reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist
I disagree with you on that. The 14th Amendment isn't really placing something above the other, it's a matter of establishing some type of peaceful
balance amongst a very diverse population in a society that in history has been known for discriminating and committing acts of violence against
people because of their differences.
The 14th Amendment most certainly doesn't do what you claim it is doing. No act of legislation is going to "establish some type of peaceful balance
amongst a very diverse population in a society that in history has been known for discriminating and committing acts of violence against people
because of their differences." It is beyond naive to believe the 14th Amendment accomplished this, and shows a profound ignorance of history. Why
was there this so called "Civil Rights" movement if the 14th Amendment accomplished all you claim it did?
The 14th Amendment acts to prevent that type of discrimination and violence, and I would say it's existence is more than justifiable.
Either you are speaking language, or language is speaking you. When you are speaking language you control your thoughts and use language to
facilitate communication of those thoughts, when language is speaking you your thoughts become the effect of the language that controls you. Take the
above quote as an example of language speaking you.
No act of legislation acts, they are acts in that they indicate something that has been done, but once done they do not act. The 14th Amendment is
merely words, and words are not the thing defined. You can no more drive the word automobile than the 14th Amendment can act to prevent.
Further, regardless of the vast propaganda asserting otherwise, it is demonstrably so that legislative acts do not prevent the thing they purport to
prevent. Not that statutes prohibiting murder purport to prevent murder, but statutes prohibiting murder do indeed exist, and so does murder, in
spite of these statutes. The so called "war on drugs" is a clear and demonstrable example of legislation that does purport to prevent and yet has
instead accomplished the exact opposite.
Or do you disagree that the North should have won the Civil War?
Relying upon fallacy will not help you at all. Are you under the belief that people must necessarily agree that the 14th Amendment did all you claim
it did or they are advocates of slavery? The biggest problem with this gross example of affirming the consequent is that it was the 13th Amendment
that was necessary to stop the unlawful violation of peoples rights, in this circumstance, slavery, not the 14th Amendment.
Since you obviously intend to entrench yourself in your dogma, and since you clearly intend to use tactics such as the one above, let me make this
The argument that the Civil War was not about slavery and was about states rights is nothing but disingenuous revisionism. If the Southern States
truly wanted to fight a war over states rights, they were smart enough to know that ending slavery was a foregone conclusion, otherwise the contention
that the war was over states rights would never hold any legal validity.
Slavery never should have been accepted as a valid form of economy, and both the North and the South - in terms of the 13 colonies which ultimately
became the United States - were guilty of this unforgivable act. The crime existed prior to the establishment of the United States, and the crime
continued after that establishment and just because there were "free states" doesn't excuse the fact that slavery was tolerated. There is no doubt
that the 13th Amendment was necessary to correct this criminal behavior. Slavery was seen as "legal" and the correction necessary was to make it
However, those who enslaved had their unalienable and natural rights grossly violated. The had rights. Self evidently so.
Let us discuss, for a moment, this thing called self evidence, and while were at it let's also discuss an earlier argument you made in support of the
14th Amendment, which was that it has stood unchanged for more than 100 years. You clearly hope to give credence to that Amendment simply because of
its long standing in American jurisprudence. Prior to Galileo's advocacy of a heliocentric universe, it was not so self evident that the Earth moved
around the sun, and not the other way around. Indeed, language such as "sunrise" and "sunset" indicates the perception that it is the sun that is
moving and not the Earth. However, Galileo came to his determinations based upon study through telescopes. The telescopes made it self evident.
As self evident as it was, and remains, the Catholic Church put Galileo on trial, demanded he recant what was self evident and it took the Church 500
years to finally vindicate Galileo...long after the conventional wisdom had accepted a heliocentric universe as correct. Of course, unless you, or I,
are using telescopes to look at this heliocentric universe, it is not so self evident, but if we are relying on telescopic tools, it becomes clearly
self evident. As self evident as it is, the Catholic Church took longer to "repeal" their own geocentric dogma than the 14th Amendment has existed.
So, just because the 14th Amendment has experienced some longevity with authority declaring it valid, this does not necessarily make it so, and
particularly because the 14th Amendment tends to contradict what is self evident, and so do you arguments.
Where you speciously claimed that my argument against the 14th Amendment was akin to arguing that - in terms of the 2nd Amendment - the Framers did
not anticipate the technological advances in weaponry, I suggest your argument that the 14th Amendment was necessary to "prevent that type of
discrimination and violence" is akin to saying that black people didn't have rights until white people gave them rights. I am arguing that all
people, everywhere, at all times, with or without government have rights. So, you can hopelessly attempt to frame me as the bad guy here, but I am
not the one who consciously put on the black hat. I consciously put on the white hat, and you, seeing this, decided to argue.
Could you elaborate on that? It was ratified in the same way that the other Amendments were ratified, despite the apparent coercive methods that are
said to have been employed to get it ratified.
Are you inviting me to take up the ratification argument regarding the 14th Amendment? Why would I need to rely upon this argument, I am asserting
the Amendment is unconstitutional regardless of its ratification status. It matters not whether the Amendment was properly ratified or not, it is
unconstitutional because it grants rights that people all ready have. Congress has no Constitutional authority to declare unalienable rights legal
rights, and they certainly do not have the authority to declare black people do not have the same rights as white people. This is, and by your own
cautious admission, the effect of the 14th Amendment. It is an arrogant and altogether unseemly position.
But really what does your argument for natural and unalienable rights matter when they exist in a theoretical capacity?
There is nothing theoretical about natural unalienable rights, but since you are asserting the argument, why not attempt to prove it? Explain to
everyone how there is no right to life in practical terms, it is only a theory created by humanity, and as such those who aggregate power get to grant
this right to life to each person. Good luck with that one.
Why not explain how the infant who cries only has this right because the Framers of the Bill of Rights gave this infant the right to cry. Good luck
with that one.
Or better yet, why not explain to us how it was that a Congress of roses was required before the rose could derive the right to keep and bear thorns.
Explain to us how a decree from a king was necessary before the porcupine could derive the right to keep and bear needles, and tell us all about how
it was necessary for the skunk to gain permission from the state before he could spew his stink. Good luck with that...
If you don't recognize the government or national sovereignty, which some of the substance of your past posts appear to indicate, then this entire
debate is meaningless because the natural rights are meaningless.
If you don't recognize that your are so hopelessly lost in this debate that you now must rely on strawman arguments in order to keep insisting you
are correct, then this entire debate is meaningless because if natural rights were, as you say, "meaningless" then couldn't you reasonably and
cogently argue how so instead of rely upon a series of fallacious arguments?
Nothing is enforcing or recognizing them on a practical level.
A right is not a right because it is enforceable. The mute has the right to speech, the cripple has the right to walk and the murdered have the right
to life. Would you enforce speech on the mute? Would you enforce walking on the cripple? Would you enforce reanimation upon the murdered?
Conversely, would you deny, without any enumeration or "enforcing" clause, the mute the right to find ways to speech? Would you deny, without any
enumeration or "enforcing" clause, the cripple the right to find ways to walk? Would you deny, without any enumeration, or "enforcing" clause,
the living the right to defend themselves against murder?
As it stands, the 14th Amendment is valid despite how you think it's unconstitutional.
Uh-huh, and 500 years ago the Pope said the same thing about a geocentric universe. It didn't make the geocentric universe valid then, and your
heavy reliance upon fallacy here hardly supports your contention that the 14th Amendment is valid.
But what does any of that matter if there isn't a united society with sovereignty that recognizes and enforces the validity of the Constitution?
What precisely is your point, here? Do you possibly recognize the strawman hidden in this, and so you obfuscate attempting to hide your fallacy?
What does authority matter if there isn't an establishment of authority in place?
Lawfully speaking it is We the People who, at all times, are that established authority. Legally speaking the Preamble to the federal Constitution
and every single state constitution make it perfectly clear that is the people who hold the inherent political power and that all political power
flows directly from the people. This is natural law, and as matter of legality it is Constitutional law. Care to argue it is not?
Your argument was also seemingly against government and against societies that have a governing body.
In spite of your careful choice of words such as "seemingly" your helpless desperation is clear. Stop with the strawman arguments. If your cause is
so just, then why lie?
So I have to question the practicality of natural rights and the Constitution if there isn't a way to enforce its authority or to enforce the
recognition of the document in general.
You do not have to, you only want to do so. I care not why you are so adamantly against natural unalienable rights, only that you are. You offer up
this argument while pretending that the 14th Amendment enforced racial harmony. It is, of course, a pretense made clear by the very real history that
includes such figures as Dr. Martin Luther King. Or, would you care to amend your argument and suggest that the "enforceability" of an Amendment
takes time, but be patient and in time it will be enforced? You pretend the "enforceability" of drug prohibition laws actually prevent drug use.
You pretend the "enforceability" of prohibition of prostitution prevents prostitution. You pretend, and you pretend, and you pretend, and still you
expect us to take you seriously when you speak of practicability.
You pretend that I am "anti government" and say this because I am on record as being anti tyranny. Think about my friend, you hope to take my
strong arguments against tyranny and declare me anti government. Just what the hell does this say about you?
What would the Bill of Rights matter in that instance? What do theoretical rights matter without sovereignty and the ability to recognize these rights
and enforce them in any official capacity?
Every individual is a sovereign unto themselves. Go ahead and take that argument up, but if you do, then retract the silly question above. If you
cannot acknowledge that all people are sovereign then your question is just disingenuous political posturing.
And therein lies the practicality of governance, enforcement, and the 14th Amendment within American society. This is my argument.
Tyranny is unconstitutional, and why you would be so proud of arguing in favor of tyranny is beyond me.
The 2nd Amendment basically acknowledges the right to bear arms, and states that the government cannot infringe upon the person's rights to do so. In
that regard it is granting the person the right to not have the government infringe upon their personal freedom to bear arms.
And yet more evidence of your pro tyranny stance. The 2nd Amendment is a prohibition on government not a grant to the people. The whole damn
Constitution is a grant mixed with express prohibitions, and that grant is not the government granting the people rights, it is the people granting
government limited power for a limited time. This is expressly so.
But an argument can be made to have the 2nd Amendment repealed or amended, which would allow the government to infringe upon a person's right to bear
No valid argument of sound legal reasoning can be made, and repealing it would certainly be unlawful. The 2nd Amendment does not cause injury to any
individual. The 14th Amendment does. This is the difference.
It is getting late, and I have much work to do, and while you have made volumes of specious arguments, sifting through each and every one of them,
particularly the repetitive (ad nauseum) disingenuous question of sovereignty, is taking up far too much time. I will, however, point out that when I
showed the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals clear and undeniable criminality this was your response:
That's all well and good, but what's it matter if these things are not officially recognized or enforced?
This say's it all. I just pointed out how the Ninth Amendment was not being officially recognized or enforced, and you ask this question as if it
doesn't matter but what, that it does in terms of the 14th Amendment.
You feign confusion about my advocacy of government not because you are confused, but because you believe such pretensions will disguise your
inability to effectively argue.
I am soundly on record as being a staunch advocate of marriage as a fundamental right belonging to all people. That is what the topic of this thread
is about, in spite of what the O.P. claims. I say gay people, and straight people alike have the unalienable and natural right to marry and need no
license in order to validate that. You hope to deflect this issue and frame me as "anti-government" but only the fools will buy your product. I
care not what fools buy, I speak to the wise.