Poll: How should the US Constitution be ammended

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Not correct. The relevant passage is:

"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."

I will point out the obvious contexts here given the civil war. Now all residents born here are citizens with the above rights. No state can deny state citizenship based on race.

Please explain how States were denying United States citizenship to anyone prior to this amendment.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

This doesn't create any obligations, it just lets those that are owed money from the confederacy know not to hold their breath. Same with those that lost slaves, while making it clear the US govt will pay all of its debts, including those from the war.

No new debts, no new statement of relations. The government owed money before this and nothing here changes that. Repeal would have many effects, but the national debt would still be the same fun debt we know today.

A new obligation is created on the classification of United States citizens.

 

[jsfisher]

Not so. California has a "one object rule" for proposed amendments to the state constitution that are on the ballot. And California adopted term limits. If both ideas can become law in one state, why not at the federal level? I'm not arguing it is likely, just that it just might be possible.

Were the California state constitution amendments passed by referendum? US Constitution amendments require Congress' involvement.

If I recall correctly, for all proposed amendments to date, the route requiring a 2/3 majority of both Houses has been used to begin the process. The other available route is for the state legislatures to call for a national convention, but even then it would require Congress to convene the convention.

Either route, though, the will of the people is sufficiently diluted by political interests (be they pork or power) that I think a term-limits amendment very unlikely to even get started.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

When in doubt, you can always fall back on the method used in the Summarize Proust competition.

 

[gdnp]

Please explain how States were denying United States citizenship to anyone prior to this amendment.

Slavery was banned by the 13th amendment. The 14th prevented states from declaring that the freed slaves, although citizens of the US, were not citizens of their state by automatically making people citizens of the state in which they reside. Thus Oregon, much as many would like to, cannot deny citizenship to people moving there from California.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The Constitution differentiates between a natural born Citizen and a Citizen of the United States.

 

[gdnp]

The Constitution differentiates between a natural born Citizen and a Citizen of the United States.

Yes, it does. Your point?

 

[Suddenly]

I would amend the 14th to put the word "natural" after the first word. My intent would be to disallow corporations from being "citizens" which, IMO, has caused untold damage to our nation.

Please elaborate.

 

[Suddenly]

A new obligation is created on the classification of United States citizens.

Please explain and provide evidence.

Please explain how States were denying United States citizenship to anyone prior to this amendment.

Slavery is a good example. That the 14th was passed by the northern states before all the confederate states were re-admitted helps explain that this was intended also to guard against future denial of citizenship based on race.

The Constitution differentiates between a natural born Citizen and a Citizen of the United States.

For that purpose. So?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

A new obligation is created on the classification of United States citizens.

Please explain and provide evidence.

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.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned.


NEW citizens of the United States are now obligated for the debt of the United States.

This amendment places United States citizenship on all citizens of the various States. Prior to this, most were citizens of their individual sovereign State.

 

[gdnp]

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.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned.


NEW citizens of the United States are now obligated for the debt of the United States.

This amendment places United States citizenship on all citizens of the various States. Prior to this, most were citizens of their individual sovereign State.

The government, before and since, is a Federal system. People were citizens of both their state and of the United States.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The government, before and since, is a Federal system. People were citizens of both their state and of the United States.

Evidence?


There seemed to be a question concerning such as the author of the 14th stated that this amendment was needed to "settle this great question".

Senator Howard, who wrote this Citizenship clause commented,

"This amendment which I have clarified is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already..[It] does not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of person. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."

 

[gdnp]

Thanks for doing my job for me. The author states that the amendment "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already."

It would seem that there were people even back then who did not understand the concept of a federal system of government and thus had to have it spelled out for them in even more unambiguous terms.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Thanks for doing my job for me. The author states that the amendment "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already."

It would seem that there were people even back then who did not understand the concept of a federal system of government and thus had to have it spelled out for them in even more unambiguous terms.

He is a politician.


Why would a constitutional amendment be needed to state law which is already law?


:13:

 

[Suddenly]

Why would a constitutional amendment be needed to state law which is already law?

Because perhaps the words "I regard" are sort of important as the speaker's regard and the opinions of certain southerners might diverge as to racial issues, so the northern states decided to settle it.

Quite simple.

 

[Suddenly]

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.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned.


NEW citizens of the United States are now obligated for the debt of the United States.


This amendment places United States citizenship on all citizens of the various States. Prior to this, most were citizens of their individual sovereign State.

Selecting passages out of context and reading your own meaning into them is not proof.

This amendment created no debt that did not exist before, and contains no language regarding liability of citizens. It clarifies and settles the nature of citizenship in one part and discusses civil war debt in another.

Taking one sentence from one section and reading it in concert with a selected sentence from a totally different provision is not analysis, it is a parlor game.

What you need is some proof of the effect you claim. A case making an individual pay a debt of the US because of this amendment. Something like that. Until then, you are just cut and pasting.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Selecting passages out of context and reading your own meaning into them is not proof.

This amendment created no debt that did not exist before, and contains no language regarding liability of citizens. It clarifies and settles the nature of citizenship in one part and discusses civil war debt in another.

Taking one sentence from one section and reading it in concert with a selected sentence from a totally different provision is not analysis, it is a parlor game.

What you need is some proof of the effect you claim. A case making an individual pay a debt of the US because of this amendment. Something like that. Until then, you are just cut and pasting.

Was the average citizen of Maryland, prior to this amendment, also a citizen of The United States?

 

[gdnp]

He is a politician.

Why would a constitutional amendment be needed to state law which is already law?

Because trolls predated the internet.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Because perhaps the words "I regard" are sort of important as the speaker's regard and the opinions of certain southerners might diverge as to racial issues, so the northern states decided to settle it.

Quite simple.

Perhaps, because in his mind it was apparent and he did understand that an amendment was needed because it was NOT settled law.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Because trolls predated the internet.

What you just did was a troll.



Why would a constitutional amendment be needed to state law which is already law?