Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
Why do teabaggers want to repeal the 14th Amendment, and simultaneously proclaim themselves the last bastion of defense for the Constitution?
The interesting thing isn't the question of birthright citizenship - which was part and parcel of the 14th Amendment. I mean, that can easily be woven into today's anti-immigrant narrative. Wahhhh! Anchor babies!
No, the more interesting part is that it's through the 14th Amendment's first article, the 14th Amendment due process clause, that most of the national civil rights laws are made part of the law of the land.
The right wing's true target in their calls to repeal the 14th Amendment is civil rights and due process.
This would allow states and localities to proclaim their local schools to be divided along racial lines, and to all teach christianity rather than academic subjects (or worse, woven into academic subjects.) This would allow states and localities to reinstate their "coloreds only"/"whites only" water fountains, if they so desire. It would also allow the rabid right to even go back and fight the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in court. You remember the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - the act passed to abolish the Jim Crow laws?
And these are the guys who want to "reclaim" the civil rights movement, because "we were the ones that did it in the first place," to use Beck's language.
The racist, homophobic, xenophobic right is well represented on Patsfans, and gladly spew their crap here. The mods include such repugnant partisans, who encourage racism, sexism, and xenophobia. This gives us all a nice little window into the mindset behind this particular feature of rightist nonsense.
To wit: the populist right, having won the point that corporations are people for fundraising purposes (sort of a natural fit there,) are now fighting to pick and choose which people are people, state by state, town by town.
And they say that's what the founders wanted, and that's what our Constitution says.
Is that what you think the Constitution says?
PFnV
Last edited by PatsFanInVa; 10-26-2010 at 07:09 AM..
FEATURED ADVERTISEMENT
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
The Constitution can be changed and Ammendments can be repealed. To want to do so does not mean one is against the Constitution. We repealed Prohibition (18th). I would like to see the repeal of the 16th. Does that make me a Constitution hater?
I get your point but I think you know that the thread title is absurd.
There will be no repeal of the 14th or any other Ammendment in this state of politics we are now in. Neither has the will or votes to do ANY Constitutional changes.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Why do teabaggers want to repeal the 14th Amendment, and simultaneously proclaim themselves the last bastion of defense for the Constitution?
The interesting thing isn't the question of birthright citizenship - which was part and parcel of the 14th Amendment. I mean, that can easily be woven into today's anti-immigrant narrative. Wahhhh! Anchor babies!
Umm, who is calling for the repeal of the 14th Amendment? You do realize that birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal immigrants was not recognized by the Supreme Court until 1982? The relevant phrase was actually just a footnote by Justice Brennan in a case where the court ruled against a municipal school district that wanted to deny education funding for the children of illegal immigrants (Plyler vs. Doe).
As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.
Since the late 19th century, the United States has restricted immigration into this country. Unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime, 8 U. S. C. 1325, and those who have entered unlawfully are subject to deportation, 8 U. S. C. 1251, 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). But despite the existence of these legal restrictions, a substantial number of persons have succeeded in unlawfully entering the United States, and now live within various States, including the State of Texas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa
To wit: the populist right, having won the point that corporations are people for fundraising purposes (sort of a natural fit there,) are now fighting to pick and choose which people are people, state by state, town by town.
The first ruling that recognized a corporation as a person was in 1844. You wanna pin that one on the Tea Party?
Your posts are usually thoughtful. What prompted such an ahistoric rant?
People who want to wield power hate the Constitution.
The includes people from the right and left.
__________________
We get what we deserve.
------------------ On a day when they could have had impact players David Terrell or Koren Robinson..they took Georgia defensive tackle Richard Seymour, who had 1 sacks last season in the pass-happy SEC and is too tall to play tackle at 6-6 and too slow to play defensive end. This genius move was followed by trading out of a spot where they could have gotten the last decent receiver in Robert Ferguson and settled for tackle Matt Light, who will not help any time soon.
Apparently wanting to amend the constitution is hating the constitution. So I guess anyone and everyone who added a little something to that "goddam piece of paper", from the moment it was first signed, is a hater. Great logic here.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897