View Single Post
Old October 3, 2012, 10:12 AM   #90
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Western Colorado, finally.
Posts: 19,118
Originally Posted by Al Norris
...and via the 14th amendment (however the courts choose to address it), applicable against the States and local governments.
(Not specifically written to Al, just as a general point)

Sadly so, a(nother) fine example of misapplication being used to misapply further.

I see it along the same lines as "Machines guns should be illegal because they are not in common use." when they are "not in common use" BECAUSE they're illegal.

The 14th applies to the states because it was written for that reason but being so does not justify extrapolation to other sections, IMO.

Much of the 14th, while noble in purpose, is disastrous in application. As an example, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; not only applied against the states but reinterpreted to apply to actions of individuals who work or even SPEND TIME in state institutions. Valedictorians offering prayers at graduations, crosses on public ground, banner with religious text.... somehow this has become "congress" "making a law". So insanely applied and taught, that a person RIGHTLY stating (at a LAW SCHOOL) that "separation of church and state is not in the Constitution" is LAUGHED at and MOCKED!

The 14th would have been much cleaner (for example) to simply refer to the principles in the Declaration of Independence, and the Preamble to the COTUS, and define "men" as "human" and specify that all colors, races, creeds, genders, of all kinds are "men" in this context and all laws apply equally to all.

The states already have and had their own laws and constitutions with provisions for equal rights if there were simply force that it be applied to all humanity.

Incorporating the entire COTUS against the states was and is unnecessary.

As an aside, I find it quite interesting, the insistence of many that the prefatory clause of the 2A somehow declares it's singular intent, while the second clause of the 1st, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", can be almost universally ignored in the insanely zealous application of that amendment against not just the states, but individual people.

Simple solution to both problems...

Apply the constitution the way it was meant to be applied and don't apply it to people and places that it WASN'T meant.

And, before we go down the road of "oh, you want to go back to slavery or 3/5th of a person", no, there are amendments that address those issues and in truth, many of the founders opposed slavery at the time and would have preferred a nation without it but they knew they could not get consensus as such and so decided to let the states work it out in time, which they did.
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; October 3, 2012 at 10:17 AM.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Page generated in 0.04527 seconds with 7 queries