View Poll Results: Should the 14th Amendment be changed or repealed

Voters
61. You may not vote on this poll
  • No, the 14th amendment should not be touched

    34 55.74%
  • Yes, it should be changed to only give citizenship if the mother is legally in the U.S.

    4 6.56%
  • Yes, it should be changed to only give citizenship if one parent is a U.S. citizen

    15 24.59%
  • Yes, it should be completely repealed

    3 4.92%
  • Other, please explain in the thread

    5 8.20%
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 72

Thread: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

  1. #31
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    Claiming to be the father and actually being the father are two separate things. If the individual whose name on the birth certificate is not genetically related or has not adopted the child then he is not the child's father.
    When it comes to child support, genetic relation doesn't matter. Whoever is on the birth certificate as that child's father has to pay that kid until s/he's 18. Regardless of what a DNA test may prove.

  2. #32
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,973

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    Oh upside guy, I hate to shatter your fragile little world view, but not all people in a group think alike. More than that, you may want to check what your stereotypes are because even those are horribly questionable.

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Wow! I thought conservatives were strict constitutionalists.
    Indeed, many are.

    What you seem to fail to understand is that strict constitutionalists, or more strict constructionists, does not necessarily mean that you believe everything and anything in the constitution is perfect or unneeding of change. That is ridiculous to suggest, as the constitution itself within it HAS a decided example of it BEING changed. To suggest that strict cosntitutionalist means what you are suggesting, that a conservative must agree with EVERYTHING in the constitution at all times forever and ever, then one must believe essentially that we are living in a Pardox as conservatives must believe that something which in and of itself over turns itself (with regards to prohibition) is never needing of over turning while simultaneously must be in favor of amendments overturning things if they're to be in favor of the constitution.

    Your position makes no logical sense.

    What is MORE logical is the belief that the Constitution is a solid document that is not easily transmutable. That there aren't secret rights hidden within it unseen, or that it should be combined with European law to form new opinions of what it means. That, while it is possible for portions of the constitution to potentially be outdated or unneeded, if something is truly worthy of being added or removed there is a process to do it. A process which is difficult to match the difficulty of doing the opposite action, to assure that things are done due to true need rather than simply political positioning or temporary political fads.

    Which is what is being talked about here, FOLLOWING the constitution to amend it, which the constitution accounts to allow.

    It seems that many believe that the constitution, as written, is almost divinely inspired, if not written by God himself.
    Yes, many people find the constitution extremely inspired...be it divinely or by extremely enlightened and intelligent/wise individuals whose forethought was rooted in the desire for the longevity of the country they were creating rather than instant gratification that often came later.

    This does not mean that there can not be portions of the constitution that over time need to be changed. Indeed, if one is truly going to be respectful of the insight that the founders placed within the Constitution, one must recognize that they themselves realized that errors could be potential made or things could change and thus built into the constitution a way in which to rectify those things. As already stated, you seem to believe that conservatives MUST think the constitution is infallable, which is illogical to suggest because it would in and of itself create a parodox as there is a clear and present situation similar to this already IN the constitution where a decision was essentially deemed a mistake and the public outcry to rectify it was strong enough.

    It seems every time we have a new nominee to the SCOTUS, we have to deal with whether the nominee is a strict Constitutionalist or an activist.
    Perhaps then you should actually pay attention to those discussions as you are severely lacking knowledge of what a Strict Constructionist is.

    We consistently hear about the damn liberals that advocate a contemporary review/interpretation of our founder's intent as blasphemous as re-writting the Bible
    Yes, but you seem to be either unknowing of the actual full argument or just dishonestly leaving it out. They dislike contemporary review/interpretation being done by members of the court who simply think, THEMSELVES, that an aspect of the constitution is wrong or outdated and thus based on things OTHER than the constitution such as their own beliefs, international law, and other such things they decide to alter, ignore, or change what the constitution essentially says or exist things that it supposedly "Says" out of thin air.

    Indeed, the notion of "strict-constructionist" and "Activist" is rather pointless to this discussion, as they're talking about the role of JUDGES with regards to the constitution. Namely, rather the judge should read the constitution plainly and staticly, not changing what things mean to suit the "times" and whatever the public currently feels, and judge based on that or that a judge should use the constitution as a malleable base line that can be manipulated and re-interprited to fit the current societal norms and desires allowing for the creation of unspoken rights or the obsoletion/limitation of stated ones.

    In this case we are speaking about there IS no issue of judges determining the constitution or constitutionality. Rather its people wanting to FOLLOW the constitution and its process to properly amend it as is dictated BY the cosntitution.

    (bad example, some conservative goof is already on this Conservative Bible Project - Conservapedia).

    Awww, how cute. You link to an idiotic site that's open to be edited by numerous people who had numerous previous editors come out and state htey were liberals who were purposefully putting forth parodies, and is barely known let alone referenced by the vast majority of conservatives in the U.S.

    Anyway, the strict constitutionalists generally believe the Constitution is beyond reproach*.
    No, they believe the constitution is a static document that can not have the meaning of its words change over time simply due to changing societal views by anything less than constitutional amendment.

    For example, if "hate speech" became such a heated issue in our society that laws were passed banning any form of such speech from occuring and that law was challenged a strict constructionist would likely strike it down because even though society has changed in such a way that it seems a societal norm to denegrate and disallow such speech as being "harmful to society" or "infringing upon their rights", in reality it can affect directly nothing but ones feelings which isn't cause for actual harm and simply because a bunch of people in society dislike it doesn't mean the meaning of free speech can be changed or limited.

    However....

    If people got together and managed to push for an amendment that disallowed "hate speech" then, while they may or may not support the amendment happening, they could not legitimately argue it as an activist creation as they are following the constitutional means and process for how to do such a thing.

    BTW - nothing is a bigger waste of time, expense and energy than amending the Constitution (even talking about it is silly). We couldn't get the ERA done in the 70's in a much more co-operative political environment. If you don't like the Constitution says, I suggest you just deal with it.
    Let me use your reasoning.

    Why do you hate the constitution, since you are condemning those that seek to follow the procedures it lays out?

  3. #33
    Devourer of Poor Children
    DrunkenAsparagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC
    Last Seen
    01-20-16 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,496

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    How is it "punishing" the child any more than denying citizenship to children born in other countries? Children have no more choice in where they are born than in whom they are born to, and being a citizen of another country is hardly a punishment.
    Come on Korimyr, their parents left their country for a reason.
    "Doubleplusungood"

    George Orwell

  4. #34
    long standing member
    justabubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,145

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    Simple enough. Children born with one parent who is a US citizen are automatically US citizens. Otherwise, they must undergo the naturalization process.
    ok, so if i claim to be the father of every baby born to an illegal alien mother, then that assertion makes each of those babies an American citizen under your protocol
    we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it
    once you're over the hill you begin to pick up speed

  5. #35
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    amended how?
    as it stands, those who were born on American soil are American citizens with the only exception being those who are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. that would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example; the child of an enemy soldier would be another (and more far fetched)

    that definition of citizenship at section one of the 14th amendment appears to be clear cut. what would be a better way to define who does (and/or does not) enjoy American citizenship?
    Why not an enemy soldier? Isn't he/she as much under the jurisdiction of the US as an illegal alien? If not, why not?
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  6. #36
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    Quote Originally Posted by justabubba View Post
    ok, so if i claim to be the father of every baby born to an illegal alien mother, then that assertion makes each of those babies an American citizen under your protocol
    Why not?.... just put your name on the birth certificates and be prepared to support the kids and you are good to go.

    I can just see you paying out $364,926,748 a month, or going to jail for lack of child support.
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    If your senate is about to modify the federal constitution, I hope EVERYONE is paying VERY close attention to what they're doing every step of the way.

    I personally would be worried given how apathetic most people are today toward their own country's politics, and how statist the fed is becoming.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Apparently, the Senate will soon have hearings regarding the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution. It was passed in the wake of the United States Civil War to ensure that all Blacks whose forced servitude was ended in the 1860s. Given that the world is different today and the challenges facing the Union have changed, should the amendment be changed, repealed, or left untouched?
    I thought the fringe-right wanted to prove they're NOT racist.

    Good start...

  9. #39
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    I'm against it unless someone can demonstrate what a child born here to parents that are legal residents has done his/herself to earn his/her citizenship that a child born her to parents that are illegal residents has not done.

    As far as I can tell, the only arguments in favor of these types of amendments are irrational gibberish.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  10. #40
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,144

    Re: Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

    Its funny how the right-wingers try to argue that Obama is trying to destroy our Constitution....when in reality, it is the right-wing that has sought to destroy our Constitution for decades. At least now...with this issue and gay rights issues they are not even trying to be discreet about it.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •