>> “The text of the Constitution should not be arbitrarily reinterpreted and, as the judiciary does such with its doctrine of incorporation, the Fourteenth amendment is hereby repealed.”
>
> While most certainly the Constitution should not be arbitrarily reinterpreted, by referencing the “doctrine of incorporation” applied to the 14th Amendment, you’ve actually rejected one corruption by the Court, only to to validate an earlier corruption to the principle of this country.
Ah, but with incorporation we get the “magical” process by which the court may take some regular text like the first amendment, change it, and apply it to the states. In fact, in order to have ANY effect on the states the First Amendment needs to be textually altered because it is explicitly binding on one entity only: the Congress.
I reject the idea that repealing the 14th (and incorporation) must needs be the embracing of State sponsored tyranny. One if the major problems today is the rush to put everything into the Federal realm of jurisdiction. — This is one reason why state sovereignty is virtually non-extant, in one of the dissents to SB1070 the justice remarked that in rejecting the State’s ability to ensure laws are enforced the only remnant of state sovereignty is the right/ability/power to defend themselves from being invaded. With that in mind, I ask this: What would the Federal response be to a southern State taking its National Guard and using it to seal the southern border via military force?
WingedShark wrote:
"Ah, but with incorporation we get the “magical” process by which the court may take some regular text like the first amendment, change it, and apply it to the states. In fact, in order to have ANY effect on the states the First Amendment needs to be textually altered because it is explicitly binding on one entity only: the Congress."
The reason the 1st Amendment references Congress is that is the business of the Constitution, constructing the federal government itself! It is not as if we have the freedom of speech only to protect us from Congress and the federal government, but rather as referenced in the Declaration of Independence
"any form of government", which would include States as well.
That doctrine of "incorporation" was only the "magic" fabrication by which the Federal government justified its usurpation of an authority to police rights when those rights were specifically listed in the Constitution to exclude any federal government action whatsoever. However those rights themselves are also equally applicable to the States themselves. Nowhere in the legitimate State government's authority is it reasonable to restrict freedom of speech, or religion, or to infringe in any fashion on the right to keep and bear arms. Even the 10th Amendment concludes with the clause "or to the people" which is a direct reference to those rights.
By your statement that,
"in order to have ANY effect on the states the First Amendment needs to be textually altered.." you are inherently acting as if the Bill of Rights generally, and First Amendment specifically, grants or provides us those rights. This is actually itself a gross corruption and profoundly wrong.
The First Amendment does not need to be changed,
just our own mistaken understanding of our founding principles does.
In fact the catastrophic results from such a belief that the Bill of Rights actually provides us those rights are far-reaching and enormous. As example an interview last year by a
retired Marine Major indicated that, if the Constitution was amended, and the federal government wrote a law prohibiting firearms, then it would be
the military's job to confiscate those arms, and "that's the way Democracy works".
If Americans don't recognize this ss extremely chilling, particularly coming from our own military, and all too many do not, then that level of ignorance right there is a major part of the problem (pun intended), and how we got to where we are right now.
I've actually spoken to this Major via social media, and he was so incapable of recognizing he might have made any error, even after an extended conversation and explanation, that he ended up threatening me with a complaint.. and I'd said nothing at all personally offensive, except vehemently disagreeing with his perspective. The Major did not even offer any sort of counter-argument.
And the worst part of it is there are members of the military who would believe they were actually supporting the Constitution, while executing orders in one of the darkest moments of this country's history, not to mention the ongoing false beliefs by State police who actually believe what they are doing is legitimate as well.
I never indicated that repealing the 14th Amendment alone would lead to State sponsored tyranny, but rather that the specifically indicated reference to the "incorporation" of rights by that amendment being needing to be undone, as if the States are not equally compelled to recognize the same rights, even if not by the specific terms of the Bill of Rights itself.
Of course the States should have the authority to prohibit any entry into the that State, but this has no bearing on the fact that Rights do apply to those States themselves.
I would be interested to see what the Federal government's response is to any State refusing to act according to federal dictates. However we've already got a good idea how that response might start out. In 2011 when Texas threatened to a law to subject TSA agents to criminal prosecution for the ongoing unlawful factions, the Obama admission made known a threat via U.S. Attorney John E. Murphy that Texas would be turned into a no-fly zone. Imagine all the other things that might be shutdown to any state rejecting ongoing illegitimate federal authority beyond aircraft flights: closed highways, closed energy grids, and this is just starting with the passive responses, not the more direct exercise of force.
If people don't imagine this sort of direct physical conflict is
entirely expected to happen, and soon, just take a look at Jade Helm 15.