14th Amendment

"In a previous debate, you said that the 14th Amendment is part of the collapse of this country." Yes, and I will explain why this is my opinion herein. Now let us examine each of your contentions about the 14th Amendment: 1. "[It] assured everyone born in the U.S. is a citizen" Prior to the 14th Amendment, individuals were citizens of their States, and not of "the United States," of which there was no such thing. The Originalist republican model was a voluntary union of sovereign states, in which the limited central (federal) government was given very few and specific powers. The 14th Amendment is "part of the collapse of this country" because it aggrandized the central government at the expense of state sovereignty, concentrating power, and leading to greater tyranny. Let us take the issue of immigration and naturalization, since that is the matter at hand. I am pro-immigrant and wish to welcome all peaceful laborers and entrepreneurs into my state, but there are various anti-capitalists and xeonphobic populists who wish to deny these heroic individuals entry. As part of the 14th Amendment's nationalism, we are left with a single, one-size-fits-all solution, rather than each individual state making its own rules for citizenship, etc. The central (federal) government was intended to be an umbrella organization composed of STATES, not of people, and thus, it is contrary to the Original Intent for their to be any such thing as "citizens of the United States." 2. "[The 14th Amendment] reversed the Dred Scott decision" Dred Scott was an example of gross judicial activism and the folly of the notion that the Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of what's constitutional. This is entirely contrary to the Original Intent, and through it, we can see the wisdom of nullification as advocated by Thomas Jefferson and (the flawed, but right in this case) Andrew Jackson. The problem is that the 14th Amendment has been interpreted by that monopolistic judicial body, the Supreme Court, as an even greater extension of their power. And thus, there have been more instances of such activism, as heinous or nearly so as Dred Scott, in the 14th Amendment's wake. This has to do with the "Incorporation Doctrine," which I will cover in Point #4. 3. "it removed the 3/5ths rule for blacks" The 3/5 rule "for blacks" is widely misunderstood. Firstly, it wasn't "for blacks" but for slaves, so once blacks were no longer slaves, it no longer held. But you see, given slavery, blacks should have been viewed as 0/5 persons, and would have been better off had they been considered such. After all, their being counted as 3/5 persons was solely for congressional representation: This meant that slave states got extra representatives in Congress based on the number of slaves in those states! How cruel indeed to give a slave 3/5 representation in the person of a man who would continue to vote for the slave's bondage! If slaves had been viewed as 5/5 people, then slavery would have been even stronger. It made no sense to count slaves as even 1/100 persons so long as they were not allowed to vote. Furthermore, the 14th Amendment was not needed to repeal this clause, because here is what the clause originally said: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." -- Former slaves would now be "free persons" and not "all other persons" (i.e. non-"free persons," i.e. "slaves" -- a word the framers vigorously avoided using). So in summary, the idea that the 14th Amendment somehow did away with the 3/5 clause is false -- the 13th Amendment did that. 4. "it applied the Bill of Rights to the states" Yes, here we have the insidious "Incorporation Doctrine," in which the 14th Amendment is ridiculously interpreted to extend the Bill of Rights, which originally underscored the limited powers of the federal government, to the states. Thus, instead of being the umbrella organization of the states for mutual defense and management of trade, the federal government became the "defender" of individual "rights" against the states -- a task for which it is not fit, as history and the present (see the Patriot Act) shows. First, by playing this card, you're admitting the Original nature of the Bill of Rights, and of the Union. As an anarcho-capitalist libertarian, I believe that ALL RIGHTS are inherent in individuals, and no government at any level has the right to abrogate any of my rights or yours. However, in making the federal government the supposed defender of individual liberty, the 14th Amendment reduced state sovereignty. This is a concentration of power that always leads to greater tyranny and less freedom. Under an Originalist Union, if Michigan became tyrannical, I could move to Ohio. But under George Bush's Imperial State, there's nowhere for me to go when the Patriot Act is passed. So in summary of my points, I oppose the 14th Amendment because it was and is an instrument of nationalism, and I think history has shown that the federal government cannot be trusted with the power it has been given. We've had drafts, internments, sedition acts, etc. Our country is torn in two over judicial activism like Roe v. Wade, which would be better handled at the state level, so that some states may allow for abortion and others not -- and the 14th Amendment is the culprit here, too. We turn to the Supreme Court to settle disputes over the use of religious symbols in village parades, when these problems could and should be handled locally. The 14th Amendment is a tyrannical piece of work that, contrary to the light in which you cast it, has done more to undermine freedom than it has to protect it. But here's the clincher: THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS NEVER EVEN RATIFIED. You see, following the Civil War, the southern states were readmitted to the Union and played a part in passing the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery. But then, when they balked at the passage of the 14th, the South was denied equal representation in the Senate -- which is unconstitutional. It was under this rump Congress that the 14th Amendment was passed and then sent to the states to be ratified. The Southern states were told they'd continue to be denied representation in the Senate unless they did pass it, and they'd continue to be occupied by Northern states -- so they finally relented, literally with guns to their heads. But guess what?: Upon seeing this, the state legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey REVOKED their votes in favor of the 14th Amendment, thereby denying the amendment the necessary votes to pass. So here is what the rump Congress did: They passed a resolution saying the amendment had been passed, and also a law saying that the Supreme Court COULD NEVER REVIEW the constitutionality of its passage. Why would they do this if the amendment had in fact been passed constitutionally? So, even if you think the 14th Amendment is a good thing, it was passed in an unacceptable manner, that has set the precedent for further roguish acts by the federal government. How can you expect this entity to defend your rights?