Through the "due Process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment can specific provisions of The Bill of Rights  apply to the states? Does"fundamental fairness" by the Supreme Court justices using a process of "selective incorporation" allow interpretation to include the institutionalized orginizations of "born again" (related to the Bible-John3:3 and 3:7) evangelism or fiscal conservatives and their remarkable obsession with their own national virtue or Conservative Judaism to support the traditional views ideas or opinions of Republicans? Are conservatives by defination narrow-minded and intolerant with viewpoints of a faction seeking political power, with questionable motives? Are you opposed to intellectual Democrats; advocates of democracy and liberal reforms which are not limited to or by established dogmas; and free from bigotry? Do you think Democrates favor civil liberties and social equality, progressive international security,and needed new policies and ideologies for Americas?
132563
yes because it allows "faith-based" initiatives to get public funding from the taxpayers money, many of whom ( taxpayers)are not religious and do not want their money spent on churchs or their favorite programs
534718
In honor of Pastor Martin Niemöller:\n\nFirst they came for the 6th Amendment, but I hadn't been accused of a crime, so I didn't object to denial of counsel.\n\nThen they came for the 4th Amendment, but I wasn't talking to anyone overseas, so they wouldn't be monitoring me.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 4th Amendment, but I only called my mother, so there was nothing suspicious in my phone records.\n\nThen they came for the 1st Amendment, but I never associated with criminals, so I didn't worry about being convicted purely based on what other people might do.\n\nThen they came for the 14th Amendment, but I never really understood the rules for Due Process (and wasn't allowed an attorney), so I didn't object.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 1st Amendment, but I never told anyone about what the government was doing, so again I remained silent.\n\nThen they came for the 5th Amendment,  ......  and I no longer had the right to remain silent.
386807
I am democrat. I believe in freedom! Plain and simple. America is about: Freedom! Choice! Rights!\n\nAll of these have been dwindled under republican rule. Yes, im a Christian, but I dont think that church and state should intermingle...separation of church and state is what this country was founded on, and i needs to stay like that to be solid.\n\nRepublicans think they can push THEIR morals onto other people...totally bypassing what america stands for...Independance!
497856
I spent a lot of time on this answer, so I do hope you'll read it.\n\nDisclaimer: I come down firmly in the liberal camp.\n\nThe major differences, in my mind, are in 1) how government should give economic assistance, 2) where the focus ought to be in terms of social issues, and 3) whether ideology or reality ought to ruel.\n\n1) Economics\nConservatives believe that the government is a necessary evil, and that any enforcement of the "social contract" through taxes, "entitlement programs," and business regulation ought to be minimal. They believe a freer market is a better market.\nLiberals believe that the government is the mechanism by which the people of a country achieve their vision of a fair playing field. They believe that government should regulate business and help the less fortunate get a foothold, and they believe that taxes are necessary to allow public works to go forward. They believe a fairer market is a better market.\n\n2) Social issues\nConservatives look to the past and to tradition to determine what is moral. They balk at change and feel that the country has a duty to prevent the degeneration of morals. They want to spend time on issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, and decency in the media. Many of them interpret the words of the Founding Fathers to mean the Founders were staunch Christians who believed the country should have  Christian values.\nLiberals look at the world through a prism of social justice. They feel that the relevant question is "Who is helped or hurt by this?" and bristle at "It's always been this way" as an excuse for an unsustainable argument. Many of them interpret the words of the Founding Fathers to mean the Founders were deists who believed the country should base itself on nondenominational, social-justice values. They want to spend time on issues such as equal rights, poverty, and peace.\n\n3) Ideology\nThis distinction is a tad fuzzier than others, but it's worth mentioning.\nFor the most part, conservatives lean on morality to make distinctions about policy. Certain concepts are morally right and therefore policies based on those concepts are untouchable. Thus, opposing policies must necessarily be not just wrong, but evil. (This is how you come to the conclusion that having liberals in power would lead to chaos in destruction - not because you have judged the policy proposals by liberals ineffective, but because they are not in line with the conservatives' proposals and must therefore have the opposite effect.)\nLiberals draw from the social-justice template and are interested in what has been proven to be effective or ineffective. They are interested in empirical proof rather than statements of ideology, and believe that opposing policy proposals are not necessarily evil. However, liberals do see as evil the compromising of those basic social-justice principals, and thus the rescinding of habeas corpus, the use of so-called alternative interrogation techniques, and the launching of military action without a UN resolution are highly offensive.\n\nI hope this helped you understand our side. Please feel free to correct me if  you feel I've misrepresented you.
481475
I think I've gone in the opposite direction.\n1) Gay marriage:  A ban on gay marriage says the government is getting involved in the business of churches.  That is flat-out prohibited in the establishment clause of the First Amendment, without which our great Constitution could not have been ratified.  Score one for Liberals.\n2) Abortion.  I oppose abortion on a personal level.  I also posit that THIS isn't the business of the federal government.  It might be the business of states.  There are certainly controls contra abortion in place in the form of doctors who refuse to perform them on moral grounds, etc.  Apart from the semantic and biological arguments about when a fetus is viable, it becomes a religious question, again going straight to the First Amendment, without which our great Constitution could not have been ratified.  Score another one for Liberals.\n3) Large Corporations:  Large corporations and the people who own them (the shareholders) tend to think they shouldn't pay taxes to protect their interests.  I'm not parsing words here.  Someone who has nothing should not be shouldering the burden of military contracts and pork and bailing out savings and loans and an expensive standing army.  The people who should pay for that should be those with "interests" to "defend."  My sources on this topic are Rome (which fell because all the slaves didn't have a lot of interest in defending other people's property, IMO) and pre-revolutionary France, where a monarch (horrible people) upon being informed that the people had no bread, said "Let them eat cake."  And they did.  So, I have this idea that the wealthy should pay taxes, no matter how good of an accountant, Congressman, Senator, or President they can afford.  Look what you get!  The most powerful military in the world to defend your "interests."  A robust middle class who will protect you from the poor and desperate (who shouldn't be poor and desperate and we ALL know it.)  This goes way deeper than the snivelling "I shouldn't HAVE to pay taxes, because I EARNED my obscene wealth."  Go hire an economist to figure out how much you would have to work to "earn" that kind of wealth.  The equation will have to include the conversion (that's a legal term) of labor into "profit." In my journey through life I have discovered that Liberals don't like paying taxes, any more than Conservatives do.  Liberals promote taxes because things like social programs, education, a valid military, and other good things we ask the government to do for us (the consequences of not having done being more overwhelming than I care to think about any more than I do) cost money, and as such, We, as civilized People, ought to be willing to pay taxes for, even if we don't like it, and even if we are just profiteers with no actual moral compass other than the intent to make a killing.  Now, if you think it's okay to kill poor people for sport, because you honestly think you are more well-armed (you're not), and have no moral compass (you do), keep trying to destroy the middle class by making (your marionettes in Washington DC make) us pay for EVERYTHING.  It's an absurd practice which does not promote a sustainable society.  I always evaluate arguments based on the actions they promote.  Mine is based on promoting a sustainable society.  A society where a handful of people control all of the resources and everyone else is destitute is not sustainable.  A robust middle class is required.  Just my thoughts on big corporations and the sway the seem to have held on my government for a period that I think is a bit too long.\nBig Pharma:  Where shall I begin?  In passing, I would normally lump them in with "Big Corporations," but I have been seeing evidence that they realize that not all Americans can afford their products at the prices they want to charge Americans for the
649583
As you can see from the other answers, they obviously do not.  However, the 1st ammnd has been used by left-leaning, anti-christian, atheists so many times over for their agenda that the popular belief has become that the state and anything having to do with God cannot possibly coexist.  \n\nThe real and true intent of the statement was simply to prevent the US from becoming a theocracy, that which is a state ruled by a specific religious body (as was Iran).  So if you want to march into the capitol and start screaming the Our Father, go ahead.  Just don't expect the ACLU to come and defend your right to do that.\nAnti\nChristian \nLiberals\nUnited
32386
Republicans.  I'm laughing at the answer before me (first answer, there might be more by the time I post).  The democrats have constantly tried to make the constitution something it is not.  For example, "seperation of church and state."  Democrats actually have us all believing that this is in the constitution!  It is not!  The only thing the constitution forbids is a state church, where the President of the United States would be like the pope of the church.  In fact, if you read the all the commentary that the founding fathers left for us, Christianity was always meant to be a big part of the government.  Republicans are not trying to take rights away.  Homosexual acts used to be a crime.  Some day there will be a march for the rights of child molesters under the same arguments, "we can't help it, we were born this way...  love is never wrong, etc."  If republicans try and oppose that I suppose we will be "taking their rights away," too?  Somethings needed to change.  Slavery definately needed to be abolished.  The civil rights movements of the 60's needed to happen.  These were people that were not given equality based solely on skin color.  I would extend that to homosexuals and those that find children attractive to this point: you may not be able to control what or who you find attractive, but you CAN control your actions.  We also don't throw people in jail because they THINK about killing someone.  Homosexuality is not the same as race.  There is ACTION that takes place before it becomes wrong.  Laws can legislate action.  \n\nAs far as abortion rights, read the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade and read the ammendment that originally allowed slavery.  The wording is so similiar it will make you sick.  If there is any question about whether or not a fetus is a human life or not, shouldn't we say no to killing it?  \n\nIt is time to stop "interpreting" the constitution to please every sick-o with a "cause," and preserve the nation that our forefathers built by preserving the constitution.  That means actually reading the constitution, reading the letters, speaches and earliest judicial decisions, and not being afraid to do what they did, and look to the Bible as a rule of law.
86046
When this country was founded, it was founded on liberal values: \n\n We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty  and the pursuit of Happiness. \n\nLiberalism is an ideology which holds liberty, one of the BIG 3 listed above, as the primary political value.\n\nThe gay marriage you speak about is a legal issue, not a religious or political one. Note the "all men are created equal" and the "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. I believe that applies to this issue more than the word of God. If all men are truly created equal and are to be permitted to pursue their happiness, doesn't this include marriage?\n\nAs far as abortion and the death penalty, does it strike anyone as hypocritical that the Pro-Life crowd is also pro-death when it comes to capital punishment and war? \n\nOn drug use; this falls into the "pursuit of happiness" catagory also. The most addictive drug in use in the US today is legal - nicotine. It is estimated that currently 20-25% of the US prison population is there for minor drug offences. Major drug companies (also major campaign contributers) are fighting hard to keep marijuana, for one, illegal because thay can't patent a naturally occuring substance, thus, they can't make obsene profits from it.\n\nConservatives hurt American values by denying the unalienable Rights given in the Declaration of Independence.\n\nI expect some hateful responses to this, but remember, I have the right to freedom of speach, until they decide to take that one away, too...
509520
The 14th amendment to the Constitution was NEVER meant to include illegal aliens. A PROPER interpretation of the language specifically EXCLUDES them.\n\nThe 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part: \n\n"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." \n\nThe CORRECT interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is SUBJECT to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby. \n\nIn 1866, Senator Jacob Howard argued successfuly for the inclusion of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction of"  in the 14th Amendment and  spelled out the intent  by writing: \n\n"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will NOT, of course, include persons born in the United States who are FOREIGNERS, ALIENS, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country." \n\nDespite his intention, the amendment has since been interpreted to guarantee citizenship to every person born in the United States\nSo there you have it. Yet another perversion of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue and it is perfectly clear what the intention was. You don't have to guess it is there in WRITING so why does it continue?
265809
They cover two different areas of constitutional law.\n\nProcedural due process (PDP) guarantees that sufficiently reasonable and consistent procedures (methods) will be used when infringing on a right or imposing a penalty. The basic requirements of PDP are notice and opportunity to be heard, with the specific requirements as to when and how depending upon the nature of the penalty/infringement and the redressability after the fact.\n\nSubstantive due process ensures the procedures will not be used in a manner which infringes on upon fundamental rights, namely those rights which are "rooted in tradition and history, and implicit in an ordered liberty". Fundamental rights include those explicitly granted, such as 1st Amendment rights, and those addition rights recognized by the Courts.\n\nSome examples of rights recognized by the court include the right to vote, the right to travel, the right to bodily integrity (choice in medical procedures), reproductive rights (including the right to use contraception), and most parental rights to raise a child.\n\nWhen dealing with substantive rights, simple procedural safeguards are not sufficient (though they must be followed as well). The court also strictly limits how fundamental rights can be infringed, requiring a compelling government interest and only through the least restrictive means narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. \n\nSo, substantive due process is more concerned which WHAT rights are being infringed, since it is limited to protection of fundamental rights, than how certain rights are being infringed. In contrast, procedural due process applies to ANY rights or benefits gained from the government, no matter how minor, though the lesser rights do warrant lesser protection.
236159
Here's two quotes to support your argument:\n\nFrom the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights (America):\n"Congress shall make no law adhereing to or abiding by any church or religious establishment..."\n\nFrom the Gospel of Mark, Holy Bible:\n"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's"\n\nSo as you can see, both our government and our major religion ask to be kept seperate from one another, and yet millions of conservatives and republicans have made the hipocritical motion to elect members for the "party of God"\n\nThat is all I have to say.\nGod Bless.
389987
Exactly!! \n\nI consider myself a liberal because I am a constitutionalist. This means that I support and believe in the constitution as the backbone of our country's greatness.\n\nRepublicans have been trying to destroy it for 6 years and are constantly opposed to court rulings that uphold it. Everytime the courts uphold the constitution, they come out and say, "Those darn activists judges."\n\nA couple examples:\n- abortion was made legal based on the 1st amendment where a person has a right to privacy concerning what happens to their body. That is why it is considered 'choice' not because of when life starts or not. The Supreme Court looked at the 1st Amd and realized that ALL persons have a right to what happens to their body physically. That is why we don't have torture of prisoners. That is why it is illegal to hit a person, etc... \n- prayer in public schools was not allowed based on the 4th amendment where no one religion can be given more value than another nor funded by tax dollars. The Supreme Court recognized that based on that 4th Amd., if you allow one type of prayer in public schools, you must allow all kinds. This would include more than a moment of silence which is a christian form of prayer. Budhist chant, muslims kneel and chant, etc...\n\nYou see, I, being a constitutionalist, will accept any ruling the US Supreme Court decides. I do this because I believe that constitution is the core of our value system.\n\nRepublicans believe in accepting the civil liberties given to them in the constitution but reject the ones they don't like or don't agree with.\n\nIt's the very typical Republican double standard.
671038
Yes, I think it's a big deal, and I am NOT offended to find those words on our coins.  It is one of the very few places that God is still honored in our country.  Should we invalidate the Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights, because they make reference to God?  No!  This country was founded in Christianity, and although I do firmly believe in freedom from religious persecution, I think we've gone way too far on the other side... it is now the Christians who are persecuted, our prayers are not allowed, the very basic principals that this country was founded on are litigated, and all by people claiming to be offended by it... well, you know what?  In many other countries, being the "wrong" religion can get you jailed and executed.  We allow you the God-given right to disagree, but what right do you have to change  who we are?!?!  This country was founded on Christian principals, and you have the right to live here and not be a Christian (although I pray for those lost souls), but that does not mean that you have the right to interfere with my rights, either.  Keep God in all that we do, to honor our forefathers, and honor our FATHER.
658322
I've been thinking about this for quite awhile now in an attempt to try to understand the answer to your exact question.\n\nI used to think that Republicans who support Bush were just haters who were obviously miserable unhappy ppl that wanted to be angry and blame everybody else for what flaws they saw in their lives; BUT, I have come to realize this is incorrect.\n\nThe answer lies in the fundamental way of thinking. I will explain: take for example, homosexuality. The rightwing take the fact that the Bible states homosexuality is a sin to mean that it should not be allowed in our society. They see things in flat black and white; based purely on what THEY have decided is right and wrong. With this true conviction that they are right, they feel they have the authority, as the majority, to impose their beliefs on society, ignoring the rights of the minority.\n\nThe liberal pt of view, stems from society as a whole and the rights of the individual even when in the minority. Liberals, while many also considering homosexuality a sin in the Bible, do not feel it is their place to dictate to another person how he/she should live their life as long as it is within the confinements of the law. So, you see, the liberal-minded seem to look beyond themselves and what THEY believe is right or wrong. \n\nDon't mean to make this a gay posting.. that was just an example to try to explain my answer to your question.
558796
I am a registered democrat not a socialist. I am in favor of a balanced budget and less interference into our personal lives. I also favor states rights. In Oregon we passed (voter referendum) legalized assisted suicide and medical marijuana. Both are under attack by a republican led government. These used to be republican and conservative causes. They are not any  more. This is why I vote democratic. I used to vote republican. If I thought the libertarian party had a chance I would be a libertarian. The democratic party is the lesser of the two evils. I don't care about saving stem cells, abortion or the evils of gay marriage. I do care about health care, education, and a strong economy that provides jobs with living wages. If the republican party can offer this and stay out of our bedrooms, I'll vote republican.
199417
***In Response To parrotjohn2001\n\nThe problem is that this (Fourteenth Amendment)has been misinterpreted in recent years to mean simply that anyone born in the U.S, under any circumstances, is an American citizen.\nThis is neither the original intent of the law nor the way it was interpreted by the courts in subsequent decades. Some Americans speak of birthright citizenship as if it were an immutable law of nature. \nIt is not, and most other nations do not, in fact, recognize it. It is only a BAD HABIT that could be broken with a simple Executive Order. \n\nAccording to estimates, some 200,000 so-called anchor babies are born in the United States every year. \nOnce a mother has birthed a child on American soil, she can then seek to obtain citizenship for herself on the strength of the family-reunification laws. \nEven before this happens, she is very hard to deport, as the mother of an American, and the full panoply of welfare benefits is available to her, as is affirmative action if she is a member of a racial minority. \n"The situation we have today is absurd," alleges Craig Nelsen, director of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement, \na group of attorneys and immigration experts that is trying to do something about the problem. \n"There is a huge and growing industry in Asia that arranges tourist visas for pregnant women so they can fly to the United States and give birth to an American. \nThis was not the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment; it makes a mockery of citizenship."\n\nThe key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase \n"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF." \nThe whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes in usage. Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means: \n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873)) \n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874)) \nThe phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. \n(Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)) \n\nThere is no automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) \n\nThe Supreme Court has never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists. \n(Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982)) \n\nThere are other cases referring to minor details of the question.\n\n the so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either.  In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d  266, 270 (1968), the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so‑called 14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People.\n\nThose facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution.  The Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud.\n\n The U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States.  As such, their Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution.  See Article IV, Section 1.\n\n Judging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so‑called 14th amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history.  The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is properly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.”   \n\nFor this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the s
119115
This depends on how we define the U.S.'s ideals. If you asked five different people what the U.S.'s ideals are, I suspect you'd get some overlap and some disagreement in their responses. Added into the problem is the fact that, even with the overlap, common terms such as "democracy" or "liberty" or "freedom" or "equality" mean different things to different people.\n\nOne of the U.S.'s founding ideals was equality under the law. Another was freedom of religion. And another was economic exploitation of a politically and economically weak minority group. Yet another was limiting citizenship to white, property-owning males. Some of these have changed considerably; others haven't. \n\nFor the sake of argument, let's say that U.S. ideals currently encompass personal liberty, freedom of religion, and economic opportunity. I do believe all of these should play a role in our national security policy. Again, what I mean by these terms and what someone else means can be very different. Aaaagghhh! Can't...answer! I think we need a more limiting question.