The First 100 days

People might do well to remember it was the North who forced the South to accept the 3/5 a person definition of a slave as a compromise between counting them as people and not counting them at all.
 
Fantastic. Putting Plessy and Brown aside, let’s go to Loving. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."
 
14th was written specifically to overturn Dred Scott by rendering all Black Americans as U.S. citizens.

That’s why conservatives hate it.
 
LongestHorn said:
Fantastic. Putting Plessy and Brown aside, let’s go to Loving. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "the most rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause. The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites and found that racial classifications were not subject to a "rational purpose" test under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."
Click to expand...

Your argument does not support not overturning the 14th as a whole. Millions of white Europeans have immigrated in the last couple centuries and had lots of babies some legal and some not. Would stopping that be race based too or is it only specific people you are thinking about?

I think most of what you wrote has nothing to do with just overturning the 14th amendment as a general rule of thumb because it applies to all races. It would be if it was only amended to keep specific people from having babies who would be legal citizens.

I am not in the camp of messing with any of the amendments.
 
LongestHorn said:
14th was written specifically to overturn Dred Scott by rendering all Black Americans as U.S. citizens.
Click to expand...

It overturned Dred Scott like a car plays music. It did that, but it did far more than that. It became a vehicle by which pretty much any state law can be brought within federal jurisdiction and get interfered with by the federal government or its courts. In other words, it pretty much confirmed everything bad that the South said and assumed about the North's intentions.

LongestHorn said:
That’s why conservatives hate it.
Click to expand...

Conservatives mostly don't know what Dred Scott is. They don't even particularly dislike the 14th Amendment as it's written. What they hate is that it often isn't enforced as it's written. That's why one can read the 14th Amendment and know next to nothing about it. It "means" a hell of a lot that it doesn't actually say, and the interpretations of it are lopsidedly used against the conservative policy agenda even though they had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment's text nor its author's intentions.
 
Mr. Deez said:
.......They passed the following, "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."

"Persons" means people, not citizens. And to be fair, the original language also referred to "free persons.".....
Click to expand...
"excluding Indians not taxed." - That implies to me that persons who do not pay taxes to the government are not counted. Since illegals don't file income taxes, why do we count them? Doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think we will ever get another constitutional amendment passed. So I'll just shut up and accept that states like Mexifornia will have an undue influence on our government from here on.
 
iatrogenic said:
Your message seems too aggressive toward Garmel and disrespects his freedom of speech. respectfully Sir.
Click to expand...
On reflection it was a bit severe, I’ll admit
Garmel said:
Musburger calls people idiots all the time and nothing is ever said. I don't normally use the word but with what Longesthorn said he deserved it.
Click to expand...
Your commented was reported, that’s why I was aware of it. I don’t read all threads and posts so please hit the Report button and let me know if someone is going over the line.

FWIW... I’m just asking for civility. Mostly for selfish reasons as it makes my job easier. :idk:
 
Garmel said:
Yeah, but he's probably the one that also reported me as well.
Click to expand...
That’s up to Dionysus to disclose, and he has my permission, but it’s his call. I don’t know who reported your post, but I suspect it was someone who agreed with my view of racist conservatives and disagreed with you acting like a little, well, you.
 
LongestHorn said:
but I suspect it was someone who agreed with my view of racist conservatives and disagreed with you acting like a little, well, you.
Click to expand...

That's fine. People have a right to report me if they want. However, I'm 100% correct on my assessment.
 
Last edited:
LongestHorn said:
That’s up to Dionysus to disclose, and he has my permission, but it’s his call. I don’t know who reported your post, but I suspect it was someone who agreed with my view of racist conservatives and disagreed with you acting like a little, well, you.
Click to expand...

If it wasn’t you then it would have to be SH. You libs are so sensitive.
 
Garmel said:
Perhaps i was harsh but I don't take anything back. I'll try your way though to keep from getting in trouble.
Click to expand...
I have found after some reflection there is often a better way of calling someone an idiot without actually using the word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top