Posted on 02/25/2003 8:51:49 AM PST by Ohioan
Tinme to gloat. Michigan won the Toledo War. Because of that, Ohio was forced to keep Toledo while we got the UP of Michigan.
Cheers!
I liked it.
My two favorite teams are Michigan STATE and whomever beats Michigan.......:)
The areas where the States are forbidden to act in ways that the Founding Fathers found objectionable, are set forth either in Article I, Section 10, or in Article IV. Those are the places where rights against one of the States may be found, as well as the agreed limitations on their power and authority.
You 'forget' of course, the Supremacy clause of Art VI, a curious ommission, as it clearly covers the entire constitution, BOR's, and further amendments. Always has.
The Bill of Rights were intended to put limitations on the Federal Government, not expand its power into being a watchdog over the States on the same issues.
A total fabrication of the 1833 USSC 'Barron' decision, made in an effort to prevent civil war.
Unless you read these things in context, the document is not as clear as it was intended to be. Unless you read the document in context, you play into the hands of the Left, who want to effectively interpret it to their own ends.
Exactly. - it is the socialist left that endeavors to let federal & state governments use 'majority rule' democratic tactics to ignore our constitutional rules of law, and individual rights.
Some states 'rights' style conservatives have bought into this idea, because it allows single issue agendas to rule over republican common sense.
I did not forget it any more than I forgot the Preamble, or Article II or Article V. They do not have anything to do with the subject! What is supreme is the Constitutional arrangement, not the Federal Government. You are simply begging the question as to what the division of power and responsibility was.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
I am not really sure that we do. You justify support for what was a spiteful, power grabbing effort to change the nature of the Constitutional compact, because you--as I--believe that people have a right to arm themselves for all the right reasons, and specifically cite the use of the Amendment in question, on behalf of gun owners in California.
I suggest that there are other Constitutional arguments, which Californians could raise, but that we should not scrap the symmetry of our free system, for one case--an obvious point to most people. But even if we focus on the problem that Californians are having with their State Government: Isn't the biggest problem California is having today that she is drowning in a sea of new immigrants, many illegal, who have no interest in her traditional values and culture? And it is the 14th Amendment, which takes away the ability of the rooted Californians to effectively deal with their problem.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
I am not really sure that we do. You justify support for what was a spiteful, power grabbing effort to change the nature of the Constitutional compact,
Calling the 14th silly names, and ignoring ~why~ it was needed in 1868 to restore, not 'change' the original intent of the BORs, -- is sheer denial of historical fact.
because you--as I--believe that people have a right to arm themselves for all the right reasons, and specifically cite the use of the Amendment in question, on behalf of gun owners in California. I suggest that there are other Constitutional arguments, which Californians could raise, but that we should not scrap the symmetry of our free system, for one case--an obvious point to most people.
The 14th 'scraps' nothing, and your silly unspecified insistance that 'somehow' it is the source of all evil in our political system, borders on hysteria. - See #28 as to why, imo.
But even if we focus on the problem that Californians are having with their State Government: Isn't the biggest problem California is having today that she is drowning in a sea of new immigrants, many illegal, who have no interest in her traditional values and culture? And it is the 14th Amendment, which takes away the ability of the rooted Californians to effectively deal with their problem.
How weird, - again, with no specifics, you blame the 14th for the political failure in CA. - The flat truth of the matter is that the 'two party' system in CA is a joke. Socialism rules both. So, they co-operate with the federal socialists.
There is nothing basically wrong with our constitution. -- Most everything is wrong with the power structure.
That the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land does not change anything else in that Constitution. If you and I want to enter into a contract to form a partnership to sell shoe laces, and draw up an elaborate partnership agreement, which we declare shall govern all aspects of our partnership, notwithstanding all other obligations in our lives; nothing in such a partnership agreement will extend the area of joint venture in the slightest. It would just mean that no other obligations that we have shall interfere with our obligations to one another in the business of selling shoe laces.
The first eight of the Bill Of Rights were not intended to apply to the States. Chief Justice Marshall, who was the greatest spokesman for a strong Federal role in his era, searched the record and found no hint of any intention to have those Amendments apply to the States. You can argue and rant until you are blue in the face, but that is the historic reality.
You ask, in effect, for specifics as to how the 14th impacts California? It is the 14th, which provides for babies born in any of the States to become automatic citizens. It is the 14th that substitutes a Federal citizenship for State determination of same. (Uniform laws as to Naturalization are not the same thing.)
It is also the 14th Amendment, which has been interpreted to require uniformity or near uniformity in the population of legislative districts--thus preventing any check on numbers in the Legislature. It is the 14th Amendment, which penalizes a State if it disenfranchises large numbers of its "citizens." It is the 14th Amendment, which has been interpreted to prevent cutting off Welfare services on the basis of length of residence, etc..
The "political failure" in California, to which you allude, is not a sudden loss of old values among those who voted for Reagan--or who earlier voted for Senator William Knowland, who was fairly conservative--or for Max Rafferty as the State School Superintendent. What has happened has been a major demographic shift, because of lax immigration policies. That so many, who have never been socially acclimatized into our traditional value system are now voting in California, rather than faced with hurdles designed to at least assure that no one votes, who does not understand our political processes, is very largely attributed to the 14th Amendment. (Section 2)
But, of course, this thread is about Ohio, not California. And to us the 14th Amendment has meant that our Legislature had to be reapportioned, without many of the rural members; that our laws against abortion have been stricken; that some of our school children have been bused to achieve "racial balance"; that schools cannot display the Ten Commandments; that school district lines have been redrawn; that there is no longer prayer in schools; that voting residence requirements have been reduced to the absurd; that the method for our electing Municipal Court judges has had to be changed; that even the best of our local Police have to look over their shoulders, at a whole other and unnecessary level of superintendence and possible harassment; that criminal appeals go on for decades, at enormous expense to the taxpayers, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
If you think that the Fourteenth Amendment is consistent with the original Constitutional intent, you simply misunderstand the Constitutional intent.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
You endlessly attempt to tar me with your straw men conclusions. - Amusing, but getting boring.
That the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land does not change anything else in that Constitution. If you and I want to enter into a contract to form a partnership to sell shoe laces, and draw up an elaborate partnership agreement, which we declare shall govern all aspects of our partnership, notwithstanding all other obligations in our lives; nothing in such a partnership agreement will extend the area of joint venture in the slightest. It would just mean that no other obligations that we have shall interfere with our obligations to one another in the business of selling shoe laces.
Daft reasoning. The supremacy clause means what it says. The several States, and their Officers are bound by oath to support ALL of our constitution.
The first eight of the Bill Of Rights were not intended to apply to the States.
This was an unsupported opinion in 1833, advocated by foes of our free republic. Marshalls erronious 'decision' was made mute by the 14th amendment.
Chief Justice Marshall, who was the greatest spokesman for a strong Federal role in his era, searched the record and found no hint of any intention to have those Amendments apply to the States. You can argue and rant until you are blue in the face, but that is the historic reality.
No, the reality is that the supremacy clause 'applied' the BOR's to the states. Marshall ignored that because of politics.
You ask, in effect, for specifics as to how the 14th impacts California? It is the 14th, which provides for babies born in any of the States to become automatic citizens. It is the 14th that substitutes a Federal citizenship for State determination of same. (Uniform laws as to Naturalization are not the same thing.) It is also the 14th Amendment, which has been interpreted to require uniformity or near uniformity in the population of legislative districts--thus preventing any check on numbers in the Legislature. It is the 14th Amendment, which penalizes a State if it disenfranchises large numbers of its "citizens." It is the 14th Amendment, which has been interpreted to prevent cutting off Welfare services on the basis of length of residence, etc..
Nice rant, but you proved no point other than a given. -- ALL levels of government are abusing the 14th, and, -- all the rest of the constitution.
The "political failure" in California, to which you allude, is not a sudden loss of old values among those who voted for Reagan--or who earlier voted for Senator William Knowland, who was fairly conservative--or for Max Rafferty as the State School Superintendent. What has happened has been a major demographic shift, because of lax immigration policies. That so many, who have never been socially acclimatized into our traditional value system are now voting in California, rather than faced with hurdles designed to at least assure that no one votes, who does not understand our political processes, is very largely attributed to the 14th Amendment. (Section 2)
Irrational conclusion, based on an irrational view of the 14th, which has nothing to do with "lax immigration policies".
But, of course, this thread is about Ohio, not California. And to us the 14th Amendment has meant that our Legislature had to be reapportioned, without many of the rural members; that our laws against abortion have been stricken; that some of our school children have been bused to achieve "racial balance"; that schools cannot display the Ten Commandments; that school district lines have been redrawn; that there is no longer prayer in schools; that voting residence requirements have been reduced to the absurd; that the method for our electing Municipal Court judges has had to be changed; that even the best of our local Police have to look over their shoulders, at a whole other and unnecessary level of superintendence and possible harassment; that criminal appeals go on for decades, at enormous expense to the taxpayers, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Yep, it is nauseous to see states co-operate in federal infringements of the constitution. But it's to be expected when socialists control both political parties.
If you think that the Fourteenth Amendment is consistent with the original Constitutional intent, you simply misunderstand the Constitutional intent.
Backatcha. --- "You are endlessly repeating the same claims."
--- Give it up. Politics are our problem, not our constitution.
However, I will note, in addition to all previous points, that your suggestion that Justice Marshall was motivated by political motives near the end of his life, in a job which was his for life, is ridiculous. On just what do you base such an assertion?
You have not cited one reason in all your posts why anyone should believe that anyone intended the First Eight Amendments to apply to the States. Your belief that they did, against all evidence and all logical rules for applying context in legal interpretation, is not an argument. (And in the case of the First Amendment, of course, it isn't even history and context, the Amendment specifically addresses Congress--no one else!)
Other than that, I will rest on our previous posts to let any rational surfer draw his or her own conclusions.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
However, I will note, in addition to all previous points, that your suggestion that Justice Marshall was motivated by political motives near the end of his life, in a job which was his for life, is ridiculous. On just what do you base such an assertion?
You have not cited one reason in all your posts why anyone should believe that anyone intended the First Eight Amendments to apply to the States. Your belief that they did, against all evidence and all logical rules for applying context in legal interpretation, is not an argument. (And in the case of the First Amendment, of course, it isn't even history and context, the Amendment specifically addresses Congress--no one else!)
Other than that, I will rest on our previous posts to let any rational surfer draw his or her own conclusions.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
However, I will note, in addition to all previous points, that your suggestion that Justice Marshall was motivated by political motives near the end of his life, in a job which was his for life, is ridiculous. On just what do you base such an assertion?
You have not cited one reason in all your posts why anyone should believe that anyone intended the First Eight Amendments to apply to the States. Your belief that they did, against all evidence and all logical rules for applying context in legal interpretation, is not an argument. (And in the case of the First Amendment, of course, it isn't even history and context, the Amendment specifically addresses Congress--no one else!)
Other than that, I will rest on our previous posts to let any rational surfer draw his or her own conclusions.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
I contend he thought he could save the union by appeasing the southern states 'rights' crowd. Just as I said earlier in the thread.
You have not cited one reason in all your posts why anyone should believe that anyone intended the First Eight Amendments to apply to the States.
There is nothing in the constitution to suggest otherwise, except for the 'congress shall make no law' remark in regard to religion, in the 1st.
The rest of the BOR's are obviously the 'peoples' inalienable rights that are not to be infringed by any level of the republican government we are guaranteed, in every state.
Your belief that they did, against all evidence and all logical rules for applying context in legal interpretation, is not an argument.
To the contrary, your position is not logical on its face. It is ludicrous that the founders would protect individual rights so clearly in our US Constitution, and then acknowlege that states could violate them at will. Such an 'intent' would make no sense, and never has.
Except perhaps to those who would deny rights to certain 'persons'.
(And in the case of the First Amendment, of course, it isn't even history and context, the Amendment specifically addresses Congress--no one else!)
Yep, a peculiar wording, -- imo written to appease the states that still had an 'offical' church. Congress was forbidden to interfere in that other 'peculilar institution', - as well.
Other than that, I will rest on our previous posts to let any rational surfer draw his or her own conclusions.
Fine with me.
However, I will note, in addition to all previous points, that your suggestion that Justice Marshall was motivated by political motives near the end of his life, in a job which was his for life, is ridiculous. On just what do you base such an assertion?
You replied:
I contend he thought he could save the union by appeasing the southern states 'rights' crowd. Just as I said earlier in the thread.
Up until that time there had been no serious suggestion of dissolving the Union, except for the brief flare in New England, during the War of 1812. The concern in the early 1830s had been South Carolina's attempt at Nullification of Federal tariff law, made pursuant to delegated authority in the Constitution. Marshall's recognition that the Federal Courts could not make the city of Baltimore compensate the Plaintiff for its exercise of eminent domain, had nothing whatsoever to do with any threat of disunion.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.