Ron Paul and the 14th ammendment

[Ron Paul Vermont]

Hey peoples I just had a quick question that I wanted to address about Ron Paul and the 14th ammendment. If you have seen Ron Paul speak he says that abortion should be a state issue and that the federal government should not be involved. "but" if you read the 14th ammendment, the last sentence it says,

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviledges 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."

Ron Paul seems to be contradiction the consititution here and saying that it should be on a state issue. Don't get me wrong... I am completely for Ron Paul but I was wondering if he could address this or maybe iron out the kinks? I acually had a friend that lives in New Hampshire not vote for him over this. I argued with her and finally convinced her that he was still the best candidate.

Anyway, comments, suggestions, criticism? Thanks.

[Danke]

There is a lot of controversy over the meaning of 14th (and to whom it applies). But one question would be, is a fetus a "person" in the 14th?

[ARealConservative]

The 14th amendment is a tough one. The current interpretation of it contradicts the 9th amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The manner in which the 14th amendment incorporated many amendments that were only intended to be restraints on the federal government violates any possibly reading of the 9th amendment.

So there is the burden.

If you go back to the real purpose of the 14th, it is to prevent the state from treating blacks as second class citizens - so when in doubt, courts should keep that in mind (which of course they never do). Trying to twist it to somehow extend to the unborn is playing politics with the constitution.

[yongrel]

Don't take my word for this, since I'm usually wrong about this, but...

isn't that how the SC justified Roe V Wade in the first place?

[Ron Paul Vermont]

Thanks for the responses but I was focusing more on the state part. It clearly said that states should not decide this issue but the national government should.

[INforRP]

Thanks for the responses but I was focusing more on the state part. It clearly said that states should not decide this issue but the national government should.

Where does it state that the national (federal) govt should?

[Ron Paul Vermont]

Where does it state that the national (federal) govt should?

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviledges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

14th ammendment in the last sentence.

[mrsat_98]

There is a lot of controversy over the meaning of 14th (and to whom it applies). But one question would be, is a fetus a "person" in the 14th?

A fetus cannot be a person in the 14th because the fetus has not been "born or naturalized" .

IMHO the 14th has absolutely nothing to do with abortion if you will recall from the preamble of the constitution this fetus is part of the posterity.

[Bradley in DC]

Don't take my word for this, since I'm usually wrong about this, but...

isn't that how the SC justified Roe V Wade in the first place?

In part, yes.

[ARealConservative]

Thanks for the responses but I was focusing more on the state part. It clearly said that states should not decide this issue but the national government should.

Did you miss my replay?

I explained the problem - you have two amendments that contradict each other.

You can't faithfully execute one without it violating the other.

[Bradley in DC]

There are lots of problems with the 14th Amendment (especially the incorporation doctrine).

Putting that aside, this Amendment has not been related to the abortion debate until recently. Murder is against the law (and should be) but is not a federal offense (at least not until the JFK assassination). There are proposals to define human life under the 14th Amendment (which would, arguably, only apply for federal purposes).

[Gilby]

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.

This is creating a citizenship, declaring all persons "born" in the United States and subject to jurisdiction of the United States, to be citizens of the United States. A fetus isn't "born" yet, so this does not make it a federal issue. Further, this only applies to those born in the jurisdiction of the United States, and there is a lot of debate on what that is. Jurisdiction is determined based on the powers given to them in the constitution. For example, they have or had territorial jurisdiction over territories, such as DC, and the conquered southern states after the civil war. They have subject matter jurisdiction over many topics, but this section specifically mentions a location, so it's only referring to territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Basically, this amendment was intended to give former slaves, who were not citizens of the US or a State, a citizenship and essentially the same legal protections that the existing citizens had from the 5th amendment.

That's my take on it... but of course the federal government doesn't really follow the constitution anymore.

[Fox McCloud]

Ron has spoken about the 14th amendment before; he's said that the incorporation doctrine is "phony" and really questions the Constitutionality of the entire amendment....Also, if I recall, he stated that the 14th wasn't technically fully ratified, so it shouldn't be in existence to begin with (heh...kinda like the 16th).

[Ron Paul Vermont]

Ron has spoken about the 14th amendment before; he's said that the incorporation doctrine is "phony" and really questions the Constitutionality of the entire amendment....Also, if I recall, he stated that the 14th wasn't technically fully ratified, so it shouldn't be in existence to begin with (heh...kinda like the 16th).

Ok I get it. After all it is an ammendment. It is not necessarily the "constitution."

[mrsat_98]

Ok I get it. After all it is an ammendment. It is not necessarily the "constitution."

Not really, The 14th amendment created a second class of citizenship that is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States which is distinct from the state Citizen ( i.e. the people/posterity). http://www.state-citizen.org/

It is as different as night and day. This 14th amendment citizen/subject/slave can not dispute the validity of the public debt in supressing war and insurrection Amendment 14 clause 5.

Also a Judge Perez from Louisiana had a large amount of evidence placed in the congressional record which places extreme doubt on the validity of the 14th amendment being ratified. To be blunt It was not ratified. There is a wealth of information on this subject on the net. Get this file sovimm.exe at this link http://www.state-citizen.org/files/stateinfobriefs/

I started looking into this in 1993 and learned of Ron Paul at that time from other literature assocaited with this concept.

It appears that this 14th amendment citizen has become the same as the enemy of the government through various pretended legislation such as http://www.halexandria.org/dward284.htm and http://www.barefootsworld.net/srwep.html

Further interesting legislation of interest would be the buck act http://www.civil-liberties.com/pages/buck.html

A government report that helps clear some of this up can be found at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jurisdiction+over+federal+areas+within+the+state s

If you take the time to read the report you may come to the conclusion that the government comes after us with the idea that we are all walking talking federal area or federal property.


2nd Peter Chapter 2

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
prophets Deut 13:3, Jer 23:16, Matt 7:15, Rom 16:17, Eph 5:6, Col 2:8, 1st John 4:1
teachers 2nd Cor 11:13, Rev 2:2

2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Hey peoples I just had a quick question that I wanted to address about Ron Paul and the 14th ammendment. If you have seen Ron Paul speak he says that abortion should be a state issue and that the federal government should not be involved. "but" if you read the 14th ammendment, the last sentence it says,

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviledges 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."

Ron Paul seems to be contradiction the consititution here and saying that it should be on a state issue. Don't get me wrong... I am completely for Ron Paul but I was wondering if he could address this or maybe iron out the kinks? I acually had a friend that lives in New Hampshire not vote for him over this. I argued with her and finally convinced her that he was still the best candidate.

Anyway, comments, suggestions, criticism? Thanks.

but how does the Federal government mandate? Will it jump in and enforce Federal laws on behalf of the states? And where's the Federal law outlawing abortion?

[mrsat_98]

but how does the Federal government mandate? Will it jump in and enforce Federal laws on behalf of the states? And where's the Federal law outlawing abortion?


There is no federal law outlawing abortion. It will do things on behalf of the states especially when it is detrimental to the people.

[Christianalwaysg124RP]

Ron Paul does believe it is a state issue, but if enough states enacted pro life legislation, it will be brought to a federal level. I like this long term way rather than trying to enforce pro life legislation very quickly. This way, it isn't in an authoritarian way.

People call Ron Paul "unpractical", but really, his suggestion for states to enacted pro life state mandates is much better than what a lot of the pro life Republicans are trying to do. It would be much easier to pass the "We the People Bill" or other bills of that matter, taking away federal jurisdiction.(and or reversing Roe Vs. Wade) Then states can enact pro life legislation and get their message out.

[familydog]

I tend to agree with questioning the Constitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment and the other "Reconstruction Amendments." It seems to me that the drafting of them, and their ratification were unconstitutional. The Southern states were nothing but puppet governments. They were forced to vote for it, and were excluded from drafting it, which violates Article V.

By the way, there is a federal law prohibiting partial-birth abortion, and was backed up by a Supreme Court decision. There's your federal law outlawing abortion. Although only a certain procedure, it is still outlawing abortion.

[Knightskye]

Alright, let's do some parsing.


"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the priviledges or immunities of citizens of the United States

I'd say the "privileges and immunities" are what's in the Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html), so I agree with this.


; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

With abortion, people would be depriving a "person" (fetus) of life. Plus, it does say "without due process of law" (which is in the 5th Amendment).


; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That's just kind of stating the obvious. States shouldn't have laws with double standards.

So, I don't see any kinks; nor do I see where Ron Paul is contradictory regarding the 14th Amendment.

"Amending the Constitution is Constitutional. What's the contradiction there?"
-Ron Paul :p

[Todd]

The 14th amendment is a tough one. The current interpretation of it contradicts the 9th amendment - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The manner in which the 14th amendment incorporated many amendments that were only intended to be restraints on the federal government violates any possibly reading of the 9th amendment.

So there is the burden.

If you go back to the real purpose of the 14th, it is to prevent the state from treating blacks as second class citizens - so when in doubt, courts should keep that in mind (which of course they never do). Trying to twist it to somehow extend to the unborn is playing politics with the constitution.


Bingo! Great observation. Of course....we should have never needed an amendment to fix the problem of racism.

I think Paul makes a good case of why he believes as he does in his book. He is totally against abortion morally, but instead of allowing 9 judges to decide the issue, he would like to remove that power from the federal courts and give it back to the states. I think I remember him saying that he is aware some states may choose to allow abortion, but that if something is so like this is going to be allowed anyway (inevitability) As a freedom loving person he would rather it be the choice of that particular society than 9 busy bodies. He also points out that if you think abortions didn't happen when they were illegal...then your fooling yourself.

[Matt Collins]

Yes - the 14th amendment WAS NEVER PROPERLY RATIFIED!!!!

Gutzman discusses this in his book here:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51nJyT2fziL._SS500_.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Constitution-Guides/dp/1596985054/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212542889&sr=8-1

[slothman]

Sorry for bumbing an old thread but I have a question.
When the amendment say "equal protection" what is equal to what?
Most people seem to say it implies States versus Federal.
I think of it as making all people equal to all others.
Not just blacks and whites but men and women also.
Other groups like gays even.
In any case I think that clause is as badly worded as the 2nd.

[krazy kaju]

The 14th Amendment is unconstitutional. The federal government forced the Southern states to accept it upon them joining the Union, which does not count as an actual vote.

[Matt Collins]

This can be looked up independently but both Professor Forrest McDonald and JD/PhD Kevin Gutzman have written about how the 14th Amendment was not ratified.


I have taken the time to cut and paste this up for you because honestly I don't feel like writing this much.


http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/14thAmendment.jpghttp://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/14thAmendment2.jpghttp://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/14thAmendment3.jpghttp://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/14thAmendment4.jpghttp://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/14thAmendment5.jpghttp://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/14thAmendment6.jpghttp://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/14thAmendment7.jpghttp://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x93/sonicspikesalbum/14thAmendment8.jpg
...Florida's ratification as valid and ignore the sometimes marked differences among the versions the States had approved.


The 14th Amendment was never Constitutionally proposed to the States and never Constitutionally ratified by the States. This is a scary concept since it stands as one of the most significant parts of the American legal system and when most Americans think about their rights, they think about their 14th rights - an amendment that is not and was not ratified.

You can read some of this on Google's copy of the book here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=f6BfIhKuGrkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=kevin+gutzman&sig=ACfU3U0NSBHwiZ1RGPYRC07WoPCx7XdBxQ#PPP1,M1