WritersBeat.com
 

Go Back   WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table

The Intellectual Table Discussions on political topics, social issues, current affairs, etc.


If you want to return "X" to the states, then repeal the 14th amendment

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 03-27-2018, 06:50 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,343
Thanks: 432
Thanks 1,196
Default


Originally Posted by Myers View Post
What he's pining for can only work on a micro level -- like with the Amish, where everything is tightly controlled.

But it's just a fantasy -- it couldn't exist without the outside world, where everything is connected and interdependent up to the global level. So just more wishful thinking...


Maybe, yeah, but Mo never really says outright exactly what he’s aiming at. You assume some, but I’d like to give him the chance to explain it in his own words. Like, down to the concrete. I feel like I can appreciate a person for being convicted and invested in a philosophy or doctrine (or whatever) even if I disagree. I mean, if they just lay it out clearly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-27-2018, 08:40 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 461
Thanks: 3
Thanks 48
Default

From what Ive seen the ambiguity and vagueness is necessary for the ideology. Mohican may contradict me but what everything points towards is a Christian nationalism divorced from New Testament teachings. Its politicized, its militant. I think that can be asserted as being self-obvious.

The problem is that the pursuit of dominion through political avenues necessitates compromise. Politics is by default practical and opportunistic. Religion however, at least the Abrhamic faiths, posits the transcendent. The Tao differs in being more a model of proper life at all social levels but Christianity purports a radical egalitarianism:

For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

The problem with evangelical, baptist, protestant sects in general, which is to say politicized Christianity (and maybe Im here betraying my Catholic sympathies for surely that bueracracy is political) is that in the nuptiation of religion and politics politics takes primacy and erases all other considerations.

Take for instance the debate regarding immigration. Christ teaches to love your neighbor as you love yourself. Even to love your enemies. But where is that in evidence? The insistence on the maintenance of borders for the preservation of a cultural identity robs them immediately of their status as religious Christians and renders them Christian nationalists which I see as being primarily concerned with aesthetics in the decoral sense not in the spiritual. Because as it would happen the majority of South American immigrants are highly religious, mostly Catholic, and that their rejection then falls not on religious grounds but on cultural grounds. Which of course bewrays their ignorance of their scriptures because Jesus did nothing if not violate the cultural norms of his day. In fact that's one of the major cruxes of the gospels.

To reiterate then the ambiguity is necessary to mask the spiritual violation and trespass of the politically held views.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-28-2018, 05:30 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,266
Thanks: 394
Thanks 732
Default

Yes, Blue, you're off the mark in what you assume you think I want.

I don't want a theocracy, especially tied to X sect or y sect or whatever. Historically they have a track record from mediocre to terrible.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-28-2018, 05:51 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,266
Thanks: 394
Thanks 732
Default

I also wonder at the notion of being for strong borders as being non Christian. Although people clearly traveled hither to yon in biblical times there is definite mention of various kingdoms or countries, which infer borders.

The scriptures, both in Old and New Testaments more than hint at sustainability.

For example, endless welfare is not a Christian notion.

Can I cleanly extrapolate that into a closed border policy? Probably not . I will not that the Apostle Paul did not expect to have an open border in Israel. He took the work out to places far from Israel.

I don't see much example of letting people in and finding Christianity through osmosis, but it became a belief where people took the message to people where they were. Missionaries.

Going back to theocracies, and whether or not I want to live in a theocracy?

again, no.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-28-2018, 06:14 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,266
Thanks: 394
Thanks 732
Default

Yes, but why? Why do you wish to surround yourself with “safe” or “moral” people? And what makes you think the same human dynamics won’t play themselves out in these smaller more local communities? Because the same human vices and faults and frailties will play themselves out. They always do. Insulating oneself from the world as it actually is will only make it worse.
Did I mention safe? What is safe? It's one of those fuzzy words.

And does insulating oneself make things worse? How?

One small example: shaming or pressuring young gay men into hiding their reality will not make them more productive and useful members of society. In fact, the opposite.



Another: just as many men and women will have affairs with each other and cheat on their spouses. It may be hidden or covered up better, but it will happen.

And another: people will murder, lie, cheat, steal, and abuse others, just like everywhere else.

Insular communities have all of these problems. The citizens are just more cohesively invested in covering them up for the sake of the appearance of the community.
Yes, insular communities can have these problems. And some in the past have tried to hide them. That doesn't negate what I think is correct.

So I wonder why a person such as yourself would think these ideas have any real merit?
I see few positives in a nationalist or globalist approach.

Besides, the people who need help are out there... beyond your comfort zone, and beyond your current understanding of what it is to be human in all its facets. You can’t truly understand another until you’ve lived with them.
You have no idea what my comfort zone is. Are you saying that a person has to sink to a low level to understand another? Enlightenment through debauchery?
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-28-2018, 07:11 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,343
Thanks: 432
Thanks 1,196
Default

No, you misunderstand my point. One does not have to take part in debauchery or whatever word you want to use to understand it. But one does have to live with or substantially encounter other people, other cultures, life as it really is, to have compassion. Arm-chair compassion is useless.

But... you’re dodging my original question. What IS it that you DO want? You spend all your time saying what you don’t want, or that you want less federal control and more local control, but, to what end? What would you do with your local control? Or, what would you like to see done with said local sovereignty?

So... you aren’t looking for increased safety (safe, a fuzzy word) in a hypothetically, locally controlled community... what then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-28-2018, 07:54 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 461
Thanks: 3
Thanks 48
Default

I seriously doubt that Im wrong in my assessment of you considering that all of your qualms have concerned the representation of religion in local government. But ok. Lets say youre speaking true and you dont want a theocratic state. Certainly you wish a government that more accurately mirrors the religion of the region. Lets settle on that compromise and examine the rest, which youve yet to do.

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.



From our talks I think its safe to assume that your primary concerns are the first two sections. You mentioned Black without too much elaboration other than saying that he felt the amendment was imposed upon the states, which in a way is true of every amendment, because every amendment in some measure abridges the freedom of the states. Your second concern though that the courts have used it to convey "Birthright Citizenship" can be easily dismissed as Section 8.4 of Article I states that the congress has the uneqivocal power:

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

So that part of the argument can be thrown completely out and Ill be charitable and assume thats your only objection to Section 1.

Even so the practice has precedence in English common law (emphasis mine):

There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances; the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta pura, et indefinite, and this originally is due by nature and birth-right, and is called alta ligeantia, and he that oweth this is called subditus natus. The second is called ligeantia acquisita, not by nature but by acquisition or denization, being called a denizen, or rather donaizon, because he is subditus datus. The third is, ligeantia localis, wrought by the law; and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King's protection; therefore so long as he is here, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other. The fourth is a legal obedience, or ligeance which is called legal, because the municipal laws of this realm have prescribed the order and form of it; and this to be done upon oath at the torn of the leet. The first, that is, ligeance natural, &c. appeareth by the said Acts of Parliament, wherein the King is called natural liege lord, and his people natural liege subjects; this also doth appear in the indictments of treason (which of all other things are the most curiously and certainly indicted and penned) for in the indictment of the Lord Dacre, in 26 H. 8. it is said præd' Dominus Dacre debitum fideietligeant suæ, quod præfato, domino Regi naturaliter et de jure impendere debuit, minime curans, &c. And Reginald Pool was indicted in 30 H. 8. for committing treason contradom' Regem supremum et naturalem dominum suum. And to this end were cited the indictment of Edward Duke of Somerset in 5 E. 6. and many others both of ancient and later times. But in the indictment of treason of John Dethick in 2 and 3 Phil and Mar it is said, quod præd' Johannes machinans; &c. prædict' dominum Philippum et dominam Mariam supremos dominos suos, and omitted (naturalis) because King Philip was not his natural liege lord. And of this point more shall be said when we speak of local obedience. The second is ligeant' acquisita, or denization; and this in the books and records of the law appeareth to be threefold: 1. Absolute, as the common denizations be, to them and their [7-Coke-6 a] heirs, without any limitation or restraint: 2. Limited, as when the King doth grant letters of denization to an alien, and to the heirs (a) males of his body, as it appeareth in 9 E. 4. fol. 7, 8. in Baggot's case: or to an alien for term of his life, as was granted to J. Reynel, 11 H. 6. 3. It may be granted upon (b) condition, for (c) cujus est dare, ejus est disponere, whereof I have seen divers precedents.

Later (emphasis again mine):

3. Concerning the local obedience it is observable, that as there on the King's part, so there is a (d) local ligeance of the sub this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. (e) and 3 and 4 Ail and Mar. Dy Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and subjects of this realm in treason against the King and Queen, a concluded (f) contraligeant' suæ debitum; for he owed to the King that is, so long as he was within the King's protection; which Loa but momentary and uncertain, is yet strong enough to make a nat. he hath issue here, that issue is (g) a natural born subject; a fortiori under the natural and absolute ligeance of the King (which, as it alta ligeantia) as the plaintiff in the case in question was, ought to subject; for localis ligeantia, est ligeantia intima et minima, et maxim? incerta. And it is to be observed, that it is nec cælum, nec solum, neither the soil, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born; for come into the realm, and possess town or fort, and have issue the subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject protection of the King. And concerning this local obedience, a pre Hilar. 36 Eliz when Stephano Ferrara de Gama, and Emanuel Lewis Tinoco, two Portuguese born, coming to England under Queen Elizabeth's safe conduct, and living here under her protection, joined with Doctor Lopez in treason within [7-Coke-6 b] this realm against Her Majesty; and in this case two points were resolve First, that their indictment ought to begin, that they intended trea Reginam. &c. omitting these words (naturalem domin suam) and ought (a) ligeant' suæ debitum. But if an (b) alien enemy come to invade I taken in war, he cannot be indicted of treason (B); for the indict cannot conclude contraligeant suæ debitum, for he never was in the protection of owed any manner of ligeance unto him, but malice and enmity, and be put to death by martial law. And so it was in anno 15 H. 7. i case, who being an alien born in Flanders, feigned himself to be a Edward the Fourth, and invaded this realm with great power, with upon him the dignity Royal: but being taken in the war, it was justices, that he could not be punished by the common law, but be and marshal (who had special commission under the Great Seal to E the same according to martial law) he had sentence to be quartered, which was executed accordingly.

I would reccommend giving the entire case a read: http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/77ER377.htm

The gist then is that because the alien come here is under our laws, thus under our protection, they owe allegiance to that protection. In the case of the United States that protection is provided by the constitution that governs the land thus allegiance is due to that document as opposed to the royal corpus. The interesting thing here is that the claim is for persons being in amity to the king which we could say the illegal immigrant is not under such amity. However any person born cannot profess allegiance to anything and so must default to the body governing the land upon which it was born. Furthermore since the government supersedes the familial unit, as in cases when the state deems a parent unfit, the parent cannot claim that the individual born is solely under the jurisdiction of a foreign state.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by bluewpc; 03-28-2018 at 08:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-28-2018, 07:59 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 461
Thanks: 3
Thanks 48
Default

Can I cleanly extrapolate that into a closed border policy? Probably not . I will not that the Apostle Paul did not expect to have an open border in Israel. He took the work out to places far from Israel. I don't see much example of letting people in and finding Christianity through osmosis, but it became a belief where people took the message to people where they were. Missionaries.

The problem here is the problem of reciprocation. It posits a porousness of other nations that does not exist in the host nation and so undermines their sovereignty by means of hypocrisy, which maintained as policy logically endorses the fallacy that might makes right.


On to Section 2. Concordant with the protections enumerated in Section 1, Section 2 further provides that the individual's political voice cannot be abridged except by violation of the law. Were this protection and the protections of Section 1 removed then state governments would have the power to arbitrarily strip individuals of their citizenship without losing representative seats. Thereby creating a politically castrated underclass that yet counted towards the total population and thus to representation in the House. As there is precedence of this action most infamously in the 3/5ths compromise theres is also cause for the amendment.

How bout dem mother fuckin apples.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by bluewpc; 03-28-2018 at 08:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-29-2018, 04:11 AM
Myers (Offline)
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,224
Thanks: 382
Thanks 403
Default

Mohican, why can’t you just be honest and stop being so evasive and tell us what you have in mind?

Somehow, you would like to control or make what you consider “debauchery” illegal -- so what exactly are you talking about and how do you propose to give these laws teeth? In other words, what are the offenses and what are the penalties?

And according to who’s standards? If these laws are derived from religious doctrine -- then how is what you want not a theocracy?

Is it because you’re afraid that if you cut the crap and you’re really honest about what you envision -- when you type out the details and hit the submit button, we’ll see how radical and absurd your fantasy word really is?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-29-2018, 04:53 AM
Myers (Offline)
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,224
Thanks: 382
Thanks 403
Default

Originally Posted by brianpatrick View Post
Maybe, yeah, but Mo never really says outright exactly what he’s aiming at. You assume some, but I’d like to give him the chance to explain it in his own words. Like, down to the concrete. I feel like I can appreciate a person for being convicted and invested in a philosophy or doctrine (or whatever) even if I disagree. I mean, if they just lay it out clearly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah -- who knows. But what I'm talking about is the size of a community where it's possible to more or less force people to adhere to a set of strict moral standards and where you can minimize outside influences -- without it being part of some larger authoritarian regime.

I saw an interesting documentary about Hasidic Jews in New York -- basically, to keep people in line, especially women, they use fear and threats. The punishment for straying outside doctrine is banishment -- being cut off from all your family and friends forever.

With women, they've figured out how to game the legal system to keep them from their children -- the community pools their resources to hire lawyers and they conspire to discredit the women in any way they can.

They use a legal loophole called “status quo” -- which essentially means to see her children, the mother must maintain religious rules and the same kind of household environment that she's trying to escape -- basically a no-win situation. It's all pretty nasty.

Obviously, history shows us what happens when governments try to enforce moral standards according to a religious doctrine. In order to maintain control, they have to get more and more oppressive -- and eventually they turn on themselves when certain factions are seen to stray from the purity of the doctrine. Maybe it can work on a relatively small community level -- but on a larger scale, it will devolve into some kind of increasingly strict, authoritarian regime -- and of course, it's antithetical to any government where power supposedly rests with the people. You can't have it both ways.

Last edited by Myers; 03-29-2018 at 10:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 03-29-2018, 10:20 AM
spshane (Offline)
Profusive Denizen
Official Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 280
Thanks: 45
Thanks 73
Default

Whomping sounds from respective echo chambers duly noted. Everyone can report to their superiors that we're making progress.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-29-2018, 10:23 AM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 461
Thanks: 3
Thanks 48
Default

Well whats your opinion?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-29-2018, 02:59 PM
Myers (Offline)
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,224
Thanks: 382
Thanks 403
Default

Originally Posted by spshane View Post
Whomping sounds from respective echo chambers duly noted. Everyone can report to their superiors that we're making progress.
Oh my -- that's a such a clever thing to say!

I'll use that next time I'm on Facebook.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-29-2018, 05:10 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,343
Thanks: 432
Thanks 1,196
Default

Do we have an echo chamber? I’d love access to that room. Is it like Les Paul’s in the basement of the capital records building—?what fun!

Really though... I may make presumptions, but I asked a fairly simple question. I’m still waiting for an answer.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-30-2018, 08:55 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,266
Thanks: 394
Thanks 732
Default

Mohican, why can’t you just be honest and stop being so evasive and tell us what you have in mind?
Are you saying that I'm being dishonest?

I think that you and brian are trying to lead me into saying something like I want some single race nation state, community, etc. That's not the case at all.

I made a statement at the beginning - I think the fourteenth amendment to the US Constitution should be abolished/ rescinded.

If the collective "we" are to stay together I would like to return to stronger states.

Never had I said anything about a repeal of the thirteenth - and create a return of slavery. I don't want that.

In wanting states become states and not federal vassals ie large counties I do not want the states to assume a lot of power over peoples lives, either.

I don't want to make homosexuality illegal, but in turn I don't want the LGBT lobby to have the power to force churches or businesses to cater to them ie force them to perform marriage ceremonies.

And did I say make debauchery illegal? I did not. So if someone is making that statement then they are "putting words in my mouth".
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03-30-2018, 09:19 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,266
Thanks: 394
Thanks 732
Default

Can I cleanly extrapolate that into a closed border policy? Probably not . I will not that the Apostle Paul did not expect to have an open border in Israel. He took the work out to places far from Israel. I don't see much example of letting people in and finding Christianity through osmosis, but it became a belief where people took the message to people where they were. Missionaries.
Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
The problem here is the problem of reciprocation. It posits a porousness of other nations that does not exist in the host nation and so undermines their sovereignty by means of hypocrisy, which maintained as policy logically endorses the fallacy that might makes right.
I don't know where you are trying to go with this as a counter argument. I don't see an open borders, let everyone in viewpoint as Christian.


Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
On to Section 2. Concordant with the protections enumerated in Section 1, Section 2 further provides that the individual's political voice cannot be abridged except by violation of the law. Were this protection and the protections of Section 1 removed then state governments would have the power to arbitrarily strip individuals of their citizenship without losing representative seats. Thereby creating a politically castrated underclass that yet counted towards the total population and thus to representation in the House. As there is precedence of this action most infamously in the 3/5ths compromise theres is also cause for the amendment.

How bout dem mother fuckin apples.


Making the argument about apportioning representation in todays 'Murrica only makes sense in the apportionment of the electoral college. The rate of Federal Representation is 435 members of the US House of Representatives versus 300 plus million people. (versus 1/5000 to 1/10000 at time of ratification)

My desire to repeal the 14th is not to re-introduce "old sins". I would be in favor of an amendment with language to the effect of.

1. The 14th amendment is rescinded.
2. Citizens still have their rights, including suffrage.
3. People born on land to non US citizens are not citizens.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-30-2018, 09:26 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,266
Thanks: 394
Thanks 732
Default

No, you misunderstand my point. One does not have to take part in debauchery or whatever word you want to use to understand it. But one does have to live with or substantially encounter other people, other cultures, life as it really is, to have compassion. Arm-chair compassion is useless.
A statement like this assumes that I don't live, or work, or have never lived, or worked around people of different races, faiths, leanings, etc and therefore I can't have any compassion for other or don't have any compassion for others.

And that's false.

Acceptance is not compassion, and compassion is not acceptance. Without making too bit a deal about it, I help quite a few people out.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-30-2018, 09:29 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,266
Thanks: 394
Thanks 732
Default

Can I cleanly extrapolate that into a closed border policy? Probably not . I will not that the Apostle Paul did not expect to have an open border in Israel. He took the work out to places far from Israel. I don't see much example of letting people in and finding Christianity through osmosis, but it became a belief where people took the message to people where they were. Missionaries.
Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
The problem here is the problem of reciprocation. It posits a porousness of other nations that does not exist in the host nation and so undermines their sovereignty by means of hypocrisy, which maintained as policy logically endorses the fallacy that might makes right.
I don't know where you are trying to go with this as a counter argument. I don't see an open borders, let everyone in viewpoint as Christian.


Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
On to Section 2. Concordant with the protections enumerated in Section 1, Section 2 further provides that the individual's political voice cannot be abridged except by violation of the law. Were this protection and the protections of Section 1 removed then state governments would have the power to arbitrarily strip individuals of their citizenship without losing representative seats. Thereby creating a politically castrated underclass that yet counted towards the total population and thus to representation in the House. As there is precedence of this action most infamously in the 3/5ths compromise theres is also cause for the amendment.

How bout dem mother fuckin apples.


Making the argument about apportioning representation in todays 'Murrica only makes sense in the apportionment of the electoral college. The rate of Federal Representation is 435 members of the US House of Representatives versus 300 plus million people. (versus 1/5000 to 1/10000 at time of ratification)

My desire to repeal the 14th is not to re-introduce "old sins". I would be in favor of an amendment with language to the effect of.

1. The 14th amendment is rescinded.
2. Citizens still have their rights, including suffrage.
3. People born on land to non US citizens are not citizens.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-30-2018, 09:39 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,266
Thanks: 394
Thanks 732
Default

From our talks I think its safe to assume that your primary concerns are the first two sections. You mentioned Black without too much elaboration other than saying that he felt the amendment was imposed upon the states, which in a way is true of every amendment, because every amendment in some measure abridges the freedom of the states. Your second concern though that the courts have used it to convey "Birthright Citizenship" can be easily dismissed as Section 8.4 of Article I states that the congress has the uneqivocal power:
Article 1 can state that, but is that current judicial practice?

Also, the first 10 amendments were definitely seen as chains on the states powers, but restrictions on the national government.

The 10th is clearly about powers not mentioned in the Enumerated powers belonging to the states

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
and then there is the 11th amendment

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
The counter argument I am seeing is that we need an all powerful national government, because if we don't have it we will go back to the days of Jim Crow, or something.
__________________
If you surrender a civilization to avoid social disapproval, you should know that all of history will curse you for your cowardliness - Alice Teller

If John of Patmos would browse the internet today for half an hour, I don't know if the Book of Revelations would be entirely different or entirely the same.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03-30-2018, 10:35 AM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,343
Thanks: 432
Thanks 1,196
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
A statement like this assumes that I don't live, or work, or have never lived, or worked around people of different races, faiths, leanings, etc and therefore I can't have any compassion for other or don't have any compassion for others.

And that's false.

Acceptance is not compassion, and compassion is not acceptance. Without making too bit a deal about it, I help quite a few people out.


Well, I wasn’t talking about you “personally.” I said somewhere earlier that if you make rules or laws (or get rid of them) that the new rules apply to everyone. If the government stops dominating the states, say, then a state could decide it was okay in their view for men to marry girls as young as 12 (this is just an example). Or they could decide that people who are religious and don’t agree with the homosexual lifestyle don’t have to serve these customers because they believe it would be considered support of gays. And yet these businesses use the public commons to support their businesses, and the gays pay taxes to support the same public commons.

And it doesn’t take a majority of the population to make these decisions. A small dedicated group can dominate a local community or state even.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 04-04-2018, 07:28 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 461
Thanks: 3
Thanks 48
Default

staff has removed the opening paragraph - personal attack

So ostensibly this thread advocates the repeal of the 14th amendment for the purposes of reducing the federal government and thereby returning power to the states and presumably to the people. He doesnt actually say people in the initial post but thats the charitable reading but this also is undermined later and well get to that. The actual title of the thread is to restore X, by which he means the tenth amendment which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now if we take what he himself has stated and here we quote exactly what he wants:

The 14th amendment is rescinded
Citizens still have their rights, including suffrage.
People born on land to non US citizens are not citizens.


Now when it is pointed out that this amendment has no relation to 'restoring' the tenth amendment because the power of naturalization is clearly spelled out in S8.4 A1 of the constitution his response is:

Article 1 can state that, but is that current judicial practice.

That line undermines his entire argument. Supposedly hes advocating for a strict constitutional reading (nevertheless erroneous in this case) but in the instant that strict reading comes into conflict with his true and ulterior motive he performs a bait and switch. Now its not about constitutionality but about judicial practice which is nevertheless irrelevant to the question.

Which leads me to my second point. His argument already destroyed by his own hand he further reveals himself through the mention of Hugo Black whom he does not identify other than to vaguely disagree with [his],

"incorporated the 14th amendment to apply some of the amendments referred to as the Bill Of Rights against the states.["]


Now he never defines incorporation or explains his opposition to it so let me define it now and give the briefest of histories to the justice. Hugo Black was a Justice who served on the Supreme Court. He hailed from Alabama. He argued for total incorporation of the bill of rights. Now this is the thing Mo decries.

Now the specific definition of incorporate germane to the constitution is that the bill of rights are applicable to the states. This means that the states have to respect the rights afforded citizens by the federal government. Without incorporation the states are free to abridge your speech, refuse you guns, compel you to testify against yourself, seize your property without just compensation etc. Justice Black in his dissent to Adamson V. California lists a number of such cases. His dissent can be read here

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremec...R_0332_0046_ZD

Notable excerpts:

This decision reasserts a constitutional theory spelled out in Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, that this Court is endowed by the Constitution with boundless power under "natural law" periodically to expand and contract constitutional standards to conform to the Court's conception of what, at a particular time, constitutes "civilized decency" and "fundamental liberty and justice."

After the Slaughter-House decision, the Court also said that states could, despite the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, take private property without just compensation, Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S.[p79]*97, 105; Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166, 176-177; abridge the freedom of assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542; see also Prudential Ins. Co. v. Cheek, 259 U.S. 530, 543; Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454; cf. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (freedom of speech); prosecute for crime by information, rather than indictment, Hurtado v. People of California, 110 U.S. 516; regulate the price for storage of grain in warehouses and elevators, Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113.

At the same time that the Twining decision held that the states need not conform to the specific provisions of the Bill of Rights, it consolidated the power that the Court had assumed under the due process clause by laying even broader foundations for the Court to invalidate state and even federal regulatory legislation. For, under the Twining formula, which includes nonregard for the first eight amendments, what are "fundamental rights" and in accord with "canons of decency," as the Court[p83]*said in Twining, and today reaffirms, is to be independently "ascertained from time to time by judicial action. . . ." Id. at 101; "what is due process of law depends on circumstances." Moyer v. Peabody, 212 U.S. 78, 84. Thus, the power of legislatures became what this Court would declare it to be at a particular time independently of the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights such as the right to freedom of speech, religion and assembly, the right to just compensation for property taken for a public purpose, the right to jury trial or the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.


In Palko v. Connecticut, supra, a case which involved former jeopardy only, this Court reexamined the path it had traveled in interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment since the Twining opinion was written. In Twining, the Court had declared that none of the rights enumerated in the first eight amendments were protected against state invasion because they were incorporated in the Bill of Rights. But the Court in Palko, supra, at 323, answered a contention that all eight applied with the more guarded statement, similar to that the Court had used in Maxwell v. Dow, supra, at 597, that "there is no such general rule." Implicit in this statement, and in the cases decided in the interim between Twining and Palko and since, is the understanding that some of the eight amendments do apply by their very terms. Thus, the Court said in the Palko case that the Fourteenth Amendment may make it unlawful for a state to abridge by its statutes the
freedom of speech which the First Amendment safeguards against encroachment by the Congress . . . or the like freedom of the press . . . or the free exercise of religion . . . or the right of peaceable assembly . . . or the right of one accused of crime to the benefit of counsel. . . . In these and other situations, immunities that are valid as against the federal government by force of the specific pledges of particular amendments have been found to be implicit in the concept of ordered[p86] liberty, and thus, through the Fourteenth Amendment, become valid as against the states.

Divining his intentions beyond this point becomes somewhat muddled and from here were forced to speculate but since the argument up to this point has been duplicitous its understandable if we assume the worst. If we go back to exactly what he states:

The 14th amendment is rescinded
Citizens still have their rights, including suffrage.
People born on land to non US citizens are not citizens
.

The motive becomes clear he does not want non-citizens to be able to have children who are citizens. Theres a problem with his second statement though too because we also know that he is against incorporation which would allow courts to abide by natural law in which case they could deny at will rights to individuals whether they are citizens or not.

In such an instance it is all too apparent how an underclass, already extant, would become more vulnerable to exploitation because all pretense of due process or any right whatsoever would be denied them. In this case the judicial branch approaches omnipotence because they can decide the scope of laws, afford and deny rights however capriciously.

Another note, perhaps telling, is that as he wishes it the citizens have yet their rights but can still be deprived of them.

This is what concerns me and I may venture to say concerns others.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by Mohican; 04-06-2018 at 01:58 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-04-2018, 09:13 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,343
Thanks: 432
Thanks 1,196
Default

And I have had these discussions for a while with Mo and he doesn’t get much clearer. He answers questions with questions or defensive posturing, somehow accusing me or others of trying to get him to admit (or seeming to admit) something he doesn’t actually stand for.

I’m a pretty liberal guy, sure. But I’m not a modern progressive or even close. A lot of the stances taken by today’s “left” seem stupid or obviously dangerous to the country.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04-05-2018, 02:26 PM
spshane (Offline)
Profusive Denizen
Official Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 280
Thanks: 45
Thanks 73
Default

Originally Posted by brianpatrick View Post
Do we have an echo chamber? I’d love access to that room. Is it like Les Paul’s in the basement of the capital records building—?what fun!

Really though... I may make presumptions, but I asked a fairly simple question. I’m still waiting for an answer.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For starts, let me begin by apologizing for posting on this thread. I generally steer away from these types of threads for the obvious reasons. I'm old and I've wasted too much of my life already on pointless back and forth that never goes anywhere. I'll be dead in a few years and I don't have time to waste on that shit (like I am now).

These type of conversations always digress into a game of straw men, where
you're not validly addressing any point but attacking a water-down caricature of what the other person's position is likely to be. (Oh, he thinks state's rights, therefore conservative, therefore pathologically ignorant and racist). In fairness to you, you're comments weren't quite such an exaggeration, but others were. It's like you hear the word "states rights" and you've heard everything you needed to hear, or your presuppose that's there's a singular rational for supporting state's rights.

People around the world have taken positions similar to state's rights in modern times and it has more to do with responsible governance than pre-Civil War thinking. I'm not saying that support it. My comment has more to do with the fact that you're not really talking a meaningful way. Very quickly, it broke down along left versus right and you're not really listening. You're slinging pre-packaged crap at self-invented target. It's all wretch and no vomit; it never gets anywhere. Except maybe you dig your trenches a little deeper among the tribe.

I'm sorry if it takes me too long to respond to your comments. I should have avoided this thread from the start. I've wasted too much time in here already.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04-05-2018, 02:34 PM
Beesauce (Offline)
Word Wizard
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Phomerica
Posts: 536
Thanks: 142
Thanks 69
Default

Originally Posted by spshane View Post
For starts, let me begin by apologizing for posting on this thread. I generally steer away from these types of threads for the obvious reasons. I'm old and I've wasted too much of my life already on pointless back and forth that never goes anywhere. I'll be dead in a few years and I don't have time to waste on that shit (like I am now).

These type of conversations always digress into a game of straw men, where
you're not validly addressing any point but attacking a water-down caricature of what the other person's position is likely to be. (Oh, he thinks state's rights, therefore conservative, therefore pathologically ignorant and racist). In fairness to you, you're comments weren't quite such an exaggeration, but others were. It's like you hear the word "states rights" and you've heard everything you needed to hear, or your presuppose that's there's a singular rational for supporting state's rights.

People around the world have taken positions similar to state's rights in modern times and it has more to do with responsible governance than pre-Civil War thinking. I'm not saying that support it. My comment has more to do with the fact that you're not really talking a meaningful way. Very quickly, it broke down along left versus right and you're not really listening. You're slinging pre-packaged crap at self-invented target. It's all wretch and no vomit; it never gets anywhere. Except maybe you dig your trenches a little deeper among the tribe.

I'm sorry if it takes me too long to respond to your comments. I should have avoided this thread from the start. I've wasted too much time in here already.

Here here, strawman? Let me lighten your regrets from this thread, Wicker Man will do some good. A mere moment of your time spshane, I'm sure you've studied hard on this sacrafice the Punch fool--
__________________
i didnt do it, except
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04-05-2018, 02:44 PM
Myers (Offline)
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,224
Thanks: 382
Thanks 403
Default

Ha ha.

I'm just shootin' the shit for entertainment purposes.

Just giving someone a little poke to see what happens.

That's it for now -- there must be something good on TV that I'm missing...
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-05-2018, 03:50 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,343
Thanks: 432
Thanks 1,196
Default

Originally Posted by spshane View Post
For starts, let me begin by apologizing for posting on this thread. I generally steer away from these types of threads for the obvious reasons. I'm old and I've wasted too much of my life already on pointless back and forth that never goes anywhere. I'll be dead in a few years and I don't have time to waste on that shit (like I am now).



These type of conversations always digress into a game of straw men, where

you're not validly addressing any point but attacking a water-down caricature of what the other person's position is likely to be. (Oh, he thinks state's rights, therefore conservative, therefore pathologically ignorant and racist). In fairness to you, you're comments weren't quite such an exaggeration, but others were. It's like you hear the word "states rights" and you've heard everything you needed to hear, or your presuppose that's there's a singular rational for supporting state's rights.



People around the world have taken positions similar to state's rights in modern times and it has more to do with responsible governance than pre-Civil War thinking. I'm not saying that support it. My comment has more to do with the fact that you're not really talking a meaningful way. Very quickly, it broke down along left versus right and you're not really listening. You're slinging pre-packaged crap at self-invented target. It's all wretch and no vomit; it never gets anywhere. Except maybe you dig your trenches a little deeper among the tribe.



I'm sorry if it takes me too long to respond to your comments. I should have avoided this thread from the start. I've wasted too much time in here already.


My arguments never break down into left/right dichotomies because I actively refuse such things. I refuse to believe that real people are either left or right. That thinking is bullshit and not at all like the real world.

I poke Mo some because he seems like a stilted person locked in a cage of narrow reference and I’d like to see him break free of that (I’d like to see all people break free).

I can’t be responsible for other people being stupid, or misunderstanding my comments. Still, I will keep pressing inch by inch until Mo decides to be honest and lay it all out. I just want an honest answer without all the cloak and dagger stuff.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-05-2018, 03:53 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,343
Thanks: 432
Thanks 1,196
Default

Originally Posted by Myers View Post
Ha ha.

I'm just shootin' the shit for entertainment purposes.

Just giving someone a little poke to see what happens.

That's it for now -- there must be something good on TV that I'm missing...


I heard the Roseanne Re-hash is one of the best shows on television from a customer. You should watch that. Or... maybe hang yourself with a guitar string. That could be fun too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-05-2018, 03:54 PM
Myers (Offline)
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,224
Thanks: 382
Thanks 403
Default

This post has been removed by staff because it could be construed as a personal attack.

Last edited by Mohican; 04-06-2018 at 01:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04-05-2018, 04:01 PM
Myers (Offline)
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,224
Thanks: 382
Thanks 403
Default

Originally Posted by brianpatrick View Post
I heard the Roseanne Re-hash is one of the best shows on television from a customer. You should watch that. Or... maybe hang yourself with a guitar string. That could be fun too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Oh -- I know! Best show since the Hollywood liberal establishment killed Tim Allen's last super-hilarious sitcom! I can't wait!
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04-05-2018, 04:08 PM
Myers (Offline)
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,224
Thanks: 382
Thanks 403
Default

Totally forgot to remind Mo -- George Washington Carver figured out some stuff you can do with peanuts.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  WritersBeat.com > General Discussion > The Intellectual Table


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Observations on the Constitution from a West Virginia Gun Show. Mohican The Intellectual Table 1 03-08-2016 09:38 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:30 PM.

vBulletin, Copyright © 2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.