14th Amendment vs. 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter UH1-D Rotorhead
- Start date
what land. America at that time was nothing but wilderness and the Indians by and large were a hunting culture with small tribes scattered across the continent laying hunting claim to areas the size of three states (mostly just wilderness except where Indian villiages and towns happened to be at the moment) as they migrated in hunting parties ever few years. They were primitive and the English, Spanish and French came here and settled thsi land establishing colonies and civilization, cities, farms and towns. This doesn't mean that the Indians deserved to be mistreated or robbed as the case may be, but it certainly means that 19th century conditions between the Americans (which they called us) and the Indians (or Cherokee, Creek, Commanche, Apache, Cheyenne, Sioux, etc. as they called themselves) can't be compared to modern massive immigrants from a foreign country in the simplistic PC sense you are throwing in.
In fact, the only way it really can be compared is to illustrate that clashing two different cultures together often produces dangerous results. In fact, the Founding Fathers, and succeding generations wanted to either civilize the Indians (which many did like the Cherokee) so they may assimilate with America, remove them to keep them and white settlers from clashing with them to perserve who they were and keep them from being de facto wiped out or government sanctioned extermination (as was Sherman and Sheridan's "final solution" to the indians West of the Mississippi in the later 19th century) The last option considered is deplorable, but the first two are realistic and understandable (though not necessarily right) in the context of conditions that existed at the time.
Yes. Neither of those things are any of the Federal government's business. Once you start centralizing the government (as amendments such as these do) you have created a monster that will trample on the liberties of all the States and the people within. As I said, the government of the United States at the time these amendments were written to date now has made slaves of us all.
Better to leave States to decide for themselves what kind of community they want for better or worse and stop thinking a central goverment is somehow given some mystical higher sense of what is right and wrong over everybody else.
JuanCarlos
New member
I know, giving women and people with different color skin equal rights of citizenship is totally not the federal government's business.
I'm sorry, but the states (at least some of them) pretty much proved, by not doing this on their own, that they had a lower sense of what was right or wrong. Unless you're saying that denying the vote to blacks or women was a good thing? I invite you to go ahead and say that, seriously.
Oh wait, allowing women and blacks to vote is one of those "PC" things, huh?
EDIT: My point, in case you missed it, is that this mythical land of "liberty" you're talking about where people can be owned and sold as property and women aren't afforded niceties like the vote is not anywhere I'd like to live...and if that's the country the founding fathers intended then I have no problem taking that country apart piece by piece.
seriously?
You are serious!
Better to leave the states to decide that women should not be allowed to vote? Better to leave the states to decide THAT SLAVERY IS ACCEPTABLE? Absolutely not. Both of those are most certainly the federal government's business because every state that wouldn't go along with such things has no business calling itself "American". Land of the free.
Yes, seriously.
So, what you two are saying, is that in order for anything to change in our society, it takes a centralized goverment to step in as some "civil rights" superhero to make everybody step into line? (at gunpoint and fire and sword if need be?) That's hardly liberty.
Maybe we need to rejoin the British Empire, their parliament probably knew what was best for us.
Also, do you really think those politicans of 1860s & 70s and such were truly interested in making sure black men were treated fairly (look at the laws of some of their own states and the way their armies treated black people). You don't think they had some ulterior motive? It was all a form of manipulation to try to secure power in the central government for themselves. Politicans and Radical Revolutionaries always use some hypocritical high moral tone to cloak themselves in righteousness. This was true of the French Revolutionaries, the Cuban Revolutionaries and even these Republican Revolutionaries. Read the article I posted in my original thread
So, what you two are saying, is that in order for anything to change in our society, it takes a centralized goverment to step in as some "civil rights" superhero to make everybody step into line? (at gunpoint and fire and sword if need be?) That's hardly liberty.
Maybe we need to rejoin the British Empire, their parliament probably knew what was best for us.
Also, do you really think those politicans of 1860s & 70s and such were truly interested in making sure black men were treated fairly (look at the laws of some of their own states and the way their armies treated black people). You don't think they had some ulterior motive? It was all a form of manipulation to try to secure power in the central government for themselves. Politicans and Radical Revolutionaries always use some hypocritical high moral tone to cloak themselves in righteousness. This was true of the French Revolutionaries, the Cuban Revolutionaries and even these Republican Revolutionaries. Read the article I posted in my original thread
Unfair question. It's like asking "Which would you rather lose, your heart or your lungs?" You need them both. Lose either one, and we fall.
We need the 2nd, so that we can secure the equal enforcement of all the other amendments. Likewise, we need the 14th, so that we can secure the equal enforcement of all the other ones. The amendments work together. You can't cut one out. It would result in a loss of what we call, "America."
We need the 2nd, so that we can secure the equal enforcement of all the other amendments. Likewise, we need the 14th, so that we can secure the equal enforcement of all the other ones. The amendments work together. You can't cut one out. It would result in a loss of what we call, "America."
JuanCarlos
New member
If the choice is between allowing ownership and trade of people and treating women and subhuman or rejoining the British Empire, I'd choose the latter! [EDIT: Assuming, of course, rejoining the British Empire implied that the former two wouldn't still be true.]
And apparently it did take a centralized government stepping in as some "civil rights superhero," since at the time the centralized government did step in many states hadn't managed these changes on their own. Though I guess you're right, it would be better if the black or female residents of those states just waited around longer. Or moved...because without any blacks or women in the state it would certainly change then.
EDIT: Out of curiosity, how does it feel to reinforce a negative stereotype?
So whenever somebody somewhere (lets say me and you) decides that there is something wrong in the way our state or community works we need to get the central Government to start passing laws and even steping in with sword and bayonet to make it right overnight imprisoning anybody who disagrees and even slaughtering millions of people and burning entire towns and cities and other communities.....because we are going to make damn sure there is liberty, fraternity and equality in this country. Once that's done, then we will have peace and happiness and live happily ever after?
JuanCarlos
New member
When that "something wrong" is treating human beings as subhuman, particularly within our own borders...well, yeah. I could probably be down with that.
On principle you make a good point, a lot of bad can come from giving the federal government more power but some things are just necessary evils. If those amendments mean our generation has to fight harder against a growing government, so be it. Treating women and blacks and other minorities equally is worth the extra effort that the rest of us have to put forth.
Pragmatism has to balance principle.
Pragmatism has to balance principle.
12 states out of 37 states rejected the proposed 14th Amendment between the date of submission to the States by the Secretary of State by June 1867, thereby nullifying the resolution and making it impossible for its ratification by the constitutionally required 3/4 of the states. Anything after that is bogus. End of history lesson.
Spelling notwithstanding, all rights are said to be granted by the creator. The first ten (bill of rights) only enumerates some of them, and is stated to explicitly prevent the government from taking these rights from the people. Doesn't mean there aren't other rights. The supreme court has ruled that there are other rights that are not enumerated but do exist.
Have you ever read the 10th amendment?
Hugh Damright
New member
I believe that the Second Amendment regards the threat of military rule, so when a person says that he accepts putting States under military rule for voting against the 14th amendment, then I reckon that person doesn't really accept the Second Amendment.
JuanCarlos
New member
Well, it's more a matter of not recognizing the "right" of the states to treat human beings as anything less. If military force is required to accomplish that, so be it.
^
Okay. So with that in mind, would you support us invading Mexico because of the way their government and upper class treat the "peons" of that country? Do you support us invading Red China because of the way they treat human beings? Do you support us invading India because of their caste system? Do you support us invading states here in the united states that pass laws against sodomy? Do you support the united states invading states that support abortion?
Treating people as human beings is a pretty broad statement. It's a matter that comes mostly from the heart. If we as a people or community have rights that are being violated by a King or Central authority, we can stand up for them via nullification, secession or petition and if forced, we can unite to defend ourselves from invasion. The Founding Father's generation did this, the men of 1812 a generation later did this, the first generation of Texas settlers did this. But when it comes to social issues and moral issues within a society, that's not something you can just stamp out with a law or a gun. It's something that has to be done more from the heart. It's not as simple as saying, "I don't like the way 'they' do things, they must be evil people, they must be wiped out in order to have equality."
If you think that when the central goverment committed these acts that we have been discussing, invasion, 14th 15th amendments, etc. that they were acting in the best interest of America or group A, B or C in the name of "equality" or "justice" because there were some "evil people" that just weren't doing the "right thing" right then and there, then you have a very superficial view of history and of people who make up history. Look deeper into what was going on.
Okay. So with that in mind, would you support us invading Mexico because of the way their government and upper class treat the "peons" of that country? Do you support us invading Red China because of the way they treat human beings? Do you support us invading India because of their caste system? Do you support us invading states here in the united states that pass laws against sodomy? Do you support the united states invading states that support abortion?
Treating people as human beings is a pretty broad statement. It's a matter that comes mostly from the heart. If we as a people or community have rights that are being violated by a King or Central authority, we can stand up for them via nullification, secession or petition and if forced, we can unite to defend ourselves from invasion. The Founding Father's generation did this, the men of 1812 a generation later did this, the first generation of Texas settlers did this. But when it comes to social issues and moral issues within a society, that's not something you can just stamp out with a law or a gun. It's something that has to be done more from the heart. It's not as simple as saying, "I don't like the way 'they' do things, they must be evil people, they must be wiped out in order to have equality."
If you think that when the central goverment committed these acts that we have been discussing, invasion, 14th 15th amendments, etc. that they were acting in the best interest of America or group A, B or C in the name of "equality" or "justice" because there were some "evil people" that just weren't doing the "right thing" right then and there, then you have a very superficial view of history and of people who make up history. Look deeper into what was going on.
JuanCarlos
New member
No, No, No, Yes (conditional), No.
There is a difference between what other nations do and what happens inside the US. As for that conditional "yes," it would depend on the laws involved and the punishments being handed out. Also As for the last, I *gasp* support abortion rights...but we probably don't want to go there.
Fair enough. Slavery in the South? Didn't qualify. Denying the vote to half the population because of what they have between their legs? Doesn't qualify. That's not treating human beings as human beings. You can try and deny it, or go into moral relativism mode, but in any modern civilized society you're going to fail. And rightly so.
I'm not embracing relativism. I'm not trying to get into individual issues (like abortion) I'm just offering them as a various problems that face the world today. I think abortion is wrong, I think it is murder. BUT, I wouldn't support invading conneticut or California because they pass laws supporting it. The United States government does not have that authority. I am against Sodomy and homosexual marriages, I think it is immoral, I think it spreads disease, etc. but I am against any Federal amendment making marriage between a man and a woman, this is also not something the Federal government has any business in.
I am for prayer in school, football games and public events, BUT I am against the Federal government coming in and telling a state that says I can't pray that they have to let me do it because they have something called the 14th amendment. (whether you agree with me on these issues or not isn't the point, you likely don't, but I am using them to illustrate where I am coming from in the topic of this thread)
As said, it would be (and has) creating a bigger monster than whatever said state or community is doing.
As far as historical issues you are trying to take complicated issues and people and oversimplify them.
Since you think we should be a centralized homogenous nation (you said you have no problem invading states within the United States), I would ask why you wouldn't support invading said countries to solve these problems. I mean, from your line of thinking, if something is wrong, then it's wrong and must immediately made right. All it takes is a gun, a few burned cities and slaughtered people in war and a law in the books and voila, instant equality, liberty and harmony. If centralization is good for America, why not extend that to the rest of the world? If moral change can only come from some mystically all knowing all powerful central government in these United States, then what are we waiting for? (wait! We aren't....we are doing it in Iraq, we tried it in Kosovo, in Serbia, in Haiti, in Vietnam, in the Phillipines, etc.)
I maintain that the Federal...or Central (nothing federal about it anymore) government has created FAR more problems than it has solved over the past 100 years or more because of the powers it has seized in the name of "equality" or "freedom" or "fairness."
I'll let Lord John Action, who also said "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" tell it like it is as he did in a letter to Robert E. Lee after the War:
I am for prayer in school, football games and public events, BUT I am against the Federal government coming in and telling a state that says I can't pray that they have to let me do it because they have something called the 14th amendment. (whether you agree with me on these issues or not isn't the point, you likely don't, but I am using them to illustrate where I am coming from in the topic of this thread)
As said, it would be (and has) creating a bigger monster than whatever said state or community is doing.
As far as historical issues you are trying to take complicated issues and people and oversimplify them.
Since you think we should be a centralized homogenous nation (you said you have no problem invading states within the United States), I would ask why you wouldn't support invading said countries to solve these problems. I mean, from your line of thinking, if something is wrong, then it's wrong and must immediately made right. All it takes is a gun, a few burned cities and slaughtered people in war and a law in the books and voila, instant equality, liberty and harmony. If centralization is good for America, why not extend that to the rest of the world? If moral change can only come from some mystically all knowing all powerful central government in these United States, then what are we waiting for? (wait! We aren't....we are doing it in Iraq, we tried it in Kosovo, in Serbia, in Haiti, in Vietnam, in the Phillipines, etc.)
I maintain that the Federal...or Central (nothing federal about it anymore) government has created FAR more problems than it has solved over the past 100 years or more because of the powers it has seized in the name of "equality" or "freedom" or "fairness."
I'll let Lord John Action, who also said "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" tell it like it is as he did in a letter to Robert E. Lee after the War: