Jump to content
IGNORED

Problems With The Fourteenth Admen


debrand

Recommended Posts

Can you explain Reconstructionists' problems with the 14th Amendment?

The states had the right to make such establishments or settlements as they or their subordinate bodies, the counties and cities, chose to make. Only after the Fourteenth Amendment was interpreted by the Supreme Court to apply to all states was there a denial of the power of the states to make such establishments

This isn't the first article that I've read by Rushdoony followers that have a problem with the Amendment.

I am sadly not as knowledgable about the issue as I should be but I thought that the 14th Amendment overturned Dred Scott decision. The Dred Scott decision said that slaves were not guaranteed the rights outlined in the constitution. Basically, the Amendment protected a person's civil rights from being taken away by individual states.I don't want to return to a time period where states had the power to ignore the constitution.

chalcedon.edu/topics/christianity-and-the-state-2

Have any of you come across any debate about the 14th Amendment?

I am going to add more in another post so that this isn't too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wnd.com/2003/08/20485/

That was true until the ratification of the 14th Amendment!

Prior to that, the federal government had no authority to enforce the Bill of Rights on the states, religious freedoms included. The Bill of Rights, very plainly, did not grant the federal government any powers, but was intended to place limits on the federal government’s actions. Ratified illegally after the War Between the States, the 14th Amendment overrode, to all intents and purposes, the doctrine of States’ Rights, to which Jefferson looked for the preservation of freedoms.

The particular portion of the miscellany that is the 14th states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and 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.†The gargantuan grant of power to the federal government is thus sealed: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.â€

and

Naturally, states can just as well violate individual rights. But, as Chodorov highlighted, there is no monopoly power behind a state’s action. If a state wants to outlaw alcohol, then one can move to a state that doesn’t. (That’s one way for state legislators to ensure that their states will be as densely populated as the moon.) If a state wants to establish a religion, and its own constitution doesn’t prohibit this, one can move to a state with a different constitution. Competition in government puts the brakes on folly and abuse and preserves freedom.

This writer is not a part of Vision Forum or reconstructionism, but it is frightening that even crazy WND would have someone that expressed the sentiment that states shoudl be able to take away our rights.

I don't know if anyone would actually take the next site serious but here is someone who wants to repeal the 14th Amendment

kevincraig.us/14thAmendment.htm

edited to add, I think that their dislike of the 14th amendment prove that some fundies really want to establish a 'Christian ' nation but I also wonder if their version of a perfect nation would include slavery. Also, some politicians dislike the 14th Amdendment because of 'anchor babies' but I think that a lot of the fundamentalist dislike comes from the fact that states can't take away constitutional rights

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is that these people like to focus on the bill of rights and the rest of the ammendments only, and they are correct that many of them do not specifically grant power to the federal government. However, you can't look at the BofR and the other ammendments in a vacuum. There is the REST of the Constitution to consider...such as Articles 1, II, III, and IV which set out the powers of the legislature, presidency, Judiciary, and States. They also forget the past 200+ years of Supreme Court decisions which have helped define the scope of federal power. They do the same thing with the Constitution that they do with the Bible: chery pick the portions that support their nuttery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a good point medea, fundies read the constituion like they do the bible. They pick out what they like and ignore the rest

http://www.mediaite.com/online/rachel-m ... tion-ploy/

Rachel Maddow covered the the desire to overturn the 14th Amendment.

In the event you’ve been on vacation for the last couple of weeks, there has been increased discussion on many cable news programs about the plight of “Anchor Babies†– the apparent scourge of the current U.S. immigration problems in which illegal immigrants come to America to have a baby, which in turn leads to a much greater chance for them to become a U.S. citizen.

Recently, Senators Lindsay Graham, Jon Kyl and Rep. John Boehner have all recently discussed an eager interest in repealing that amendment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a good point medea, fundies read the constituion like they do the bible. They pick out what they like and ignore the rest

http://www.mediaite.com/online/rachel-m ... tion-ploy/

Rachel Maddow covered the the desire to overturn the 14th Amendment.

Slightly off-topic but of interest, I heard a report on the news today that said immigration from Mexico to the US is down for the fourth year in a row. So much for their welfare-seekers storming the border in droves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah - a media source that is even more :roll: :roll: reliable than Faux News, i.e. World Nut Daily. :whistle: :whistle:

Although I agree that WND is not a good source, I only quoted them as an example of the fact that some fundamentalist/conservative Christians have a problem with the 14th Amendment.

Somewhere on his site, Doug Philips has an article about how the 14th Amendment destroyed state's rights.

These are people who are angry that states can't override the constitution.

How dare you say that Fox News is less crazy then World Net Daily. :snooty: They are both equally nuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How dare you say that Fox News is less crazy then World Net Daily. :snooty: They are both equally nuts.

:lol: otherwise I would be :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.