In a stunning coincidence that I could not have planned better myself, today is both the 150th anniversary of the 14th Amendment as well as the day a new Supreme Court nominee is set to be announced, to replace the justice who was one of its most consequential protectors for the last 30 years.
The whispers of a potential undermining of the Citizenship Clause (and even an outright repeal) in Section 1 are already getting louder so I took the advice of my wonderful wife, Stephanie, to take the week and highlight the importance and pitfalls of how the 14th amendment has shaped this country over the past 150 years (she also came up with the final panel).
The names on the shortlist, as I know it, are Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Raymond Kethledge, with Thomas Hardiman added at the last minute this past weekend. Any predictions as to who will get nominated? What’s the over/under on Merrick Garland? (Great strategy, Chuck Schumer.)
GOD FORBID that the Republicans should feel bound by some silly Constitutional precept like “EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW!!!” That would mean that all of “those people” would have the same rights and legal protections as the old, straight, conservative, rich, white “Christian” MEN that are their base, and they just CAN’T HANDLE THAT CONCEPT!!!
Constitution of the United States of America, Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. So, An amendment removing an amendment is a repeal.
But it’s easily possible for the Court to ignore what an amendment (or a clause in the original Constitution itself) says, or to twist it into five pretzels and half a mile of tangled yarn. Quick question: how many people would be surprised if Trump nominated himself for the Court?
An excellent prologue, Mr Carroll, to what will be a lively comments section this week. Your choice of “important” and “terrible” cases will undergo much scrutiny.
Should we change Supreme Court appointments and how they are done? I suggest 10 year terms with the option to be reappointed. Also requiring a larger conformation vote (say 60% or two-thirds) or that a tie vote would be a fail to confirm and the chairman cannot break the tie.
The real challenge is to get folks here to do some research into the discussions that took place during the creation and passage of the 14th. Original intent is in my opinion the most important starting point for any discussion about any section of the Constitution and BoR.
In some cases this nation has found the original intent to be unsuitable to modern application. If fact, our nation has seen fit to change the Constitution and/or BoR 17 times since the original passage. We have a process built into the document for this very purpose.
Before make pronouncements about how the law of the land should be applied today, you need to understand how it was intended to be applied when written. If your intent today differs from the original intent, the answer is not judicial activism, but Constitutional Amendment.
The founders gave us the mechanism to change, but they require us to generate a super-majority to do so. This restriction is as important today as it was when created. It protects us from the whim of a slight majority by forcing us to thoughtfully and carefully craft changes that will retain the support of the nation long beyond the shifting sands of party politics.
WaPo has an excellent presentation of arguments to both sides of Section 1 of the 14th.
I’ve never understood the fools who debate Birthright Citizenship. You start to limit it, you start to find ways to restrict it sooner or later it won’t be birthright at all. It’ll be “You’re a citizen if we like you and we say so”.
BRAVO! I’d love to see Brian run a short series on each of the Amendments, giving the setting of its birth, and how varied each were applied over time. Touch’em ALL, BRIAN! Lovin’ it….
Brian Carroll creator almost 6 years ago
In a stunning coincidence that I could not have planned better myself, today is both the 150th anniversary of the 14th Amendment as well as the day a new Supreme Court nominee is set to be announced, to replace the justice who was one of its most consequential protectors for the last 30 years.
The whispers of a potential undermining of the Citizenship Clause (and even an outright repeal) in Section 1 are already getting louder so I took the advice of my wonderful wife, Stephanie, to take the week and highlight the importance and pitfalls of how the 14th amendment has shaped this country over the past 150 years (she also came up with the final panel).
The names on the shortlist, as I know it, are Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Raymond Kethledge, with Thomas Hardiman added at the last minute this past weekend. Any predictions as to who will get nominated? What’s the over/under on Merrick Garland? (Great strategy, Chuck Schumer.)
Masterskrain Premium Member almost 6 years ago
GOD FORBID that the Republicans should feel bound by some silly Constitutional precept like “EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW!!!” That would mean that all of “those people” would have the same rights and legal protections as the old, straight, conservative, rich, white “Christian” MEN that are their base, and they just CAN’T HANDLE THAT CONCEPT!!!
Dani Rice almost 6 years ago
Constitution of the United States of America, Article V: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article, and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. So, An amendment removing an amendment is a repeal.
The court can’t do it by themselves.
Godfreydaniel almost 6 years ago
But it’s easily possible for the Court to ignore what an amendment (or a clause in the original Constitution itself) says, or to twist it into five pretzels and half a mile of tangled yarn. Quick question: how many people would be surprised if Trump nominated himself for the Court?
jcole998 almost 6 years ago
An excellent prologue, Mr Carroll, to what will be a lively comments section this week. Your choice of “important” and “terrible” cases will undergo much scrutiny.
Charlie Tuba almost 6 years ago
Should we change Supreme Court appointments and how they are done? I suggest 10 year terms with the option to be reappointed. Also requiring a larger conformation vote (say 60% or two-thirds) or that a tie vote would be a fail to confirm and the chairman cannot break the tie.
Andylit Premium Member almost 6 years ago
The real challenge is to get folks here to do some research into the discussions that took place during the creation and passage of the 14th. Original intent is in my opinion the most important starting point for any discussion about any section of the Constitution and BoR.
In some cases this nation has found the original intent to be unsuitable to modern application. If fact, our nation has seen fit to change the Constitution and/or BoR 17 times since the original passage. We have a process built into the document for this very purpose.
Before make pronouncements about how the law of the land should be applied today, you need to understand how it was intended to be applied when written. If your intent today differs from the original intent, the answer is not judicial activism, but Constitutional Amendment.
The founders gave us the mechanism to change, but they require us to generate a super-majority to do so. This restriction is as important today as it was when created. It protects us from the whim of a slight majority by forcing us to thoughtfully and carefully craft changes that will retain the support of the nation long beyond the shifting sands of party politics.
WaPo has an excellent presentation of arguments to both sides of Section 1 of the 14th.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/27/the-debate-over-birthright-citizenship/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5017e7c84108
Brian Carroll creator almost 6 years ago
Announcement is expected at 9PM EST – that’s in an hour and a half – c’mon, no one has a prediction? I think it’s going to be Kavanaugh.
Durak Premium Member almost 6 years ago
I’ve never understood the fools who debate Birthright Citizenship. You start to limit it, you start to find ways to restrict it sooner or later it won’t be birthright at all. It’ll be “You’re a citizen if we like you and we say so”.
Spun_G almost 6 years ago
BRAVO! I’d love to see Brian run a short series on each of the Amendments, giving the setting of its birth, and how varied each were applied over time. Touch’em ALL, BRIAN! Lovin’ it….