Would you support this as a constitutional amendment?

Question

Repeal and replace the 14th Amendment. Section 1 of the 14th has three consecutive clauses that are vague and have been misused and abused by the Courts so much that it makes me want to stay away from the ballot box for the rest of my life.

Constitutional law ought to constitute a set of rules so that government (the level of government being commanded) can know what it can or cannot do. Constitutional law ought to "provide guidance and discipline for the legislature, which is entitled to know what kind of laws it may pass," and it ought to "mark the limit of [the Court's] authority." (From Romer v. Evans, 1996; morally correct rhetoric but completely hypocritical in reality.)

Declare that the 14th is repealed (we obviously don't need the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sections of it any more) and is replaced with more clearly stated rules for the states to obey.

To be continued.

In place of the Privileges and Immunities Clause, say that states must obey all provisions of the Bill of Rights except for the 2nd, 7th, and 9th amendments, and the Grand Jury Clause of the 5th.

Clarify that the Due Process Clause means exactly what it literally says and that, as Alexander Hamilton once said, it can never be applied to an act of the legislature (or voters). The Clause guarantees fair, standard PROCEDURES, not laws which judges deem acceptable.

Clarify that the Equal Protection Clause means only one thing: RACIAL equality. Not gender, not sexual orientation, not aliens, not equality for persons born out of wedlock, etc., etc.

The Supreme Court has been at its worst when: 1) it steals Presidential elections, 2) it enforces "unenumerated rights," and 3) picks out "minorities" other than racial minorites for "heightened protection."

"The current state of equal protection and fundamental rights is a travesty. The Court has drifted between different [clauses of the 14th] in deriving these rights as if they were so many coat hooks for the Court to use which-ever one is convenient. The various standards set out by the Court for deriving these rights are so vague as to be virtually useless. ... [T]he Fourteenth Amendment remains a hodgepodge of underdeveloped ideas." -- Evan Gerstmann, "Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution," (2003) Cambridge University Press, pp 209-210.

Lady, I have a Bachelor's Degree and I have taken an undergrad course about the federal judicial system. I have several books about constitutional law and I have read many Supreme Court decisions, especially ones dealing with the Equal Protection Clause. Justice William O. Douglas wrote some of the Court's most innovative interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause -- Skinner v. Okla., Harper v. Va. Brd. of Elec., and Levy v. La. And Douglas has to be one of the most untalented writers and obviously biased, far-left-wing bozos who ever served on the Court. His colleagues were often embarrassed at the unproffesionalism in the opinions he wrote. Look at Levy v. La., (1968) and you'll see a man who was writing a practical joke, not a judicial opinion.

Answer 1

before you start messing with constitutional laws, i want to know your education level, and the authority with which you speak.

be forewarned, that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

the ambiguity found in many parts of the constitution is what makes it flexible enough to span hundreds of years and still be able to govern the country. Judges are held to a higher standard. they are educated, thoughtful persons, that are removed from the partisian politics the rest of the government is mired in. they should be trusted to interpret these vague clauses to fit the times. If the constitution is merely a set of hard and fast rules, inequities will abound, because it won't be able to fluctuate with the times and circumstances. there are very few hard and fast rules in this world, and they should not be incorporated into our constitution, as this would make it a rigid and therefore, breakable document.
our constitution does set up the basic framework for the government, but they are broad invectives, that give us an idea about how to go about things, but does not include the nitty gritty details. if it did, we'd still be using the pony express to send voting results back and forth.
the constitution needs to be painted with broad brush strokes, so that laws and states can add in the detail.

p.s. the 14th amendment is how the bill of rights gets enforced against the states and not just the federal government. so i'd be hesitant to change it....the bill of rights is only a guarentee of the federal government. how would you like it if Washington said you could say what you want, but your home state, said, "umm...no. we don't have to give you those rights." thats how it used to be before the 14th amendment.

I have kept this on a level where non-lawyers could understand it, but if any other lawyer wants to spar on this, i'm willing to do it at a level that will befuddle those who have not studied it.

Answer 2

You can read the 14th amendment here
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

Most of what you say makes no sense, there is nothing wrong with the amendment 'as is'. I wont repeat what Ladylawyer so eloquently said, but I have to say she is right.

I will add this though
"Clarify that the Equal Protection Clause means only one thing: RACIAL equality. Not gender, not sexual orientation, not aliens, not equality for persons born out of wedlock, etc., etc."
That is incorrect, Equal Protection means equal protection FOR EVERYBODY under all circumstances. That said I'll concede that when written it meant racial equality, however, we 'interpret' the constitution (and it's amendments) to suit our reality, not that of over a century ago.

Answer 3

In my opinion the Constitution is out dated. Its intended use as a tool can no longer provide the democracy need for our continued protection AGAINST the mean and hatefully people in this world.If we don't come up with a better tool than this soon it will be the end of America as we know it. Its a gigantic loop hole, that's constantly being miss-used for its intended purpose. ITS OUR ACHILLES TENDON! Then a new Constitutional Law will take affect, Martial Law!

Answer 4

Sorry, but I am not as intelligent as you when it comes to the constitution. ;) I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, think that vague laws should be replaced with laws that are a little more clear.

Answer 5

No the cluase they realy need to change is the elastic cluase! Simply put the law can do what ever they like by molding the law it's self

Answer 6

Most people probably don't even know what the 14th amendment says to begin with.

Answer 7

No I would not support it at the present. But I'd like to know more about your argument. I reserve the right to change my mind.

Answer 8

In researching an answer to your question I found Sections II and IV to be very racist and sexist. It should be amended as it reads now.

Answer 9

Another politics 101 student.......

Answer 10

Haven't got a clue what you're on about??