Republicans call for the repeal of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

[LegalMoney]

Re: 14th Amendment

Although the outcome of Roe v Wade legalizing abortion is the right decision, it is bad law.

Holy shit fam! Ight man... Roe V. Wade is still precedent and wholly active. It has not been overruled by a subsequent Supreme Court ruling or an act by Congress. Therefore it is "good law" meaning it can be cited as primary authority.

As far as Dred Scott, its not a matter of it retroactively becoming law. The Supreme Court Ruled that he could not sue because he was not a citizen. The 14th Amendment essentially overturned that ruling because it makes all persons born in the US citizens.

So how does Dred Scott become law given that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 clearly states "That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"?

This fuckin guy...

**DEAD!!**

 

[divine]

Re: 14th Amendment

parts of the civil rights act of 1875 were declared Unconstitutional in 1883.. so lets stick with the Supreme Court and the Constitution.... because that sets the strongest precedence. Congress can pass many acts, but when they are challenged they don't always hold up.

Holy shit fam! Ight man... Roe V. Wade is still precedent and wholly active. It has not been overruled by a subsequent Supreme Court ruling or an act by Congress. Therefore it is "good law" meaning it can be cited as primary authority.



So how does Dred Scott become law given that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 clearly states "That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States"?



**DEAD!!**

 

[Amajorfucup]

Re: 14th Amendment

I don't know how many times you have admitted to not reading this in years.. so I posted it for you. I'm curious to know your thoughts AFTER you read...

Where did i admit to not reading anything? I assure you i've forgotten more about the case than you apparently know currently bro. Highlighting what amounts to a few sentences of pages upon pages of a decision doesnt change the facts brother. It wasnt simply a citizenship case as you stated before being corrected by youngmoney08. It was a case on standing and jurisdiction (google that). Basically, whether a slave was even worthy of getting his case heard in fed court. Fyi- He initially had been laughed out of state court.

You're one stubborn dude.

 

[divine]

Re: 14th Amendment

It was a slavery case but they ruled against him because they said Black people and their descendants were not citizens therefor could not sue....

Where did i admit to not reading anything? I assure you i've forgotten more about the case than you apparently know currently bro. Highlighting what amounts to a few sentences of pages upon pages of a decision doesnt change the facts brother. It wasnt simply a citizenship case as you stated before being corrected by youngmoney08. It was a case on standing and jurisdiction (google that). Basically, whether a slave was even worthy of getting his case heard in fed court. Fyi- He initially had been laughed out of state court.

You're one stubborn dude.

 

[LegalMoney]

Re: 14th Amendment

parts of the civil rights act of 1875 were declared Unconstitutional in 1883.. so lets stick with the Supreme Court and the Constitution.... because that sets the strongest precedence. Congress can pass many acts, but when they are challenged they don't always hold up.

Ummm... The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was not deemed unconstitutional. Before the 14th Amendment was ratified, that act overruled the Dred Scott decision rendering it nonprecedential. It can't be law every again.

Look man, this is fun and everything, but you are throwing Wiki quotes out there without understanding the legal tapestry that binds it all together.

Your premise is faulty and impossible. If the naturalization clause is repealed, Black folk would still be considered citizens pursuant to §1 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act which directly overruled the Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott is not precedential on any points of law.

 

[divine]

Re: 14th Amendment

My point is the parts of the CRA of 1875 were... so Acts of Congress can be overturned by the Supreme Court... which looks to the Constitution. So let's deal with the those (SCOTUS and Constitution) since they are the higher authority.

As far a wiki quots, I also posted the Actual Dred Scott decision.

My premise is not impossible. If Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was repealed descendant of slaves would not be citizens. The 14th Amendment directly overruled Dred Scott (by including it in the Constitution) not the CRA of 1866.

Sources: 14th Amendment overturns Dred Scott

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=540

http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/14th_Amendment

http://countrystudies.us/united-states/government-16.htm

Chief Justice Taney's decision contributed to the ongoing struggle that erupted four years later in the Civil War. Despite the Court's ruling, Scott was soon freed by his owners, only to die a year and a half later. Two months after the ruling, Sanford also died, in an insane asylum. The constitutional effect of the ruling was also short lived. In 1862, Congress forbid slavery in all federal territories. Following the Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment (1865), abolishing slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) overturned Chief Justice Taney's ruling.


http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar09.html

The Dred Scott decision unleashed a storm of protest against the Court and the administration of President Buchanan, which supported the decision. The justices' plans to make a definitive ruling that would settle the controversy over slavery backfired as Republicans charged that a “Slave Power” conspiracy extended into the highest reaches of government. Violent struggles continued in the Kansas and Nebraska territories, where “free soil” and proslavery guerilla bands terrorized each other. A major landmark on the road to the Civil War, the Dred Scott decision was overturned with the adoption of the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution in 1865 and 1868. These amendments ended slavery and established firmly the citizenship of all persons, regardless of race, creed, or previous condition of servitude. As for Dred Scott, two months after the Supreme Court's decision, Emerson's widow sold Scott and his family to the Blow family, who freed them in May of 1857.

Ummm... The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was not deemed unconstitutional. Before the 14th Amendment was ratified, that act overruled the Dred Scott decision rendering it nonprecedential. It can't be law every again.

Look man, this is fun and everything, but you are throwing Wiki quotes out there without understanding the legal tapestry that binds it all together.

Your premise is faulty and impossible. If the naturalization clause is repealed, Black folk would still be considered citizens pursuant to §1 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act which directly overruled the Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott is not precedential on any points of law.

 

[divine]

Bump

 

[dasmybikepunk]

Bump

...I c it got real quiet up in here...

Your point is on point

 

[Shurnuff]

If one Amendment gets repeal more will sure to follow like the 13th Amendment!!

 

[cthomas0964]

Re: 14th Amendment

Again the GOP are trying to amend the 14th Amendment to make it so children of illegal immigrants don't get automatic citizenship.............My Parents weren't illegal immigrants so how would I lose MY citizenship

If this were the Democrats doing it then I don't think anybody here would give a damn. I think its a good idea to clarify that if you are here illegally then your children will not get automatic citizenship. The intention of the 14th amendment was not to just grant anyone citizen if they were born here. Using that logic I look at illegal immigration as an invasion and occupation. Granted it is an non-violent one but their children should not be granted automatic citizenship because they are here illegally. If they were legal then I wouldn't have a problem with extending citizenship to their children. Most of us here on this board were born here and our parents were born here. They could repeal the entire 14th amendment but we will not lose our citizenship. Stop trying to make a supreme court case out of a restriction or clarification. Some people are so paranoid that in the long run we are hurting ourselves.

 

[divine]

Re: 14th Amendment

Bullshit. It doesn't matter which CAC tried to pull this shit, they would get the same response.

Do you look at all illegal immigration as an invasion and occupation or just when it's darker people? Did you forget that these crackers are here illegally and they killed the natives and took over?

If this were the Democrats doing it then I don't think anybody here would give a damn. I think its a good idea to clarify that if you are here illegally then your children will not get automatic citizenship. The intention of the 14th amendment was not to just grant anyone citizen if they were born here. Using that logic I look at illegal immigration as an invasion and occupation. Granted it is an non-violent one but their children should not be granted automatic citizenship because they are here illegally. If they were legal then I wouldn't have a problem with extending citizenship to their children.

 

[VegasGuy]

Wouldn't a repeal mean those corporations deemed to be "people" by the supreme court automatically lose citizenship too? Talk about unintended consequences wingnuts. lol.

-VG

 

[divine]

Chris Mathews asked one of the Republican wing nuts the question:

If an American citizen (male) had a baby with a female illegal immigrant in the US, should the baby have US citizenship. He said no, the baby would be an illegal immigrant.

 

[Archonic Monk]

THEY LOSING THEY MIND out HERE.... the Racist views are bubbling to the surface. If you look at old posts prior to Obama winning many people on the board said shit like this will happen

 

[divine]

bump

 

[cthomas0964]

Re: 14th Amendment

Bullshit. It doesn't matter which CAC tried to pull this shit, they would get the same response.

Do you look at all illegal immigration as an invasion and occupation or just when it's darker people? Did you forget that these crackers are here illegally and they killed the natives and took over?

To the victor goes the spoils. Personally I don't see why so many people here give a damn about illegals that come here. Not like they particular care about us.

 

[divine]

Re: 14th Amendment

To the victor goes the spoils. Personally I don't see why so many people here give a damn about illegals that come here. Not like they particular care about us.

Yea cause white folks sure care more about you.