- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2024 02:09
|
|
- atriptothebeach
- Oct 27, 2020
-
|
What exactly is the point of the 14th ammendent if it can't used? It just seems like laws really don't mean anything.
Some of them realllllllllly hate the 14th and wish it cant be used, ever
The 14'th amendment provides for equality in the eyes of the law and extends due process requirements for the protections of civil rights to the states. Both of these focuses are counter to the racist mindset enshrined in the Republican party,
"For some Republicans, the 14th Amendment was viewed as being only intended to help those who had been directly enslaved, and not applicable to future generations. This view has become common in right-wing media, and sorry as that sounds, it’s not even the most radical view.
"The even uglier approach has been to outright challenge the validity of 14th Amendment because members of Confederate states were not seated in Congress when the amendment was proposed just after the end of the Civil War. Because of this, say the deniers, the Congress itself was illegitimate, and so anything it recommended—including the 14th and 15th Amendments—are illegitimate."
In its inaugural publication in 1985, the Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan wrote in an article decrying school desegregation that "the Fourteenth Amendment was never legally ratified but pronounced 'law' by the 'Radical Reconstruction' Congress in July 1868."
quote:
The decision of Scott v. Sandford, considered by many legal scholars to be the worst ever rendered by the Supreme Court, was overturned by the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and declared all persons born in the United States to be citizens of the United States.
-
The Supreme Court's opinion in the Brown v. Board of Education case of 1954 legally ended decades of racial segregation in America's public schools. Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the unanimous ruling in the landmark civil rights case. State-sanctioned segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous 1954 decision in Brown was monumental in several respects. It struck down the doctrine of separate but equal and began rolling back the sprawling policy of racial segregation in schools and public accommodations. It infused real meaning into the Constitution’s core value of “equal protection of the laws.” And it undergirded constitutional milestones of the 20th century, including the 1967 decision of Loving v. Virginia, which overturned bans on interracial marriage, the 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the criminalization of LGBTQ persons, and the 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized marriage equality and drew upon Loving and Lawrence.
However, dozens of recent conservative judicial appointments have departed from this mainstream consensus and rejected answering that Brown was correctly decided.
quote:
In 1967, in Loving v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down miscegenation statutes, which criminalized interracial marriage, as unconstitutional.
While Loving was a unanimous decision, the Court in United States v. Windsor, recognizing marriages between same-sex couples, was closely divided. Almost half a century after Chief Justice Warren issued his unanimous Loving opinion, the Loving dissent has been written. Justice Alito authored it in Windsor.
Justice Alito, who joined a group devoted to keeping women and people of color out of Princeton, fashioned his dissent as upholding the Defense of Marriage Act, but the rationales he employed were much more suited to the facts of Loving than the facts of Windsor.
There is simply no internally consistent way to defend Justice Alito's arguments while also upholding the unconstitutionality of miscegenation laws. Justice Alito not only authored a dissent for the Windsor case; he wrote a dissent in Loving nearly 50 years after the case was decided. His reasoning would require the upholding of Virginia's miscegenation statute.
alito's quotes posted:
[On whether children born within the US from parents present in the territory unlawfully are automatic citizens by virtue of the 14th:]
"Recent scholarship has demonstrated that this is an open question."
---
The Court’s conception of the 14th amendment, I said in this opinion and I believe to be true, is a very postmodern idea; it’s the freedom to define your understanding of the meaning of life. Your—it’s the right to self-expression. So if all of this is on the table now, where are the legal limits on it?
If a libertarian is appointed to the Supreme Court, is it then proper for the libertarian to say, “Well, I think that there is a right to work less than the minimum wage? I think there is a right to work as many hours as I want without being limited by the government. I think I have the right to build whatever I want on my property irrespective the zoning laws and so forth.”
If a socialist is appointed to the Supreme Court, can the socialist say, “I think that liberty and the 14th Amendment means that everyone should have a guaranteed annual income or that all education through college should be absolutely free,” or whatever. There’s no limit.
Thomas posted:
Justice Clarence Thomas made a surprising proclamation: A celebrated ruling against school segregation — which, along with Brown v. Board of Education, abolished the doctrine of “separate but equal” — was wrongly decided. That decision, 1954’s Bolling v. Sharpe, compelled the federal government to abide by equal protection principles. It forms the basis of countless landmark civil rights decisions over the last 70 years.
Thomas also used the moment of overruling Roe v. Wade to urge the court to go further and jettison the entire line of privacy precedents that shield access to contraception, private sexual conduct and same-sex marriage.
Thomas called for the court to abandon its reliance on what’s known as “substantive due process.” This is the notion that the 14th Amendment guarantee against depriving individuals of liberty without due process of law encompasses a right to privacy, among other protections.
“Substantive due process has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.” - Justice Clarence Thomas
Roberts posted:
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of the crowning achievement of the civil-rights era in prohibiting discrimination. Designed to enforce the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, the Act sought to secure the right to vote for racial minorities, especially in the South.
The U.S. Department of Justice considers the Act to be the most effective piece of federal civil rights legislation ever enacted in the country; it has been a target for dismantling for decades by racists.
Chief Justice Roberts, appointed in 2005 by President George W. Bush, has long argued that the various government efforts to address historic racial discrimination are a problem.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” Roberts famously wrote in a 2007 ruling in which the court struck down a Seattle program aimed at desegregating schools. He expressed a similar sentiment in a 2006 redistricting case in which he disagreed with the court’s finding that Texas had unlawfully diluted the Latino vote in drawing electoral districts.
As chief justice, Roberts was in the majority on both occasions when the court in previous cases weakened the Voting Rights Act, enacted in 1965 to protect minority voters.
As a lawyer in the Reagan administration, he unsuccessfully advocated against legislation enabling race discrimination claims brought under the Voting Rights Act. It “should not be made easy to prove” that a state had violated the rights of its citizens, Roberts wrote.
In Shelby County v. Holder, Roberts’s majority opinion essentially killed Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the highly successful rule under which jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting had to get permission from the Justice Department or a federal court before making changes in voting procedures. The South had done so well in correcting the sins of its past, Roberts wrote, that the law as applied could no longer be justified.
The impact of the Shelby County decision was stunning. Within hours, Greg Abbott, then the attorney general of Texas and now the state’s governor, announced that a stringent voter-ID law that had been blocked under Section 5 the previous summer would go into effect “immediately.” That was just the beginning. States across the South and the Southwest have been quick to exploit their new freedom from the federal scrutiny that once would have deterred changes in voting hours, ID requirements, and other seemingly neutral moves with disproportionate effects on minority voters.
Justice Amy Courtney Barrett's words posted:
Congress has to decide whether to rely on the power conferred by the possibly illegitimate Fourteenth Amendment...
---
An originalist legislator might have to face questions, such as the legitimacy of the Fourteenth Amendment...
atriptothebeach fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Mar 7, 2024
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2024 13:45
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2022 18:43
