Is the 14th Amendment valid?

[hjon71]

http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html

I think not.

[Kathyp]

I'm not sure it matters now.  Even if you did away with it, the unintended reading of the 14th would stand. certainly the intended results would also.    if it were put back up for a vote, it would be rewritten to fit the new interpretations which were clearly not the intent when it was written.  either way, the result is the same.

there was nothing wrong with the amendment as intended.  not surprising that there were states that didn't like the idea.  not surprising that there might have been shenanigans to get it passed.  that never changes.  look at Harrys senate.. 

[hjon71]

I'm going to wait and see if this gets any more comments.

[Michael Bush]

I'm not sure I follow.  The principle tenants of the 14th amendment are:

>State and federal citizenship for all persons regardless of race both born or naturalized in the United States was reaffirmed.

This was simple a reaffirmation of something that was already stated.

>No state would be allowed to abridge the "privileges and immunities" of citizens.

This was simple a reaffirmation of something that was already stated.

>No person was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty,or property without "due process of law."

Already covered in the 4th and 5th amendments.

>No person could be denied "equal protection of the laws."

I'm certain every sane person believes that congress should not be able to pass laws that apply only to a certain subset of people.  It is the basis for the "rule of law" and certainly did not originate with the 14th amendment:

"Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition."--Pericles of Athens, 431 B.C.

And many other quotes from our country:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal

"Equality before the law" is the motto of the State of Nebraska

We live in a country that was founded by the Declaration of Independence and starts:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

How can we not believe in equal protection under the law?

If we didn't have the 14th Amendment, we would have to pass it again...

[Eric Bosworth]

>How can we not believe in equal protection under the law?

Good question... But the IRS seems to be above it...

[hjon71]

I forgot to check back on this.

My point which everyone seems to recognize is the 14th does nothing BUT make us citizens of the federal government and usurps state citizenship. It isn't needed and by doing away with it we could negate ruling based on it like Corporations are people.

[Michael Bush]

>...by doing away with it we could negate ruling based on it like Corporations are people.

I don't follow how.  Anyway, what we really need is to readdress that "precedent" since the concept was actually written in the headnote by the court reporter for "Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad ? 118 U.S. 394 (1886)" and not by the justices and it does not appear anywhere in their written decision.  The 14th amendment didn't establish that corporations were "persons", a court reporter did--even if he quoted the 14th Amendment to make his point.  That is not in the 14th amendment.

[hjon71]

Good clarification. Just one of many examples of over-reach.

[Kathyp]

My point which everyone seems to recognize is the 14th does nothing BUT make us citizens of the federal government and usurps state citizenship. It isn't needed and by doing away with it we could negate ruling based on it like Corporations are people.

to the more recent rulings that gave corporations the ability to act as...people, when it came to political participation I have a different take on this than many of my conservative AND liberal friends.

CW has it that corporations are now able to influence unduly the election process and thus buy favor. 

corporations are already getting into bed with the government and the primary reason is regulations.  beyond labor costs,  businesses spend the most time and money on compliance.  any time they can influence government to reduce that burden, they will do so.  because they are impacted by the decisions made by government, they should have a right to participate in elections.  better that they do it openly in the election process than with back door deals. 
the simple solution to crony capitalism, and to business participation in elections, is to reduce the regulation burden.  no reason for government and business to be in the same bed then.

[Michael Bush]

We probably do need to define what rights a corporation has.  For instance can the government take their money without due process?  Can the government treat one corporation differently than another corporation.  I think that was the intent of the idea of applying "equal protection" to a corporation and I'm not entirely against it.  In order to make good decisions a corporation needs to know that the rules will be equally applied and not arbitrarily administered.  Of course they are arbitrarily administered, but at least they have the recourse to challenge them.

On the other hand, corporations seem to have it "both ways".  They are not held accountable as "persons" they are just granted rights as "persons".