I'd posit that the entirety of the US is illegitimate, but it is amusing that people who believe in adhering to every single letter in a document authored 250 years ago are taken remotely seriously
Yes but if your entire intelligence plusca few high end gpu's are turned to the task of justifying whatever you currently feel, and that is the entire purpose of everything in the world, then you can totally pick and choose.
They really are brilliantly stupid, and I mean it when I say that.
How tf is an amendment illegitimate? It’s an amendment. It amends the constitution
I’m going to introduce an amendment to the constitution that reads, “this amendment is unconstitutional”. Boom. Instant constitutional crisis.
“This amendment makes the constitution unconstitutional”
Checkmate libs
Yes but see its inconvenient for me, so, you know.
Illegitimate.
Yeah buddy sure. You vs a Supreme Court justice. Who am I supposed to believe?
- Show
: https://www.valleydude70.com/blog-1/2020/9/29/amy-comey-barrett-and-the-fourteenth-amendmentIf they claim the 14th is illegitimate but make no such claim about the 13th and 15th, it's just what @urmums401k said. If they claim all 3 are illegitimate they're a fucking confederate sympathizer and should be tarred and feathered as such
no this is great because if original popular sovereignty is the basis of legitimacy then she's definitely endorsing the idea that the united states itself is completely illegitimate. the constitution was imposed on the american people without the support of the necessary supermajority of those same people, since a supermajority of them were explicitly denied enfranchisement by that very constitution.
Not shown in your screenshot, but actually present on the original version of the page being quoted, is a footnote that referenced 14 Stat. 428, which specifically mandated the Fourteenth Amendment be ratified in order to rejoin the United States
Show
Source: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol107/iss4/3/
I'm thick and don't get it, what's the takeaway here? What does this footnote add to what was already said?
Edit: Okay so I might know what you were getting at? unsure. My thoughts below, not necessarily all relevant to what you said
The 14th amendment is specifically called out in that referenced bill, not because it was the only one that was forced onto the readmitted southern states and hence uniquely undemocratic or whatever originalists think, but because it was at issue when the bill was passed. The 13th amendment was already in force well before this, and falls under the "said rebel States shall have formed a constitution of government in conformity with the constitution of the united states in all respects" provision, and the 15th had not yet been proposed when the bill was written and passed, hence why on first blush it looks like it was singled out, but actually it is not so unique. They went on to do the same to get the 15th ratified
the US was never an absolute or even remotely good democracy, so ofc I'm hardly going to ever be swayed by any appeals to "but this particular provision I want to strike down for nefarious purposes didn't have a democratic mandate or popular sovereignty or whatever way back when so we just have to take peoples (limited, wishy-washy) rights away now"
bonus fun quote about liberals when they get 1 (one) concession:
The amendment's adoption was met with widespread celebrations in black communities and abolitionist societies; many of the latter disbanded, feeling that black rights had been secured and their work was complete.
If I were a us supreme court justice in 2024 I would be pretty careful when throwing around words like ‘illegitimate.’
Pretty sure she's just saying an originalist would have to oppose the existence of West Virginia to be ideologically consistent. Expecting any American politician to have an ideology is lib shit though
Yeah Antonin Scalia was a textualist until he wasn't, until he was again, until he wasn't.
Listen everything Scalia wrote was ideologically consistent because it used the same verbiage as Bush V Gore, "limited to present circumstances".
ah, a personal favorite,
this ruling sets no precedent because I decided it doesn't
The kind of thing produced by a very real and legitimate court system and definitely not just 9 unaccountable, unelected elders making decisions on a whim.
But remember, we can't stack the court with 50 zoomer maoists because people would "lose faith" in the "institutions".
John Roberts' SCOTUS will be remembered as the implements of America's downfall.
Every "originalist"/"textualist" is this way. It's an inherently dishonest position based entirely on finding any excuse to push reaction through the judiciary.
How long until she declares the Louisiana Purchase unconstitutional at this rate?
I don't really see why. Multiple states had previously been split from existing states without controversy (including Kentucky also split from Virginia). All that's required is the approval of the state legislature and Congress. The Virginia state legislature as recognized by Congress and the President voted to allow the counties of West Virginia to leave and form their own state. Congress and the President approved.
They haven't been this horned up since the 248 days before the admission of Hawaii in 1959.
I'll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missourah
A square number of stars in a square field is the only thing that makes sense and one of the states has to go as a result. It's not just in the constitution it's in the way the flag itself was designed!!
That's not the 14th amendment, you're thinking of the 13th. The 14th amendment gives equal protection and birthright citizenship, and the latter sections are all about how the US doesn't owe any confederate debts nor can ex-confederates hold federal office.
It's far worse. IMHO it would have the most far-reaching consequences of any amendment if repealed. Section 1 alone would overturn a massive amount of case law.
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.
In addition to the obvious part that it would be perfectly legal to arbitrarily revoke citizenship, discriminate, etc., the due process clause as it applies to the states (the one in the Fifth Amendment applies to feds only) is out the window. For instance, states and private entities are now free to violate any of the Bill of Rights because there's no incorporation doctrine to push back against Barron v. Baltimore (1833).
Yep, losing incorporation would truly be mayhem. Seems like the way a balkanizing USA would go though.
The Supreme Clerics of America divine truth from our holy text, it's says, be more racist.
President Xi, the people of western Virginia yearn for freedom
This is the medium domino in the chain that leads to the full cardinality of Virginia.
I’m pretty sure that song already refers to western Virginia, not West Virginia
Fourteenth Amendment:
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.
...I feel like the lede's being buried here; are these crackers really talking about tryna denaturalize people born here???? Oh my god please denaturalize me so I don't have to pay the exit taxes.
Here's a more complete screenshot of the original showing the footnotes on the page:
Show
The article being referenced in note 4 is https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/nulr/vol107/iss4/3/. The argument being made is:
Show
That said, given the news about deportation going around, a judge in SCOTUS that had previously questioned the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment could be a problem...
What i don't get about this whole though.. like if someone is born here, and their parents wer both born here. How do you revoke their citizenship and deport them. Where to? Nearest available non American born ancestors? My great grandmother is German. Would they deport me to Germany? How would any other country react to people being deported there with no ties to that country?
What i do get is they're going to have to set up some sort of internment camp to put all of these reporters while they sort out those details...
How would any other country react to people being deported there with no ties to that country?
the same thing the empire does to other refugees it creates: criminalize → incarcerate → kill
I found this: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a794a2a0abd04c9c6e10f85/t/5f7390f725e76e4bfcb6dd35/1601409272651/Amy+Coney+Barrett+Congressional+Originalism.pdf
Which was linked from here: https://www.valleydude70.com/blog-1/2020/9/29/amy-comey-barrett-and-the-fourteenth-amendment
(I am not the OP)
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1619&context=jcl
