Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

This is the text of the first part of the 14th Amendment, which has produced an enormous amount of litigation and interpretation.

***************

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

***************

I'm over-generalizing but the consensus view since at least the 1920's has been that most if not all of your rights guaranteed by the federal government apply to the state governments as well. A ton of argument has gone into the due process clause, the equal protection clause, and so on.

From a very different time, you can read about a case from 1876 called Cruickshank, where the Court decided that the 1st and 2nd Amendments applied only to the federal government and the State of Louisiana could pass laws that violated both if they wanted (said laws in question were designed to prevent freed slaves from assembling and from owning guns).

United States v. Cruikshank - Wikipedia

[iam416]

It's widely accepted (and correct, IMO) that the 14th "incorporated" the Bill of Rights to apply against the States. That is why, e.g., that the State of Ohio can't prohibit certain speech (Brandenburg v. Ohio) or the State of New York can't come up with some sort of wildly whimsical rule on right to carry (NY Gun case decided in June). And the 4th A. And the 5th A.

The Bill of Rights and the 14th A are limitations on government action. Both Federal and State. Obviously, the BoR and 14thA don't allocate legislaitive power. Now, the expansive reading of the Commerce clause, creation of the dormant commerce clause and coupling with necessary and proper clause massively increased Federal authority. The 14th Amendment did no such thing. I repeat....THE 14TH AMENDMENT DID NO SUCH THING.

So, Geezer's original point was on who has the authority to do certain things -- Federal or State. And specifically, he talked about picking electors and so forth and generally he talked about policy. The 14th A obviously does nothing to change the allocation of power and policy authority. Nothing. It certainly -- I mean 100% certainly does nothing to change the elections clause. If you want to change that, Geezer is completely right -- amend the fucking Constitution.

The only real debate is how broad are the unwritten words of the "substantive due process" clause and how much to do unwritten words foreclose both Federal and State policy decisions.

But as to elections and generally as to legislative policy questions, the 14th A is only a negative right. It has nothing to do with who decides.

I feel almost silly writing this because any person with a rudimentary understanding of our government knows this. My daughter could recite all this chapter and verse.

[iam416]

t covers a lot of territory and I'm no constitutional scholar but that amendmentit arguably gives the Feds the right to intervene in a states process of electing people to certain federal government offices to include congressional representatives, senators, the president and vice president.

If by "arguably" you mean a terrible fucking argument, then yes. I mean, the States can't stop, e.g., Asians from voting or women or whatever, but beyond a straight equal protection argument there ain't fucking jackshit of any jackshit basis in the 14th A for the Fed govt to have any right to intervene to tell states how set up their election laws.

[THE_WIZARD_]

I say it's time for another Civil War...

[Dr. Strangelove]

In general as only relevant to elections there's not much of a 14th Amendment case there. I was getting this confused with the abortion debate. The 10th Amendment matters when the Federal govt asserts powers - not grants new freedoms. If the Federal Govt recognizes something as a freedom, then the 14th Amendment more or less compels states to respect that. Unless the Supreme Court rules that it cannot be read into Congress' powers.

But generally speaking since the 14th Amendment was passed, DC's power grew at the expense of individual states.

[Dr. Strangelove]

If by "arguably" you mean a terrible fucking argument, then yes. I mean, the States can't stop, e.g., Asians from voting or women or whatever, but beyond a straight equal protection argument there ain't fucking jackshit of any jackshit basis in the 14th A for the Fed govt to have any right to intervene to tell states how set up their election laws.

Equal protection claims are not an insubstantial part of all this. I mean, that's probably what the majority of election complaints are. Do such complaints get abused? Yes.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I say it's time for another Civil War...

Neither side is interested in your services. Please stay home and await the outcome.

[THE_WIZARD_]

You either with me or against me...but keep this in mind...

I'm hot...and when I'm not
I'm cold as ice...get out of my way...just step aside
Or pay the price...what I want I take
What I don't I break...and I don't want you
With a flick of my knife...I can change your life
There's nothing you can do

I'm a problem child

Make my stand...no man's land...on my own
Man in blue...it's up to you...the seed is sown
What I want I stash...what I don't I smash
I gnd you're on my list...dead or alive
Got a .45...and I never miss.....

I'm a problem child

Just watch your step...every night...street light
I drink my booze...some run...some fight
I win they lose...what I need I like...what I don't I fight
and I don't like you...say bye bye...while your still alive
Your time is due...

'Cause I'm a problem child

[Dr. Strangelove]

[iam416]

But generally speaking since the 14th Amendment was passed, DC's power grew at the expense of individual states.

Well, that's coincidental. It's fairly obvious the Civil War remade the US into more of a "Federal" power country -- it certainly marked a turning point and reformulation of persons perceptions from more of a confederation to a real country. But the more massive growth obviously occured under FDR. And as a matter of Constitutional construction, it was primarily a commerce clause issue (as noted). As a matter of politics, which is what should underlie most if not all policy decisions, it was the shift from States to Federal.

As for actual voting laws -- since that's what Geezer was talking about -- it's actually the 15th A which is explicit. It's not the 14th A. And, again, that's a negative right -- it's not an allocation of power.

[THE_WIZARD_]

STFU

[Dr. Strangelove]

STFU

You talking to me, talent, God, your inner demons, or just life in general, fella?

[THE_WIZARD_]

No...pretty simple...I just hate you...no offense...

[iam416]

If the Federal Govt recognizes something as a freedom, then the 14th Amendment more or less compels states to respect that. Unless the Supreme Court rules that it cannot be read into Congress' powers.

Alright, so we're going to get this civics shit right. If the Federal Government recognizes something as a freedom the question for the Courts is whether they have the legislative authority to pass such restriction on States and that question will require, at some point, an connection to interstate commerce. The 14th Amendment doesn't just pick up rights that Congress legislates. That's not the way it works.

States can be restricted by (a) the 14th A if their actions infringe the terms of that Amendment or the BoR incorporated thereagainst the states; or (b) by an Act of Congress assuming that Congress has the authority to act.

WRT to (b), e.g., in the DOMA case there were two key points. There was an equal protection argument, but before that the Court noted that states almost exclusively determine marriage laws. So, Congress was wading into an area where they had no real authority and then were doing so in a way that targeted a class of folks.

So, with abortion, I'm a little on the fence about the authority of Congress to either (a) declare it legal or (b) declare it illegal. We're fundamentally talking about the States' police powers and those are pretty much bedrock 10th A shit. I could probably conjure up some sort of interstate commerce connection, but in my heart, I think it's a State issue. I'm not wed to it, but that's where I am. And that's where I'd be if (when) the Rs take control of Congress and try to pass some nonsense on the issue.

[Hannibal]

Not really. Let's start with this:

Although the term “America First” has been (was) resurrected in the 2016 presidential campaign, its historical origins (of the first America first political movment) have been buried under years of American politics and sketchy history. The America First movement has been described as isolationist, anti-interventionist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, and a bunch of know-nothings. That narrative fails(in retrospect failed) on several levels.

https://www.heritage.org/defense/com...first-movement

You can read about it at the link above but the "America First Movement" was born in the years leading up to America's entrance inot WWII. That characterization I quoted above was not at all consistent with the political views of it's membership. Some of it, yes, but not all. I think you would ascribe that characterization to the current Alt Right Movement whose genesis is the America First Movement of the late 30s. The term was co-opted by the Trump campaign and mimicked by his supporters. As I understand it, that name has receded in the current political circumstance.

The demographic of the current MAGA, Stop the Steal, whatever the movement's name is in the moment, less comprised of people under 39 that you speak of and is more populated by members over 45 (so I was off by 5 years). There are a lot of committed boomers in this movement (27% 60+).

https://www.heritage.org/defense/com...first-movement

Admittedly, "paranoia" was a poor choice or words to describe what's, in part, driving the political movement we we're talking about here.. There's no question about what is happening to American demographics. None. So, I agree with your perspective on this. It's happening.

The main point I wished to make in my post, however, was that the movment is filled with grass roots organizers advancing the political ambitions to fill state and local election officials postions with movement members. I consider that especially dangerous and an indicator that the movement has purchase and will have an impact on the mid-terms and the forthcoming presidential elections elections. If the movement is successful in placing members in local and state election official positions, we can expect a real challenge to the liberal-democratic principles enshrined in the US Constitution.

I assume that your second link was meant to show some sort of age distribution?

i don’t have stats but on the matter, but I see the leadership on the right as being very young leaning (see — Nick Fuentes, Vincent James, Paul Joseph Watson etc). There is a 21 year old youtuber by the name of John Doyle who has 342K subscribers (very impressive for a grassroots algorithmically throttled channel). That’s the future of MAGA, America First, the “Nazis”, or whatever you want to call it.

The Baby Boomer era intelligencia like George Will and Bill Krystol and worthless cucks like Mitt Romney and George W made not being called “racist” their only goal in life and, as a result, are now completely irrelevant and mostly hated by anyone who matters. Point being — today’s Right is not the stereotypical Angry Old White Men — it’s Angry Yoong White Men who are resentful at the previous generations for pissing away the legacy that the country’s founders left behind and are trying desperately to reclaim it. If you don’t want your grandchildren to experience the predictable consequences of “multiculturalism” and “ diversity” then you should be praying that they succeed.

Have you taken a minute to contemplate how ridiculous it is that “my country first” is a “controversial” statement?