14th Amendment

[Matt_R]

Does anyone know Dr. Paul's position on the 14th amendment. It has recently been used to prevent State's from passing laws that are unconstitutional, although that was not it's original intent. I assume the correct constitutional method is to allow the states to pass laws as they please.

Would this, then, mean that state's could pass laws that obviously abridge the rights of citizens? I understand the idea of strict constructionism, but it seems to be defeating the purpose if the people can be royally screwed by state laws (i.e. public smoking bans, etc.).

If anyone knows Dr. Paul's specific stance on this, or if they would just like to teach me some anti-federalist viewpoints on this, I would be very thankful.

[Matt Collins]

I dunno. But the 14th Amendment was never legally ratified.

[Gilby]

Would this, then, mean that state's could pass laws that obviously abridge the rights of citizens?

A state can not violate the inalienable rights of anyone, as one can not be born into a contract, which is what a constitution is. A constitution is simply a contract that creates an entity for a certain purpose, as outlined in that charter. This organization is really no different than a company such as Walmart, so just like Walmart can not violate your rights, the state also can not. Only if you contract with such an organization do they have any claim on you or your property as outlined in the contract you have with them.

[johngr]

I'd like to see it scrapped. It is the basis of all adhesion contracts tying "US citizens" to the state.

[Matt_R]

If a state can't violate the inalienable rights of anyone, aren't proper rights considered part of this? I live close to Louisville, KY and a smoking ban law was recently passed. If this were just in publicly owned areas (i.e. government buildings) then it would be within the jurisdiction of the State, I assume. The laws also apply to private businesses, forcing restaurants, private race tracks, and bars to not allow patrons to smoke.

[johngr]

This 1862 5 dollar bill



has a statement on its face that refers to the "United States" as plural. All the post-14th Amendment references I can find are singular. What did the 14th Amendment change that is reflected in such language. I believe it may be something profoundly nefarious.

[fsk]

I recently made a post on the 14th amendment in my blog.

The 14th Amendment Legalized Slavery

This is another interesting conspiracy theory that circulates on the Internet. Contrary to popular belief, the 14th amendment *LEGALIZED* slavery. The 14th amendment states:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

This is a departure from the original intent of the Constitution. Originally, the Constitution said that people had intrinsic rights and the government was restricted in its activities. The Federal government's powers were specifically enumerated, and all other rights were held by states or individual people. The 14th amendment says that people have privileges granted by the government. There is no mention of intrinsic rights anymore.

That is the change in perspective that the 14th amendment indicates. People have no intrinsic rights. They merely have privileges granted by the government.

Also, the 14th amendment was used as justification for corporate personhood. The Supreme Court interpreted the 14th amendment as allowing corporations to have the right of property ownership and the right of contract enforcement. I read that the Supreme Court has cited the 14th amendment ten times as often to support the rights of corporations, than to support the rights of individuals.

[Mr. Coolidge]

Originally Posted by johngr

...refers to the "United States" as plural. All the post-14th Amendment references I can find are singular. What did the 14th Amendment change that is reflected in such language. I believe it may be something profoundly nefarious.

Yeah, first time I realized that we use "United States" as a singular noun in the present day, and that it was originally a plural noun, it was pretty jarring. It highlights an important change in the fundamental understanding of our government.

[johngr]

Originally Posted by Mr. Coolidge

Yeah, first time I realized that we use "United States" as a singular noun in the present day, and that it was originally a plural noun, it was pretty jarring. It highlights an important change in the fundamental understanding of our government.

I think before the 14th each state was sovereign and each resident also had a sovereign status as a "man on the land". The word "in" in phrase "in the United States" means something more than geographical location and is the basis for the slavery that the 14th amendment permits. With that amendment rights were converted to privileges and sovereign men were converted to subjects to the jurisdiction of a corporate entity (hence the singular noun phrase).

[nickcoons]

I don't see any problem with the 14th Amendment itself, but I see problems with the way the Supreme Court interprets it. From the amendment:

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.

It doesn't say "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction thereof...". But rather, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a qualify. In other words, if someone is born or naturalized in the United States, and if they are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, then they are citizens of the United States and the state where they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

Contrary to what I've seen posted here, this does not strip us of our rights and replace them with government-granted privileges. Privileges are not rights. This piece of the amendment deals only with privileges. It makes no mention of rights, therefore it has no effect on rights.

If the Supreme Court uses this to make incorrect decisions (whether it be about corporate personhood or anything else), this is a fault of the Supreme Court and not of the amendment. Making claims such as "the 14th amendment legalized slavery" is absurd. Nowhere in the amendment is slavery legalized. If the Supreme Court interprets it that way, then we blame the Supreme Court for their mistake, not the amendment.

Regarding Dr. Paul's position on this specifically, this is the amendment he refers to when he talks about birthright citizenship. When this amendment was passed, we didn't have the "illegal immigration" problem that we face today, so granting citizenship of the children that immigrated here was not an issue. He wants to amend this amendment in such a way that only those that are here legally will have citizenship granted to their children that are born here.