Archive for the ‘14th Amendment’ Tag

Why Aren’t We Addressing This?   15 comments

VolunteerI find it fascinating that the only Hispanic ethnics in the race for President are both calling for stronger immigration reform than Hillary Clinton, but I am dumb-founded that the socialist is the race is actually proposing that we secure the borders. Of course, Sanders has done the math and knows that socialism only works in countries with way more resources than people who use government services and at the rate we’re going, due in large part to the influx of illegal Mexican immigrants, we won’t be able to achieve his socialist ideal because of too much pressure on the system from low-skilled “citizens”.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/immigration/la-na-texas-anchor-babies-20150903-story.html

Let’s reiterate a point. I am FOR immigration. My grandfather was from Stockholm. My mother’s grandparents were from Canada. I support LEGAL immigration. You decide you want to work in the United States, you apply for a visa, you wait your turn, you enter at a point of embarkation, you submit your periodic paperwork, maintain employment, and in five years (or however long it takes you so long as you don’t break the law and keep submitting your paperwork) you take a test and sit for an interview and you become an American citizen, laying aside your allegiance to your country of birth to take up allegiance with other American.

If during your period of resident alien status, you break the law, you are deported, no discussion. We should treat immigrants no better than we treat our own homegrown felons, who lose their civil rights, can’t get jobs, etc. If you forget to file your paperwork, some leniency should be given, but if you’ve moved houses, jobs, etc., in a way that suggests an attempt to defraud, then you should return to your country of origin and wait for your next legal opportunity to come to the United States. If we followed this system strigently, we could allow many more LEGAL immigrants into this country, but we have to address the issue of illegal economic migrants first.

If you entered the country illegally, you are by definition a lawbreaker who is taking jobs away from low-skilled American workers. (There is a fairly direct correlation between the unemployment of American teenagers and the numbers of economic migrants in any given community). I feel sorry for the otherwise good people who have chosen to violate our laws by entering our country without our permission, but I might also feel sorry for the burglar I find eating out of my fridge some morning. That doesn’t mean I won’t call the cops on him. Sorry, but if you entered the country illegally, you should be deported, no discussion.

But what about the children these people had while living in our country?

What about them? Children belong to their parents. They don’t belong to the government of the country they were born in. If their parents choose to return to their country of origin, the children go with them. The United States government doesn’t try to stop them. So why are we conversely allowing lawbreakers to remain in our country because they managed to squeeze out a kid on the US side of the border. The United States government is the only first world nation that allows automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants within their borders. European countries have specific laws stating that children born to foreign nationals within their borders are NOT citizens.

But the United States wants to be compassionate and the 14th amendment ….

I am not altogether certain that the 14th amendment requires birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal migrants. Anyone reading the 14th amendment with their logic cap on knows that the persons being discussed there were born on US soil to parents who were born on US soil. They had been slaves and there’d been a slave importation ban in the United States for 60 years prior to the Civil War. Like most Constitution amendments written during times of national stress, the 14th was not well thought out. It’s the 19th century equivalent of the 18th amendment, which we later repealed with the 21st. It meant to solve a problem and created dozens more. We learned from that mistake. I don’t know why we can’t learn from this one. It could be repealed or amended.

Congress won’t touch it! They’re afraid of it being said that they’re trying to institute slavery once more. They will continue to ignore this and many other issues until our country is destroyed by the unaddressed issues of national debt, a burdensome health care regulation, crushing regulatory interference in commerce, loss of checks and balances, a growing felony class, refusal to reform entitlements, and uncontrolled illegal migration and the resultant economic consequences. Congress is surrounded by 3rd rails and they’re not going to act.

That’s why Article 5 allows the states to call a convention to discuss amendments, because our Founders were prescient enough to recognize that government always grows out of control to the point where the people must once again restrain it. An Article 5 convention of the states is not without risks, but it is preferable to the civil war that will eventually happen if we continue the way that we have been.

http://www.conventionofstates.com/

My Turn: The Fourteenth Amendment has outlived its usefulness | Juneau Empire – Alaska’s Capital City Online Newspaper   Leave a comment

My Turn: The Fourteenth Amendment has outlived its usefulness | Juneau Empire – Alaska’s Capital City Online Newspaper.

We Don’t Need the 14th Amendment   2 comments

Surely, I’m not going to suggest repeal of the 14th Amendment? I’ve just said, in my analysis of the 13th Amendment that I am completely opposed to all forms of slavery. So I should be in support of the 14th Amendment, right? Actually … not so much.

Let me preface this by saying I am opposed to all forms of government discrimination and of private discrimination where it involves a public service. If you operate a bus company, for example, I think you have to offer transportation to all comers. A private business offering private services has a right to decide which customers to have or not, but the rest of us have a right to boycott that private business if we disagree with their personal stance. That’s market democracy and it works.

So what do I have against the 14th Amendment?

Let’s start with the idea that the federal government did not have the authority to force the states to abolish slavery. Slavery is unchristian and at odds with the Declaration of Independence’s foundational statement that “all men are created equal”, but the Constitution framers saw fit to allow states to retain slavery if they wanted. Extra Constitutional writings support the historical fact that the Constitution would not have been ratified had it attempted to abolish slavery. Delegates who opposed slavery felt that over time the South would let go of slavery as less efficient than wage labor and that future Constitutional amendments would eventually end the institution, but that is not what the Southern delegates felt they were agreeing to.

The Constitution did not give the federal government the authority to abolish slavery in the states or to wage war against its own citizens who were acting in accordance with the Declaration of Independence when they seceded from what they deemed to be a tyrannical union. In essence, the 14th Amendment was imposed unconstitutionally on the Southern states as an act of war. While I agree with what it accomplished, I don’t agree with how it was accomplished. The ends do not justify the means. The principles of liberty and states rights were violated by this amendment and by the war that made it possible. For that reason alone, I think the 14th Amendment needs to be revisited.

It’s also important to realize that the Southern states never ratified this Amendment. They accepted it, shoved down their throats as it were, as a concession of occupation. How is that just in a society that claims to value liberty?

Moreover, the 14th Amendment has been used to justify a great deal of federal abuse of states rights. Abortion until labor begins is the law of the land even though more than 50% of American voters say they are uncomfortable with it. Roe v Wade was decided on the 14th Amendment. Religious freedom has been undermined based on the 14th Amendment (google U.S. v. MacIntosh 1931; Everson v. Board of Education 1947; McCollum v. Board of Education 1948; Torcaso v. Watkins 1961; Engel v. Vitale 1962; Abington School Dist. v. Schempp 1963; Walz v. Tax Commission of City of New York 1970; Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971;  Stone v. Graham 1980; Wallace v. Jaffree 1985; Edwards v. Aguillard 1987; Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh 1989; Lee v. Weisman 1992). State sovereignty is non-existent because of the 14th Amendment (google California Proposition 187; Saenz v. Roe 1999; North Carolina Board of Education v. Swann; Washington v. Seattle School District; U.S. v. Yonkers; Missouri v. Jenkins).

The 14th Amendment has been used to give the federal government authority over every law in every state that relates to life, liberty or property, completely nullifying the principle of enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment protection for state rights.

No, we shouldn’t go back to owning slaves and no liberty-minded American should stand for any attempt in that direction. It’s ridiculous, in the 2nd decade of the 21st century when our president is biracial, to insist that we still need to the 14th amendment to prevent slavery.

We don’t!

But to restore liberty for all Americans (including the descendents of slaves), yes, we need to look at the 14th Amendment, decide if it is congruent with our national values and repeal it and replace it as necessary.

Restoring the Union … for Real   Leave a comment

Surely, I’m not going to suggest repeal of the 14th Amendment? I’ve just said, in my analysis of the 13th Amendment that I am completely opposed to all forms of slavery. So I should be in support of the 14th Amendment, right? Actually … not so much.

Let me preface this by saying I am opposed to all forms of government discrimination and of private discrimination where it involves a public service. If you operate a bus company, for example, I think you have to offer transportation to all comers, because you are supplying a public service. Excepting that, a private business has a right to decide which customers to have or not, but the rest of us have a right to boycott that private business if we disagree with it. That’s market democracy and it works. Don’t want black people/gays/unmarried folks staying in your bed-n-breakfast — you have that right, but I also have the right not to stay at your B&B and to tell my friends you’re a bigot and suggest they not stay there too. The government should not be involved in that.

So what do I have against the 14th Amendment? Let’s start with the idea that the federal government did not have the authority to force the states to abolish slavery. Slavery is unchristian and at odds with the Declaration of Independence’s foundational statement that “all men are created equal”, but the Constitutional framers saw fit to allow states to retain slavery if they wanted. Extra Constitutional writings support the historical fact that the Constitution would not have been ratified had it attempted to abolish slavery. Delegates who opposed slavery felt that over time the South would let go of slavery as less efficient than wage labor and that future Constitutional amendments would eventually end the institution, but that is not what the Southern delegates felt they were agreeing to.

The Constitution did not give the federal government the authority to abolish slavery in the states or to wage war against its own citizens who were acting in accordance with the Declaration of Independence when they seceded from what they deemed to be a tyrannical union. In essence, the 14th Amendment was imposed unconstitutionally on the Southern states as an act of war. While I agree that slavery needed to end, I don’t agree with how it was accomplished. For that reason alone, I think it needs to be revisited.

It’s also important to realize that the Southern states never ratified this Amendment. They accepted it, shoved down their throats as it were, as a concession of occupation.

Moreover, the 14th Amendment has been used to justify a great deal of federal abuse of states rights. Abortion until labor begins is the law of the land even though more than 50% of American voters say they are uncomfortable with it. Roe v Wade was decided on the 14th Amendment. Religious freedom has been undermined based on the 14th Amendment (google U.S. v. MacIntosh 1931; Everson v. Board of Education 1947; McCollum v. Board of Education 1948; Torcaso v. Watkins 1961; Engel v. Vitale 1962; Abington School Dist. v. Schempp 1963; Walz v. Tax Commission of City of New York 1970; Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971; Stone v. Graham 1980; Wallace v. Jaffree 1985; Edwards v. Aguillard 1987; Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh 1989; Lee v. Weisman 1992). State sovereignty is non-existent because of the 14th Amendment (google California Proposition 187; Saenz v. Roe 1999; North Carolina Board of Education v. Swann; Washington v. Seattle School District; U.S. v. Yonkers; Missouri v. Jenkins).

The 14th Amendment has been used to give the federal government authority over every law in every state that relates to life, liberty or property, completely nullifying the principle of enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment protection for state rights.

Yes, we need to look at it, decide if, as written, it is congruent with our national values and repeal it and replace it as necessary. Slavery is not coming back, folks, but states rights should.

thebibliophagist

a voracious reader. | a book blogger.

cupidcupid999

adventure, art, nature, travel, photography, wildlife - animals, and funny stuff

Republic-MainStreet

The Peaceful Revolution Liberate Main Street

atleastihaveafrigginglass

What could possibly go wrong?

Who the Hell Knows?

The name says it all.

Rebellious Hazelnuts

Surreal Stories, Very Tall Tales

Adjusting My Sails

When the wind doesn't blow the way you want, adjust your sails

Stine Writing

Poetry, Positivity, and Connecting!

Writer vs the World

In search of beauty, inspired by literature.

%d bloggers like this: