reply to post by darkstar111
Your really reaching if you are trying to say that the The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July
9, 1868. Has been abrogated, it's also been the rule of the land for over 144 years.
Also you are ignoring the fact that it protects the citizen born into this country from abuse.
This has not changed in over 144 years. Not to mention that it protects the constitutional rights of those citizens from abuses that the 'State' might
place on them. If there was not an abuse happening a law to protect people would not needed to have been enacted. It's soundly grounded in the
You are also missing the fact that there was 90+ years of change between the time that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, & Article
14; which it to say the United States had evolved from just being a collection of colonies or Thirteen States and had become a growing Nation.
People are still allowed to legally own guns, no one has started confiscating them. Laws are enacted to protect the people common good. So the fact
that there exists standards that qualify a person for legally owning a gun is not an infringement. If anything I could made a case for that if a
criminal, having performed a violent crime against lawful citizens violating their right to 'Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' could clearly
be taken that if the criminal has violated that part of the Constitution, they have nullified a goodly portion of their protections under the
Constitution, EG the 2nd Amendment. As clearly they can not be trusted with a gun and to uphold the Constitution.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or
to the people.
The 14th Amendment effectively took power from the states and gave it to the federal government.
#1 So much power that now a state has no right to protect it's own borders. Let me tell you what area this affected the most that people do not know.
Yes everyone knows it affected roe and wade.... yes it effected immigration enforcement. However what they didn't know is that the states also
effectively lost their right to control and raise militia's.
#2 Uh oh someone is going to say that is a good thing.... I wonder who that is? Well it has been abused and torn apart. The militia was effectively
dismantled and the creation of the National Guard was born.
#3 So to be clear, lets list what was violated in this section of the Law alone. ( I smell Illuminati at work here) This also means that the federal
government can pass any law and the states have to obey the law.
#1 Again, you are jumping way out of context, and no it did not; what it did do was establish that citizens born to this country, in any state, are
guaranteed protection under the Constitution.
#2- States have their National Guard. However they do also have their own State Police Forces (AKA State Patrols, Texas Rangers, and the like.) There
is no Federal law to prevent them from creating and using a police force, funded by the State to protect their boarder or interests from crimes.
#2a There is also the fact that at the time, the Federal Government had created a standing Army and Navy, made up from people among all the states;
of which would have created a duplication of efforts; not to mention a logistics nightmare if a war broke out and the combined forces were needed to
#2b, States also can say 'No, that law will not fly here;' If the Governed (populace) of that State support it. A prime example of this is Colorado
and the end to Marijuana Prohibition there. Thats where the Governed people come in, if the change of laws is not countered by the governed, and the
governed tolerate or consent to that law, then the law is valid and must be up held. But then it is the governed as a whole and not the Individual or
small group; when taking in comparison to the whole of the governed.
#3 - I await your list.
As for the 95% I was using it to illustrate a percentage that demonstrated a clear majority. Which is why every state is needed to Change and overturn
Citizen's United. A clear majority of states, not just 52% or better. Eg A very high and complete body governed people enforcing the need for the
change, and changing the law.
Maybe I could have phrased it better, but, every time I pointed that there was no legal recourse to use violence or create an insurrection or armed
rebellion; I was doing so to present that the rule of law and thus the legal frame work was to be used and upheld. Elections, criminal / civil
proceedings and public pressure; rather than an armed horde trying to collapse the government.
(I may be slower to respond today, chores & honey-do's.)
edit on 25-6-2013 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)