Poll: How should the US Constitution be ammended

How would you ammend the US constitution?

  • Repeal the second ammendment

    Votes: 17 20.0%

  • Strengthen the second ammendment

    Votes: 17 20.0%

  • Ban abortion

    Votes: 1 1.2%

  • Protect abortion rights

    Votes: 26 30.6%

  • Ban flag burning

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Right to privacy

    Votes: 36 42.4%

  • change/eliminate the electoral college

    Votes: 45 52.9%

  • Ban the income tax

    Votes: 8 9.4%

  • congressional term limits

    Votes: 29 34.1%

  • Balanced budget

    Votes: 20 23.5%

  • other

    Votes: 23 27.1%
  • Total voters
    85
Suddenly said:
This is nothing but a restatement of a claim meant to shift a burden. It is on you to show they were not.
Click to expand...

I have to example a negative?

Strange burden you are attempting to establish.


At what point did citizens of the individual States become citizens of the United States?


:gnome:
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Perhaps, because in his mind it was apparent and he did understand that an amendment was needed because it was NOT settled law.
Click to expand...

It is on you to show the state of the law before the amendment, settled or no. It is not unusual for there to be an enactment that codifies the already existing state of law.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I have to example a negative?

Strange burden you are attempting to establish.


At what point did citizens of the individual States become citizens of the United States?
Click to expand...

Quit asking questions meant for me to do your homework. You have claimed that the 14th created a form of citizenship. For this to be true this form must not have existed before then.

Your claim. Your problem.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Why would a constitutional amendment be needed to state law which is already law?
Click to expand...
Then let's try it this way: because there were trollish people who denied it despite all the evidence to the contrary, and a civil war that was fought in part over the issue, and the best way to shut them up was to amend the constitution so there could be no possible further claim to ambiguity.
 
gdnp said:
Then let's try it this way: because there were trollish people who denied it despite all the evidence to the contrary, and a civil war that was fought in part over the issue, and the best way to shut them up was to amend the constitution so there could be no possible further claim to ambiguity.
Click to expand...

Let me suggest further that one must actually read "the Dred Scott Case" to understand what that part of the 14th was meant to fix. It was a direct response, and upon reading that case it becomes quite clear that the citizenship clause was meant to define citizenship and not to create something new.

I mean, since we are giving away the answers...
 
Prior to the 14th amendment, the US Constitution said very little about rules for citizenship. (Article 1 gives Congress the right to set rules for naturalization, but there is nothing I know of that mentions birth-right citizenship.)

So, JdG is correct in that the 14th amendment formally defines citizenship.

However, many things are unstated in law and constitution, and things just work according to the common law rules under which they have always worked. I don't know, but I suspect the meaning of "native born citizen" and of "US citizen" were well-understood and not in need of codifying.

The 14th amendment had a purpose in a post-civil war era. Today, it is mostly irrelevant. An effect the amendment has that may not be to everyones liking is birth-right citizenship extended to children born to individuals in the country illegally. That is the only example I have. Are there other examples?
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
So, JdG is correct in that the 14th amendment formally defines citizenship.
Click to expand...
That wasn't his initial claim. It is the first explicit statement. However it creates nothing that wasn't there before.
However, many things are unstated in law and constitution, and things just work according to the common law rules under which they have always worked. I don't know, but I suspect the meaning of "native born citizen" and of "US citizen" were well-understood and not in need of codifying.
Click to expand...
Bingo.
The 14th amendment had a purpose in a post-civil war era. Today, it is mostly irrelevant. An effect the amendment has that may not be to everyones liking is birth-right citizenship extended to children born to individuals in the country illegally. That is the only example I have. Are there other examples?
Click to expand...

Some states hate that they can't restrict the rights of minorities or those accused of crimes beyond what the US constitution allows. The 14th makes states respect the rights of its people to a stated degree.

This "incorporation doctrine" is as relevant and important to modern law as any other provision or doctrine. Without it, states could commit all sorts of civil rights abuses as there would be no oversight. We lose an entire level of protection as to our rights, and those of us that are godless should be very aware of what this could mean.
 
Suddenly said:
Well... I'm done with you now.
Click to expand...

You can not argue the point, only a mis-phrased statement?

This tells all a great deal about your ability to defend your assertion that... OHH you did not state anything.

Are you trolling?


This is the second time you have tried to derail the conversation, let us try again.




At what point did citizens of the individual States become citizens of the United States?


:gnome:
 
Tsukasa Buddha said:
:i:

Jerome, if he misunderstood your statements, then you should reconcile them for him so he understands your position so that something productive can actually happen in discussion.
Click to expand...

He does not misunderstand my statements, he is very bright. I have read plenty of his conversations, enough to know fully that he does understand what I am stating.


Suddenly, at what point did citizens of the individual States become citizens of the United States?


:gnome:
 
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha said:
:i:

Jerome, if he misunderstood your statements, then you should reconcile them for him so he understands your position so that something productive can actually happen in discussion.
Click to expand...


I'm done with him, and he might as well not address me in the future.

I'm not going to waste my time responding to someone that likes to shift his claims and expect others to do his homework for him.

He is either a troll or simply unable to engage in rational discussion. He is free to feel as clever as he wishes. If someone else identifies an issue they would like me to address, I will do so.
 
Suddenly said:
I'm done with him, and he might as well not address me in the future.

I'm not going to waste my time responding to someone that likes to shift his claims and expect others to do his homework for him.

He is either a troll or simply unable to engage in rational discussion. He is free to feel as clever as he wishes. If someone else identifies an issue they would like me to address, I will do so.
Click to expand...


He does not misunderstand my statements, he is very bright. I have read plenty of his conversations, enough to know fully that he does understand what I am stating.


Suddenly, at what point did citizens of the individual States become citizens of the United States?


:gnome:
 
My own pet change is to remove the reference to "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights," and instead include something along the lines of "in order to create a more perfect society, we hold that all men must be treated as equal and allowed certain inalienable rights."

That way it becomes purely reasonable and supportable instead of calling in a nonsense deity.
 
EGarrett said:
My own pet change is to remove the reference to "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights," and instead include something along the lines of "in order to create a more perfect society, we hold that all men must be treated as equal and allowed certain inalienable rights."

That way it becomes purely reasonable and supportable instead of calling in a nonsense deity.
Click to expand...
I'm willing to even include the women. ;)
 
EGarrett said:
My own pet change is to remove the reference to "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights," and instead include something along the lines of "in order to create a more perfect society, we hold that all men must be treated as equal and allowed certain inalienable rights."

That way it becomes purely reasonable and supportable instead of calling in a nonsense deity.
Click to expand...
I don't want my rights to be "allowed" by anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom