Why is Supreme Court Justice Scalia questioning the validity of the 14th amendment?

news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/justic... Asked by rhine44 15 months ago Similar Questions: Supreme Court Justice Scalia questioning validity 14th amendment Recent Questions About: Supreme Court Justice Scalia questioning validity 14th amendment Politics & Law > Issues.

Similar Questions: Supreme Court Justice Scalia questioning validity 14th amendment Recent Questions About: Supreme Court Justice Scalia questioning validity 14th amendment.

The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure citizenship of newly freed slaves. It was never the intention to grant citizenship to babies who were born here while their parents were here illegally.

When an Amendment is no longer serving us, the best thing to do is appeal it as was done with prohibition.

I agree completely with autumnwind. This one needs to be revisited and set right.

Actually, Scalia never said women aren't protected against discrimination by the constitution. He stated that there is nothing to keep legislators to pass legislation that allows or madates discrimination against women and he is correct. The legislature can do that and after they do it will go to the USSC.

That is the process .

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Well, it appears that his comment that the 14th amendment did not specifically grant rights to females at least held a kernel of truth. Overall I find his comments as quoted to be a kind of moralizing lecture: to whit, "when they wrote the amendment they didn't write it with the intention of making women equal to men, but the legislature has the authority to do so anyway. " .

Sadly for AW and DM, that's not how it is written. Slave rights may have been the intent, but the strict letter of the law says something different. And since the conservatives tend to support laws *as they are written* as they are strict constructionists, how can we reinterpret now based on current ebbs and flows?

After all, the conservatives constantly look to the words of the founders and the raw constitution when *they* want to make *their* points. Sorry, I go by the words.

Because your question is woefully misstating the issue. He is not saying it's not an amendment. He is saying that it has been hijacked to become an excuse for anything.

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Thus, slaves are citizens BECAUSE THEY WERE BORN HERE whatever their skin color, and there fore are represented as citizens, and we may not elect those who oppose the government we elect them to.

The government owes money because of dealing with your foolishness; deal with it. There's nothing in there that says your lifestyle choice of what you do in the bedroom means anything to anyone else. That would be a separate amendment.

What it does say is that any homosexual born in the U.S. is a citizen and entitled to equal protection under the law, no less, but no more, either.

Nowadays, I just don't trust the Supreme Court to have the interest of the American people at heart. Do you? Rhine44 15 months ago .

There's still eight and a half innings to go before I'm out. Rhine44 15 months ago .

" "Justice Souter is retiring from the Supreme Court. How does this affect the balance of the Court? " "new book by supreme court justice Anthony scalea.

Justice Souter is retiring from the Supreme Court. How does this affect the balance of the Court?

New book by supreme court justice Anthony scalea.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.