« Thune amendment and Congressional Kabuke | Main | NRA to count vote on Sotomayor »
SCOTUSBlog on 14th Amendment cases
"Might It Happen? Slaughterhouse Overruled?".
9 Comments | Leave a comment
anyone who can understand specifically, or claim to,what "emanations of a penumbra" means (Roe v Wade), but claims not to know the meaning of "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” is being willfully disingenuous. Or as we say around here, he/she is a liar.
"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."
Well, FWB, the 14th Amendment DID pass, and therefore, is the law of the land. Historical arguments or not.
I think scotusblog left out a fourth way to apply the Second Amendment to the states...common sense. To actually believe that a people, who just fought a war for their freedom and who were so vehemently insistent that there be a bill of rights to the federal constitution, would then turn around and be perfectly fine with a state government violating those very same rights, requires supreme ignorance. Let’s hope that this fall common sense makes another appearance at the Supreme Court.
The Civil War put an end to "the United States are" and ushered in the current era of "the United States is".
RKV, You did not answer. Can one be a citizen of the United Nations?
Can one be a citizen of something that does not exist regardless of "the law of the land"?
The US was never established as a nation or a state. The US was established as a voluntary Union of free and independent states (nations). One may be a member. Just because those in Congress who may have unconstitutionally passed (denial of suffrage in the senate - also a part of "the law of the land") were too ignorant to know what the US was/is does not change the facts.
That the 14th even exists, as part of the "law of the land", should make people cringe at the stupidity of those who have been elected to office.
Please do not refer to the War of northern aggression as a civil war. That war fits absolutely nothing in the definition of a civil war. There was no battle for control of the US. The southern states were exercising the exact same sovereign authority that the 13 colonies had exercised 90 years before. The north was wrong. The north was abusive.
Tiocfaidh ar la!
FWB, keep smoking what you're smoking. The South lost. Get. Over. It. As for the 14th making anyone cringe, that certain natural rights given by God and other due process rights agreed to as fundamental to representative democracy (aka republican government) and all together called 'privileges and immunities" should not be infringed by any government whatsoever (thereby limiting majority power)- you clearly don't get it. Same as the folks who lost the civil war. And I'll call it that if I damn well please. And I've got ancestors on both sides of the argument, and I know which side I come down on.
I think that the western states coming into the union as offspring of the federal government, which then continued to own much of the land in these states, and which states were then homesteaded by people from other states (and countries), did much to diminish the sense of state above nation. Especially after the civil war, when settlers would likely be both southerners and northerners. What we were then left with was regional loyalties or affiliations, more than state loyalties. Mountain west, coastal west, midwest, south, New England, etc. Though I can't much imagine anyone having a sense of loyalty to whatever region NY and NJ are in. My prejudice, clearly.
Jeff
I do not recognize a right on the part of any person or organization to unilaterally claim persons as its subjects or citizens, be it called nation, state, king, court, or otherwise. Where such arrangements are not agreed to explicitly, and on a strictly voluntary basis, I fail to draw any distinction between them, and those of any slave owner who might claim to own the children of slaves on the basis of his supposed ownership of their parents, and of the land on which they were born.
As such, my answer to your original question is this: yes, a person could indeed agree to become a citizen of the United Nations, to pay dues to that organization and therefore to derive such benefits from the association as he has contracted for, and to continue to do so for so long as both parties should not wish to dissolve the partnership.
To debate this matter on the basis of law is can be nothing more than an exercise in social mysticism and circular reasoning.
Can one be a citizen of the United Nations?
Since the United States is not a single nation, proof of which is in the debates that occurred during the constitutional convention and by the fact that the word nation does not appear anywhere in the Constitution with respect to the United States, can one be a citizen of the United States? Or was the 14th's citizen clause just a bunch of ignorant people trying to create something that cannot exist?
One can be a citizen of a State, which meant the same thing as Nation at the time of the framing.
State and Nation today are taught incorrectly as not being synonymous. The last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence provides the evidence of equivalent meaning.
The idea has been pushed as a way of centralizing power in the fed and destroying the States. One of the paths has been through the teaching of the Pledge of Allegiance, which is used to brainwash people into believing that the fed is the unit and the States are subunits.
Lincoln destroyed the union and attempted to make us into his idea of a nation but our founding documents do not support this idea.
Tiocfaidh ar la!