this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
85 points (87.0% liked)

politics

18863 readers
3992 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

After reading this article, Kirk has a very clearly superficial understanding of the 14th amendment. Some people here may have heard along the way something along the lines of "we're a collection of soverign states" or some bullshit like that. And that mostly true pre-14th amendment, the 14th amendment was the thing that changed that.

Remember, we fought a civil war and the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment are the ramifications of that war. The 13th answered, finally, the whole 3/5th comprimise thing that the Constitution indicated that Congress was supposed to fix sometime in 1808. Obviously "kicking the can" has been a tradition of Congress for quite some time.

provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article

And the 15th amendment grants Congress the power to slap State laws that try to enforce themselves via racial pretexts. Remember, Congress cannot directly legislate elections with the exceptions that are carved out in the Constitution. State's like to pass all manner of laws with justifications like "it's for the children" or whatever and the entire point of Courts looking at things Congress brings to bear is to check for "pretextual" arguments. Pretextual arguments being ones that "we say it's for this purpose, but in reality it is for this other purpose that we're not allowed to pass laws on".

Case in point, Tennessee's recent "Pride parade ban" law that was supposed to be "for the safety of the children" was tossed out as pretextual and no Federal Judge could find in the text how the law wouldn't be abused to rob people of their first amendment right and there were lots of "clues" that robbing a particular group of people of their free speech was the actual intent. Remember, we've got 200+ years of history of States saying one thing and actually doing the other, it's not a recent invention and something the Federal Courts have to always be on the look out for.

So that out of the way the 14th amendment changes fundamentally how the actual law is applied to people. Which is interesting that Kirk is all about changing it because it's literally the 14th Immunities clause that was used in McDonald v. City of Chicago to strengthen the 2nd amendment's right to gun ownership. So, for all the folks saying we need to review the 2nd if we're going to review the 14th, no worries, because that would become automatic in a review of the 14th since SCOTUS has now connected the two.

The 14th amendment is so litigated because it fundamentally changes how the US operates. It empowers the Federal government while depowers the States, when you take the context of the Civil War into account, the reason why Congress thought the 14th was a good idea becomes clearer.

So the vast litigation of the 14th is to ask the question, "How much power did the 14th hand over to the Federal government and remove from the States?" And we're still answering the multitude of questions coming from that. So Kirk wondering why so much gets answered by "the 14th Amendment!" is because he lacks understanding what the 14th does and why it was pitched in the first place.

There's always going to be a power struggle between Federal and State governments. For the first part of the US, deferrence was given to the States and it resulted in a war. So to fix that issue and hopefully prevent yet another war, that giving the States benefit of the doubt was "slightly" removed and penalities for those trying to "overthrow" the Federal system were explicitly enumerated. Because, those at the time understood, our form of government has this power struggle between Federal and State and that one civil war wouldn't be the end of that struggle.

Does the 14th answer all the problems with that struggle? No, of course not. But it puts the ball in the Federal government's hands first to solve it going forward. Because putting it first in the various States to solve....well it just didn't quite work out the way we had all hoped. And of course, over the course of history we've had various flavors of Judges who want to apply that wisdom to various cases to various degrees. The power struggle between Federal and State still exists, the entire point it to have an avenue to resolve it without a need for breaking out the horses and cannons.

Now I say all of this and let's all take a quick look around to see how well that's going. Yeap. That's why Judges matter. But back to the subject at hand, Kirk is trying to read the 14th without any context or understanding of application, which that's what we would expect from a fifth grader reading it for the first time. So we all should treat Kirk's opinion as such.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yes, well you know the framers of the Constitution obviously didn't mean any of that. All those historical facts are just alternative facts that are getting in my way of reality. Historical context is just a Marxist plot to make America socialist and something about ANTIFA and illegal immigrants. /s