Who do you support for Governor in Oh...
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#10678 Oct 12, 2012
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>14th amendment striped us of the Bill of Right under the US Constitution and weaken the power of the Federal Government and it known fact in 2010 was the last time the SCOTUS incorporated one of the Federal Bill of Rights guaranteed down to the state level and Illinois especially in Chicago where now they cannot restrict the Federal 2nd amemdment no more that is part of the Bill of Rights. The real purpose of the 14th amendment was to weaken the power of the Federal Government and to get the confederates to rejoin the union after the civil war and give the states more freedem from the Federal Government.
If that is so, they sure had a funny way of doing it.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#10679 Oct 12, 2012
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>14th amendment striped us of the Bill of Right under the US Constitution and weaken the power of the Federal Government and it known fact in 2010 was the last time the SCOTUS incorporated one of the Federal Bill of Rights guaranteed down to the state level and Illinois especially in Chicago where now they cannot restrict the Federal 2nd amemdment no more that is part of the Bill of Rights. The real purpose of the 14th amendment was to weaken the power of the Federal Government and to get the confederates to rejoin the union after the civil war and give the states more freedem from the Federal Government.
You've got it completely backwards. It was intended by its drafters to protect individuals against state actions contrary to federal rights contained in the US Constitution.

http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.h...

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id....

"...the 14th Amendment changed the federalist structure. The original Constitution never defined citizenship, but the new Amendment explained that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." This reversed the old order whereby states determined citizenship, with American citizenship derived from that. Now, national citizenship was clearly primary. This was consistent with the Republican Party's view that American sovereignty, and the rights protected by it, were vested not in individual states, but in the United States as a whole. This was why Lincoln thought the union indissoluble.

Although this view had been hotly contested—indeed, had resulted in civil war—it was the Republican winners of that war who drafted the 14th Amendment, to confirm the national basis of liberty, and protect it from state interference. Americans' common-law rights, including the right to earn a living, derived from their partnership in the "one people" of the Declaration; thus Senator Sherman explained that courts interpreting the privileges or immunities clause would "look first at the Constitution of the United States as the primary fountain of authority. If that does not define the right they will look for the unenumerated powers to the Declaration of American Independence, to every scrap of American history, to the history of England, to the common law of England.... There they will find the fountain and reservoir of the rights of American as well as English citizens." So while Justice Miller was right to distinguish between federal and state citizenship, his claim that the right to earn a living was among "the class of rights which the State governments were created to establish and secure," ignored the point of the 14th Amendment. He denied out of hand that the Amendment was intended to alter federalism—something that was palpably and obviously true."

woof
D-pants

United States

#10680 Oct 12, 2012
Obama Takes Ohio wrote:
<quoted text>
You are crazed. Also, gas was over four dollars a gallon, years ago when Bush was destroying our country. You know, the guy the Tea Baggers try to sweep under the rug. Don't you think it's odd that the same rightwing Christians who fund a private army, also have their hands in dismantling the public education system? K12 is supposed to be a public online school. Let's see how the GOP would act if Muslims were teaching children their version of the creation myth in science classes. The school voucher system that rightwing conservatives are making so much money off of, will cause poor kids to not be able to afford school. Considering what the Republicans recently tried to do with child labor laws in this country...3rd world nation, here we come.
Shut up about k through 12. I don't know why, but I actually took some time to research it.guess what? It teaches both THEORIES. Poor kids still go to school, they never passed the voucher program. You're a ranting lunatic. Here's one for you
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story...
Obama could have upheld the constitution.separation of church and state. Instead he signs on more government controll. Churches will have to remove crosses to get federal funding. Aren't you upset with your obama not sun setting those laws. Or do you want militant state controll over religions. Sure its wrong for any "religous group to havefederal funding or influence. So why is it ok to rip the constitution (unnecessarily) to shreds.why is obama ok again. We agree on everything except that.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10681 Oct 12, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
You've got it completely backwards. It was intended by its drafters to protect individuals against state actions contrary to federal rights contained in the US Constitution.
http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.h...
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id....
"...the 14th Amendment changed the federalist structure. The original Constitution never defined citizenship, but the new Amendment explained that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." This reversed the old order whereby states determined citizenship, with American citizenship derived from that. Now, national citizenship was clearly primary. This was consistent with the Republican Party's view that American sovereignty, and the rights protected by it, were vested not in individual states, but in the United States as a whole. This was why Lincoln thought the union indissoluble.
Although this view had been hotly contested—indeed, had resulted in civil war—it was the Republican winners of that war who drafted the 14th Amendment, to confirm the national basis of liberty, and protect it from state interference. Americans' common-law rights, including the right to earn a living, derived from their partnership in the "one people" of the Declaration; thus Senator Sherman explained that courts interpreting the privileges or immunities clause would "look first at the Constitution of the United States as the primary fountain of authority. If that does not define the right they will look for the unenumerated powers to the Declaration of American Independence, to every scrap of American history, to the history of England, to the common law of England.... There they will find the fountain and reservoir of the rights of American as well as English citizens." So while Justice Miller was right to distinguish between federal and state citizenship, his claim that the right to earn a living was among "the class of rights which the State governments were created to establish and secure," ignored the point of the 14th Amendment. He denied out of hand that the Amendment was intended to alter federalism—something that was palpably and obviously true."
woof
if it wasnt for the Cases & legal challenges pretaining to the 14th amendment and never taken to the SCOTUS the US Bill of Rights to the US Constitution would have never been incorporated down to the state level and is the only reason we have a Bill of Rights today is because of the SCOTUS Forcing the US constitutions Bill of Rights down to the State level.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10682 Oct 12, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
If that is so, they sure had a funny way of doing it.
I thought too I am thinking why would you want to strip people of the US Bill of Rights which is why they say its flawed.
D-pants

United States

#10683 Oct 12, 2012
Obama Takes Ohio wrote:
I remember when Tea Baggers were crying about Obama's "secret army". Turns out it was Christian conservatives who had the secret Blackwater army. One that takes American soldier's jobs. Yah, yah...I know. The GOP "supports" the troops. Sure you do. Just like you guys follow the teachings or Jesus.
obama voted for federal funding of this, and her got the catholic vote. Do more research.
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story...
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#10684 Oct 12, 2012
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>if it wasnt for the Cases & legal challenges pretaining to the 14th amendment and never taken to the SCOTUS the US Bill of Rights to the US Constitution would have never been incorporated down to the state level and is the only reason we have a Bill of Rights today is because of the SCOTUS Forcing the US constitutions Bill of Rights down to the State level.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
You don't like the Bill of Rights?

That is kind of the Supreme Court's job. Otherwise, what's the point in having a constitution?
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#10685 Oct 12, 2012
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>I thought too I am thinking why would you want to strip people of the US Bill of Rights which is why they say its flawed.
I have no idea what you just said.
D-pants

United States

#10686 Oct 12, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
A) yes, I am.
B) No, I don't generally, but if they have PC they eventually will, and if they don't have it when they do, you might get it suppressed/thrown out.
C) That cost varies considerably. It's often well worth it.
D) No, I am not, and I'm not sure why you would think I am...unless its just sarcasm...
Anyway, I had to run out for a bit, and I've noticed...no word from the "reality" guy on what he thinks is so terrible about the 14th Amendment.
Guess I'll just keep waiting. I was really looking forward to it.
woof

Well its easy. You agree its unconsitutional, yet you agree I should have money to pay to reserve my right. Crook. hypocrite. I can see why no one wants your take on any amendment.
D-pants

United States

#10687 Oct 12, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Do they have probable cause?
well I'm in American citizen so... f*** no they don't!
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#10688 Oct 12, 2012
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>if it wasnt for the Cases & legal challenges pretaining to the 14th amendment and never taken to the SCOTUS the US Bill of Rights to the US Constitution would have never been incorporated down to the state level and is the only reason we have a Bill of Rights today is because of the SCOTUS Forcing the US constitutions Bill of Rights down to the State level.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...
That's not really true, and here's why:

Lets say for example that a state passes a statutory prohibition, lets just say for simplicity, that say abortion is now criminal homicide.

A doctor is charged under that statute, convicted, and appeals that conviction unsuccessfully to the highest state court, and then appeals to the US Supreme Court, his appeal of last resort.

If raised in the state courts, his rights under the federal Constitution via the 14th Amendment that would effectively reverse his criminal conviction would ultimately be held to apply to the state by the US Supreme Court.

One could say that his federal rights were never valid until they were actually upheld in the US Supreme Court. But that would be a clear mis-statement.

In actuality, his rights under the federal constitution would have been unconstitutionally abridged by the state from the day he was charged.

The same applies to cases such as the Slaughterhouse cases.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#10689 Oct 12, 2012
D-pants wrote:
<quoted text>
Well its easy. You agree its unconsitutional, yet you agree I should have money to pay to reserve my right. Crook. hypocrite. I can see why no one wants your take on any amendment.
Then represent yourself.

You probably don't have any problem paying your doctor to treat you, your grocer for food, the gas or electric companies to heat and light your home either. Truth be told, you could do all those by yourself too???

Do it yourself.

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#10690 Oct 12, 2012
D-pants wrote:
<quoted text>
Well its easy. You agree its unconsitutional, yet you agree I should have money to pay to reserve my right. Crook. hypocrite. I can see why no one wants your take on any amendment.
And I didn't say that it was un-constitutional. I said the circumstances determine whether it was.

woof

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10691 Oct 12, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't like the Bill of Rights?
That is kind of the Supreme Court's job. Otherwise, what's the point in having a constitution?
Repubilicans didnt like the Bill of Rights and no one should have had to go before the SCOTUS to gets those guaranteed rights back.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10692 Oct 12, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not really true, and here's why:
Lets say for example that a state passes a statutory prohibition, lets just say for simplicity, that say abortion is now criminal homicide.
A doctor is charged under that statute, convicted, and appeals that conviction unsuccessfully to the highest state court, and then appeals to the US Supreme Court, his appeal of last resort.
If raised in the state courts, his rights under the federal Constitution via the 14th Amendment that would effectively reverse his criminal conviction would ultimately be held to apply to the state by the US Supreme Court.
One could say that his federal rights were never valid until they were actually upheld in the US Supreme Court. But that would be a clear mis-statement.
In actuality, his rights under the federal constitution would have been unconstitutionally abridged by the state from the day he was charged.
The same applies to cases such as the Slaughterhouse cases.
woof
14th amendment and the 10th amendment some sense work together.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10693 Oct 12, 2012
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no idea what you just said.
14th amendment is flawed.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10694 Oct 12, 2012
Did the Congress that passed the Fourteenth Amendment (June 13, 1866) or the states that ratified it (July 9, 1868) intend that the Amendment incorporate, in whole or in part, the Bill of Rights? It is a telling indictment of the incorporation doctrine that nowhere in the Fourteenth Amendment does it say anything about incorporating any part of the Bill of Rights. The wisdom exercised by Chief Justice Marshall in Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (1833) should be followed here. In writing about the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the states, Marshall clearly explains why such was not the case:


Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the state governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the constitutions of the several states, by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments, in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.

It is inconceivable that if such a thing took place that such a significant doctrine as incorporation would be so veiled that it would take years before some Supreme Court judge discovered that there was such a thing.

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/03/12/th...
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#10695 Oct 12, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Then represent yourself.
You probably don't have any problem paying your doctor to treat you, your grocer for food, the gas or electric companies to heat and light your home either. Truth be told, you could do all those by yourself too???
Do it yourself.
woof
Yet when I tell you the lazy......... I mean poor should do the same thing, you think I'm heartless. DO IT YOURSELF!
D-pants

United States

#10696 Oct 12, 2012
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Then represent yourself.
You probably don't have any problem paying your doctor to treat you, your grocer for food, the gas or electric companies to heat and light your home either. Truth be told, you could do all those by yourself too???
Do it yourself.
woof
thats probably they worst analogy I've ever heard. Did the doctors buddies make me sick? Did the gas companies bring the winter? Did the electric companies make the sun go down? Is it the grocers fault I'm hungry?(I grow my own veggies.) Should I have all that taken away and pay you to get it back? Where did you go to school akron u?
Che Reagan Christ

Medina, OH

#10697 Oct 12, 2012
D-pants wrote:
<quoted text>
well I'm in American citizen so... f*** no they don't!
I don't think you understand the term "probable cause."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Circleville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Identify Suspect 29 min Family but not blood 59
Woman beater cop 50 min Old friend 19
Bed Bugs 1 hr Sol 15
Morgan Haller 1 hr Sosadurnotgoodpar... 11
snitches 1 hr snitch 35
Who is selling dope and Where are they located 1 hr snitch 6
Renee Rittenhouse 2 hr Lame as hell 8
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Circleville Mortgages