, the R's in the Civil War era were the progressives, now they are the regressives, so the big two have flipped. It's no surprise that the R's want to limit/revoke the 14th today.

Other than the fact that it was the R's that overwhelmingly voted for it, while the Dem's filibustered against it, you mean?

I guess I have to slow it down for you to understand. The R's were the progressives, the liberals in Lincoln's days and for 50 years, they turned to shit in the 1920's and traded places with the Dems.

It was EXTREMELT liberal to emancipate and end secession. The D's were traditionalists, the Whigs old elitists and the R's the progressive saviors; glad we had them, too bad they turned to shit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

There seems to be a groundswell of left wing nitwittery around the idea that there is something terribly wrong with the US Constitution, specifcally the 2nd amendment.

Yes, the original writings of the 2nd doesn't allow for private gun ownership. Fortunately "activist" justices have read that into it.

Yeah, whatever you say, Chief Justice Lucky.

Thx Mike, that was educational.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There seems to be a groundswell of left wing nitwittery around the idea that there is something terribly wrong with the US Constitution, specifcally the 2nd amendment.

Yes, the original writings of the 2nd doesn't allow for private gun ownership. Fortunately "activist" justices have read that into it.

Yeah, whatever you say, Chief Justice Lucky.

Thx Mike, that was educational.

Quite welcome.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Hunting and target shooting weapons OK, but do people really need assault type weapons?

Flame away!!!

How do you define "assault" rifle? Here is one definition I have read.

"An assault rifle is defined as a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine."

Selective fire means it can be switch between automatic and semi automatic. You are not going to find any automatic weapons for sale at the local gun store. Automatic weapons are highly regulated. There are very stiff fines and jail time if caught with one illegally.

If you consider a rifle to be an assault rifle because it fires a much more powerful cartridge than a hunting rifle, you would be mistaken. An AR-15(semi auto version of an M-16 and considered an assualt rifle ) fires a .223 cartridge/bullet. There are several hunting specific rifles that shoot more powerful rounds. You can also find rifles specific for hunting that are semi automatic, have a detachable magazine and are more powerful than an AR-15.

If you consider a rifle to be an "assault rifle" because of how it looks (it looks scary ) that is just silly. How a rifle looks has very little to do with how it performs.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Republicans passed the 14th Amendment

Remember, the R's in the Civil War era were the progressives, now they are the regressives, so the big two have flipped. It's no surprise that the R's want to limit/revoke the 14th today.

Other than the fact that it was the R's that overwhelmingly voted for it, while the Dem's filibustered against it, you mean?

Historically you're correct; but the R and D parties of the post-Civil War Reconstruction era bear virtually no resemblance to the D and R parties of today; and in fact that really has been the case since the early 20th Century.

I figure that the last bastion of the old 19th Century parties that still existed well into the 20th Century was the Deep South Democrats ("Dixiecrats") who opposed civil rights in the 1940s-'60s. Their alienation and split from the socially-liberal majority if the Democratic party was probably sealed by Candidate Nixon's "Southern strategy of 1968. After that, most of those folks, especially the non-office holders (exceptions were politicians like Robert Byrd, for example) pretty much became firmly aligned with the conservative wing of the Republican party. It was those voters who voted in throngs for Reagan in 1980, and remain staunch conservative Republicans today.

[kallend 1,659]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Republicans passed the 14th Amendment

Remember, the R's in the Civil War era were the progressives, now they are the regressives, so the big two have flipped. It's no surprise that the R's want to limit/revoke the 14th today.

Other than the fact that it was the R's that overwhelmingly voted for it, while the Dem's filibustered against it, you mean?

Some nice conservative Americans in this picture.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,450]

>>Remember, the R's in the Civil War era were the progressives, now they
>> are the regressives, so the big two have flipped. It's no surprise that the
>>R's want to limit/revoke the 14th today.

>Other than the fact that it was the R's that overwhelmingly voted for it, while
>the Dem's filibustered against it, you mean?

That's what he said.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Some nice conservative Americans in this picture.

Looks like Byrd and Wallace holding the ropes - imagine that.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Republicans passed the 14th Amendment

Remember, the R's in the Civil War era were the progressives, now they are the regressives, so the big two have flipped. It's no surprise that the R's want to limit/revoke the 14th today.

Other than the fact that it was the R's that overwhelmingly voted for it, while the Dem's filibustered against it, you mean?

Some nice conservative Americans in this picture.

The ones being hung, right?