Is the call for repealing the 14th amendment racist?

[cynatnite]

Poll question: Is the call for repealing the 14th amendment racist?

Section 1, arguably the most far-reaching section of the Fourteenth Amendment, formally defines citizenship and protects a person's civil and political rights from being abridged or denied by any state. This represented the Congress's overruling of the Dred Scott decision to the extent that decision held black people were not, and could not become, citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.<1> The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law or a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.

This section was also in response to the Black Codes which southern states had passed in the wake of the Thirteenth Amendment, which ended slavery in the United States.<2> Those laws attempted to return freed slaves to something like their former condition by, among other things, restricting their movement, forcing them to enter into year-long labor contracts, and by preventing them from suing or testifying in court.<3>

Finally, this section was in response to violence against black people within the southern states. A Joint Committee on Reconstruction found that only a Constitutional amendment could protect the rights and welfare of black people within those states.<4>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Background

[derby378]

1. Wouldn't repeal also demolish corporate personhood?

150 years' worth of legal precendent in business law thrown out the window like a dirty diaper. Who woulda thunk it?

[caraher]

4. I'm no lawyer, but I don't think so

I don't think there's any specific constitutional warrant for corporate "personhood," and since the 14th Amendment is about citizenship - which corporations do not have - I don't see how that would affect anything.

But... if repeal did overturn all those years of bogus precedent, I'd be willing to pay the price of letting the anti-immigrant crowd get their way in exchange for taking a big bite out of corporate power!

Concerning the poll, I think much of the motivation for supporting repeal for may is certainly racist, but I don't think that's universally the case, either. Repeal is less racist than dumb. It's even bad politics (leaving right and wrong out of the picture entirely) - a big push would only further marginalize the Republicans as the party of a shrinking demographics.

Edited to add: after a little research I see that in fact the 14th Amendment was cited in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company

So I say: BRING IT ON!!! :)

[AnArmyVeteran]

13. I believe it would strip corporations of citizenship/personhood

I've heard stories about how corporations either willfully slipped into the amendment the provision to give them the rights as citizens and also stories of it being an error made by a transcriber. If the entire 14th Amendment was eliminated it would also eliminate all of the other provisions contained within it and that would mean corporations would no longer have the rights of personhood as they do now. Wouldn't it be something if this backfired on all of the racist republicans and had their beloved corporate pimps stripped of their 'human' rights? Democrats could seize this moment and eliminate the 14th Amendment and replace it with one where corporations were no longer granted the same rights as human beings. Of course, to do that democrats would have to change it to also prevent people from other countries from having their babies become citizens just because they were born here. Although it would impact a lot of people, the trade off would be well worth it if we could reign in corporations in such a dramatic fashion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

The corporate personhood debate refers to the controversy (primarily in the United States) over the question of what subset of rights afforded under the law to natural persons should also be afforded to corporations as legal persons.

In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.<1><2> Some critics of corporate personhood, however, most notably author Thom Hartmann in his book "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," claim that this was an intentional misinterpretation of the case inserted into the Court record by reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis.<3> Bancroft Davis had previously served as president of Newburgh and New York Railway Co.

Proponents of corporate personhood believe that corporations, as associations of shareholders, were intended by the founders and framers to enjoy many, if not all, of the same rights as would the shareholders acting individually, such as the right to lobby the government, the right to due process and compensation before being deprived of property, and the right, as legal entities, to speak freely. All of these rights have been upheld by the U.S. courts.

[Xicano]

23. In order to strip corporations of personhood via the 14th amendment a few words have to be changed.

As much as I don't like to point this out. The 14th amendment as written and interpreted by law does indeed seem to grant corporations personhood.

Below is a pic I took from my legal dictionary to explain why. As you can see from a legal standpoint of view a corporation is considered an "artificial person" "having all rights and duties" as a human being who's considered a "natural person."

So it is my opinion in order to strip corporations of rights equal to people section one of the 14th amendment should be changed like this:

All persons natural 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 natural person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person natural person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[AnArmyVeteran]

28. I believe most people would support stripping corporations as 'human beings'.

That provision could just delete all references to partnerships, corporations, etc and replace them with two words, "Human Beings". I heard it was a clerical error, either intentionally or unintentionally, that was inserted into the Amendment because it wasn't what the justices agreed on during deliberations.

It's crazy to believe any non-human being can be considered a human being. It's inconsistent and hypocritical of conservatives who support corporate 'personhood' when they claim to be 'christians'. I don't think God put Adam, Eve and corporations in the Garden of Eden. So we would have a lot of ammunition to fight them with if the democrats in congress decided to take a stand. I wish they would do something dramatic like that. It would completely change our country if corporations were stripped of the same rights afforded to human beings. It seems as if it would also invalidate the Citizens United case because it was based on corporations being equated to humans.

This could be huge, if the democrats in congress somehow found the will (and guts) to right this 100+ year mistake. With all of the compromising and losses to corporate America it would be refreshing if this led to something very good for our country, even if it meant preventing further citizenships to the babies from traveling or illegal foreigners. That would be a small price to pay to get our country back on the right track.

Thanks for the picture of the dictionary...

[pwb]

2. Why would pukes change the constitution?

They always wave it around like it is sacred, and now they want to change it.? I love it when they talk out of both sides of their mouths.

[Spazito]

3. Without question, imo n/t

[LatteLibertine]

5. Republicans

have made it painfully obvious that they aren't expecting a lot of minority votes, as usual. Now it seems they are trying to polarize the nation more and maximize the white vote. They're working the southern strategy overtime.

[TheKentuckian]

6. Yeah, and anti-American too boot.

Probably for a more long term effort to remove citizenship from a large group of people or even targeted individuals in order to serve evil purposes too.

[Goblinmonger]

7. Racist and fucking stoopid.

So what is their answer to how they make themselves citizens then? What a bunch of idiot douchebags.

[1badjedi]

8. I believe so.

[KansasVoter]

9. I voted No! Because.......

It applies to all races and colors. Canadians and Brits and Mexicans.

I honestly have always wondered why two people can sneak into this country, be it Canadians or Brits or Mexicans, and be here illegally and have a child and the child is an American citizen automatically. It does not make any logical sense.

I think the GOP has racist intentions, but I think there are some who just question the logic of the law.

Does other countries allow the same citizenship by birth?

[Buenaventura]

12. are we "other countries"

do you wish that we were?

[KansasVoter]

15. I meant does Canada or Mexico allow citizenships for birth of illegal entry.

[Buenaventura]

18. i understand what you meant ... what i meant was

we are neither canada nor mexico. nor iran, north korea, et al. this is the united states - something different, and IMHO, something special. the 14th Amendment is part of what makes us special.

[KansasVoter]

20. I agree with you. Just curious if all countries do. It might help shut up the GOP.

[Goblinmonger]

27. My mother went into false labor while visiting Canada

It is my understanding that if I had been born there, I would have had dual citizenship until I was 18 and then would have to decide where I wanted to land. Perhaps she wasn't there "illegally" but she wasn't a citizen.

[superduperfarleft]

25. The 14th amendment was put in place to ensure that former slaves could become citizens.

So since other countries don't necessarily have the same background as the US when it comes to this issue, I don't see how it's relevant what other countries do.

And since this most recent call to repeal it is not due to an onslaught Canadian and British "anchor babies," but of brown ones from Central America. So yes, the people that sincerely believe we should repeal it are almost invariably racists, and the scumbag politicians that give lip-service to these cretins are exploiting that.

[KansasVoter]

10. Dup

Dup

[Buenaventura]

11. first the 14th, then ...

the 13th, 15th, 16th, 19th? maybe the 1st and 8th? is that their game plan?

[AnArmyVeteran]

14. Why not eliminate the 2nd Amendment too? That would terrify them!

[Buenaventura]

16. to paraphrase senator jon tester ...

this is why i'm keepin' my guns

[JI7]

17. these people value guns more than non white babies

[Buenaventura]

19. too true - or any babies, once born n/t

[laureloak]

21. No.

[pampango]

22. It's fear-based politcs (a repub specialty, of course) aimed at conservative or clueless whites.

While it is designed to appeal to racists (and others who "just want their country back"), the perpetrators may be evil politicians willing do to anything to win votes rather than racists. It's a close call. ;)

[WI_DEM]

24. I just don't know why the Dems can't capitalize on all of what the GOP is advocating

these days and go on the offensive hard against them.

[superduperfarleft]

26. The Republicans have the upper-hand in this debate, unfortunately.

For the Democrats to hit back hard on this issue, they'd basically have to call them racists, and you know how white people freak the fuck out everytime you call them on their racist behavior.

[spanone]

29. yes.

[TheWraith]

30. I voted yes, because there's no "Well, OF COURSE." option. nt

[mmonk]

31. Both racist and also against the concept of equal protection under the law.