HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!

Flash said:
The Constitution tells us what it says, not how it is interpreted which is how it is applied in practice. Many things in the Constitution do not include their interpretation--what free speech can be restricted, what searches constitute probable cause, what religious practices constitute freedom of religion......
Click to expand...

No court can 'interpret' or change the meaning of any phrase in the Constitution. No court has the authority to change the Constitution.

Let's examine the 1st amendment, since you are attempting to change it:

1st Amendment said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

That means what it says. Congress cannot make any law that creates or prohibits any religion. Congress cannot make any law that abridges the freedom of speech. Any kind of speech. Congress cannot make any laws to control the press. Congress cannot make any laws that keep people from coming together in support of one another. Congress cannot make any laws that prevent a protest.

The 1st amendment applies to what Congress, and only Congress cannot do. It does not apply to the States.

States can easily pass laws to create or prohibit religion. They have done so in the past and and can do so again (currently, all State constitutions do not allow this, but that may change). A State can easily pass laws that abridge the freedom of speech. States can pass laws to control the press too. They can prohibit assemblies of people. They can prohibit protests.

That said, State constitutions have somewhat similar wording in their own constitutions, placing some of these restrictions on State governments. You should check the constitution of your own State.

No court has the authority to change the 1st amendment. No court has the authority to change the meaning of what it says. No court has the authority to 'interpret' what it says. It means what it says.
 
CFM said:
Refusing to take a side like you've refused to do usually occurs because the one refusing to do so is a gutless coward.

Do you support the current interpretation or not? If you aren't willing to say, you've lost.
Click to expand...

My question was asked first. What do you believe is the original intent of the 14th?
 
Into the Night said:
No court has the authority to 'interpret', or change the meaning of any phrase, or to otherwise change the Constitution of the United States nor of any State.
Click to expand...

The court has not "changed" the meaning of any phrase until that phrase has first been interpreted by the courts. We have to have some interpretation explaining the meaning of a provision before another court changes that meaning.

In 1896 the Supreme Court said the provision saying states cannot abridge equal protection of the law did not prevent states from racial segregation. In 1954 they said racial segregation violated the equal protection clause. Both of those decisions interpreted the equal protection clause and they differed in their interpretation. Obviously, the words themselves do not provide an answer to that question.

If you think courts don't change the meaning of constitutional provisions you have ignored 200+ years of American constitutional history.
 
Into the Night said:
No court can 'interpret' or change the meaning of any phrase in the Constitution. No court has the authority to change the Constitution.

Let's examine the 1st amendment, since you are attempting to change it:



That means what it says. Congress cannot make any law that creates or prohibits any religion. Congress cannot make any law that abridges the freedom of speech. Any kind of speech. Congress cannot make any laws to control the press. Congress cannot make any laws that keep people from coming together in support of one another. Congress cannot make any laws that prevent a protest.

The 1st amendment applies to what Congress, and only Congress cannot do. It does not apply to the States.

States can easily pass laws to create or prohibit religion. They have done so in the past and and can do so again (currently, all State constitutions do not allow this, but that may change). A State can easily pass laws that abridge the freedom of speech. States can pass laws to control the press too. They can prohibit assemblies of people. They can prohibit protests.

That said, State constitutions have somewhat similar wording in their own constitutions, placing some of these restrictions on State governments. You should check the constitution of your own State.

No court has the authority to change the 1st amendment. No court has the authority to change the meaning of what it says. No court has the authority to 'interpret' what it says. It means what it says.
Click to expand...

So, in your view Congress cannot restrict threats, libel, obscenity, or require permits because that is abridging freedom of speech?

You are behind in your constitutional law. Free speech did not restrict the states until 1925 when Gitlow v. NY made it applicable.
Today, almost all of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. That means the same interpretation given free speech as it applies to Congress also applies to the states.
 
Flash said:
The court has not "changed" the meaning of any phrase until that phrase has first been interpreted by the courts.
Click to expand...
Paradox.
Flash said:
We have to have some interpretation explaining the meaning of a provision before another court changes that meaning.
Click to expand...
No court has the the authority to change the meaning of any phrase in the Constitution. No court has the authority to change or interpret the Constitution.
Flash said:
In 1896 the Supreme Court said the provision saying states cannot abridge equal protection of the law did not prevent states from racial segregation. In 1954 they said racial segregation violated the equal protection clause. Both of those decisions interpreted the equal protection clause and they differed in their interpretation. Obviously, the words themselves do not provide an answer to that question.
Click to expand...
No court has the authority to change the Constitution. Segregation laws, including quote laws, are unconstitutional.
Flash said:
If you think courts don't change the meaning of constitutional provisions you have ignored 200+ years of American constitutional history.
Click to expand...
No court has the authority to change the Constitution of the United States. There is no such thing as 'constitutional history'.
 
Flash said:
So, in your view Congress cannot restrict threats, libel, obscenity, or require permits because that is abridging freedom of speech?
Click to expand...
That is what the 1st amendment says.
Flash said:
You are behind in your constitutional law.
Click to expand...
The Constitution is constitutional law. There is no other.
Flash said:
Free speech did not restrict the states until 1925 when Gitlow v. NY made it applicable.
Click to expand...
The States are exempt from the 1st amendment. No court is authorized to change the Constitution of the United States or of any State.
Flash said:
Today, almost all of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states.
Click to expand...
Much of the Bill of Rights already applied to the States. The 1st amendment doesn't. The 9th amendment doesn't.
Flash said:
That means the same interpretation given free speech as it applies to Congress also applies to the states.
Click to expand...
No court has the authority to change the Constitution of the United States.
 
Into the Night said:
No court has the authority to change the Constitution. Segregation laws, including quote laws, are unconstitutional.

No court has the authority to change the Constitution of the United States. There is no such thing as 'constitutional history'.
Click to expand...

You contradict yourself. Segregation laws are unconstitutional because the SC interpreted the equal protection clause to make them unconstitutional. Previously, they interpreted that same provision to make (state) segregation laws constitutional.

If segregation laws are unconstitutional, who makes that interpretation?

No such thing as constitutional history? (just a few examples).

American Constitutional History: A Brief Introduction by Jack Fruchtman

Sources in American Constitutional History by Benedict

The Contract Clause: A Constitutional History by James W. Jr. Ely

A Constitutional History of Habeas Corpus by William F Duker

A Constitutional History of the United States by Andrew C. McLaughlin
 
Into the Night said:
It's obvious he doesn't. Dictionaries, however, don't define words. They are used to standardize spelling and pronunciation of words. The 'definitions' in a dictionary are simply suggested uses of a word. No dictionary owns any word.

The federal government has defined the use of 'shall' and 'should' for any laws it creates. For the Constitution, the States defined those words. They use the same definitions (it's where the federal government got them from).

It is people that define words, not dictionaries.
Click to expand...

Totally wrong but do keep sucking Flash's dick, faggot.
 
Flash said:
My question was asked first. What do you believe is the original intent of the 14th?
Click to expand...

And it was answered.

Now, get to answering mine or prove yourself to be a coward unwilling to take a stance and do nothing but run his dick sucker like the rest of his kind on this forum.
 
CFM said:
And it was answered.

Now, get to answering mine or prove yourself to be a coward unwilling to take a stance and do nothing but run his dick sucker like the rest of his kind on this forum.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't remember. Which post number?
 
CFM said:
Too fucking lazy to look, huh? It's been answered. Your refusal to look proves you know it has. You making excuses proves you don't have the guts to answer mine.
Click to expand...

Sorry, what do I search for? You have written many posts about the 14th.

It would only take a short sentence to summarize your view of the original intent of the 14th Amendment. You could have written that sentence in less time than you spent complaining that I won't look it up. You seem too afraid or lazy to give us a concise description of your views.
 
Flash said:
Sorry, what do I search for? You have written many posts about the 14th.

It would only take a short sentence to summarize your view of the original intent of the 14th Amendment. You could have written that sentence in less time than you spent complaining that I won't look it up. You seem too afraid or lazy to give us a concise description of your views.
Click to expand...

The one where the question was answered.

The sentence with the answer is short. You could have looked it up in a shorter time than it took to ask the same question that has already been answered. Since it's already been answered, your claim of fear is been determined to be untrue. Since it's been answered and you refuse to look, it proves you're lazy.
 
Flash said:
You contradict yourself. Segregation laws are unconstitutional because the SC interpreted the equal protection clause to make them unconstitutional. Previously, they interpreted that same provision to make (state) segregation laws constitutional.

If segregation laws are unconstitutional, who makes that interpretation?

No such thing as constitutional history? (just a few examples).

American Constitutional History: A Brief Introduction by Jack Fruchtman

Sources in American Constitutional History by Benedict

The Contract Clause: A Constitutional History by James W. Jr. Ely

A Constitutional History of Habeas Corpus by William F Duker

A Constitutional History of the United States by Andrew C. McLaughlin
Click to expand...

I do not contradict myself at all.
No court hat the authority to change the Constitution.
 
Flash said:
Sorry, what do I search for? You have written many posts about the 14th.

It would only take a short sentence to summarize your view of the original intent of the 14th Amendment. You could have written that sentence in less time than you spent complaining that I won't look it up. You seem too afraid or lazy to give us a concise description of your views.
Click to expand...

Why are you fixated on the 'original' intent of the 14th amendment?? The amendment is clearly written. It's meaning has not changed.
 
Into the Night said:
They never were constitutional once the 14th amendment was ratified.
Click to expand...

What did the Supreme Court rule in Plessy v. Ferguson?

Since many states had segregation laws for many years, are you claiming those laws were unconstitutional? If so, are you saying there are no checks in the Constitution to prevent states from acting unconstitutionally?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top