chop2chip
Well-known member
Fortunate for MAGA the Constitution allows for Congress to pass new laws. Given the existential threat and the majority in both chambers, it should be quite an easy problem to solve.
Second ('Third') Trump Presidency Thread
- Thread starter thethe
- Start date
Why should we have to when the due process you hold dear to wasn’t meant to be for illegals flooding the country due to a political party that hates the country.
You can continue to pretend it didn’t specifically have to do with slaves.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I think the case is about due process. The fifth amendment is the relevant one when it comes to infringement of due process by the federal government: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
The 14th is relevant when it comes to state government: "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
The bill of rights was principally intended to refer to US citizens - Only some interpretations have extended it to be further.
The 14th amendment therefore was specifically crafted to ensure that freed slaves weren't excluded from key protections until citizenship could be obtained.
If the due process provisions in the 5th were strong enough and intended for non-citizens then the strengthening in the 14th would have not been necessary because it wouldn't have fallen under the states rights argument.
Last edited:
I’m not a constitutional law scholar but I’d think even if the 14th Amendment was explicitly understood to provide 5th Amendment protections to ex-slaves, it’s less so because the 5th Amendment wasn’t ever meant to extend to non-citizens, but because slavery was previously enshrined in the constitution, so steps were required to ensure freed slaves were considered citizens instead of unclaimed property.
It was a states rights issue as so many things since the beginning of the union. Since the slaves were not citizens at that point it had to be reaffirmed that they were also given due process rights since the bill of rights was primarily a document that enshrined rights for US citizens.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Both the 5th and 14th amendments are written to apply to persons not citizens. Other parts of the constitution make the distinction. For example: "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States...". Another example: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote... shall not be denied... by reason of failure to pay poll tax..."
The authors of the constitution wrote some parts of it to apply to all persons and some parts to citizens.
Anyhow, I'm not a lawyer and will defer to the Supreme Court on this. They have taken up the issue.
If the due process provisions of the 5th amendment applied to all then what was the point of adding the states section of it to the 14th?
Why not have another amendment ensuring that the states could not deprive people of their right to religion?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Cuz during the course of slavery and the Civil War it because clear that the states were capable of such abuses. If the Civil War had been about religion then the post-war amendments would probably have taken that up. But that's not what it was about.
But slavery and the civil war were over. Therefore, the 5th amendment should have applied.
But of course it didn't becuase it was always intended for US citizens and that is how the majority of people interpret the bill of rights. The freed slaves needed to be protected against abuses that weren't covered since they were not yet citizens or had substantial documentation to prove their citizenship.
Well, if you’ve won over Ann Coulter I guess that’s checkmate.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
And the lemmings nod their head as the cliff draws nearer.