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
  #1  
Old 02-25-2018, 07:26 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,278
Thanks: 395
Thanks 733
Default If you want to return "X" to the states, then repeal the 14th amendment


For those that want to reduce the size and scope of the Federal Government, there are several amendments to the Constitution and several acts that stand in the way.

If I was driving an Article V convention for the States (and realistically thought that the swamp would follow the edicts of the states) I would start with the repeal of the 14th, 16th, 17th amendments to the US Constitution and also rescind/repeal The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929.

For this discussion I will focus on the repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment. Discussions of the repeal of the 16th, 17th amendments and the repeal of The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 belong to another thread.


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.

__________________
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
  #2  
Old 02-25-2018, 07:36 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,278
Thanks: 395
Thanks 733
Default

I'll get a hurdle or two out of the way first.

I won't accept that if I wish to repeal the 14th that indicates racism.

My objection to the 14th would begin with the Hugo Black supreme court, and how he "incorporated the 14th amendment to apply some of the amendments referred to as the Bill Of Rights against the states.

My second issue with the 14th is that it has been used by the courts to convey "Birthright Citizenship".
__________________
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
  #3  
Old 02-25-2018, 11:23 AM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,548
Thanks: 439
Thanks 1,231
Default

Because anchor babies are such a minuscule part of our lives and the economy as a whole, hardly a blip in the mighty profit generating engine that is the US, and also a tiny tiny fraction of court cases (a handful of highly publicized ones, yes), it leads one to wonder “where’s the beef?”

Is the cost economically a factor for you? You don’t seem like the kinda guy who wouldn’t know the facts there.

And if it’s not the cost what is it? Cultural erosion?

States rights? The right to do what? What can’t you do now that you think you should be able to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-03-2018, 04:34 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,278
Thanks: 395
Thanks 733
Default

I didn't mention the cost of anchor babies because that's not what I'm factoring.

And anchor babies was a secondary point.

Although it is not likely to happen, The repeal of the 14th would allow for the States to function again as a Union of States instead of a nation with the too extreme centralized control that we see now.

For those that like overbearing gun control, Decision like the Heller decision wouldn't pass muster Hugo Blacks perverted version of the 14th. For people (like me) that believe that if government decides to intervene in marriage it should be done at state or local levels. So Obergefell could disappear.
__________________
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
  #5  
Old 03-03-2018, 05:30 AM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,548
Thanks: 439
Thanks 1,231
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
I didn't mention the cost of anchor babies because that's not what I'm factoring.

And anchor babies was a secondary point.

Although it is not likely to happen, The repeal of the 14th would allow for the States to function again as a Union of States instead of a nation with the too extreme centralized control that we see now.

For those that like overbearing gun control, Decision like the Heller decision wouldn't pass muster Hugo Blacks perverted version of the 14th. For people (like me) that believe that if government decides to intervene in marriage it should be done at state or local levels. So Obergefell could disappear.


So cultural erosion, then?

I don’t see any good reason to allow the states to function as a union of states except for to create places and pockets where people could make their own local laws, etc. that ideal is not crazy to me. There are a lot of creative weirdos out there that would probably come up with some cool things. And on paper, people might enjoy more “freedom,” overall.

But... you have to remember, if your “team” passes a law that you love, your pet law, or a bunch of them, they also apply to the other team. And one thing people do over and over again, is exploit their neighbors weaknesses, and capitalize on them.

A handful of states prop-up the national economy. Without their engines doing so, a lot of states would just fold-up and become lawless wastelands (like parts of Detroit). And the idea that a state which had no gay marriage laws and prayer in schools (voluntary, of course), and “own whatever guns you want” rules, would not likely attract many businesses.

I could see a return to the pioneer days of chopping wood all day for the coming winter, and canning food so’s yay don’t starve to death next year working out. But a modern economy? Naw.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-05-2018, 07:10 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,278
Thanks: 395
Thanks 733
Default

Prior to Obergefell vs Hodge over half the population was against gay marriage. And probably still are, but are afraid of the progressive pharisees.

In a way, it ties back to discussions on states seceding from the Union. In the main, I don't think were better together, and as much as it's tried to be forced to be otherwise, there are regional differences in culture and attitudes, morals etc.

The Feds that proven that with few exceptions, they really suck at things outside of what is spelled out in the constitution, and I'd rather see things returned back to the states.
__________________
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
  #7  
Old 03-05-2018, 09:25 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,548
Thanks: 439
Thanks 1,231
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
Prior to Obergefell vs Hodge over half the population was against gay marriage. And probably still are, but are afraid of the progressive pharisees.
.

Probably true. But before Semmelweis’ germ theory, most people thought infections were caused by the devil, or some witch putting a curse on you, or some other idiocy.

I think the distaste for gay marriage comes from a biblical bias, no? I don’t see any other reason for it. Well, other than homophobia (and we all know the primary cause of that disease).

So... the Bible says it’s wrong. But the Bible also says we will accept it, and that will be the beginning of the end for us. There will be a big Armageddon and all the good Christians will go to heaven and live happily ever after.

Sounds like a Christian wet-dream. I don’t see why they aren’t embracing the homos.

We should make t-shirts: embrace a homo; go to heaven😀



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-10-2018, 06:49 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,278
Thanks: 395
Thanks 733
Default

Does the distaste for homosexuality result solely from people's religious beliefs?

I doubt that. I think honest statistics would bear that out.

If you eliminate religious prohibitions a person could still find the problems with same sex marriages and same sex practices within their community.

I think you are trying to, but not quite getting to the doctrine of Love the Sinner but Hate the Sin, and the viewpoints on this vary by sect (Methodists and Lutherans, for example have gotten very permissive) and church by church. Related to a discussion of Nationalism versus Federalism/small republicanism Methodist Churches and Lutheran Churches are typically owned by districts/dioceses/synods versus Baptist or Community style churches which practice local ownership and local rule.

An interesting discussion outside of this thread would be if people could come up with reasons against homosexuality outside of religious prohibitions.
__________________
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
  #9  
Old 03-10-2018, 07:31 AM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,548
Thanks: 439
Thanks 1,231
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
Does the distaste for homosexuality result solely from people's religious beliefs?

I doubt that. I think honest statistics would bear that out.

If you eliminate religious prohibitions a person could still find the problems with same sex marriages and same sex practices within their community.

I think you are trying to, but not quite getting to the doctrine of Love the Sinner but Hate the Sin, and the viewpoints on this vary by sect (Methodists and Lutherans, for example have gotten very permissive) and church by church. Related to a discussion of Nationalism versus Federalism/small republicanism Methodist Churches and Lutheran Churches are typically owned by districts/dioceses/synods versus Baptist or Community style churches which practice local ownership and local rule.

An interesting discussion outside of this thread would be if people could come up with reasons against homosexuality outside of religious prohibitions.


Ah, you didn’t get my “the-real-reason-some-are-homophobic inference.

If not for biblical (religious) prohibitions, there are only two other reasons.

1) you’re a homo (or irrationally worried you are). You’re scared if men on men sex becomes commonplace, accepted, you might feel compelled to partake.

2) you’re a biologist, and somehow worried that if everyone started having sex that couldn’t result in a baby, humans might screw themselves (for pleasure only) out of existence.

There are no other reasons.

If you look back in history, gay artists have contributed way more than their fair share of the intellectual and artistic real estate. They are not burdened with child rearing and are left free to produce content. This should be admired as a virtue. And if they want to get married? So what?

If you are a man and find yourself attracted to other men sexually, then go for it. You can’t be turned gay. You either are or you aren’t, and it’s a spectrum.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-10-2018, 07:42 AM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,548
Thanks: 439
Thanks 1,231
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
Does the distaste for homosexuality result solely from people's religious beliefs?

I doubt that. I think honest statistics would bear that out.

If you eliminate religious prohibitions a person could still find the problems with same sex marriages and same sex practices within their community.

I think you are trying to, but not quite getting to the doctrine of Love the Sinner but Hate the Sin, and the viewpoints on this vary by sect (Methodists and Lutherans, for example have gotten very permissive) and church by church. Related to a discussion of Nationalism versus Federalism/small republicanism Methodist Churches and Lutheran Churches are typically owned by districts/dioceses/synods versus Baptist or Community style churches which practice local ownership and local rule.

An interesting discussion outside of this thread would be if people could come up with reasons against homosexuality outside of religious prohibitions.


Local control to do what specifically?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-10-2018, 09:32 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,278
Thanks: 395
Thanks 733
Default

This is getting outside of a discussion of the fourteen amendment, and why it should be rescinded.

If not for biblical (religious) prohibitions, there are only two other reasons.

1) you’re a homo (or irrationally worried you are). You’re scared if men on men sex becomes commonplace, accepted, you might feel compelled to partake.

2) you’re a biologist, and somehow worried that if everyone started having sex that couldn’t result in a baby, humans might screw themselves (for pleasure only) out of existence.
There are further reasons. It's been a while since I looked at the statistics, but there is a higher std rate in the gay community.

I think it's a good thing that the post millenials are (reportedly) starting to back off from "sexual freedom" because 5-10 years ago I read and heard reported in several places that 1/4 to 1/2 of 13-25 year olds had some sort of STD. This was in both the straight and homo communities.

There is significant cost (emotional cost, health cost, and lastly financial cost) linked to same sex couplings.
__________________
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
  #12  
Old 03-10-2018, 09:39 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,278
Thanks: 395
Thanks 733
Default

More related to a 14th amendment discussion:


Originally Posted by brianpatrick View Post
Local control to do what specifically?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Some Churches get to control their own destiny on a local basis. As I mentioned, Methodist, Lutheran, (and Roman Catholic) churches are controlled outside of the communities.

Some relatives used to go to a Lutheran Church - and the Synod sent them a gay pastor. They were told to accept, or have their church shut down The result was that most of the members left and went to other churches, and the Synod (and thus other churches) support a pastor for a church that might have 20 people in it on any given Sunday....
__________________
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
  #13  
Old 03-10-2018, 09:44 AM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,548
Thanks: 439
Thanks 1,231
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
More related to a 14th amendment discussion:




Some Churches get to control their own destiny on a local basis. As I mentioned, Methodist, Lutheran, (and Roman Catholic) churches are controlled outside of the communities.

Some relatives used to go to a Lutheran Church - and the Synod sent them a gay pastor. They were told to accept, or have their church shut down The result was that most of the members left and went to other churches, and the Synod (and thus other churches) support a pastor for a church that might have 20 people in it on any given Sunday....


You didn’t answer the question. You may have implied an answer, and I can infer, maybe, but you didn’t answer. How can we have a discussion if you dodge answering?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-10-2018, 10:16 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,278
Thanks: 395
Thanks 733
Default

I don't know what you think I dodged.

The question of "local control to do what"?



Do you really think my answer to do that was a dodge? Do you really want a specific answer as to what control might be important? Because I gave you a specific answer.

More specificity:

Local control to decide things important to a church. These can cover such a wide variety of things.

In specific- a Baptist or Community Church (compared to a Lutheran or a Methodist Church) can control

1. Who there pastor/Reverend/Minister/Priest/Guru/DaliLama will be.

2. Whether or not the specific church will sanction only Biblical marriages between men and women, versus allowing anti Biblical same sex marriages.

3. Determine what is allowed behavior of members
__________________
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
  #15  
Old 03-10-2018, 11:22 AM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,278
Thanks: 395
Thanks 733
Default

https://nalert.blogspot.rs/2018/03/f...ld-report.html

Flashback 1957. U.S. News and World Report declares there's no legally ratified 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:There is No “Fourteenth Amendment”!US NEWS & WORLD REPORT
by
David Lawrence
U.S. News & World Report
September 27, 1957

A MISTAKEN BELIEF — that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the “Fourteenth Amendment” — is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called “Fourteenth Amendment” was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it failed of ratification.

The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the unanimous writings of historians, establishes these events as occurring in 1867 and 1868:

Outside the South, six States — New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland — failed to ratify the proposed amendment.
In the South, ten States — Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana — by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.
A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the “Fourteenth Amendment.”
Congress — which had deprived the Southern States of their seats in the Senate — did not lawfully pass the resolution of submission in the first instance.
__________________
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
  #16  
Old 03-10-2018, 12:11 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,548
Thanks: 439
Thanks 1,231
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
I don't know what you think I dodged.

The question of "local control to do what"?



Do you really think my answer to do that was a dodge? Do you really want a specific answer as to what control might be important? Because I gave you a specific answer.

More specificity:

Local control to decide things important to a church. These can cover such a wide variety of things.

In specific- a Baptist or Community Church (compared to a Lutheran or a Methodist Church) can control

1. Who there pastor/Reverend/Minister/Priest/Guru/DaliLama will be.

2. Whether or not the specific church will sanction only Biblical marriages between men and women, versus allowing anti Biblical same sex marriages.

3. Determine what is allowed behavior of members


What things (specifically) are important to a church? You have a way of dodging answers that maybe you feel would look bad on paper. You also seem not to be able to extrapolate out into a real conversation about truth and consequences. I know you’re not dumb; maybe cautious? But, why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-10-2018, 12:31 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,278
Thanks: 395
Thanks 733
Default

I just gave specifics in the post that you quoted . And you are implying some fear of something?

In several posts I gave specifics - and they centered around a churches ability - or inability to deal with controversial subjects.

You know that I have stated previously that in the view of the Christian Church that there is no such thing as same sex marriages, that homosexuality is a sin and that churches shouldn't participate in things that go against God's Law.
__________________
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
  #18  
Old 03-10-2018, 12:49 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,548
Thanks: 439
Thanks 1,231
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
I just gave specifics in the post that you quoted . And you are implying some fear of something?

In several posts I gave specifics - and they centered around a churches ability - or inability to deal with controversial subjects.

You know that I have stated previously that in the view of the Christian Church that there is no such thing as same sex marriages, that homosexuality is a sin and that churches shouldn't participate in things that go against God's Law.


Churches don’t have to participate. But what you are implying is that churches should be able to influence laws barring even people who don’t belong to the church from participating.

I don’t care what you do in your church on this subject, just don’t try to pass laws that cover the rest of us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-10-2018, 01:09 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,278
Thanks: 395
Thanks 733
Default

Oh, I see.

I think you are trying to, but not quite getting to the doctrine of Love the Sinner but Hate the Sin, and the viewpoints on this vary by sect (Methodists and Lutherans, for example have gotten very permissive) and church by church. Related to a discussion of Nationalism versus Federalism/small republicanism Methodist Churches and Lutheran Churches are typically owned by districts/dioceses/synods versus Baptist or Community style churches which practice local ownership and local rule.
You somehow conflated my comparison of structure of churches with federalism vs nationalism and you took "local rule" to mean local governmental rule. Which was clearly not the intent of the statement. There wasn't anything in that statement that hinted at Christian or Bible Based Subsidiarity.
__________________
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
  #20  
Old 03-10-2018, 02:55 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,548
Thanks: 439
Thanks 1,231
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
Oh, I see.



You somehow conflated my comparison of structure of churches with federalism vs nationalism and you took "local rule" to mean local governmental rule. Which was clearly not the intent of the statement. There wasn't anything in that statement that hinted at Christian or Bible Based Subsidiarity.


I didn’t. For me the OP is still what I was talking about. I just don’t narrow things down. To me the whole picture is always important.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-10-2018, 06:55 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 471
Thanks: 3
Thanks 48
Default

It sounds very much mohican like you desire a pure christian state and as with most of your posts I go to Stormfront to find people who articulated those ideas better than you.

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1075599/
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t988586/
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t793470/

As to your link from Nalert that is blatantly erroneous. All states existing at the time of the amendment's passage have ratified the 14th amendment. During its initial phase of ratification 28 states ratified, three opted for recission, while others continued to ratify thus satisfying the 3/4 requirement.

I would suggest you do basic research before spouting nonsense.


As to the repeal of the 14th amendment the immediate result it appears to me is that people would be stripped of their citizenship after being stripped of their right to due process. Thus allowing for a peaceful cleansing of the population or at the very least the creation of an underclass.

As to the rest you seem to be endorsing a de facto theocratic state government and thus by consequence a theocratic federal government. The entire point of the 14th amendment was to prevent this from happening hence why it comes out and says it. You cant strip people of their rights simply because they have different beliefs than you.
__________________

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

Last edited by bluewpc; 03-10-2018 at 07:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-10-2018, 07:13 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,548
Thanks: 439
Thanks 1,231
Default

I got an infraction of one point (1) for comments in this thread, so I’ll be careful with my responses from here on out.

The administrator is actually someone with radically divergent ideas from the bulk of artists and creatives. Yet he posts ridiculous posts about topics that are amazingly obvious in their intent.

One can’t help but wonder how this dichotomy was set-up.

Crowdgather... hires a dude to... what?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-10-2018, 07:18 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 471
Thanks: 3
Thanks 48
Default

If a man is born blind does he know hes blind? I mean does he really believe that something like sight exists and who could say that the jelly orbs in his head dont serve some other purpose? And is it that a man who becomes blind begins to doubt that there ever was such a thing as sight? How thinks you?
__________________

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

Last edited by bluewpc; 03-10-2018 at 07:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-12-2018, 07:18 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,278
Thanks: 395
Thanks 733
Default

Originally Posted by bluewpc View Post
It sounds very much mohican like you desire a pure christian state and as with most of your posts I go to Stormfront to find people who articulated those ideas better than you.

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1075599/
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t988586/
https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t793470/

As to your link from Nalert that is blatantly erroneous. All states existing at the time of the amendment's passage have ratified the 14th amendment. During its initial phase of ratification 28 states ratified, three opted for recission, while others continued to ratify thus satisfying the 3/4 requirement.

I would suggest you do basic research before spouting nonsense.


As to the repeal of the 14th amendment the immediate result it appears to me is that people would be stripped of their citizenship after being stripped of their right to due process. Thus allowing for a peaceful cleansing of the population or at the very least the creation of an underclass.

As to the rest you seem to be endorsing a de facto theocratic state government and thus by consequence a theocratic federal government. The entire point of the 14th amendment was to prevent this from happening hence why it comes out and says it. You cant strip people of their rights simply because they have different beliefs than you.
I've done some research into the 14th in the past - and I'll just agree to disagree with you.

Going back to the ratification - states that seceded in the main had carpetbagging. I've listened to Dr. Kevin Gutzman and others discuss the conundrum of states not being admitted back into the Union until they voted on the vote, but having to vote on the 14th.....

The major point of the 14th amendment, as ratified - if you read letters of intent /signing statements was to acknowledge rights to recently freed black slaves. It wasn't a universal right - at the time of passage women were about 60 years from federal women's suffrage, and American Indians weren't granted rights/citizenship in most places. The point of the 14th amendment was not "to prevent a theocratic state government. "

I know that I might approach this topic from a perspective that fewer people embrace - if they are aware of it at all. In an an internet discussion it often boils down to the "my sources are better than your sources" so one side claims some form of victory.

I have read the arguments on both sides of this particular topic, and I admit I come down on it outside the mainstream. And yes, outside "accepted current jurisprudence".

I don't read Storm Front - don't care to, don't care what's there.

From my 2nd post in this thread

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
I'll get a hurdle or two out of the way first.

I won't accept that if I wish to repeal the 14th that indicates racism.

My objection to the 14th would begin with the Hugo Black supreme court, and how he "incorporated the 14th amendment to apply some of the amendments referred to as the Bill Of Rights against the states.

My second issue with the 14th is that it has been used by the courts to convey "Birthright Citizenship".
Many today act as if the passage of the 14th amendment rescinded the 10th in a De Facto manner. The argument against the is that for practical purposes, until the Hugo Black supreme court the 14th was not "incorporated".

I have been clear - I would rather return the US to a union of states - versus a nation of very centralized power that we have now. I do not wish for a theocracy - but would rather smaller, more localized governments with a more moral people occupying it's offices.
__________________
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.

Last edited by Mohican; 03-12-2018 at 07:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-12-2018, 07:40 PM
Mohican's Avatar
Mohican (Offline)
Tall Poppy
Administration
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Not quite back of beyond
Posts: 4,278
Thanks: 395
Thanks 733
Default

The administrator is actually someone with radically divergent ideas from the bulk of artists and creatives.
For some reason - it must really stick in your craw because you revisit it - it really upset you that I'm not a progressive standard bearer.

Yet he posts ridiculous posts about topics that are amazingly obvious in their intent.
1. If the topics are ridiculous - you can always choose to not participate. Yes, this is a topic outside the mainstream of "left" or "right" discussions.
2. I stated my intent on my topic up front. I told you what it was, and what it wasn't about to me.



One can’t help but wonder how this dichotomy was set-up.

Crowdgather... hires a dude to... what?
There was never any pay - there was never any remuneration to be a moderator or administrator. My entire time at the 'Beat - it has been a volunteer staff.

So Crowdgather didn't hire me to do anything.
__________________
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
  #26  
Old 03-12-2018, 08:31 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,548
Thanks: 439
Thanks 1,231
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post
For some reason - it must really stick in your craw because you revisit it - it really upset you that I'm not a progressive standard bearer.



1. If the topics are ridiculous - you can always choose to not participate. Yes, this is a topic outside the mainstream of "left" or "right" discussions.
2. I stated my intent on my topic up front. I told you what it was, and what it wasn't about to me.





There was never any pay - there was never any remuneration to be a moderator or administrator. My entire time at the 'Beat - it has been a volunteer staff.

So Crowdgather didn't hire me to do anything.


Nothing here really sticks in my craw. It’s just funny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-13-2018, 04:12 AM
Myers (Offline)
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,224
Thanks: 382
Thanks 403
Default

Yeah -- back in the day, basically, if you were a warm body who could construct a sentence -- and you were non-confrontational and you hung around the site enough, they'd ask you to moderate. I was even a moderator for trial period back when I first joined the site and I was being a good boy.

Everything was endlessly discussed behind the scenes before any action was taken -- it was kind of drag and I said so. It was deemed I was not a good fit.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-26-2018, 08:09 PM
bluewpc's Avatar
bluewpc (Offline)
The Next Bard
Official Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 471
Thanks: 3
Thanks 48
Default

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGfHkdR3tXs
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-26-2018, 10:16 PM
brianpatrick's Avatar
brianpatrick (Online)
Still Clicking!
Official Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,548
Thanks: 439
Thanks 1,231
Default

Originally Posted by Mohican View Post

I have been clear - I would rather return the US to a union of states - versus a nation of very centralized power that we have now. I do not wish for a theocracy - but would rather smaller, more localized governments with a more moral people occupying it's offices.


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.

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.

So I wonder why a person such as yourself would think these ideas have any real merit?

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.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-27-2018, 05:14 AM
Myers (Offline)
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 2,224
Thanks: 382
Thanks 403
Default

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...
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 12:16 PM.

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