NationStates Jolt Archive

...provides all citizens equal protection under the law.

Why then, are the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments necessary?

...provides all citizens equal protection under the law.

Why then, are the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments necessary?
We forget things, so sue us.

Actually, why is there a 2nd Amendment when individual firearms ownership is secured just fine by the 4th and 5th Amendments?

Actually, why is there a 2nd Amendment when individual firearms ownership is secured just fine by the 4th and 5th Amendments?

There is nothing wrong with securing a right multiple times, it only provides more barriers for people who wish to limit rights.

Because your constitution is really, really old...?

There is nothing wrong with securing a right multiple times, it only provides more barriers for people who wish to limit rights.

Exactly.

Actually, why is there a 2nd Amendment when individual firearms ownership is secured just fine by the 4th and 5th Amendments?
I've asked that question before a long time ago, but no one wanted to answer it.

Unfortunately, to repeal an amendment, you need another amendment, which makes it impossible to actually simplify the system.

I've asked that question before a long time ago, but no one wanted to answer it.


The only other purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to establish the Militia. The switch to the standing all-volunteer professional military, however, makes even that function unnecessary. But even if the 2nd Amendment is technically unnecessary, it does still serve the function of creating multiple lines of defense against firearms prohibition (just like the 19th, 15th, and 26th enhance the purpose of the 14th).

Now, if only people would read and honor the entire document and not just the bits they like...

Actually, why is there a 2nd Amendment when individual firearms ownership is secured just fine by the 4th and 5th Amendments?
Because it's really REALLY important. *nod*:fluffle:

Now, if only people would read and honor the entire document and not just the bits they like...
Yeah, that's next on my list of forcing things to do after forcing fundamentalists to live up to the whole bible.

Yeah, that's next on my list of forcing things to do after forcing fundamentalists to live up to the whole bible.
You can't live up to the whole thing, nobody is perfect.

yeah, but the part about "not harming anyone" and "loving every man as a brother" might be used more often instead of "spread the word"

You can't live up to the whole thing, nobody is perfect.
Oh, I don't know. Right now I'm working on convincing myself that both of Jesus' bloodlines (one from Matthew and one from Luke) are valid. Sure it causes extreme pain to the parts of me that function rationally to blatantly disregard logic on such a broad scale, but I'm sure I'll figure it out. If not, lobotomy is always an option.

yeah, but the part about "not harming anyone" and "loving every man as a brother" might be used more often instead of "spread the word"
Ok, I can agree with that. We don't know what the original said anyway. So it'd be idiotic to hurt people because of a text that's been altered 50 billion times.

Oh, I don't know. Right now I'm working on convincing myself that both of Jesus' bloodlines (one from Matthew and one from Luke) are valid. Sure it causes extreme pain to the parts of me that function rationally to blatantly disregard logic on such a broad scale, but I'm sure I'll figure it out. If not, lobotomy is always an option.
It's oral tradition, it's not going to be 100% accurate. DEAL WITH IT and get off our backs.

It's oral tradition, it's not going to be 100% accurate. DEAL WITH IT and get off our backs.
I know it is. It's one of the things I've learned from being so involved in my church. The question, to me, is if you're equally as willing to apply the oral tradition argument to the passages condemning homosexuality. So far, from the sounds of it, you'ren't a fundamentalist, and therefore not who I'm talking about.

Oh, I don't know. Right now I'm working on convincing myself that both of Jesus' bloodlines (one from Matthew and one from Luke) are valid. Sure it causes extreme pain to the parts of me that function rationally to blatantly disregard logic on such a broad scale, but I'm sure I'll figure it out. If not, lobotomy is always an option.

For me, it was the widespread practice of calling them "churches" instead of "synagogues:"


Do not think that i have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
( Matthew 5:18, The Teen Study Bible (NIV), Zondervan )


It's my understanding that "Law" and "Prophets" refers to the Torah and Nevi'im (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh), respectively (edit: and heaven and earth are, as far as I can tell, still here). One single, widely and convieniently ignored passage pretty much destroyed Christianity for me all together.

Reading the entire document, paying close attention to even the smallest detail, is very important. Naturally, I carry the lesson over to matters of politics, as well. :D

I know it is. It's one of the things I've learned from being so involved in my church. The question, to me, is if you're equally as willing to apply the oral tradition argument to the passages condemning homosexuality. So far, from the sounds of it, you'ren't a fundamentalist, and therefore not who I'm talking about.
I know, but I hate it when people lump all Christians together (not saying you do, but it's what I encounter 99.99% of the time.) Homosexuality (or anything else) may be a sin, it may not. I don't know. Therefore as long as you don't hurt (Being offended isn’t being hurt, suck it up fundies. You too left-wingers.) anyone, or make me do anything, do what you please. (As you may have guessed I'm a libertarian.)

It's my understanding that "Law" and "Prophets" refers to the Torah and Nevi'im (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh), respectively (edit: and heaven and earth are, as far as I can tell, still here). One single, widely and convieniently ignored passage pretty much destroyed Christianity for me all together.

Reading the entire document, paying close attention to even the smallest detail, is very important. Naturally, I carry the lesson over to matters of politics, as well. :D
I look at it differently. There has always been the issue of the bible being written out by human beings who may not have been properly able to convey God's intentions, at least there has for some of us. Jesus, I believe, is saying that he has not come to dishonour the prophets, which would make sense considering he was Jewish, but to fulfill the Law of the Lord by providing humanity with a better understanding of it.

In the Old Testament, to be quite honest, God was a bit of a jerk. At the time the books were written, however, the idea of God as a paternalistic individual who could get angry or jealous was the best description the ancient theologists were capable of comprehending. That does not mean they were right, as Jesus' teachings go on to show, but He does wish the people to continue to pay respect to those that came before them and tried, regardless of whether or not they succeeded completely, to do God's work.

Thus, Jesus comes to tell His people that He will convey God's meaning to the best of his ability. His reference to strokes of the pen and letters do not refer to the human writings of God's law, but of God's own law, which has been editted in the past. Jesus seeks to recreate God's law, down to the smallest letter and the least stroke of the pen, unlike those who came before Him, who had to alter what they could not comprehend.

Unfortunately, it was not Jesus who wrote the New Testament, but His disciples, so even in spite of Jesus' intentions, the bible was still written by humans who may not fully comprehend was Jesus was trying to do, which is why some of the early chapters of Matthew have a much more Old Testament feel, while some of the later chapters (26:52 is one of my favourite lines) are certainly very forward thinking.

...provides all citizens equal protection under the law.

Why then, are the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments necessary?
Because certain groups of people "forgot" that blacks, women, had the right to vote and they needed to be reminded.

Am I the only one who is horribly depressed that a thread about the US Constitution becomes a discussion of Jesus within less than a page?

Because certain groups of people "forgot" that blacks, women, had the right to vote and they needed to be reminded.
Yeah, a whole lot of people still need to be reminded that it is possible to be a human being even if you are not white or male. As far as I am concerned, we could use at least 10 more Amendments spelling this out: "No, you may not treat non-whites and non-males as subhumans. So knock it the hell off."

Am I the only one who is horribly depressed that a thread about the US Constitution becomes a discussion of Jesus within less than a page?
Well no one had anything to say other "we're forgetful", so I figured I'd just let it go where is wanted.

Did you have a more insightful way of analyzing the existence of the 15th, 19th and 26th?

EDIT: See what I mean?

Well no one had anything to say other "we're forgetful", so I figured I'd just let it go where is wanted.

Still, does it have to be Jesus? I am so fucking sick of hearing about that guy. Couldn't we talk about Vishnu or Quetzocoatl or something? Just for a change of pace?

Still, does it have to be Jesus? I am so fucking sick of hearing about that guy. Couldn't we talk about Vishnu or Quetzocoatl or something? Just for a change of pace?
I'm down for some Quetzocoatl. They actually used him as a summon in FFVIII, which is where I originally heard the name. You don't hear much about him ever since, well, the conquistadors.

EDIT: Technically, my European ancestors didn't hear much about him prior to the conquistadors either...

Well no one had anything to say other "we're forgetful", so I figured I'd just let it go where is wanted.

Did you have a more insightful way of analyzing the existence of the 15th, 19th and 26th?

EDIT: See what I mean?
You're missing the sarcasm. They (the south, mostly) deliberately ignored the 14th amendment as it applied to blacks and women and the courts weren't being helpful (you should read some of the post-reconstruction era decisions on what exactly the 14th amendment means, it's quite funny) so the new amendments were passed.

I wonder this myself. Why, also, was there such a push for the Equal Rights Amendment, what with the 14th amendment's equal protection clause?

I'm down for some Quetzocoatl. They actually used him as a summon in FFVIII, which is where I originally heard the name. You don't hear much about him ever since, well, the conquistadors.
I think even the most die-hard Christians have to admit: a feathered snake-God is fucking sweet.

Although, Jesus is a magic zombie with oozing flesh wounds...

I'm suddenly getting a deeply awesome idea for a graphic novel.

You're missing the sarcasm. They (the south, mostly) deliberately ignored the 14th amendment as it applied to blacks and women and the courts weren't being helpful (you should read some of the post-reconstruction era decisions on what exactly the 14th amendment means, it's quite funny) so the new amendments were passed.
And the murderers ignore our laws saying no murdering allowed, but we don't pass the anti-murder law again just for them.

That said, I can appreciate the historical context. They just seem so silly now.

I wonder this myself. Why, also, was there such a push for the Equal Rights Amendment, what with the 14th amendment's equal protection clause?
Because, again, the 14th wasn't working. Female human beings were not being recognized as legally equal to male human beings, so the proposed solution was to beat the public over the head with this point until they got a freaking clue.

And the murderers ignore our laws saying no murdering allowed, but we don't pass the anti-murder law again just for them.

That said, I can appreciate the historical context. They just seem so silly now.
Because the fun thing about the Constitution is that it has to be enforced by the courts, and if they courts claim it means something that it doesn't, you have to amend it to force them to enforce it the way you mean it to.

I think even the most die-hard Christians have to admit: a feathered snake-God is fucking sweet.

Although, Jesus is a magic zombie with oozing flesh wounds...

I'm suddenly getting a deeply awesome idea for a graphic novel.
Quetzocoatl vs. Zombie Jesus: Godzilla's Got Nothing on This (Part 1 of a 3 part mini-series)

Quetzocoatl vs. Zombie Jesus: Godzilla's Got Nothing on This (Part 1 of a 3 part mini-series)
This could very well be the best comic since Dark Horse published "Godzilla Versus Charles Barkley." (http://the-isb.blogspot.com/2006/05/sometimes-there-are-no-words.html)

This could very well be the best comic since Dark Horse published "Godzilla Versus Charles Barkley." (http://the-isb.blogspot.com/2006/05/sometimes-there-are-no-words.html)
The awesomeness of that has been permanently etched into my brain.

Because the fun thing about the Constitution is that it has to be enforced by the courts, and if they courts claim it means something that it doesn't, you have to amend it to force them to enforce it the way you mean it to.
Oh no, let's not forget...the Courts are infallible! Every right they ascertain to be Constitutional is Constitutional! Except, sometimes they correct themselves because they made a wrong THE COURTS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT!

The awesomeness of that has been permanently etched into my brain.
I now end all of my humorous stories with..."And then Godzilla got busy."

Probably because the 14th Amendment was originally interpreted to apply its incorporation clause only on the Federal level; also, the line "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" could be easily abused in the courts of the South to take away the rights of the freed slaves (which, of course, still occured even with the 15th Amendment).

The 14th Amendment also clearly states that only men aged 21 or older could vote. Thus, the 19th and 26th Amendments were necessary to expand suffrage to women and lower the voting age to 18.

...provides all citizens equal protection under the law.

Why then, are the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments necessary?

because while all citizens were equal, some were more equal than others.

Am I the only one who is horribly depressed that a thread about the US Constitution becomes a discussion of Jesus within less than a page?
I was just thinking that very thing, only half-way through. :rolleyes:

Probably because the 14th Amendment was originally interpreted to apply its incorporation clause only on the Federal level; also, the line "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" could be easily abused in the courts of the South to take away the rights of the freed slaves (which, of course, still occured even with the 15th Amendment).

The 14th Amendment also clearly states that only men aged 21 or older could vote. Thus, the 19th and 26th Amendments were necessary to expand suffrage to women and lower the voting age to 18.
Section 2 of the 14th is very interesting:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

See? You can deny the right to vote to anyone you want, but if you do your representation in the House of Representatives is reduced by the number of people disenfranchised. So go ahead, discriminate! Just don't complain next census when you lose three of your five seats in the House (or whatever). :D

I was just thinking that very thing, only half-way through. :rolleyes:
At this point, it looks like we've successfully deJesusfied this thread after a rocky second page. Good job guys.

This could very well be the best comic since Dark Horse published "Godzilla Versus Charles Barkley." (http://the-isb.blogspot.com/2006/05/sometimes-there-are-no-words.html)

I laughed.

I laughed.
And did you notice: Godzilla has SNEAKERS on. Imagine how many Indonesian children Nike must have enslaved to make those puppies.

At this point, it looks like we've successfully deJesusfied this thread after a rocky second page. Good job guys.
Of course, the Godzilla subtext is still with us. :p

Oh, and the National Archives site has very cool high-res images of the Declaration and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you can download. I do a bit of calligraphy but the guys who wrote out the originals were damn good. Of course, the paper's gone a bit brown but what the heck.

And did you notice: Godzilla has SNEAKERS on. Imagine how many Indonesian children Nike must have enslaved to make those puppies.

Oh great, now Godzilla's going to get in trouble for a human rights...thing...other than Tokyo.

Oh great, now Godzilla's going to get in trouble for a human rights...thing...other than Tokyo.
I imagine Charles Barkley can recommend a good lawyer.

See? You can deny the right to vote to anyone you want, but if you do your representation in the House of Representatives is reduced by the number of people disenfranchised. So go ahead, discriminate! Just don't complain next census when you lose three of your five seats in the House (or whatever). :D

Remember how slaves were only counted as 3/5ths of a person?

After the war, the South had an effective increase in its black population of 40% because those 3/5ths slaves were now 5/5ths citizens; of course, that meant they could outright bar 30-40% of their black population from voting and have no real change in their population other than that lost as a result of the war. It effectively gave them a "resivoir of discrimination" to bar blacks from voting without losing their prewar count of representatives.

Remember how slaves were only counted as 3/5ths of a person?

After the war, the South had an effective increase in its black population of 40% because those 3/5ths slaves were now 5/5ths citizens; of course, that meant they could outright bar 30-40% of their black population from voting and have no real change in their population other than that lost as a result of the war. It effectively gave them a "resivoir of discrimination" to bar blacks from voting without losing their prewar count of representatives.
Sure, the 3/5ths thing. I hadn't done the math but they would have gotten a reservoir of discrimination ... nice phrase, that ... How did that one get past the Radical Republicans in Congress during Reconstruction? I can't see Thaddeus Stevens missing that.

...provides all citizens equal protection under the law.

Why then, are the 15th, 19th and 26th amendments necessary?

15th: Because at the time, negroes were not considered enfranchised citizens. Nor were the Chinese (massive xenophobia in California back then), nor many other races. Remember, this was NOT a time of tolerance.

19th: Because at the time, women were not considered enfranchised citizens.

26th: Because at the time, majority age varied between states.

15th amendment was necessary because some people were jerks and didn't consider non-whites to be human.

19th and 26th was because the original language of the 14th amendment was "all men" and "being twenty-one years of age." They are changes to the equal protection cause to include women and those under 21 years of age.

Sure, the 3/5ths thing. I hadn't done the math but they would have gotten a reservoir of discrimination ... nice phrase, that ... How did that one get past the Radical Republicans in Congress during Reconstruction? I can't see Thaddeus Stevens missing that.

Well, if you remember the Radical Republicans began to lose influence once Reconstruction came to an end; not coincidentally, this was also when discrimination began to take off. The Southern legislatures simply waited until they were Reconstructed and the Federal troops withdrawn to start imposing discriminatory voting laws and segregation.