Would repealing 14th Amendment allow the Fed to take away the right to bear arms? (compare, parties)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As the original Memphis poster knows, it has been very hot here in Tennessee and I'm not giving up my right to bare arms. If the NRA wants to keep me cool in the summer, I'm with them.
As the original Memphis poster knows, it has been very hot here in Tennessee and I'm not giving up my right to bare arms. If the NRA wants to keep me cool in the summer, I'm with them.
How do you see politicians asking for a repeal of the most important clause of an amendment and not worry about its consequences? Oh yeah, that Kevin Craig guy, the "Christian Libertarian", is perfect example of a wolf in sheep's clothing, another reason I see contemporary libertarianism as mostly a sham.
Where in any of my posts did I state I was worried or not worried. That had nothing to do with my posts. Who cares about a third rate candidate from Missouri.
I don't think anything is going to happen to the 14th amendment anytime soon. I could be proven wrong, stranger things have happened.
Where in any of my posts did I state I was worried or not worried. That had nothing to do with my posts. Who cares about a third rate candidate from Missouri.
I don't think anything is going to happen to the 14th amendment anytime soon. I could be proven wrong, stranger things have happened.
And this is true, but when the possible third man in the succession to the Presidency is talking about it, I get nervous.
On a lighter note, if Boehner were to become President, would we call him "President Umpalumpa" and install a tanning bed in the White House?
And this is true, but when the possible third man in the succession to the Presidency is talking about it, I get nervous.
On a lighter note, if Boehner were to become President, would we call him "President Umpalumpa" and install a tanning bed in the White House?
Its nothing to get nervous about. IMO the calls for hearings is a starting point to get a bill such as HR-1868 the Birthright Citizenship Act passed. It changes the statue on immigration policy to deny citizenship to people born in the US who do not have at least one parent who is a US citizen.
The only way you could get a change on the 14th is if all three branches of Government were owned by the same party and a national emergency had just occurred like 9-11. Like the rabid Liberal Rahm Emmaual said " you never want to let a good crisis go to waste"
I don't think you have to worry about an Umpalumpacy anytime soon. LOL
Its nothing to get nervous about. IMO the calls for hearings is a starting point to get a bill such as HR-1868 the Birthright Citizenship Act passed. It changes the statue on immigration policy to deny citizenship to people born in the US who do not have at least one parent who is a US citizen.
The only way you could get a change on the 14th is if all three branches of Government were owned by the same party and a national emergency had just occurred like 9-11. Like the rabid Liberal Rahm Emmaual said " you never want to let a good crisis go to waste"
I don't think you have to worry about an Umpalumpacy anytime soon. LOL
That law would be declared unconstitutional, and would never pass.
You really do have a reading comprehension problem, don't you?
Prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, states could and did deny the rights of citizens whether god gave them or not.
The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment insures that states cannot deny those rights.
What Memphis is trying to point out is that one of the frequent conundrums that you states rights folks seem to forget or ignore is that without the 14th Amendment your dear and sacred state could very well deny you the right to own a gun, marry your cousin, or do whatever you people do in your spare time based upon the retarded argument that the Constitution only restricts the powers of the Federal government. Repeal the 14th Amendment and what a state does to your Constitutional rights will no longer be the federal governments concern.
: smack:
Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, Article Six, Clause Two insured state laws never trumped the Constitution.
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
"States and cities have a variety of laws that restrict gun ownership, such as requiring mental health background checks or waiting periods before purchases. And the court's designation of gun ownership as a fundamental right, like freedom of speech, will provide a tool for those who want to challenge restrictive local laws."
The say beating yourself against the head is good for clearing away the gog webs.
I am fully aware of Article IV, Section 2 unfortunately prior to 1868 you and I were the only two who understand that (well others of course did, but not that it mattered to many states or the Supreme Court, see Dred Scott v Sanford).
Quote:
Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, Article Six, Clause Two insured state laws never trumped the Constitution.
Prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment the privileges and immunity construction of Article IV was construed to limit only the Federal governments ability to restrict the rights of citizens not the rights of state to restrict the rights of its citizens. (See Slaughter House 83 U.S. 36 (1873)
Quote:
"States and cities have a variety of laws that restrict gun ownership, such as requiring mental health background checks or waiting periods before purchases. And the court's designation of gun ownership as a fundamental right, like freedom of speech, will provide a tool for those who want to challenge restrictive local laws."
Which sits upon the foundation based upon the 14th Amendment.
The deciding vote fell to Justice Clarence Thomas, who noted that, for all the disagreement between the two groups of four justices, neither side even pretended to base their arguments on what the 14th Amendment was actually understood to mean when it was adopted. Justice Thomas agreed that the gun ban should be struck down, but it should be done under the 14th Amendment's "Privileges or Immunities Clause."
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.
The 14th amendment.
Before this, the Federal government couldn't pass a law to take away your guns, but the states could.
So, do you really want to repeal this?
No, just amend it or have SCOTUS clarify the first sentence as it deals with birthright citizenship when parents are in the country illegally.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
McDonald v. Chicago???
