14th Amendment

1. I concede that I was a bit far reaching when I said "there was no such thing" as the United States. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 damns me, and I lose this point. However, the Constitution does several times refer to citizens of a given state. I'm fairly certain that a "citizen of the United States" was nothing more than a citizen of one of the states that comprised the United States, plus naturalized citizens. 2. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret law, not create new law or assess the merit of a given law. And the Supreme Court was not intended to be the SOLE arbiter of what's constitutional -- it gave itself that job in Marbury vs. Madison. Jefferson and Jackson and, in fact, most everyone prior to Lincoln thought it was the job of all people at all levels of government to determine what was constitutional. This is the principle of nullification. 3. Okay. I win this point, you win point #1. We shall continue to battle on points #2 and #4. 4. At the time that the Constitution was ratified, there were states with official state religions and churches. You've already admitted that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment (actually, some time after that, but it was the 14th Amendment that made the case for this). Now I'd prefer not to have my local town display religious symbols and I think "separation of church and state" is a good principle. However, I do NOT trust the federal government to have the power to interfere in local matters. You like the federal government doing this now, but what if, for example, the Supreme Court overtuned Roe v. Wade (which they should) and then Congress passed a national abortion ban? The precedent has already been set. The Supreme Court cannot defend or protect rights. Let's say my town has a cross on its city crest. The Supreme Court rules this "unconstitutional" (incorrect decision, but that's not the subject at hand), but my mayor won't back down. The town is unanimously behind him -- even I, an atheist, support him because of the Jeffersonian principles at work. What happens? It is the federal government who will take action -- via the military -- just as they did to desegregate the South. So what you're saying here is that you support the idea of the federal government determining what is right, even if it goes against local custom and culture, and then enforcing that "right" by means of violence. I, in contrast, support state sovereignty and local rule. My question to you is: Where does it stop? Should the U.N. invade the U.S. to defend my rights? Should the U.S. invade China? This is a matter of jurisdiction, and in my mind, the U.S. lacks the jurisdiction to invade states and cities ... because there is no such thing as the 14th Amendment, and even if their were, this would be a bad idea. So we should dwell on this matter of the 14th Amendment's non-ratification a bit. Here is what usconstitution.net -- NOT a libertarian or anarchist or paleoconservative site by any means -- says: "Some argue that it was passed in an unconstitutional way, which is an interesting and plausible argument. The fact remains, however, that it is a part of our Constitution, and deserves as much respect as any other part, unless it is at some point repealed." You see, they say it's a "plausible argument," and then totally discount the implications! You can read more about it here: http://www.barefootsworld.net... Of course, the Establishment takes two approaches to the non-existence of the 14th Amendment: 1. Ignore it, or 2. Admit it but say it doesn't matter (like usconstitution.net). There's no really denying the fact that the amendment was "passed" in a manner that was unconstitutional, and therefore, was not passed at all. However, I still stand by the assertion that, even if it were passed legitimately, it should be overturned for the reasons I've outlined. Final thought for this round: Switzerland is the freest and most peace-loving nation in the world. It also has the most decentralized government of any First World nation. These two things go hand in hand. Ever since the U.S. became "one nation" rather than a union of states, we have been nearly constantly at war. The 14th Amendment is one of the major instruments of nationalism -- along with the 16th and 17th and the illegal Federal Reserve Act -- that has brought us to this situation. Oh, and I don't want to dodge the school segregation issue: I find racism entirely repugnant and have long been an anti-racist activist. That said, Brown v. Board was a constitutionally incorrect (even as it was "morally correct") decision. Besides: I'm against taxpayer-funded schools anyway.