Ask Me Help Desk - What would you do?

Excon,

Here is the full text of the 14th Amendment.

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. 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.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The due process clause, listed in Section 1, does not mention a right to privacy. Nor does any other part of the 14th Amendment. Or for that matter, any other part of the Constitution. Due process does not indicate some right to privacy. What due process protects is the sanctity of PRIVATE CONTRACTS. But nowhere is there an enumeration of a right to privacy.

Furthermore, you seem to emphasize the "due process" clause of section 1, but you clearly ignore the "Citizenship" clause.

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;

This clearly states that due process rights do NOT apply to illegal aliens or foreign-born enemies of there USA. Such rights are guaranteed ONLY to US citizens, whether natural born or naturalized. Yet you want us to extend due process rights to those sitting in Gitmo and to illegal aliens.

To use your own wording against you,

Quote:

When it comes to issues you don't believe in, you dismiss the relevance the Constitution has on those issues... But, when it comes to Constitutional rights you support, then you know the Constitution pretty good.

And it is especially egregious when you try to do so with non-existant rights that are made up out of whole cloth.

BTW, John Kerry SHOULD have been elliminated as a candidate for President on the basis of Section 3. He is a former military officer who has acted in rebellion against the military and the government of the USA, met with and gave comfort to enemies of the USA, and participated in civil unrest against the USA. Ergo, he should never have been allowed to be elected to the Senate, much less run for President.

(One might argue the same about Barack Obama, who has met with and given aid and comfort to Bill Ayers and Burnadette Dorn, avowed enemies of the US government and known terrorist leaders of the Weatherman Underground. But I won't go there.)

Elliot

Quote:

I say that it is a state issue, not a federal one. Let the people decide what their state's laws should be on abortion. Roe V. Wade was a case of legislation through Judicial fiat. The federal government is not supposed to have a say on this issue. Let the states decide.

I still say it is not a Fed or State issue. It is an individual issue. NO gov is supposed to have a say on this issue.

Quote:

And turning your argument back on itself, I find it interesting that those who claim to be "pro-choice" are only pro-choice on abortion.

Not true, a blanket statement. And before you turn my argument back on me, address my original argument.

Quote:

They never seem to be pro-choice on whether other people should own a gun, other people should keep the money they earn, which schools other people's children should go to, what prayers can be said in public, and what forms of art can be exhibitted in public buildings.

I am a pro-choice when it comes to abortion.
I am also pro-choice on all these issues you listed. It's not to say that some of the more dangerous choices (guns) should not be heavely regulated. I am extremely pro-choice when it comes to who you marry. That is another area, the gov has no business being.

Quote:

"Stay out of my bedroom", apparently doesn't apply to "Stay out of my wallet" or "Stay out of my gun-rack".

Not sure what you mean by this.

Quote:

And taking a slightly different argument, the same people who are most ardently in favor of abortion rights for women to kill unborn children also seem to be the ones most in favor of protecting the rights of murderers and rapists to live.

Again, not true. Blanket statement.

Quote:

It is okay to kill innocent, unborn, helpless babies, but adult murderers and rapists must be protected?

This is the sarcasm I was referring too earlier. It doesn't help your case. It's just your warped view.

Sorry, but I wasn't being sarcastic. That is exactly how I view the position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Sorry, but I wasn't being sarcastic. That is exactly how I view the position.

Are you going to address any other issues? Like why in the world should the state have a say in whether a woman has an abortion or if someone marries a same sex partner.

Hello again, c:

You got him nailed! He's a keep the government out of your wallet kind of guy. But, when it comes to your bedroom, government SHOULD have a say.

excon

The founders believed in the concept of a civil society . I have heard the defense often that although someone is a libertarian that they are not anarchists .

That civil society did not just emerge but was the product of generations of human experience and reasoning . A moral order was vital for a civil society to function. That was an integral part of what establishes a cultural identity . Thus there is a balance between unfettered individual rights and government authority.

Madison put it this way in Federalist #51
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

The Preamble of the Constitution states it's broad goal is preserving a right to life. That presumes an imperitive to defending of a life over the abstract women's right to choice .

But they also set up a Federal system where conflicting social issues were to be decided at the local State level ;by the people ;not an oligarchy in black robes. Anyone pleased with the Roe decision should be aware that the Supreme Court has changed it's mind before and will do so again on issues that they have no real business being in anyway.

In fact ,the founders again made it clear in Federalist 45 the relevant constitutional principle :
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. ..... ... The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.

Issues of sexual morality belong in the category of "the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people."

That is why it was wrong for the Court to rule on Roe;and it was right that the people of California had a right to decide issues of gay marriage.

[

I

Quote:

ssues of sexual morality belong in the category of "the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people."

How does same sex marriage concern your life liberty or property?

See my last sentence... it is a State issue... even the gay rights people understand that .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

see my last sentence ...it is a State issue .......even the gay rights people understand that .

I got that part. I just don't see how that becomes a state issue. It does not take away the rights, well being, etc. of the states citizens. It should not even be up for debate. How does it inflict harm of any kind?

The question is not if the state has the right to either allow or deny same sex marriage but if the people of a civil society have that right to define marriage and decide who has that right. My opinion is that it is not unalienable that marriage is a right at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

but if the people of a civil society have that right to define marriage and decide who has that right.

Hello again, tom:

If there are right's being handed out, they must be handed out equally - to every citizen - not just to the ones whom you decide should have 'em. That's what the Constitution of your civil society says. Really, it does.

So no, you can't decide who has a right and who doesn't.

excon

I think that reforms to entitlement programs like social security and welfare are needed to help get out of the deficit. A national sales tax of about 7% would not be popular, but I think it is necessary to get the U.S. out of debt. Canada was hopelessly in debt until the Good and Services tax was introduced in 1991. Soon after the tax was introduced, Canada was one of the few countries in the world to have budget surpluses until the financial crisis started.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

And it is especially aggregious when you try to do so with non-existant rights that are made up out of whole cloth.

Hello again, El:

I can't help it if the Supreme Court didn't know where to find the right of privacy. It's in the Fourth Amendment, not the Fourteenth... But, it IS in there.

excon

Without rehashing the whole debate again . You are wrong . Marriage is a not a right that has to be equally applied. There are specific guildelines established that qualifies people for the institution... always were ,always will be . Just ask the Mormons if you don't believe me. The fact is ;and I explained it in another thred ,that marriage is a religious institution as well as state sanctioned .My religion does not think heterosexual and same sex marriages are equal and the state sanctioning same sex marriage would force my church to violate that premise and be open to violations of it's 1st amendment rights.

You think I'm wrong ? The church finds itself already in similar circumstances in issues of administering health care and charitible services. As an example ,the archdiocese of Boston eventually closed down its adoption program, because the state of Massachusetts insisted that every adoption agency in the state must allow same-sex couples to adopt. A Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony.

A wedding photographer in New Mexico was found guilty of discrimination by the state's Human Rights Commission and ordered to pay $6,000 because she declined the business of a lesbian couple. She didn't want to take photos of their commitment ceremony.

State laws that protect gays from discrimination include some religious exemptions for reasons such as this. But treating the "marriages" as equal removes the exemptions under the guise of "equal rights" .

If you tell me that you think the state should get out of the marriage business I'd probably be willing to make compromises . If you tell me that there are various benefits associated with the contractual union of people that are denied same sex unions now including Social Security survivor benefits, tax-free inheritance, spousal immigration rights I would not disagree . But these issues of equal distribution of benefits could be conferred by federally recognized civil unions.

The debate over this issue itself has evolved and civil society will reach this compromise that protects religious freedom and the civil rights of the gays eventually if the courts stay out of it .

The institutions of civil society acknowledge heterosexual marriages on the basis of historical and cultural preferences dating back millennia.. most likely predating established governments . The government didn't decide this; society did. Government recognition of traditional marriage was not a change forced upon society, but rather a legal recognition and codification of what society had already established.

Further it was an absolute absurd decision by the California Supreme Court to rule that a Constitutional amendment properly passed by the state's people was unconstitutional . How do you even come to that conclusion ? Could the US Supreme Court rule whether an amendment properly passed is itself unconstitutional ?

That is one of the reasons I mentioned that the courts are out of control and need to be reigned in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Further it was an absolute absurd decision by the California Supreme Court to rule that a Constitutional amendment properly passed by the state's people was unconstitutional . How do you even come to that conclusion ? Could the US Supreme Court rule whether an amendment properly passed is itself unconstitutional?

Quote:

If there are right's being handed out, they must be handed out equally - to every citizen - not just to the ones whom you decide should have 'em. That's what the Constitution of your civil society says. Really, it does.

Hello again, tom:

I know you think there should be special rights for heterosexuals, but the Constitution says otherwise. I know it's getting old, but...

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says... "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of immunities of citizens on the United States..." it goes on, of course, to say that no state may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws... "

Consequently, the state of California can't do that - even if they tried to do it by amending their Constitution...

Now, I know that you think "equal" means that heterosexual people are more "equal" than homosexuals. I got it... I suggest, however, that the words in the Constitution are crystal clear.

Excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

It's true. That tom guy really keeps us on the straight and narrow... Here we go:

(1) Fix the economy.
a. reform health care
1. throw the insurance companies OUT, and make the gov the single payer.

They tried that in Canada and their Supreme Court in 2005 allowed private pay, because "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin for the 4-3 Court

Featured Article - WSJ.com.

I do think if it is done right - i would be in favor

Proposal of the Physicians' Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance | Physicians for a National Health Program

But if it done like this

Health care hinges on Senate insiders - Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com

The senators in the room include Baucus, Grassley, Kennedy, Hatch and Sens. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), Michael B. Enzi (R-Wyo.), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).

i would be very very scared :eek: None are doctors or nurses or epidemiologists or have MPH. Notice that, that AIG screw up, Dodd is on the short list !

b. reform energy
1. make it green, and make it an alternate to fossil fuel.

More rhetoric? Where is the beef?
Clean coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, offshore drilling

How about this :)

http://www.kentucky.com/181/story/729639.html

Lose weight, keep healthy and reduce your utilities while being green.

c. reform entitlements
1. They are growing faster than we can pay for them... We either need to raise SS and Medicare taxes, or lower services.

or raise the age, cut out fraud.

d. re-regulate
1. We must end the market tilt toward the rich.

As ET has mentioned - FAIR TAX

Fair Tax Reform

"Democrats scream on one hand about the wealthy but they don't pay their fair share of tax at all. Tehresa Heinz Kerry and her Husband( John Kerry) paid a net 12% on their tax returns shared during the last Presidential race.
Millions in investment income and wages and they pay only 12%. On investment income they paid ZERO toward supporting Social Security and Medicare. Why? There is no payroll tax on investment income"

(3) Rebuild the infrastructure.
1. We need roads and bridges to work.

I would go further and make the entire country free wireless acess :)

(3) Reform immigration.
1. We should stop trying to keep ourselves WHITE.

I agree, open the doors, no quota.
BUT : background, medical check ups first. Also fingerprint, dna, and national ID.
Now that may seem like alot but we already have soc sec #s so I don't think National ID # is any big deal.

excon

I'm glad someone other than us righty's have some ideas ;)

G&P

Quote:

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says... "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of immunities of citizens on the United States..." it goes on, of course, to say that no state may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws... "

Consequently, the state of California can't do that - even if they tried to do it by amending their Constitution...

If that were the case then there would've been no need for the 19th Amendment since equal protection would've meant women couldn't be denied the equal right to vote.

Ex
Your interpretation of the 14th is flawed. Are you now saying that there is nothing to stop a future court from declaring there is no “compelling state interest for equal protection purposes” in banning polygamy,or incestuous marriages ? Under you're version of equal protection all laws restricting those marriages must also be struck .

John A. Bingham ;the author of the 14th said that the 14th “takes from no State any right that ever pertained to it.” Well defining marriage has been a State right since the beginning of the nation... and states still reserve that right after the 14th passed.

I will remind you that both Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy ;who both voted in the majority in the Lawrence v Texas decision said they would've voted the other side if the law had applied to marriage.

Baker v. Nelson ;a same sex marriage law suit that made it to SCOTUS was thrown out because the court deamed it a state issue. In other words THERE IS NO COMPELLING FEDERAL QUESTION in marriage.

Hello again, tom:

I'd sure love a chance to argue this WITH YOU before the Supremes... I'd kick your butt.

excon

So where is the Constitutional protection for the as yet not born?

As I posted earlier, and no one challenged my statement, that is a perfect human life needing ONLY a few weeks time to breathe on its own.

Where are the advocates for these US Citizens?

Why is a mother allowed to hire an assassin to kill her baby?

Don't say that this does not pertain to the OP because it DOES. More taxpayers will certainly help the economy in the future. You DO think we have a future, don't you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by galveston

So where is the Constitutional protection for the as yet not born? Where are the advocates for these US Citizens?

Hello gal:

Look, I'd like the law to allow me to smoke pot anywhere I choose. But, no matter what I'd like, the law says otherwise...

Same with you. In fact, being from the law and order party, you should be an advocate for LAW, instead of wishing the law was different.

You ask where the Constitutional protection for the unborn is? I don't know. It's NOT in the Constitution. That's where these rights come from - the ONLY place.

Wishing the law were different doesn't cut it.

excon