14th Amendment. Section 1. 'nuff said.

[Roland99]

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.

Am I right or am I right??

[TBF]

1. At this point I'm not even sure Scalia can read much less interpret

the 14th amendment.

[LeftofObama]

2. I would say

that about sums it up!

[Duer 157099]

3. Is the country a state?

Because the feds sure can deprive persons of life, liberty or property without due process of law.

Was that always the case?

[unblock]

4. the 14th (the bold part, anyway) applies only to the states. the 5th takes care of the feds:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

[SwampG8r]

5. and the 10th nt

[Roland99]

11. And this case is based upon a claim re: Prop 8 in California

[Jenoch]

6. So what you are saying

is that President Obama violated the 14th Amendment when ordered the drone missle attacks that have killed American citizens.

[John2]

7. Are you talking about one person or

more than one person? I don't think the President violated any 14th Amendment when someone is actively plotting against this country.

And the fifth Amendment did not come after America fought a Civil War. The 13th, 14th and 15th all came from the Civil War period and had to be forced on the loser. Everytime I hear revisionists talk about slavery and the rights of African Americans, they seem to have amnesia about the period between 1861 and 1865 when 620,000 Americans lost their lives. I don't even know if Scalia had descendants in America then?

[Jenoch]

8. You are bringing up stuff to which I was

not referring but find interesting. I'm not a 1st Amendment scholar, but don't American citizens have the right to due process.

I am aware of the reason behind the 14th Amendment. It was to positively provide for citizenship for freed slaves. (An unintended consequence was to confer citizenship onto people born on U.S. soil to parents who are not citizens.)

[JoeDuck]

15. No descendants

I guarantee you that Justice Scalia had no descendants in America between 1861 and 1865. It's too bad that his ancestors have a descendant on the Supreme Court.

[rhett o rick]

22. So are the words "actively plotting against this country" actually in the Constitution?

And does the President have an "actively plotting" detector or can he kill anyone he thinks is "actively plotting".

I guess I have amnesia, as I have no clue what your talking about in the second paragraph. Except that Scalia's descendants didnt precede him in life.

[ErikJ]

9. Also defines person as born. So that rules out fetuses.

[meow2u3]

21. Persons defined as born also rules out corporations

Corporations aren't born; they're legally created.

[ReRe]

10. By gosh, I think you've Got! It!

You are right!

[William769]

12. Recommended.

[Darkhawk32]

13. This needs to be pinned to the front page of DU. n/t

[Initech]

14. Let's also pin it to the front pages of:

Free Republic
Tea Party Patriots.com
glennbeck.com
Fox news.com
drudgereport.com
brietbart.com

Those fucking imbeciles claim to have read the constitution and are constantly hiding behind it yet $10 says not a single one of 'em can recite the fourteenth amendment - or any amendment for that matter.

[bluestate10]

16. You are right. I can't understand why none of the lawyers trying to overturn DOMA and

Prop 8 didn't state that the Equal Protection Clause demands that DOMA and Prop 8 be ruled unconstitutional. If Scalia wants to argue against that assertion, let the asshole do so, he will go down in history as one of the saddest people to ever sit as a Justice.

[Roland99]

19. Scalia *has* argued against it >>>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2573827 (right after the bolded part)

I think this may not come to fruition this time. If not, proponents of equal protection need to work on striking down these so-called "deviant" laws in each state. Build a firm constitutional foundation that will leave even Scalito no choice.

[tavalon]

17. You're right, but SCOTUS has become a much more political arm than it used to be

[Roland99]

18. Citizens United proved that without a doubt.

reasonable or unreasonable!

[el_bryanto]

20. This is one of those times where I wonder if its worthwhile to understand the framework

of the others side. I don't agree with it obviously - but they believe it's not about equal rights it's about the definition of Marriage. If a marriage is defined as between 1 man and 1 woman than obviously gay men can get married if they choose to - they just have to marry a woman (same in reverse for lesbians). If they want to marry someone of the same sex, by definition they can't. In the same way that If you are in Toledo you can't be in Oklahoma City.

That said, their position historically gets weaker and weaker. When you look at what the anti-homosexual movement was pushing for even 20 years ago compared to today, they've been pushed back quite a bit.

Bryant