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.
Ok, it is heavy reading, but here is a good document on what the 14th Amendment means, word by word, and the historical context of the framers who wrote it in 1868:
I know the Constitution. I eat, sleep, live and breathe the Constitution. I know many of the arguments made by the founders. I know why they came to the wording they used in the Constitution.
Every time I get into a debate about what the Constitution is and what its intent is, when my opponent has to go to precedent set upon precedent, never going back to the words, meaning and intent of the Constitution, I know I am right. They cannot EVER logically get from point A (the words and intent of the Constitution) to point H (after manipulation through precedent placed upon precedent) when looking at the intent. Instead they try to cite case law. I'm sorry but the Constitution does NOT allow itself to be rewritten or amended by case law. It only allows itself to be amended by one of two very specific and very well defined Amendment processes. It does NOT allow any exception in its text.
We WILL once again have a Constitutional Representative Republic. It may take time, but we WILL get there again.
I am sorry but maybe you should read article 3 of the Constitution you claim to "eat, sleep, live and breathe" it kind of says that when dealing with disputes, or cases, arising under the Constitution the federal courts have judicial power, which means that case law especially from the Supreme Court of the United States is basically binding as to the meaning of the Constitution.
I am sorry but maybe you should read article 3 of the Constitution you claim to "eat, sleep, live and breathe" it kind of says that when dealing with disputes, or cases, arising under the Constitution the federal courts have judicial power, which means that case law especially from the Supreme Court of the United States is basically binding as to the meaning of the Constitution.
He is just being insular. I doubt he even skims that law paper I posted. Truth is he is RIGHT that the original Constitution did not have the Bill of Rights applying to the States and the Supreme Court affirmed this in 1833.
Which is why in 1868 they drafted the 14th...
But no, everyone cherry picks their own sections, ignores others, and on top of that, doesn't understand the meaning of the words and how they are applied in a legal sense (and have been through historical English Common Law).
History and Civic education sucks in this country lately...
He is just being insular. I doubt he even skims that law paper I posted. Truth is he is RIGHT that the original Constitution did not have the Bill of Rights applying to the States and the Supreme Court affirmed this in 1833.
Which is why in 1868 they drafted the 14th...
But no, everyone cherry picks their own sections, ignores others, and on top of that, doesn't understand the meaning of the words and how they applied in a legal sense (and have been through historical English Common Law).
History and Civic education sucks in this country lately...
I agree. Barron v. Baltimore basically was the rule for pre 14th Amendment America, and it is true that the idea of incorporation didn't come into vogue until cases like Twining v. New Jersey. With that said nowadays incorporation is how things work.
What I find funny though is that many of the people who argue so vehemently in this thread that the 1st Amendment isn't incorporated will argue equally vehemently for the outcome in McDonald v. Chicago which basically applies the same legal principle to the 2nd amendment.
Gwyn, read line 4 and 5 about due process clause. If you don't understand it, and what it means, then I'm sorry but I don't think we can continue this conversation. But in short, North Carolina can not do this.
KS, the 14th amendment heavily limited amendment 10's usage. And being 14 was ratified after 10, guess which gets precedence? We had a civil war over this folks; the States can not over rule the Federal Government.
Tell me something constitutional scholar... Doesn't an amendment need to specifically name an amendment it is amending? I mean after all... That precedent thing seemed to apply to every other amendment that was amended. So how does the 14th Amendment amend the text of either the 9th or 10th Amendments as you are implying?
How does the 14th Amendment amend the 1st Amendment where is says, "Congress shall make no law..."?
What other amendments does the 14th Amendment amend? Can we get an official list so even the people like me, who have spent many hours studying the Constitution, its text and the founder's intent can have a clue as to exactly what amendments were amended by the 14th Amendment.
Then... if you would be so kind, please inform all of us on C-D what other parts of the Constitution, i.e. the main body of text, the 14th Amendment amended. Because inquiring minds want to know.
Also, did the 14th Amendment change the order of the colors in the rainbow? I mean it DID come AFTER the first rainbow, didn't it?
I am sorry but maybe you should read article 3 of the Constitution you claim to "eat, sleep, live and breathe" it kind of says that when dealing with disputes, or cases, arising under the Constitution the federal courts have judicial power, which means that case law especially from the Supreme Court of the United States is basically binding as to the meaning of the Constitution.
Surpeme Court rulings are NOT case law, they are rulings based upon laws already in existance. If a law is ruled unconstitutional, Congress can rewrite the very same law, changing the wording, to bring it into compliance with the Constitution, and thus render the Supreme Court ruling irrelevant.
For example, if a law is passed in Washington DC which says that owning a gun is illegal, the Supreme Court can throw the law out as unconstitutional, and then DC can come back writing a new law which says that you must buy a permit, and jump through 100 hoops to obtain a gun, which would be legal.
This doesnt mean the Supreme Court ruling is case law, as the Supreme Courts job is to INTERPRETE the law, not write it.
Furthermore, Congress can actually strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over certain cases, simply by writing it into law, powers granted to them by the Exclusion Clause, Art III 2. This was done for example in case
Surpeme Court rulings are NOT case law, they are rulings based upon laws already in existance. If a law is ruled unconstitutional, Congress can rewrite the very same law, changing the wording, to bring it into compliance with the Constitution, and thus render the Supreme Court ruling irrelevant.
For example, if a law is passed in Washington DC which says that owning a gun is illegal, the Supreme Court can throw the law out as unconstitutional, and then DC can come back writing a new law which says that you must buy a permit, and jump through 100 hoops to obtain a gun, which would be legal.
This doesnt mean the Supreme Court ruling is case law, as the Supreme Courts job is to INTERPRETE the law, not write it.
Supreme court rulings are in fact case law, because they are legal cases that are binding authority on lower courts. Furthermore some laws cannot be rewritten to be brought into compliance, because their central premise is unconstitutional e.g. the line item veto act of 1996 which was ruled unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York.
Furthermore the Supreme Court does interpret the law, but they do such in the case of a dispute about the meaning of treaties, the Constitution, federal law, etc. Basically their power is to take a live controversy in which several different ideas about something in the aforementioned range of jurisdiction and then to decide to the extent they need to what is the way the item should be viewed in the particular situation. That is what they do.
Furthermore, Congress can actually strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over certain cases, simply by writing it into law, powers granted to them by the Exclusion Clause, Art III 2. This was done for example in case
Supreme court rulings are in fact case law, because they are legal cases that are binding authority on lower courts. Furthermore some laws cannot be rewritten to be brought into compliance, because their central premise is unconstitutional e.g. the line item veto act of 1996 which was ruled unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York.
Furthermore the Supreme Court does interpret the law, but they do such in the case of a dispute about the meaning of treaties, the Constitution, federal law, etc. Basically their power is to take a live controversy in which several different ideas about something in the aforementioned range of jurisdiction and then to decide to the extent they need to what is the way the item should be viewed in the particular situation. That is what they do.
Actually the fact that you had to say "some laws", indicates that you were incorrect. Your line item veto example is also very wrong because it actually was re-introduced by Congress in 2006, and again re-introduced in 2009 with the changes to pass Constitutional muster.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,550 posts, read 16,536,658 times
Reputation: 6032
It is called the Establishment Clause; Engel v. Vitale, Abington Township v. Schempp, Wallace v. Jaffree
OH and lets not forget Roy Moore a.k.a. Glassroth v. Moore
The Constitution of the United States trumps any state Constitution.
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.
