Welcome to PatsFans.com

The Right Hates The Constitution

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, Oct 26, 2010.

  1. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,985
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +282 / 5 / -8

    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: Oct 26, 2010
  2. reflexblue

    reflexblue PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    17,242
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +20 / 3 / -0

    #91 Jersey

    It seems like the Tea Baggers HATE the constitution. They're always talking about trying to change it to suit they're needs.
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2010
  3. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    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.
  4. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,824
    Likes Received:
    89
    Ratings:
    +150 / 3 / -19

    In the words of the immortal George Bush.."The constitution is a just a goddammned piece of paper".

    The right loves the constitution when it benefits them...
  5. The Brandon Five

    The Brandon Five Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    6,237
    Likes Received:
    38
    Ratings:
    +86 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    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).

    Plyler v. Doe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Full Text of Plyler vs, Doe - Google Scholar


    I noted in particular these opening remarks:

    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?
  6. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,766
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +109 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    Glad to see we've got the generalizations problem licked on this board:rolleyes:




    Hey, it's not the right that's deporting them at record numbers is it?:rolleyes:

    colored only water fountains? :confused:
  7. WhiteWesWelker88

    WhiteWesWelker88 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    Messages:
    862
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    [​IMG]
  8. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,594
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +139 / 1 / -8

    "THE RIGHT" ...blah, blah, blah

    "THE LEFT" ...blah, blah, blah

    When will people realize that one view is no better or worse than the other?

    They are in fact, just 2 different views. So just accept the FACT that your view is no better or worse the "other".

    ACCEPT IT.
  9. Nikolai

    Nikolai Football Atheist PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,719
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +283 / 0 / -1

    #54 Jersey

    People who want to wield power hate the Constitution.

    The includes people from the right and left.
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2010
  10. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,725
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +248 / 3 / -2

    So, about that thoughtfull discourse stuff....:rolleyes:

    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.
  11. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,824
    Likes Received:
    89
    Ratings:
    +150 / 3 / -19

    So you did not read the initial post????
  12. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    38,805
    Likes Received:
    119
    Ratings:
    +295 / 1 / -7

    The Right Hates The Constitution:

    What the right hates is to see America slowly becoming a "third world dictatorship"

    What the right hates are laws that are passed behind locked closed doors.

    What the right hates is to see America's Christian Beliefs the religion that people like Martin Luther King, Jack Kennedy, Mahalia Jackson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Barack Hussein Obama hold dear to their hearts dragged through the mud while The Left Wing EMBRACES the Religion of Fanatical Savage Killers (Islam)

    What The Right Hates is far left wing Socialism.

    What The Right Hates is watching America being destroyed by selfish, nasty, know it all, Far Left Wing Liberal FOOLS
  13. Roland

    Roland Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    This thread is comical. Does the OP realize the democrats, the left took it upon themselves to interpret the Constitution and Obama was elected. Dual citizenship disqualified him. The OP cherry picks.
  14. TBradyOwnsYou

    TBradyOwnsYou Rookie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Who peed in your cheerios this morning?
  15. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I think we all know the answer to that question..!! :rofl: :rofl:
  16. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Heh heh. Good ole Mr. "Thoughtful Discourse" once again shows us all how he is so much more mature than the rest if us, and how he would never ever lower himself to the level of insulting anyone! :rofl: :rofl:
  17. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,564
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +106 / 7 / -10

    Does anyone seriously that the 14th amendment intended to reward people for breaking the law by entering the country illegally?

    I guess only stupid libs and libs judges would think that. It would seem a constitutional amendment is needed to correct a bad decision by the judge in 1982.
  18. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I hate the Constitution so much I read the pocket version with its amendments to my 7 year old.
  19. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,985
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +282 / 5 / -8

    Okay, so many responses, so few characters.

    #2 Flex concurs that the right hates the Constitution, and notes that they want to change the constitution to suit their needs. Consistent w/the original premise, thanks.

    #3 Wistah notes that the Constitution can be amended, and says that this makes the thread title absurd.
    Wistah – counterpoint taken. I would argue that the Right seems to hate the Constitution as it currently exists. It is an odd place from which to thump your chest and shout from the rooftops how your raison d’etre is to make certain the Constitution is not disregarded. Add to this the fact that rightists rode roughshod over the Constitution under Bush, and the hypocrisy of the right wing’s “Constitutionalist” basis is highly suspect. So, narrowly, you’re right; it’s standard bulletin board hyperbole. Put together the movement to repeal the 14th Amendment with the reign of George II – he of “goddamned piece of paper” fame – and the thread title, I would argue, stands without the hyperbole explanation needed for the immediate narrow case.

    #4 Darryl brings to the thread George II’s famous bon mot. He notes that the right loves the Constitution when it serves their needs. No argument from me.

    #5 Brandon 5 asks who is calling for the repeal of the 14th Amendment.

    Brandon, here are a few:
    Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham, two sitting U.S. Senators, both Republican.
    Senators Call To Repeal 14th Amendment - cbs4.com
    John Boehner, House minority leader says let’s have that conversation!
    Boehner: Yeah, Repeal 14th Amendment - Ted Olson thinks High Court will uphold gay marriage decision
    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in reference to this movement, says “nobody is comfortable with the notion of birthright citizenship.”
    The Washington Monthly

    Brandon also links to a case that is not about citizenship by birth in the United States, looking (I think,) for the first use of the text “birthright citizenship” -? I don’t know. From the link Brandon provides on Plyler v. Doe:

    So if the point is where the phrase “birthright citizenship” is first used in that formulation, then maybe there is one. If the point is that the concept of citizenship is conferred on those born in the U.S., you’re well over a century late. Citizenship by birth in the U.S. is conferred in the 14th.

    What part of “born” is unclear?

    B5 adds “The first ruling that recognized a corporation as a person was in 1844. You wanna pin that one on the Tea Party?”

    My actual use addressed the recognition of a Corporation as a person for fundraising purposes, and references this season’s establishment of unlimited funding of super-PACs. Oddly enough, the same people complaining about how “corrupt both parties are” are wholeheartedly behind this magnification of the influence of wealth on the electoral process.

    #6 – SB42 notes (via irony) that my thread generalizes. To be fair it’s the right that is calling for the repeal of the 14th, but there may be individuals among the rightists who like the 14th Amendment just fine. Let’s watch this space for its popularity or lack thereof. SB42 notes that it’s not the right “deporting them at record numbers." That is sort of the side-road about undocumented workers, which is tangential to 14th amendment issues and repeal of the 14th, but is an Administration convenience, as a sop to the right, that I disagree with. Others here will deny it’s happening, because they want to “own” xenophobia. I can’t decide which is worse. “colored only water fountains” – the parlance of the times, hence the quotes around the phrase.

    #7 Wes offers a photoshopped picture of the president.

    #8 PR expresses consternation at the use of the terms “the right” and “the left” and opines that one view is no better or worse than the other, typing ACCEPT IT in all caps, I take it, to better enforce relativism.

    #9 Nikolai says people who want power, from the left or the right, hate the Constitution. The logical concomitant would be that we have to look out for people on either the left or the right trying to change the Constitution, particularly by appeals to short-term hot-button issues, to erase freedoms that extend beyond those issues (for example, using the current anti-immigrant hysteria to repeal the 14th which also has monumental implications for both Civil Rights legislation and state incorporation of U.S. law in general.) That’s a case of the right wanting more power and wanting to change the Constitution to get it. The case of George II, by contrast, is also on the right.

     Seriously, your point is taken – there are loons on the fringes of the left whose views are as antithetic to the Constitution as those of the mainstream right. This is a movement among sitting U.S. reps and Senators as well as Teabaggers. It’s scary stuff.

    #10 RW is uncomfortable that engaging in “thoughtful discourse” in another thread can coexist with this conversation, and rolls his eyes via emoticon. More to the point he notes that you can be against one or another provision of the Constitution and want to change it and not hate the whole document. The Right, for example, wants to repeal the bit that underpins Brown vs. Board of Education, among other rulings.

    However, by analogy, what do you call the guy that screams “I AM THE GUY WHO LOVES THE NFL!!!” and then wants to change the rules so it’s played with a round ball you can’t touch with your hands, that should be kicked down the field and passed from foot to foot, with no real tackling – via rules changes? Tony Dungy. Okay, sideswipes at the Colts and soccer aside, the point here is recognition of the juxtaposition of beating your chest about how you and only you love the Constitution, followed up by gutting some of its most trenchant protections.

    #11 Darryl asks RW whether he read the original post

    #12 Harry gets all lathered up about what the right wing “really” hates. He invokes civil rights leaders to support a “Christian America” formulation, among other heartfelt rantings. But he fails to address the fact that the 14th Amendment was the vehicle through which Civil Rights came to full fruition in America, and that the leaders he cites spent their life’s work on getting civil rights recognized, regardless of the desire of states and localities to stifle those rights – for which purpose the 14th Amendment is, in fact, indispensable.

    That many civil rights leaders were motivated by Christianity is just peachy, Harry. That many were motivated by Judaism, Islam, or irreligious reason is also just peachy. That’s what makes America great. That’s why I don’t want to repeal the amendment that makes discrimination illegal.

    #13 Roland asks whether the OP “realizes” that the Democrats took it upon themselves to interpret the Constitution, and Obama was elected. Evidently Roland is a birther (?) Roland, if you have evidence that Obama’s election is unconstitutional, present it here. If you have a by-now tired and redundant birth certificate demand or something of that nature, start another thread. A question, a suspicion, or a conspiracy theory is not evidence for these purposes.

    #14 TBOY asks who peed in my cheerios. #15 snide WP post, no relation to subject of thread. #16 WP complains how insulting I am.

    #17 Sometimes-moderator PF13 asks who thinks the 14th Amendment was set up to protect illegal aliens, evidently in response to the Plyler v Doe decision referenced in response #5, and says stuff about stupid liberals.

    #18 Khayos tells us he reads the Constitution to his 7-year-old, who, I take from context, is not the author of any of the responses from #14-#17, although I would not rule it out.

    Yet with all the misdirection, personal animosity, and rubbish, there is very little here to recommend the notion of repealing the 14th Amendment, and thereby obviating the civil rights we enjoy via the doctrine of incorporation and the 14th Amendment due process clause.

    From the conversation thus far, I am concluding that although prominent figures on the right are in favor of repealing the 14th Amendment, none of the posters on Patsfans.com are among them.

    Is this the case?

    Thanks,

    PFnV
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2010
  20. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,725
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +248 / 3 / -2

    You say that as if it's a bad thing. Afterall, pee is sterile. I thought everyone knew that already. He and the Mrs always pee in each others Cherios. Peeing in each others Cherios saves the planet, since it means they use less milk. Less milk means fewer cows passing gas, which means less methane in the atmosphere. Less methane in the atmosphere, means less Global Warming. Less Global Warming also means less climate change. Less climate change means less Man Made Global Warming....[​IMG]

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>