The Cobb County Board of Education Vs. All of Science

[Steve]

Within the limits of the Amendments, it does.

[Steve]

That having been said, we should probably move on to another subject; everyone knows Mike isn't a fan of legalism.

[Kuja]

Then he can ignore this thread.

[Joe]

Sorry, but the Fourteenth Amendment says the Bill of Rights applies to states and their governments as much as to the Congress. The only "erroneous interpretation" has come from conservative ninkompoops who started off by insisting that racial segregation was a states' rights issue.

No, it doesn't. Read it. The belief that it does in fact apply to the states is one of the meanings that was magically discovered within the Constitution by early 20th-century justices.

In a word, bullshit.

AMENDMENT XIV

Section 1.1 All persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Section 1.2 No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

Section 1.3 Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Section 1.4 Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the Equal Protection of the Laws.

Just what part of "No State shall make or enforce any law" eludes your understanding? That means states don't have the right to pass laws negating part or all of the liberties and guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights. They don't get to vote on the right to keep slaves or force the kiddies to convert to Shia Baptism.

There is also this:

Section 5 The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

That explicitly grants Congress the power to enforce the 14th Amendment by its own acts. There is no way around this, no matter how much the "strict constructionists" wish there were one.

You can choose to read this up, down, sideways, or in a mirror, and in any language of your choice, but the meaning will be the same one as is yielded up in plain english.

The only way the Bill of Rights could be applied to the states would be if this was directly stated in the Constitution. And given the extremely sketchy conditions under which the 14th Amendment was ratified, it, more than any other part of the Constitution, deserves very narrow interpretation. And I'm not denying that Congress has the power to enforce its amendment, I'm just questioning what that amendment means.

And the 13th Amendment, not the 14th, prevents states from legislating slavery.

And to Steve: agreed.

[Patrick Degan]

The only way the Bill of Rights could be applied to the states would be if this was directly stated in the Constitution

Back to "strict constructionism", eh? Unfortunately, the Constitution opened the door to its own amendment and alteration in Article Five, and that tosses "original intent of the Founders" out the window as a practical means of defining what the law means today —by which blacks would still be only 3/5th persons for representation and taxation.

And given the extremely sketchy conditions under which the 14th Amendment was ratified, it, more than any other part of the Constitution, deserves very narrow interpretation. And I'm not denying that Congress has the power to enforce its amendment, I'm just questioning what that amendment means.

Let's go again to the text, shall we?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article

Even a narrow interpretation does not support you in this. Citizens of the United States are entitled to the rights and protections of the Federal constitution and the Bill of Rights, which no state may abridge by law, and Congress has the power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.

And as for the "exact meaning", the text of Section 1 reaffirms Article 4.2.1: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" and Article 6.2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." These are part of the original document.

In short, you have no argument.

And the 13th Amendment, not the 14th, prevents states from legislating slavery.

And the Fourteenth Amendment destroys any attempt to interpret the reach of the Thirteenth or any other amendment as applying only to the national government and not the states on grounds of "strict construction" or "narrow interpretation" or "states' rights" or whatever other bullshit arguments have often been advanced to try to deny the power of the Federal government to enforce protection of the rights of individual citizens against the whims of state legislatures or county commissions. The Thirteenth Amendment did not guarantee black citizenship, for example, and did not close the door to any attempt to find other ways to reimpose slavery by reinterpreting or redefining criminal statutes "creatively". The Fourteenth does. It certainly destroys States' Rights arguments in regards to segregation laws and leaves no wiggle room to proclaim a state religion in any state, enforce religious worship as a condition of citizenship, or force the teaching of religious doctrine in public school, for that matter.

[Joe]

Back to "strict constructionism", eh? Unfortunately, the Constitution opened the door to its own amendment and alteration in Article Five, and that tosses "original intent of the Founders" out the window as a practical means of defining what the law means today —by which blacks would still be only 3/5th persons for representation and taxation.

Wrong. The Constitution says nothing about blacks. Only slaves. Al Gore used this same argument to associate strict constructionism with racism (and no one in the media saw fit to correct him, because, well, they're morons).

Even a narrow interpretation does not support you in this. Citizens of the United States are entitled to the rights and protections of the Federal constitution and the Bill of Rights, which no state may abridge by law, and Congress has the power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment.

And as for the "exact meaning", the text of Section 1 reaffirms Article 4.2.1: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" and Article 6.2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." These are part of the original document.

In short, you have no argument.

To begin with, the 14th Amendment was probably illegally ratified. That being said, it was still ratified, and is a part of the Constitution.

The law is the intent of the creator, to quote Abraham Lincoln. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was designed to accompany the 14th Amendment, gives us a fairly good idea of some of the priviledges and immunities the 14th Amendment was designed to secure. Primarily, it dealt with issues of property and contracts. In other words, it empowered the federal government to enforce the contract clause of the Constitution. It is clear that the drafters of the 14th Amendment did not intend for it to be used to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Judicial decisions during the second half of the 19th century and the very early 20th century upheld this.

And the Fourteenth Amendment destroys any attempt to interpret the reach of the Thirteenth or any other amendment as applying only to the national government and not the states on grounds of "strict construction" or "narrow interpretation" or "states' rights" or whatever other bullshit arguments have often been advanced to try to deny the power of the Federal government to enforce protection of the rights of individual citizens against the whims of state legislatures or county commissions. The Thirteenth Amendment did not guarantee black citizenship, for example, and did not close the door to any attempt to find other ways to reimpose slavery by reinterpreting or redefining criminal statutes "creatively". The Fourteenth does. It certainly destroys States' Rights arguments in regards to segregation laws and leaves no wiggle room to proclaim a state religion in any state, enforce religious worship as a condition of citizenship, or force the teaching of religious doctrine in public school, for that matter.

The Thirteenth Amendment says that there will be no slavery anywhere within the United States. It was used by justices to strike down certain "agreements" that were close to slavery. It was INTENDED to apply to the states. The Bill of Rights was NOT, and the Fourteenth Amendment was not designed to make it so.

[Darth Wong]

Not to mention the fact that it's fucking wrong!

The States can take all of their sovereignty legalism bullshit and shove it up their asses for all I care. The point is that it's wrong, it's stupid, it's hopelessly ignorant, and the teaching of creationism in science class is an absolute travesty. Why don't they start teaching flat-Earth theories too, or perhaps the Biblical animal-sacrifice method of medical treatment, for fuck's sake?

Who gives a flying fuck about your goddamned legal technicality bullshit? It is wrong. Period.

[Joe]

I care, because it's the law and I believe in the rule of law.

I agree with you, BTW. It's wrong and stupid and actually quite destructive. But the legality of an action has nothing to do with its morality.

[Steve]

The law says that in the matters of citizens' rights, the Federal Government's authority is superior. The 14th Amendment clearly states this! Your argument is on a non-existant foundation, using speculation and word-twisting.

The law is forever changing; it progresses, dare I say, "evolves" (in a strict dictionary meaning) as time goes on to cover new areas or to clarify previous statutes, treaties, and rulings.

The 14th Amendment was legally ratified. It's binding. It means that states like Mississippi don't have the right to infringe upon a citizen's rights for whatever reason. If you don't like this, go stick your head in the sand.

God I hate Constructionists, the mentality of you people is so annoying....

[Darth Wong]

Durran Korr, you seemed to be blissfully unaware of the fact that my simple statement "it's wrong!" can be applied equally to either issue: the board's decision to teach superstitious bullshit in science class as well as the state's claim to be able to override American citizens' rights at will.

Others have provided extremely compelling evidence that US citizens' inalienable rights cannot be abridged by the states according to your constitution. Your defense of your position has been unconvincing. However, the real point is simply that it is wrong for the States to abridge the rights of American citizens, regardless of what semantic legal interpretations you may be able to pull out of your hat.

[Joe]

The law says that in the matters of citizens' rights, the Federal Government's authority is superior. The 14th Amendment clearly states this! Your argument is on a non-existant foundation, using speculation and word-twisting.

Without actually saying what the citizens' rights are. My argument is based on what the intent of the law was.

The law is forever changing; it progresses, dare I say, "evolves" (in a strict dictionary meaning) as time goes on to cover new areas or to clarify previous statutes, treaties, and rulings.

The law is not wax to be molded to whatever the justice of the week decides it is. If you disagree with me here, then I'm sorry, and it really is fruitless to continue trying to convince you.

The 14th Amendment was legally ratified. It's binding. It means that states like Mississippi don't have the right to infringe upon a citizen's rights for whatever reason. If you don't like this, go stick your head in the sand.

It was not. The Congress pissed all over the Constitution to get it passed, and New Jersey and Ohio (whose ratification was required to meet the 3/4s requirement for ratification) rescinded their previous ratifications of the amendment before it was to be passed into law. Nevertheless, it was passed into law.

God I hate Constructionists, the mentality of you people is so annoying....

So you hate anyone who has any sort of interpretation of the Constitution?

[Joe]

Durran Korr, you seemed to be blissfully unaware of the fact that my simple statement "it's wrong!" can be applied equally to either issue: the board's decision to teach superstitious bullshit in science class as well as the state's claim to be able to override American citizens' rights at will.

Others have provided extremely compelling evidence that US citizens' inalienable rights cannot be abridged by the states according to your constitution. Your defense of your position has been unconvincing. However, the real point is simply that it is wrong for the States to abridge the rights of American citizens, regardless of what semantic legal interpretations you may be able to pull out of your hat.

*sigh*

If I have, at any point within this thread said that I believe it is right for the states to trample the rights of their citizens, please tell me and I will gladly retract.

[Darth Wong]

If I have, at any point within this thread said that I believe it is right for the states to trample the rights of their citizens, please tell me and I will gladly retract.

So your whole participation in this thread is entirely due to your desire to nitpick legal interpretations? Please refer back to my "who gives a flying fuck" comment, then.

[Joe]

If I have, at any point within this thread said that I believe it is right for the states to trample the rights of their citizens, please tell me and I will gladly retract.

So your whole participation in this thread is entirely due to your desire to nitpick legal interpretations? Please refer back to my "who gives a flying fuck" comment, then.

You can't discuss the law without closely examining legal interpretations.

[Darth Wong]

So your whole participation in this thread is entirely due to your desire to nitpick legal interpretations? Please refer back to my "who gives a flying fuck" comment, then.

You can't discuss the law without closely examining legal interpretations.

We are not discussing the law. We are discussing the decision of some idiot school board down in redneck country. The law enters the discussion only as a side-issue at best, and in this case, you have apparently missed the larger point of law, which is that the purpose of law is to place limits on societal behaviour in order to prevent abuse.

In short, the law is supposed to be limited by what is right and wrong. If it should turn out (as you insist) that the law allows for a great injustice to be committed, then not only is the injustice wrong, but the law is wrong too. Laws should be subordinate to principles, rather than allowing principles to be submerged under laws.

[Joe]

So your whole participation in this thread is entirely due to your desire to nitpick legal interpretations? Please refer back to my "who gives a flying fuck" comment, then.

You can't discuss the law without closely examining legal interpretations.

We are not discussing the law. We are discussing the decision of some idiot school board down in redneck country. The law enters the discussion only as a side-issue at best, and in this case, you have apparently missed the larger point of law, which is that the purpose of law is to place limits on societal behaviour in order to prevent abuse.

In short, the law is supposed to be limited by what is right and wrong. If it should turn out (as you insist) that the law allows for a great injustice to be committed, then not only is the injustice wrong, but the law is wrong too. Laws should be subordinate to principles, rather than allowing principles to be submerged under laws.

Well, that's how it started, but then it grew into a discussion about the law.
And if you haven't noticed, the law does allow for a great deal of injustice to be committed. I'm only arguing that it's likely to be less severe at the state level. I am fully aware of the many horrors that can occur in a decentralized system of government. I just am quite frankly terrified by the vast increases in federal police power that Congress can justify based on a liberal reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. Placing the enforcement of individual rights within the federal domain basically gives the federal government unlimited, unchecked power to regulate and control every conceivable thing imaginable (although it already has that power via the commerce clause, so I suppose I shouldn't be complaining).
I don't see why I have to deal with allegations of racism and injustice when I speak favorably about states' rights, but those who want to increase federal power never have to answer for far greater federal tyrannies.

And I'm getting off-topic again. I apologize. I don't like having to defend moronic decisions, but in this case I feel I have to.

[Darth Wong]

In short, the law is supposed to be limited by what is right and wrong. If it should turn out (as you insist) that the law allows for a great injustice to be committed, then not only is the injustice wrong, but the law is wrong too. Laws should be subordinate to principles, rather than allowing principles to be submerged under laws.

Well, that's how it started, but then it grew into a discussion about the law.
And if you haven't noticed, the law does allow for a great deal of injustice to be committed. I'm only arguing that it's likely to be less severe at the state level. I am fully aware of the many horrors that can occur in a decentralized system of government. I just am quite frankly terrified by the vast increases in federal police power that Congress can justify based on a liberal reading of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Irrelevant. We are not debating about what is possible; crystal-ball gazing is the pastime of charlatans and hobbyists, and has nothing to do with this situation. In this case, we have a clear example of an injustice which is being caused by local refusals to honour the rights of American citizens. You can call up whatever fear-mongering boogeymen you like in order to argue that we should allow the present injustice to prevent hypothetical future injustices which are by no means guaranteed, but these boogeymen are distractions from the present situation, in which we can base a judgement on observed events rather than speculation about the future.

In short, if you go with objective data rather than crystal-ball gazing and speculative guesswork about the future, then your conclusion is wrong; the states should not have the power to abridge citizens' rights.

I don't see why I have to deal with allegations of racism and injustice when I speak favorably about states' rights, but those who want to increase federal power never have to answer for far greater federal tyrannies.

And I'm getting off-topic again. I apologize. I don't like having to defend moronic decisions, but in this case I feel I have to.

By defending the position on something other than pure legal technicality, you have just conceded my previous point, in which I accused you of arguing that the states have a legitimate (not just technical) mandate to abridge the rights of American citizens at will.

[Durandal]

"Honour thy Tool, and Keep it Ridgid"- UW engineering motto

That's fucking hilarious. Just thought I'd say it.

Isn't it "rigid," though? That's how my spell-checker lists it ... another UK-English vs. American English difference?

[Patrick Degan]

Well, that's how it started, but then it grew into a discussion about the law. And if you haven't noticed, the law does allow for a great deal of injustice to be committed. I'm only arguing that it's likely to be less severe at the state level.

We tried that experiment for eighty years. It was called Jim Crow. Kindly do not make arguments easily refutable by the example of history.

I am fully aware of the many horrors that can occur in a decentralized system of government.

But you're quite prepared to live with said horrors and injustices so long as they're not aimed at you today? How would State oppression be any less onerous than the supposed Federal oppression you fear from enforcement the Fourteenth Amendment?

I just am quite frankly terrified by the vast increases in federal police power that Congress can justify based on a liberal reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. Placing the enforcement of individual rights within the federal domain basically gives the federal government unlimited, unchecked power to regulate and control every conceivable thing imaginable (although it already has that power via the commerce clause, so I suppose I shouldn't be complaining).

Careful —slippery slope fallacy. A does not automatically lead to B, and the Constitution already provides limitations upon governmental power through due process, protection against self-incrimination, the right to trial, and prohibitions against ex-post-facto law and bills of attainder, among other provisions enumerated both within the original document and the Bill of Rights.

And again, your "liberal reading of the Fourteenth Amendment" argument is nonsensical. The plain text of the law forbids states from abridging the constitutional liberties of citizens and empowers the Federal government to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment. You can keep saying "liberal reading" from now until doomsday but the argument you keep trying to advance has no basis in constitutional fact.

I don't see why I have to deal with allegations of racism and injustice when I speak favorably about states' rights

Probably because "states' rights" was used to justify the Right to Keep Slaves, was taken up as the battle cry of the Confederacy, and later was used to justify Jim Crow laws and the system of de-facto racial apartheid which existed under said laws. Like it or not, "states' rights" has all that baggage hanging upon it. If you're not arguing from a racist standpoint, then you are making the cardinal error of placing abstractions over and above concrete realities.

but those who want to increase federal power never have to answer for far greater federal tyrannies.

Enforcing the Bill of Rights is tyranny? States' Rights trump individual liberties? What exactly are you arguing for, here?

And I'm getting off-topic again. I apologize. I don't like having to defend moronic decisions, but in this case I feel I have to.

Defending a moronic and unjust decision based upon nothing more than an abstraction inevitably leaves you in an untenable position.

[Patrick Degan]

Back to "strict constructionism", eh? Unfortunately, the Constitution opened the door to its own amendment and alteration in Article Five, and that tosses "original intent of the Founders" out the window as a practical means of defining what the law means today —by which blacks would still be only 3/5th persons for representation and taxation.

Wrong. The Constitution says nothing about blacks. Only slaves.

Who simply happened to be black. Even you cannot be dense enough not to know who the Three-Fifths Compromise was referring to in the original text of Article 1.2.3.

Al Gore used this same argument to associate strict constructionism with racism (and no one in the media saw fit to correct him, because, well, they're morons).

Not remebering Gore's actual quotes on the issue or their context, I can say that the media wouldn't have called Gore upon his alledged "error" because too often the "strict constructionism" argument is advanced by racists for racist purposes. It alledges at its base that the Federal government has neither the right nor the power to enforce its own laws or protect the rights of citizens of the United States —an inherently fallacious argument on its face and most often taken up by racists.

Or is that merely a coincidence?

To begin with, the 14th Amendment was probably illegally ratified.

And your basis for this assertion is...?

That being said, it was still ratified, and is a part of the Constitution.

Right. Deal with it.

The law is the intent of the creator, to quote Abraham Lincoln. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was designed to accompany the 14th Amendment, gives us a fairly good idea of some of the priviledges and immunities the 14th Amendment was designed to secure. Primarily, it dealt with issues of property and contracts. In other words, it empowered the federal government to enforce the contract clause of the Constitution. It is clear that the drafters of the 14th Amendment did not intend for it to be used to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Judicial decisions during the second half of the 19th century and the very early 20th century upheld this.

Utter and absolute horseshit. The 1866 Civil Rights Act's provisos in terms of contract law do not trump or define the Fourteenth Amendment's explicit prohibition against states abridging the rights of citizens. It does not define those rights narrowly in terms of contract law. A specific act of Congress which can be repealed or expire upon any sort of sunset provision does not supercede, define, or delimit an amendment to the Constitution itself. Civil liberties are not held beneath contract or commerical law, and unless you can find anything anywhere in the actual text of the Fourteenth Amendment to support this rather bizarre reading you apparently subscribe to, you have no argument.

The Thirteenth Amendment says that there will be no slavery anywhere within the United States. It was used by justices to strike down certain "agreements" that were close to slavery. It was INTENDED to apply to the states.

Until they simply decided not to challenge Jim Crow laws for eighty years, that is.

The Bill of Rights was NOT and the Fourteenth Amendment was not designed to make it so.

This despite the actual text of the amendment which specifically says it does. And again, I quote:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and 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

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisos of this article.

You can keep arguing this bizarre abstraction you favour as much as you like as long as you like. I've got the actual text of the Fourteenth Amendment to support my case and destroy yours every time.

[Darth Wong]

"Honour thy Tool, and Keep it Ridgid"- UW engineering motto

That's fucking hilarious. Just thought I'd say it.

Isn't it "rigid," though? That's how my spell-checker lists it ... another UK-English vs. American English difference?

No, it's a double entendre. The RIDGID tool company donated the giant 8 foot long wrench that we use as the Hallowed UW Engineering mascot (a group of engineers dressed in monk outfits parade it like the Ark of the Covenant).

[Steve]

"Honour thy Tool, and Keep it Ridgid"- UW engineering motto

That's fucking hilarious. Just thought I'd say it.

Isn't it "rigid," though? That's how my spell-checker lists it ... another UK-English vs. American English difference?

No, it's a double entendre. The RIDGID tool company donated the giant 8 foot long wrench that we use as the Hallowed UW Engineering mascot (a group of engineers dressed in monk outfits parade it like the Ark of the Covenant).

I'd almost pay money to see that.

[Durandal]

No, it's a double entendre. The RIDGID tool company donated the giant 8 foot long wrench that we use as the Hallowed UW Engineering mascot (a group of engineers dressed in monk outfits parade it like the Ark of the Covenant).

That sounds like something an engineering department would do. My dad went to GMI (General Motors Institute, now Kettering University), and his fraternity was riddled with inane -- but hilarious -- pseudo-religious, ritualistic stuff like that.

For some reason, the engineering and science majors are always the most screwy ones on campus.

[Darth Wong]

That sounds like something an engineering department would do. My dad went to GMI (General Motors Institute, now Kettering University), and his fraternity was riddled with inane -- but hilarious -- pseudo-religious, ritualistic stuff like that.

WORSHIP THE TOOL!!!!!

For some reason, the engineering and science majors are always the most screwy ones on campus.

We need the break from the stress. The artsies don't have to do any work, so they don't need the outlet.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip
We need the break from the stress. The artsies don't have to do any work, so they don't need the outlet.

Correction, the artsies are too whacked out to do any work , like wow man, it expands your mind man...