Well it looks to me like you "demand" that process be made to something other than process. And a forum like this one "demands" that you be clear in stating just what you mean. What is your understanding of the meaning of "due process of law"? It should be something you can answer in plain language, without quoting some judge, or pulling out some speech from a framer. It's a simple enough phrase, so it should have a simple enough meaning.
You could care less that CA is violating the constitution.
Notwithstanding the fact that it's only violating the Constitution as you read it, it's true that I'm not losing too much sleep about what's going on in another state, as long as they're not committing mass slaughters or something. Other than that, I'm happy to let you and the rest of the people of your state work things out for yourselves. I'll deal with my state.
Thanks again. Your rant is very revealing of your fanaticism about the feds. I don't like federalism either, but I will not give up on respecting the constitution.
In that last clause, you're confusing what the Constitution does say with what you think it should say. I know it's going to be difficult getting you to see what it does say, but as for what it should, it should not give the feds the power to control state laws and policies at whim, which is the power that they exercise now.
You've made this same vague charge against the 14th this entire thread, yet never get to particulars. - All fancy rhetoric, it seems, but no real 'ham', just the string, the 'line'.
Just to give two examples that I've already posted on this thread, one case from Boston in the '70's involved a "desegregation" order for the public schools in that city, even though neither the city nor the state had anything close to any kind of segregation laws on the books. The result was that thousands of students were forcibly bused to schools far from their neighborhoods, and their arrival at the new schools precipated waves of violence from those students already established there. Another case from St. Louis involved a judge deciding that the poor quality of the inner city schools was evidence of "unequal protection of the laws" and actually ordered taxes raised on the surrounding communities to pay for a new school (which ended up flopping anyway, because it didn't make the students any more motivated). And of course need I mention the numerous examples of the federal judges ruling against schools whenever the word "God" is mentioned loud enough for other students to hear? Or the harassment of police departments whenever they're accused of "racial profiling"? These things increase the cost of states running their schools, police departments, and other services. That, combined with their dependence on federal subsidies to do just about anything (which often is necessitated by the increased costs that litigation imposes), creates a culture of total submission to federal authority within state governments. So if a state were to take a principled stand against Washington overreaching - such as saying, "No, you're not going to federalize our airports" or "No, you're not going to take this child from this house and turn him over to Castro" - is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to think the feds (and their lefty pressure-group allies) would have ample means of punishing that state through legal harassment?
Let me ask you this: What has the 14th amendment, in practice, actually accomplished in protecting genuine liberty? I can think of the destruction of Jim Crow laws, but even that was then overshadowed by the reverse racism that developed, and by the feds getting more comfortable with using the National Guard as a national police force.
I DO demand the constitution be honored, by fed or state.
I think you demand considerably more than that. I think you demand that the Constitution charge the federal government with overseeing state laws to make sure they don't violate what you consider to be your rights, and I think you'd be adamantly opposed to any attempt to change the Constitution in way that removes that power of the feds. Is that true?
Was it the intent of the framers of the 14th amendment to overturn all existing state laws against fornication, sodomy, incest, polygamy, etc.?
Of course not. Most of those laws have a victim, - an injured party.
Huh?? Fornication has a "victim"? Sodomy has a "victim"? Even incest, when it doesn't result in pregnancy, has a "victim"? These are the kinds of laws I'm talking about, and I can guarantee you they were on the books in every state in the union in 1868, as well as in all of the territories, and they were taken seriously, too (they weren't just leftovers from the Puritan era or something). I'd be very interested in seeing whatever evidence you might have that the framers of the 14th amendment intended to overturn or even water down these laws.
Well it looks to me like you "demand" that process be made to something other than process. And a forum like this one "demands" that you be clear in stating just what you mean. What is your understanding of the meaning of "due process of law"? It should be something you can answer in plain language, without quoting some judge, or pulling out some speech from a framer. It's a simple enough phrase, so it should have a simple enough meaning.
It does, and I've answered. - You just didn't understand, or accept the 'simple meaning'. - Tough.
-----------------------------
You could care less that CA is violating the constitution.
Notwithstanding the fact that it's only violating the Constitution as you read it, it's true that I'm not losing too much sleep about what's going on in another state, as long as they're not committing mass slaughters or something.
Thanks for your admission. Rare honesty from a statist.
Your rant is very revealing of your fanaticism about the feds. I don't like federalism either, but I will not give up on respecting the constitution.
In that last clause, you're confusing what the Constitution does say with what you think it should say. I know it's going to be difficult getting you to see what it does say, but as for what it should, it should not give the feds the power to control state laws and policies at whim, which is the power that they exercise now.
Nope, the constitution doesn't give the feds the power. The political system has. YOU are the one confused.
You've made this same vague charge against the 14th this entire thread, yet never get to particulars. - All fancy rhetoric, it seems, but no real 'ham', just the string, the 'line'.
Just to give two examples that I've already posted on this thread, one case from Boston in the '70's involved a "desegregation" order for the public schools in that city, even though neither the city nor the state had anything close to any kind of segregation laws on the books. The result was that thousands of students were forcibly bused to schools far from their neighborhoods, and their arrival at the new schools precipated waves of violence from those students already established there. Another case from St. Louis involved a judge deciding that the poor quality of the inner city schools was evidence of "unequal protection of the laws" and actually ordered taxes raised on the surrounding communities to pay for a new school (which ended up flopping anyway, because it didn't make the students any more motivated). And of course need I mention the numerous examples of the federal judges ruling against schools whenever the word "God" is mentioned loud enough for other students to hear? Or the harassment of police departments whenever they're accused of "racial profiling"? These things increase the cost of states running their schools, police departments, and other services. That, combined with their dependence on federal subsidies to do just about anything (which often is necessitated by the increased costs that litigation imposes), creates a culture of total submission to federal authority within state governments. So if a state were to take a principled stand against Washington overreaching - such as saying, "No, you're not going to federalize our airports" or "No, you're not going to take this child from this house and turn him over to Castro" - is it too much of a stretch of the imagination to think the feds (and their lefty pressure-group allies) would have ample means of punishing that state through legal harassment?
You've made my point, - in 'bold'. -- The 14th is not the problem here. The states submit to the feds for political reasons, not constitutional ones.
Let me ask you this: What has the 14th amendment, in practice, actually accomplished in protecting genuine liberty? I can think of the destruction of Jim Crow laws, but even that was then overshadowed by the reverse racism that developed, and by the feds getting more comfortable with using the National Guard as a national police force.
Read some history. There are dozens of USSC decisions citing the 14th. Try 'findlaw'.
--------------- I DO demand the constitution be honored, by fed or state.
I think you demand considerably more than that. I think you demand that the Constitution charge the federal government with overseeing state laws to make sure they don't violate what you consider to be your rights, and I think you'd be adamantly opposed to any attempt to change the Constitution in way that removes that power of the feds. Is that true?
No.
Was it the intent of the framers of the 14th amendment to overturn all existing state laws against fornication, sodomy, incest, polygamy, etc.?
Of course not. Most of those laws have a victim, - an injured party.
Huh?? Fornication has a "victim"? Sodomy has a "victim"? Even incest, when it doesn't result in pregnancy, has a "victim"? These are the kinds of laws I'm talking about, and I can guarantee you they were on the books in every state in the union in 1868, as well as in all of the territories, and they were taken seriously, too (they weren't just leftovers from the Puritan era or something). I'd be very interested in seeing whatever evidence you might have that the framers of the 14th amendment intended to overturn or even water down these laws.
To be valid, common criminal law requires a victim, an injured party. -- You want the state to be that injured party. -- But the state has no 'rights' to injure.
The state has only the delegated power to enforce constitutional law protecting the rights of individuals, or groups of individuals, as in a common defense.
Apparently, you want the state to enforce 'morals' as a majority defines them. - And a tyranny of the majority is NOT a republican form of government, also guaranteed by the constitution. -- Can you say it isn't so?