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.
Those who wish to RESTORE the constitution (while amending it) are probably upset by the STATE OF EMERGENCY that has bypassed the limitations of the constitution, since 1933.
. . . .
Senate Report 93-549
War and Emergency Powers Acts "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years (as of the report 1933-1973), freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."
FREEDOMS ... GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION ... HAVE BEEN ABRIDGED BY LAWS ... UNDER EMERGENCY RULE ...
Constitutional U.S.A. (1787 - 1933) R.I.P.
Uh, no. It is time to repeal the 14th Amendment because it is being abused to the detriment of the country. That's not "anti-Constitution"... It's anti-abuse.
You know nothing about Logic.
Can we use the same logic to gut the right to bare arms? The Founding Fathers didn't envision fire power like we have now, that is abusive.
Can we use the same logic to gut the right to bare arms? The Founding Fathers didn't envision fire power like we have now, that is abusive.
If you got enough supporters, you could do that, but we all know that isn't going to happen, since most Citizens sup[port the 2nd. However, MOST Citizens do not support Anchor Babies, so lets get that part out of the Constitution, and make it retroactive. Illegal Aliens need to be deported, not showered with "Rights" never intended for Illegal Alien Criminals.
Can we use the same logic to gut the right to bare arms? The Founding Fathers didn't envision fire power like we have now, that is abusive.
Actually we all seem to forget that the founders were all revolutionaries. They wanted the population to be able to physically overthrow the government. They would probably want the citizens much better armed then they are.
they would find the whole self defense thing silly. They want a citizen body capable of armed insurrection...not shooting a burglar.
Funny how it all turned out. Not even the NRA Backs the founders view.
I suppose you have a right to your opinion but you make it clear you are sufficiently far out all by yourself that no one need to take you seriously.
Evidently, U.S. Congress and the U.S. President took it seriously. They all felt it necessary to pass and sign into law the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 because neither the 14th Amendment nor the Wong Kim Ark ruling rendered all Native Americans born in the U.S. birthright citizens.
Quote:
Indians were a different problem and were basically considered less than persons any more citizens. It is though interesting that the first clause of the 14th does not have the Indians not taxed exception.
Indians not taxed. Not all Indians. Indians born in the U.S. and not taxed were not birthright citizens until 1924 because nationality law subsequent to the 14th Amendment specifically excluded those subject to a foreign power. The Wong Kim Ark ruling didn't do it, either, because of Gray's very specific limitations. It took a separate law in 1924 to make them birthright citizens.
Again a piece of opinion of little relevance. Earlier discussion made it crystal clear it applies to Anyone born in the USA. And note it is an observation on the attributes of the parents not on the requirements.
The earlier Lynch discussion makes it clear that birth is the common law rule in the US and this simply upholds that same view.
Thetre is a fine discussion on all this in Redstate. I will see if I can find it.
They have gutted the 1st amendment without an amendment
They have gutted the 2nd amendment, without an amendment
They have gutted the 4th amendment, without an amendment
They have gutted the 5th amendment, without an amendment
They have stomped on the 9th amendment to gut the 10th amendment
So why stop there. Lets gut the 14th amendment, without an amendment.
There is no reason to "gut" the 14th amendment, it has no real purpose today. It was just made to make blacks citizens in 1868 without fear that Congress would later change the law.
Nope. It actually declared everyone a slave, and property of the United States corporation.
The 16th, then did declare that any income you might generate was also partially owned by the corporation, and subject to confiscation.
Logic does not work that way. If you are anti 14th then you you are anti constitution
One can only wonder whether you feel the same way about the Second Amendment?
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.
