Ron Paul wants to violate the 14th amendment and violate religious freedom

[t1m0thy]

I don't agree with corporate personhood, but I am not foolish enough to call for the repeal of the 14th amendment.  We can make changes to the law in other ways that would not eradicate the huge leaps forward in civil rights that have been enabled by the 14th amendment.

[Eviker]

You support all of this http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con025.pdf, and call me a tyrant.  You're a sick man Viker.

And you repeatedly lie again, David Jahn.  I did not claim to support "all of this" at the link you posted.  You made that lie up.  I did not call you a tyrant.  You made that lie up too.  And I'm well, so your claim that I am sick is another lie.  I just saw my oncologist for a routine examination and I'm in excellent shape.  Go me.

[vern]

And you repeatedly lie again, David Jahn.  I did not claim to support "all of this" at the link you posted.

ditto

I didn't spend 1 second reviewing his link.  Is there such a term as "anarcho-fascist"?   

[djahn]

Vern,

In support of the 14th amendment, Libertarians must also support all of the following.  Maybe this is what you want to see on the front page of the web site?

Under the Fourteenth Amendment

Laws Regulating Hours of Labor.—
Even during the Lochner era, the due process clause was construed as permitting enactment by the States of maximum hours laws applicable to women workers and to workers in specified lines of work thought to be physically demanding or otherwise worthy of special protection.

Minimum Wage Laws.—The theory that a law prescribing minimum wages for women and children violates due process by
impairing freedom of contract was finally discarded in 1937

‘‘Business Affected With a Public Interest’’—In endeavoring to measure the impact of the due process clause upon efforts by the States to control the charges exacted by various businesses for their services, the Supreme Court, almost from the inception of the Fourteenth Amendment, devoted itself to the examination of two questions: (1) whether the clause precluded that kind of regulation of certain types of business, and (2) the nature of the restraint, if any, which this clause imposed on state control of rates in the case of businesses as to which such control existed.

Regulation of Public Utilities (Other Than Rates)

Insurance.—The general relations of those insurance business as well as the business itself peculiarly subject to supervision and  control.

Miscellaneous Businesses and Professions.—An act imposing license fees for operating employment agencies and prohibiting them from sending applicants to an employer who has not applied for labor does not deny due process of law.

The Court has sustained a law establishing as a qualification for obtaining or retaining a pharmacy operating permit that one either be a registered pharmacist in good standing or that the corporation or association have a majority of its stock owned by registered pharmacists in good standing who were actively and regularly employed in and responsible for the management, supervision, and  peration of such pharmacy.

Zoning and Similar Actions.—That states and municipal subdivisions may zone land for designated uses is now a well established
aspect of the police power.

Food, Drugs, Milk. Equally valid as police power regulations are laws forbidding the sale of ice cream not containing a reasonable  proportion of butter fat or of condensed milk made from skimmed milk rather than whole milk or of food preservatives containing boric acid.  Similarly, a statute which prohibits the sale of milk to which has been added any fat or oil other than a milk fat, and which has, as one of its purposes, the prevention of fraud and deception in the sale of milk products, does not, when applied to ‘‘filled milk’’ having the taste, consistency, and appearance of whole milk products, violate the due process clause.

Intoxicating Liquor.—‘‘On account of their well-known noxious qualities and the extraordinary evils shown by experience to be consequent upon their use, a State . . . [is competent] to prohibit [absolutely the] manufacture, gift, purchase, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within its borders. . . .’’ And to implement such prohibition, a State has the power to declare that places where liquor is manufactured or kept shall be deemed common nuisances, and even to subject an innocent owner to the forfeiture of his property for the acts of a wrongdoer.

Protecting Morality.—Unless effecting a clear, unmistakable infringement of rights secured by fundamental law, legislation suppressing prostitution or gambling will be upheld by the Court as concededly within the police power of a State.

Estate, Gift, and Inheritance Taxes.—The power of testamentary disposition and the privilege of inheritance being legitimate
subjects of taxation, a State may apply its inheritance tax to either the transmission, or the exercise of the legal power of transmission,
of property by will or descent, or to the legal privilege of taking property by devise or descent. Accordingly, an inheritance tax law, enacted after the death of a testator but before the distribution of his estate, constitutionally may be imposed on the

Income Taxes.—The authority of states to tax income is ‘‘universally recognized.’’ Years ago the Court explained that ‘âIndividual Income Taxes.—Consistent with due process of law, a State annually may tax the entire net income of resident individuals from whatever source received, and that portion of a nonresident’s net income derived from property owned, and from any business, trade, or profession carried on, by him within its borders. Jurisdiction, in the case of residents, is founded upon the rights and privileges incident to domicile,...

Transfer (Inheritance, Estate, Gift) Taxes.—Being competent to regulate exercise of the power of testamentary disposition
and the privilege of inheritance, a State may base its succession taxes upon either the transmission or an exercise of the legal power of transmission, of property by will or by descent, or the enjoyment of the legal privilege of taking property by devise or descent.

Abortion.—Laws limiting or prohibiting abortions in practically all the States, the District of Columbia, and the territories were invalidated by a ruling recognizing a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that included a qualified right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child. On the basis of its analysis of the competing individual rights and state interests, the Court in Roe v. Wade discer ned a three-stage balancing of rights and interests extending over the full nine-month term of pregnancy. (For those who applaud this, how will you feel when they reverse it?)

‘‘Right to Die’’.—In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep’t of Health, the Court upheld Missouri’s requirement that, before nutrition and hydration may be withdrawn from a person in a persistent vegetative state, it must be demonstrated by ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ that such action is consistent with the patient’s previously manifested wishes. The Due Process Clause does not require

Jury Trials.—Trial by jury in civil trials, unlike the case in criminal trials, has not been deemed essential to due process, and the Fourteenth Amendment has not been held to restrain the States in retaining or abolishing civil juries.

When Is Process Due.—‘‘The extent to which procedural due process must be afforded the recipient is influenced by the extent to which he may be ‘condemned to suffer grievous loss,’ . . . and depends upon whether the recipient’s interest in avoiding that loss outweighs the governmental interest in summary adjudication.’

Police Power Regulation ‘âBallot Access Candidates whose parties polled less than 200,000 but more than 2 percent could be nominated in primary elections or in conventions. Candidates of parties not coming within either of the first two categories had to be nominated in conventions and could obtain ballot space only if the notarized list of participants at the conventions totalled at least one percent of the total votes cast for governor in the last preceding general election or, failing this, if in the 55 succeeding days a requisite number of qualified voters  signed petitions to bring the total up to one percent of the gubernatorial vote. [W]hat is demanded may not be so exessive or  impractical as to be in reality a mere device to always,

Marriage and Familial Relations In Zablocki v. Redhail, importing into equal protection analysis the doctrines developed in substantive due process, the Court identified the right to marry as a ‘‘fundamental interest’’ that necessitates ‘‘critical examination’’ of governmental restrictions which ‘‘interfere directly and substantially’’ with the right.

(Thus far restrictions on Gay marriage apparently don't require critical examination.  Interesting to note the person who started this thread looks to the 14th amendment to defend his rights.)

This fourteenth amendment reaches far beyond what most would believe granting the federal government the power to regulate the states on far too many issues.

Funny, Vern proclaims there can be no Libertarian argument to oppose the 14th amendment.  So, I provide a link from libertarians who oppose this amendment.  Then I provide links to the articles from the government GPO web site from which the above was extracted.

And for this I'm attacked.  Are you people capable of constructive debate, or do you just attack every idea that doesn't seem to wash with your purity test.

In case you haven't noticed there is a reason why this little echo chamber forum here doesn't get much traffic.

David Jahn

[djahn]

You support all of this http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con025.pdf, and call me a tyrant.  You're a sick man Viker.

And you repeatedly lie again, David Jahn.  I did not claim to support "all of this" at the link you posted.  You made that lie up.  I did not call you a tyrant.  You made that lie up too.  And I'm well, so your claim that I am sick is another lie.  I just saw my oncologist for a routine examination and I'm in excellent shape.  Go me.

Now you want to mince words.  I posted a link listing areas of law effected by the 14th amendment after which you call me a tyrant lover.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you at least perused the article in the link I provided before you launched into another personal attack on me.  It turns out your incapable of an intelligent exchange.   No surprise there.

[djahn]

And you repeatedly lie again, David Jahn.  I did not claim to support "all of this" at the link you posted.

ditto

I didn't spend 1 second reviewing his link.  Is there such a term as "anarcho-fascist"?   

How about closed minded fools.

[t1m0thy]

The actual text of the 14th amendment...which one of these articles do you oppose?  We've already established you do not like the idea of birth citizenship...please tell us what parts you dislike and articulate.  Rather than cut and paste something from a website let's hear your actual opinion on the matter.

14th Amendment

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. 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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[t1m0thy]

There have been a great deal of laws passed that have nothing to do with the 14th amendment and are still bad policy...should we just repeal the whole Constitution?

[djahn]

There have been a great deal of laws passed that have nothing to do with the 14th amendment and are still bad policy...should we just repeal the whole Constitution?

Depends on what laws you are referring to.  A lot of bad laws would go away if we enforced the constitution.  Part of the problem is that the Supreme Court has somehow become the supreme interpreter of the constitution.  As long as we allow that we will suffer the consequences.

[t1m0thy]

Tell me, David, who is supposed to interpret the Constitution when there is a legal challenge?

[djahn]

The actual text of the 14th amendment...which one of these articles do you oppose?  We've already established you do not like the idea of birth citizenship...

I'm not opposed to all birthright citizenship.  As I said earlier in the thread:

The issue of whether or not we should be awarding birthright citizenship to anyone who happens to be born here has nothing to do with having open borders or being xenophobic.  There is a difference between awarding citizenship to children born to parents immigrating here with the intention of becoming citizens and awarding citizenship to children born to people who just happen to be visiting our nation.  Certainly, it makes no sense to give birthright citizenship to the offspring of terrorists such as those who come here under false pretenses to fly planes into our trade center.

please tell us what parts you dislike and articulate.  Rather than cut and paste something from a website let's hear your actual opinion on the matter.

Is this some kind of joke?  You can't read what was posted earlier?

14th Amendment

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I don't appreciate laws:
Governing the amount of hours I can work,
That set minimum wages, prohibiting me from drinking unpasteurized milk,
Permitting licensing of many rights including the right to own and carry firearms, the right to marriage, the right to work in many industries
Permits Zoning laws
Limits what alcohol and drugs I can have access to
Forbids me from gambling where and when I choose.
Allows the state to tax 100% of my net income,
Decides whether or not Abortions are legal
Denies me the right to die with dignity
Denies me the right to a jury trial in civil cases
Permits egregious barriers to ballot access

All of this is courtesy the 14th amendment.

Section. 2. 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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

I'm not sure why we aren't counting Indians.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

This is kind of outdated.  The purpose of this was to restrict who from the South could serve in congress.  With our ever expanding definition of terrorism, it may not be long before this becomes an issue.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Kind of dated.  Not sure why this required a constitutional amendment.  This is the provision Obama threatened to invoke to spend money that had been authorized by congress.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Congress obviously. The Supreme Court not so obviously.

 

[djahn]

Tell me, David, who is supposed to interpret the Constitution when there is a legal challenge?

Depends upon the stages of interpretation.

Initially the court is tasked with interpreting it.  If they get it wrong they can be overturned by a higher court.  Eventually it gets to the Supreme Court, but it shouldn't stop there.  Supreme Court Justices can be and should be impeached when they go against the clear language of the constitution, which they have done in numerous cases.  Generally, whenever their opinion starts with the words "Compelling Public Interests" you know the constitution is being tossed.

After a Supreme Court debacle, it is up to congress in concert with the states to clarify the language if necessary to get us back on track. Some of these issues can be resolved by statute, others may require simple constitutional amendments.

Lastly, some argue the states should have the right to nullify federal laws including poor interpretations of the constitution.  There is a movement in our country now to nullify some of the laws that are being forced on us from the federal level.  The Nullify Now tour is coming to Philadelphia this month.

At this point, the 4th and 5th amendments has been torn to shreds along with other provisions.  How far should we let this go before we fix it?

[t1m0thy]

I support jury nullification that is a valid part of our legal system, however, you just admitted that the courts have the task of interpreting the Constitution.  You may not agree with a ruling but that does mean the court is overstepping its authority.  We have checks and balances and judges can be impeached.  Congress can be voted out.  

I think the problem you may have is that you live in a society where people disagree with you and you misinterpret your view of the Constitution as the be all and end all.  The Founders couldn't even agree on what it meant all the time.

The Constitution is not an infallible text and should not be read like a Bible.  We should progress forward and be willing to change.  To think that a document written over 200 years ago will be the final chapter in human liberty is hopelessly close minded.  It was a social contract by those who founded this nation.  We should never think that we are bound to follow that contract explicitly without modifications so long as they advance civil liberty and the well being of society.

We are not the Constitution Party, nor are we the Neo Confederate Party, or the Republican Party.  We are the Libertarian Party and our views should reflect our valuation of human liberty above adherence to a piece of paper.  I am glad for the past and those who paved the way but we need to stop looking back and start looking forward.  If you want to be a conservative go join a conservative party.  Advancing human liberty isn't about conserving the ideas of the past, its about taking us to the next level of societal evolution and leaving things better than we found them. 

[Eviker]

Liar David Jahn, it is not mincing words to call you out for lying again. You try to backtrack but you accused me of calling you a tyrant and that is a big fat lie.

 Tyrant = / = tyrant lover.   Only a fool would assume loving pizza is equal being a pizza pie. And only a hypocrite would cry about being personally attacked while insulting others. As you do.

My words below condemning your desire to restrict the options available to peaceful people are utterly disconnected from your bizarre rant about legislation justified by one or another interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Libertarians who are not opposed to the 14th Amendment do not have to support every bit of legislation justified by some interpretation of it. Your link is a red herring in the context of my critique of your un-Libertarian positions. Mocking you is no longer fun because you are far worse than a buffoon. You want to diddle the Constitution to further restrict the options available to peaceful people.You are a menace to liberty.  

[djahn]

I think the problem you may have is that you live in a society where people disagree with you and you misinterpret your view of the Constitution as the be all and end all.  The Founders couldn't even agree on what it meant all the time.

So you see no problem with warrant-less, no knock searches.  Or, the taking of property through Eminent Domain only to turn it over to profitable business ventures.  The flood of citizens in our nations prisons for simple possession of drugs.  Or the feds refusal to allow states to legalize medicinal marijuana.  The list goes on.  There have been some egregious interpretations by the S.C.  I guess the LPPA is OK with all of that, and I just "misinterpret your view of the Constitution as the be all and end all"? Do you have a clue?

The Constitution is not an infallible text and should not be read like a Bible.  We should progress forward and be willing to change.  To think that a document written over 200 years ago will be the final chapter in human liberty is hopelessly close minded.  It was a social contract by those who founded this nation.  We should never think that we are bound to follow that contract explicitly without modifications so long as they advance civil liberty and the well being of society.

So, if I suggest we may need to update the document, I should go join the conservative party, but it's OK if you suggest the document needs updated? What kind of elitist bullshit is that?

We are the Libertarian Party and our views should reflect our valuation of human liberty above adherence to a piece of paper.

No, what you are is big government libertarians who invite a big federal government into their lives via the 14th amendment. Only a fool would believe that the very entity that repeatedly tramples their rights is going to somehow save them.