# A Rogue Supreme Court



## DGS49 (Aug 31, 2015)

There is a lot of philosophical debate about the current state of USSC authority over the other branches of government, both at the federal and state levels.

The answer to all questions seems to be "Marbury v. Madison," and the discussion is over.  One may not point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly gives the USSC the extraordinary power to overturn legislation, or to avoid the actions of Congress or the President.  The three branches of government are supposed to be "equal."

Where does the Supreme Court get the authority to nullify the actions of the other two branches of the Federal Government, when its actions are based on (a) questionable readings of the statutes (the "exchanges established by the states" under the ACA), (b) dubious inferences from the Constitution itself (e.g., the non-existent "right of privacy"), or (c) the Court's own policy preferences (e.g., abortion, "affirmative action," and the death penalty)?

More importantly, what are the other two branches (and, in effect the American people) to do when the USSC "goes off the reservation," so to speak?

Consider the current "hot topic" of "birthright-citizenship."  If Congress were to pass a law clarifying the original intent of the Authors of the 14th Amendment (as clearly shown in the legislative history) that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed to the offspring of people in the country illegally, there is a more than even chance that the Court would overturn the law, simply because a majority of the Justices just don't like it.  That would put us in the situation where a Constitutional Amendment would be required, which is, if your will pardon the expression, bullshit.

One of the problems is lifetime-tenure of the justices, which clearly allows them to draw more and more out of touch with the actual humans who live in this country.  Article III Section 1 states that the justices shall hold t heir office "...during good behavior..."  Dare one point out that ignoring the Constitution and laws of the United States constitutes "bad" behavior?  Could a justice be removed/impeached if tried and convicted in the Congress for blatant disregard of the Constitution?

How else to deal with a rogue Supreme Court?


----------



## Obiwan (Aug 31, 2015)

Yes, Supreme Court Justices can be impeached by Congress.


----------



## Pete7469 (Aug 31, 2015)

Imagine if the SCOTUS declared that the 14th A was unconstitutional, because it was ratified by southern states under military duress?


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 31, 2015)

DGS49 said:


> There is a lot of philosophical debate about the current state of USSC authority over the other branches of government, both at the federal and state levels.
> 
> The answer to all questions seems to be "Marbury v. Madison," and the discussion is over.  One may not point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly gives the USSC the extraordinary power to overturn legislation, or to avoid the actions of Congress or the President.  The three branches of government are supposed to be "equal."
> 
> ...



Tell us then, genius, when you have a dispute over the meaning of words in a statute, who gets to decide what they mean?  The Democrats who wrote and passed the health care law and the President who was implementing it agreed that the words of the statute allowed for the feds to set up exchanges in the states. Some private citizens disagreed and sued.  They sued in a Court.  A court is where, guess what, disputes over the meaning of statutes and regulations and contracts  are decided.  That is what Courts do.  Appellate Courts decide if the lower Courts were correct in their determination of the meaning of the words in a statute.  Ultimately, the "Supreme" Court (there is a reason it is called Supreme) has to resolve, finally, those questions.  The authority to do that is not disputed by anyone.  It is provided for explicitly in the constitution, Article III, which gives the Supreme Court appellate power over the decisions of inferior courts.  It also stems from the Supremacy clause which makes federal law and the constitution supreme over state law.  Courts are always faced with disputes over the meaning of words in laws and the constitution. Often they are faced with folks like you who lie about things to advance their claims. This "the original intent of the Authors of the 14th Amendment (as clearly shown in the legislative history) that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed to the offspring of people in the country illegally." is a lie.  There is no evidence that the authors of the 14th ever even considered what affect it would have on those in the country illegally. Know why?  There were no laws on immigration then.  No one was here "illegally" since there was no law limiting who could some in.  

There is a right to privacy in the constitution.  The Constitution protects the right to liberty.  Liberty means the freedom to make decisions about your life without governmental intrusion.  Decisions like who you marry, what religion you practice, what medical care you will undergo, etc.  And there were no "policy" decisions regarding affirmative action, abortion or the death penalty.  As to each, they ruled on the constitution.  The ignorance of folks like you about the constitution is astounding.  It is a shame that they do not make you take a test about the constitution before letting folks like you vote.  You are the epitome of the low information voter.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 31, 2015)

Obiwan said:


> Yes, Supreme Court Justices can be impeached by Congress.


So, a Supreme Court Justice can be impeached because they and four others on the bench have a different opinion on the meaning of the constitution than some in Congress?  That is what you really think?  Well, who decides that their opinions on the constitution are wrong?


----------



## Obiwan (Aug 31, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, Supreme Court Justices can be impeached by Congress.
> ...


The Supreme Court is actually exceeding their authority and doing unconstitutional shit now.
Supreme Court & Judicial Review


----------



## JimH52 (Aug 31, 2015)

Obiwan said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Obiwan said:
> ...



You mean the court, of which the majority of hustices were chosen by Republican presidents?  You mean that court?


----------



## Obiwan (Aug 31, 2015)

JimH52 said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


And it will turn more conservative when the Republicans get the White House in 2016.. After all, Ginsberg practically looks like a vegetable now.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 31, 2015)

DT is a Progressive Statist.

He will appoint justices the far right and libertarian wings don't like one little bit.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 31, 2015)

The thread premise is ridiculous nonsense.

Just because the Court rules in a manner consistent with settled and accepted case law that conflicts with errant conservative dogma doesn't mean the Court is "rogue."


----------



## regent (Aug 31, 2015)

The framers sad attempt to include slavery in the Constitution began to create problems for the new nation.  In Marbury the Court may have had a case, the Congress was changing the Court's jurisdiction, but in Dred Scott the Court went outside its realm of power.
On the other hand the Court seems to have tried, at least since FDR, to follow the will of the people and the nation's changes.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 31, 2015)

DGS49 said:


> There is a lot of philosophical debate about the current state of USSC authority over the other branches of government, both at the federal and state levels.
> 
> The answer to all questions seems to be "Marbury v. Madison," and the discussion is over.  One may not point out that there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly gives the USSC the extraordinary power to overturn legislation, or to avoid the actions of Congress or the President.  The three branches of government are supposed to be "equal."
> 
> ...



Congress could impeach Roberts just for being white if it wanted to. While the Constitution lays out conditions for impeachment, Congress can impeach for whatever it wants to- since there is no appeal to Congressional Impeachment decisions.

So this is just another whine about the 14th Amendment- and people being citizens you don't think should be citizens?

The language of the 14th Amendment doesn't get much clearer than it does- born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

If you don't like the language of the 14th Amendment- then you need to change the Constitution.


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 31, 2015)

Obiwan said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Obiwan said:
> ...



That is what Conservatives say whenever they disagree with what the court rules. 

Never when the Court rules against gun laws though......


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 31, 2015)

Pete7469 said:


> Imagine if the SCOTUS declared that the 14th A was unconstitutional, because it was ratified by southern states under military duress?



Imagine if winged unicorns delivered our mail?


----------



## Syriusly (Aug 31, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > There is a lot of philosophical debate about the current state of USSC authority over the other branches of government, both at the federal and state levels.
> ...



Yeah they never quite think this through.

If not the Supreme Court who?

Congress? 

You really want Congress to be the final word- with no possible review? How much do you trust Congress?

The States?

Do they really want California to be able to outlaw private gun ownership? Or for Texas to mandate Southern Baptism as the required and mandatory religion of Texas? 

With no Supreme Court- who tells the States something is Unconstitutional?

The Supreme Court is not perfect- there are decisions i disagree with(Citizens United) but I have yet to see anyone come up with a better system.  Possible term limits are worth exploring- and Congress I believe could add term limits if it wanted.


----------



## Shikica (Aug 31, 2015)

What if legislation is signed that goes against the constitution? 

To me that's a perfect example of how the courts should have power to overturn legislation. It protects us from corrupt congressmen that slip in laws that are truly evil. Of course the USSC is corrupt as well but in theory this is how it should work


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 31, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > DGS49 said:
> ...


The also seem to not understand what co-equal branches of government means.  Essentially, all three branches of government have to agree that a law is constitutional.  If to many people in Congress do not think a proposed law is constitutional, it does not pass.  If the President does not think it is constitutional, he or she can veto it.  Of the Supreme Court does not think it is constitutional, they strike it down. Then, it is up to the people to secure an Amendment to the Constitution if they don't like the ruling.  Does not happen often, but is really the path that the founders wanted us to take to change our fundamental law.


----------



## Shikica (Aug 31, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> > There is a lot of philosophical debate about the current state of USSC authority over the other branches of government, both at the federal and state levels.
> ...



May I just add that the original founders of the United States and the early holders of government positions in the United States were all enthusiastic about the opinion that those who are born from illegal immigrants are rightful citizens. Why do I know this? Becuase look at US expansionism - Look at how we took over texas and virtually every other area owned by anglos and the spanish at the time.


----------



## paddymurphy (Aug 31, 2015)

Shikica said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > DGS49 said:
> ...


True except for the fact that there were no laws actually restricting immigration until the latter part of the 19th century.  They needed immigration to grow.


----------



## Shikica (Aug 31, 2015)

paddymurphy said:


> Shikica said:
> 
> 
> > paddymurphy said:
> ...


It's true that normally the americans weren't "illegal" immigrants although they were never welcome and often times were discouraged from coming altogether. But had there been robust illegal immigration laws in place in colonial spain/france/britian then they would have still supported the position I mentioned.

Also "they needed immigration to grow" doesn't do justice the fact that by grow we mean imperialism, massacres, and outright disrespect for international laws and signed treaties. Immigration is a natural part of human societies imo, but when governments use immigration as a political weapon that is when the governments ought to be punished.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 31, 2015)

It was the original intent of the Framers that the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – would determine what the Constitution means, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

The thread premise fails for the same reason other such 'arguments' from the right fail: the incorrect conservative notion that the Supreme Court in _Marbury _'misappropriated' the authority to review Federal, state, and local measures and invalidate those measures repugnant to the Constitution and its case law.

In fact, Colonial courts for well over one hundred years prior to the advent of the Foundation Era were subjecting statutes to judicial review: 

"By 1803, as Chief Justice Marshall acknowledged in _Marbury_, “long and well established” principles answered “the question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land.” Marshall concluded that “a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts . . . are bound by that instrument.” As such, contrary to the traditional account of _Marbury_, *Marshall’s decision did not conjure judicial review out of thin air, but rather affirmed the well-established and long-practiced idea of limited legislative authority in the new context of the federal republic of the United States. In doing so, Marshall recommitted American constitutional law to a practice over four centuries old*."

Why We Have Judicial Review


----------



## regent (Sep 3, 2015)

Is that the way the Constitution should be interpreted based on "well established and long-practiced ideas? This whole problem could have been taken care of by the framers simply putting the correct words into the Constitution when writing; why they didn't is a mystery. The irony of some of the justices now demanding to see the words in the Constitution before making a decision when the Court was one of the first to ignore the lack of words, and just declaring they had the power.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

Rogue court is right.  The second amendment has been twisted and tortured by activists for years, and they finally found same-sex marriage in it.  The second amendment deals with ex slaves and their children, period.  There is nothing in there about marriage or automatically making an illegal immigrant's child born here an American citizen.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> Rogue court is right.  The second amendment has been twisted and tortured by activists for years, and they finally found same-sex marriage in it.  The second amendment deals with ex slaves and their children, period.  There is nothing in there about marriage or automatically making an illegal immigrant's child born here an American citizen.



1.  You are incorrect, the SCOTUS found nothing about same-sex marriage in the second amendment.

2.  You are incorrect, the second amendment has nothing to do with ex-slaves.

3.  You are incorrect, the second amendment has nothing to do with jus soli citizenship


>>>>>


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > Rogue court is right.  The second amendment has been twisted and tortured by activists for years, and they finally found same-sex marriage in it.  The second amendment deals with ex slaves and their children, period.  There is nothing in there about marriage or automatically making an illegal immigrant's child born here an American citizen.
> ...


Sally Vater is from tierra del fuego.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

I smell trolls.  Yewwww.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> I smell trolls.  Yewwww.


You smell yourself.

Post honestly, Sally.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > I smell trolls.  Yewwww.
> ...



Oh boy, got a live one here.  You really need a good scrubbing and some new clothes.  You been panhandling on the corner for a few days, huh.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


You think the second amendment has to do with slaves.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


You're confused.  The 14th amendment.  I'll edit the post.  The 14th amendment, excuse me.  The 14th amendment has been twisted and tortured by activists for years.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


You wrote 2d Amendment elsewhere.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Yes, I meant 14th amendment.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


SALLY VATER SAID: ↑
_Rogue court is right. The second amendment has been twisted and tortured by activists for years, and they finally found same-sex marriage in it. The second amendment deals with ex slaves and their children, period. There is nothing in there about marriage or automatically making an illegal immigrant's child born here an American citizen._  #24  A Rogue Supreme Court | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

You're


JakeStarkey said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You're a filthy nasty troll.


----------



## ogibillm (Oct 7, 2015)

DGS49 said:


> There is a lot of philosophical debate about the current state of USSC authority over the other branches of government, both at the federal and state levels.


 not among the educated and sane.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

Anytime one of you leftist constitutional scholars have the nerve, go for it.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> Anytime one of you leftist constitutional scholars have the nerve, go for it.
> 
> The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution


Fred Elbel.  Nothing there.  Correcting your mistakes is not trolling.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > Anytime one of you leftist constitutional scholars have the nerve, go for it.
> ...


Then post on the topic, cockroach.  Tell us how same-sex marriage and illegal immigrant citizenship by birth are part of the 14th amendment.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


 You have not made a case worth replying to.  The law remain standing.  Nothing on the horizon indicates at all that trolls will change the current application of the Constitution and the law from which it derives.


----------



## jillian (Oct 7, 2015)

Obiwan said:


> Yes, Supreme Court Justices can be impeached by Congress.



but not because rightwingnut pondscum don't like their decisions.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I made my case.  Respond to 


JakeStarkey said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


You're not the one who determines what is worthy, you cockroach.  Respond to this link.  

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2015)

jillian said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, Supreme Court Justices can be impeached by Congress.
> ...


The chance of impeachment is .000001%, and that is being generous.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

Re


JakeStarkey said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Obiwan said:
> ...


Respond to this information with an argument.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> You're not the one who determines what is worthy, you cockroach.  Respond to this link.   The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution


The website is a consulting service on website design.  It has no expertise on constitutional law.  When you post something worthy, I will respond.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > You're not the one who determines what is worthy, you cockroach.  Respond to this link.   The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
> ...


Ignorant trolling cocksucker.  The 14th amendment deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children.  Show me where it deals with queer marriage.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


You got nothing, huh?


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

C'mon


JakeStarkey said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


C'mon, cocksucker.  Show us same-sex marriage in the 14th amendment.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> C'mon
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I was wondering when you would show up.  You always had the 2d Amendment on your mind.  That's why you erred above.  How has been your vacation?


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > C'mon
> ...


Ignorant troll.  You should be banned.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

Ignorant trolling cocksucker.  Dismissed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2015)

Either SCOTUS can change the current interp or the 14th can be re-amended. But there is no compelling reason to do so. There are fewer illegals here today than on the first day of Obama's first turn. If I remember right, you have a bad back and grow your own maryjane for bakeries to ease the pain. Hope you are feeling better.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Either SCOTUS can change the current interp or the 14th can be re-amended. But there is no compelling reason to do so. There are fewer illegals here today than on the first day of Obama's first turn. If I remember right, you have a bad back and grow your own maryjane for bakeries to ease the pain. Hope you are feeling better.


The 14th amendment deals exclusively with ex slaves and their children.  Period.  Corrupt leftist trash.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Either SCOTUS can change the current interp or the 14th can be re-amended. But there is no compelling reason to do so. There are fewer illegals here today than on the first day of Obama's first turn. If I remember right, you have a bad back and grow your own maryjane for bakeries to ease the pain. Hope you are feeling better.
> ...


That is the minority report of the far right reactionary fascists.


----------



## JimH52 (Oct 7, 2015)

Do you understand what the second amendment says?

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

REALLY???


----------



## ogibillm (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Either SCOTUS can change the current interp or the 14th can be re-amended. But there is no compelling reason to do so. There are fewer illegals here today than on the first day of Obama's first turn. If I remember right, you have a bad back and grow your own maryjane for bakeries to ease the pain. Hope you are feeling better.
> ...


really? where do you see that in the 14th amendment?


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

ogibillm said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


What do you mean where do I see it?  What in the world do you think the 14th amendment deals with?  If you don't know the intent of the 14th amendment you shouldn't even ask that question.


----------



## ogibillm (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


no, i'm asking you to quote the part of the 14th amendment that makes you believe it exclusively deals with former slaves and their children. 
i'll wait.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

ogibillm said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...


The 14th amendment was passed to deal with the ex slaves and their children.  Period.


----------



## ogibillm (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


you can keep stating that but it won't make it true. i'm asking you to tell me what part of the 14th amendment text makes you believe that.
here's the 14th amendment. you may notice that the word 'slave' does not appear anywhere


> *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.
> 
> *Section 2.* Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
> 
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2015)

"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."  Does not say a thing abut slaves or their children.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

ogibillm said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...





ogibillm said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...


Why was the 14th amendment passed?


----------



## ogibillm (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


i think it's pretty clear. equal protection, citizenship, debt, and representation issues. 
why do you think it deals solely with former slaves and their children?


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

ogibillm said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...


Because that's the purpose of the 14th amendment. That's why I believe it deals with ex slaves and their children.


----------



## ogibillm (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


That's circular. Try again.
the word 'slave' is nowhere to be found in the amendment . Why is that?


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

ogibillm said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...


The 14th amendment dealt exclusively with ex slaves and their children.  Period.
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution


----------



## ogibillm (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


You keep saying that but it doesn't make it true. What do you see in the 14th amendment that causes you to believe the scope was limited to former slaves and their children?


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

ogibillm said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...



Read the link I provided.


----------



## ogibillm (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


Did i miss any words in the 14th amendment that are included in your link? I'm asking you what part of the 14th amendment limits it to just slaves and their children


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


Wrong.

The 14th Amendment refers to all persons, regardless of race, nationality, or immigration status.

The link you cited is devoid of merit, as it's from an anti-immigration blog that willfully misrepresents the original intent of the Amendment and its subsequent case law.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

ogibillm said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...



The intent.  The purpose of the 14th amendment.  How about I take something in the Constitution and twist it to fit my agenda?


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...


Nope.  The intent of the authors of the 14th amendment was dealing with former slaves and their children.  It was never meant to give automatic citizenship to children born here of illegal immigrants.  Absurd.  I'm against illegal immigration.  Why do you support illegal immigrantion?


----------



## ogibillm (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


ah. so the intent is there, supposedly. do you have anything in the 14th amendment that shows such a limitation? does the word 'all' suddenly mean 'slaves and children of former slaves' now?


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 7, 2015)

ogibillm said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...


The author of the amendment and intent is easy to find.  You have the internet.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 7, 2015)

1.  To protect all born in the US, subject to US jurisdiction, as citizens in their liberties from abuse by the various states.
2.  To assure equitable representation.
3.  To punish Confederate officers or officials.
4.  To protect the validity of the public debt.

This is not hard, Sally 1775.


----------



## ogibillm (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


by all means, quote me something by 'the author' that makes you believe that the amendment was limited in some way to just slaves.
i'll wait.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Oct 7, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> The author of the amendment and intent is easy to find.  You have the internet.



In this you are correct...

From John Bingham, principal author of the 14th...

***

"The question is, simply, whether you will give by this amendment to the people of the United States the power, by legislative enactment, to punish officials of the States for violation of the oaths enjoined upon them by their Constitution?  That is the question, and the whole question.  *The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights that belong to the States.  They elect their Legislatures; they enact their laws for the punishment of crimes against life, liberty, or property; but in the event of the adoption of this amendment, if they conspire together to enact laws refusing equal protection to life, liberty, or property, the Congress is thereby vested with power to hold them to answer before the bar of the national courts for the violation of their oaths and of the rights of their fellow-men. * Why should it not be so?  That is the question.  Why should it not be so?  *Is the bill of rights to stand in our Constitution hereafter, as in the past five years within eleven States a mere dead letter?  It is absolutely essential to the safety of the people that it should be enforced. *

*Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that this very provision of the bill of rights brought in question this day, upon trial before this House, more than any other provision of the Constitution, makes that unity of government which constitutes us one people, by which and through which American nationality came to be, and only by the enforcement of which can American nationality to continue to be.*

The imperishable words of Washington out to be in the minds of all of us touching this great question whether the unity of the Government shall be enforced hereafter by just penal enactments when the Legislatures of States refuse to do their duty or keep inviolate their oath.  Washington, speaking to you and to me and to the millions who are to come after use says:

“The unity of the Government, which constitutes you one people is the main pillar in the edifee of your independence the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize.”

Is it not essential to the unity of the people that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States?  Is it not essential to the unity of the Government and the unity of the people that all persons, whether citizens or strangers, within this land, shall have equal protection in every State in this Union in the rights of life, and liberty and property?

<<SNIP>>

*What more could have been added to that instrument to secure the enforcement of these provisions of the bill of rights in every State, other than the additional grant of  power which we ask this day?  Nothing at all.*  And I am perfectly confident that that grant of power would have been there but for the fact that its insertion in the Constitution would have been utterly incompatible with the existence of slavery in any State; for although slaves might not have been admitted to be citizens they must have been admitted to be persons.  This is the only reason why it was not there."

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, 1090

***

“The nation cannot be without that Constitution, which made us “one people;” the nation cannot be without the State governments to localize and enforce the rights of the people under the Constitution.  No right reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired, no right vested by it in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or officer thereof, should be challenged or violated.  “Generalized power, decentralized administration,” express the whole philosophy of the American system.  You say it is centralized power to restrain by law unlawful combinations in States against the Constitution and citizens of the United States, to enforce the Constitution and the rights of United States citizens by national law, and to disperse by force, if need be, combinations to powerful to be overcome by judicial process, engaged in trampling under foot the life and liberty, or destroying the power of the citizen.

*The people of the United States are entitled to have their rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States, protected by national law.” *

<<SNIP>>

*“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as guarantied by the amended Constitution.*  Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State?  God forbid.  I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existence.  That Constitution, which Washington so aptly said made us one people, is essential to our nationality and essential to the protection of the rights of all the people at home and abroad.  The State governments are also essential to the local administration of the law, which makes it omnipresent, visible to every man within the vast extent of the Republic, in every place, whether by the wayside or by the fireside, restraining him by its terrors from the wrong, and protecting him by its power, in the right.”

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session, 84 & 85

***

"Article 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article 2
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.

Article 3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article 4
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article 6
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article 7
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article 8
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

*These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment.*  The words of that amendment, “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviliges or immunities of citizens of the Unites States,” are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union, which may be enforced under existing laws of Congress, and such other laws for their better enforcement as Congress may make.”

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session, 84.

***

"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session, 84.


>>>>


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 8, 2015)

ogibillm said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...


By all means, you can find the intent of the amendment very easily.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


Nothing in the 14th limits it to just slaves.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 8, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...



The Reconstruction Amendments are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, adopted between 1865 and 1870, the five years immediately following the Civil War. The amendments were important in implementing the Reconstruction of the American South after the war.


----------



## ogibillm (Oct 8, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


super. and there are some who call me... tim
now, can you tell us what part of the 14th amendment you believe limits the scope of it to just slaves?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


So.  Nothing limits the 14th to "just slaves."


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 8, 2015)

ogibillm said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



The Reconstruction Amendments are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, adopted between 1865 and 1870, the five years immediately following the Civil War. The amendments were important in implementing the Reconstruction of the American South after the war.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 8, 2015)

Excellent link.

https://www.boundless.com/political...rights-39/the-civil-war-amendments-222-11225/


----------



## ogibillm (Oct 8, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


again, that's super. 
now which part of the 14th amendment do you think limits its scope to just former slaves


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 8, 2015)

ogibillm said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...


The intent.  Nothing in the 14th amendment was intended to make same-sex marriage legal and children born here of illegal immigrants automatic citizens.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


Yes, they were.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


So if you are arguing "intent", who decides said "intent."  Only SCOTUS has that power, and we are bound by their decisions whether we agree or not.

You are arguing for an "activist" court.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 8, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...


Intent is everything and intent is easily found by studying American history books.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 8, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


You say so.


----------



## ogibillm (Oct 8, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


the supreme court disagrees.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 8, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Yes, I say so.  Five lawyers made an unconstitutional decision regarding same-sex marriage.  Four lawyers including the Chief Justice Roberts agree with me.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 8, 2015)

ogibillm said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...



Five lawyers made an unconstitutional decision regarding same-sex marriage. Four lawyers including the Chief Justice Roberts agree with me.


----------



## ogibillm (Oct 8, 2015)

Sally Vater said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > Sally Vater said:
> ...


they may have disagreed with the majority opinion but i very much doubt they agree with you.
doesn't matter though, you still haven't shown that the 14th amendment applies just to former slaves.


----------



## Sally Vater (Oct 8, 2015)

ogibillm said:


> Sally Vater said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...


If you have read Chief Justice Roberts opinion then you'd know Chief Justice Roberts does agree with me because he very clearly stated that the constitution had nothing to do with the decision.  You have one more activist lawyer than constitutional lawyer.  That can be fixed in the future.  This decision can easily be made according to the Constitution in the future.


----------



## Fenton Lum (Apr 12, 2017)

Obiwan said:


> paddymurphy said:
> 
> 
> > Obiwan said:
> ...



Well yeah, by design, and that's the whole point really.  "Judicial activism" is always what those "other" guys do.  And hell, all you have to do now is _only_ hear, vet and seat _your own_ party's president's nominations.

*THE CONSERVATIVE PIPELINE TO THE SUPREME COURT*
*With the Federalist Society, Leonard Leo has reared a generation of originalist élites. The selection of Neil Gorsuch is just his latest achievement.*
*The Conservative Pipeline to the Supreme Court*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 12, 2017)

What is all the yammering about?

The Roberts Court has shown no inclination to review the 14th and children citizens of illegal immigrants.


----------



## regent (Apr 15, 2017)

Another 100 years and the Court's decisions will be based on a computer printout.


----------

