Did you know that the fourteenth amendment was not actually leagally ratified?
106761
The states that left the Union agreed in principal to ratify all amendments added to the constitution that were entered into during the period of time they were outside of U.S law in order to re-enter the Union.  Therefore yes the states legislatures may not have taken up the vote indivdualy, however as part of the agreement to re-enter the U.S. it was agreed that they supported the amendments.
52340
"Yes. In January 1810, Republican (the ancestors of the modern Democrats) Senator Philip Reed introduced an amendment that, after twice being considered by a committee, was approved by the Senate by a vote of 19 to 5 on April 26, 1810. The House then on May 1, 1810 approved the amendment by a vote of 87 to 3. (See Conklin at 123) As approved, the text was as follows:"
731361
Can you be specific about which part he violated? Please refer to the Article and Section, and explain what he did to violate it.\n\nIf you're referring to his favoring an amendment to ban gay marriage, the process for making amendments already exists in the Constitution.  He was proposing something go through the process, unlike some of the changes to the Constitution that have come out of USSC decisions dealing with "emanations" from "penumbras", and arguments about whether the Second Amendment really says what it says.
1046983
It was a stupid thing. Last year I did a report that showed it violated at least 3 amendments in the bill of rights. I think the only reason why it was passed was due to the paranoia to just kill all those terrorist. Some of the stuff that had "illegal" wiretaps were REPASSED this year. So yes, I do know the truth.
676602
The 14th Amendment was enacted to protect the children of freed slaves from those who would try and claim (even after the Civil War) that blacks were still "property" or 3/5ths of a person. The 14 Amendment needs to be amended because way too many illegal immigrants are using it as a loophole for their anchor babies.
140338
The 19th Amendment ratified in 1920 gave women the vote. The Equal Rights Amendment is claimed to guarantee equal rights of the law but has not been ratified.
489805
Certainly within the Founders True Intent of the Constitution, States rights were recognized.  With the Union federal government winning of the civil war and the application of the 1868 14th Amendment (justified in Texas v. White [1869] since it never met Constitutional ratification requirements), States came under the power of the federal government and States rights began to diminish.  \n\nThrough the years the federal government has increasingly intruded into what the Founders would have considered as the Constitutional territory of the States.  One of the primary roles of the States (prior to the Civil war) was to protect the rights of its citizens relative to actions of the federal government through an action termed State Nullification.  In this function a single State legislature could decide that federal action was not Constitutional and nullify it in that single State.  \n\nTo get this back where it once was, a Constitutional Amendment would have to be ratified noting the Sovereign role of the States and their power to nullify federal action.
241840
The Fourteenth Amendment was originally ratified in 1868 to protect the freedman from the abrogation of his rights by the Southern states. Looking to protect the African American, the amendment made him a citizen and forced the federal government to be responsible for him. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibited the States from denying or abridging the fundamental rights of every citizen and required them to grant all persons equal protection and due process .
549961
Well, the 3rd amendment - there aren't many issues with troops being quartered today.\n\nThe 18th amendment is also now completely irrelevant, as it was repealed by the 21st. \n\nThe rest all are fairly relevant, although it's arguable that some are more important than others.
320346
"The new constitution contains human rights provisions, although their practical effect had not come fully into play since most provisions depended on implementing still-ongoing legislative and institutional changes."\n\nFor a full breakdown, see here:  http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/060322/2006032221.html
344822
Yes, and has been several times. The Bill of Rights are the FIRST 10 amendments. And the last one was passed just a few years ago. But it is not common, because it must pass a 2/3 majority of BOTH house of congress, then be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. How long does it take? the last one was proposed in 1790, but didn't make the first cut!    LOOK THEM UP. Learn them. FIGHT FOR THEM!
274597
none so far, but debate over the past year regarding constitutional change (or charter change) has been quite heated. currently, they are still under the constitution of 1987.
522556
No.  It is not within their charter.
595688
The 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\nA group of attorneys and immigration experts are trying to do something about the problem RIGHT NOW. \n\nCraig Nelsen, director of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement Stated :\n"The situation we have today is absurd,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. This was not the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment; it makes a mockery of citizenship."\n(Sound Familiar??)\n\nThe key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase\n\n"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF."\n\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))\n\nThe phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" REQUIRES "Direct And Immediate ALLEGIENCE" 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\nThe so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either. \nIn 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\nThe 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\nJudging 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. \nThe 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 so-called 14th amendment is prov
444091
***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
180442
Here's the actual wording of the Constitution on how it can be amended:\n\n"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."\n\nIf you need clarification, Wikipedia has a pretty decent summary (it's long, but it's worth it):\n\n"The authors of the Constitution were clearly aware that changes would be necessary from time to time if the Constitution was to endure and cope with the effects of the anticipated growth of the nation. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. Balancing this, they also wanted to ensure that an overly rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population. Their solution was to devise a dual process by which the Constitution could be altered.\n\nThe first option must begin in Congress which, by a two-thirds vote (of a quorum) in each house, may initiate an amendment. Alternatively, the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states may ask Congress to call a national convention to discuss and draft amendments. To date, all amendments have been proposed by Congress; although state legislatures have on occasion requested the calling of a convention, no such request has yet received the concurrence required for such a convention.\n\nIn either case, amendments must have the approval of the legislatures or of smaller ratifying conventions within three-fourths of the states before becoming part of the Constitution. All amendments save one have been submitted to the state legislatures for ratification; only the 21st Amendment was ratified by individual conventions in the states.\n\nUnlike most constitutions, amendments to the U.S. constitution are appended to the existing body of the text, rather than being revisions of or insertions into the main articles. There is no provision for expunging from the text obsolete or rescinded provisions."
511617
Nope. The laws in our country protect us from absolute authority... there have been a few ammendments added but for the most part, it's all we the people. Not just one person signs a bill around here... The declaration of Independance has multiple signatures on it.\n\n(would someone just tell that to our current President?)\n\nThe consititution is the closest thing we have to a "book of rules". Even that was put together and signed by multiple people from 12 different states:\n\nGEO WASHINGTON-- 1st Presidt. \n[Signed also by the deputies of twelve States.] \nJohn Langdon\nNicholas Gilman \nGeo. Read\nGunning Bedford jun\nJohn Dickinson\nRichard Bassett\nJacob Broom \nNathaniel Gorham\nRufus King \nJames MCHenry\nDan. of St. Thos. Jenifer\nDanl. Carroll \nWm. Saml. Johnson\nRoger Sherman \nAlexander Hamilton \nJohn Blair--\nJames Madison Jr. \nWil. Livingston\nDavid Brearley.\nWm. Paterson.\nJona. Dayton \nWm. Blount\nRichd. Dobbs Spaight.\nHu Williamson \nB. Franklin\nThomas Mifflin\nRobt. Morris\nGeo. Clymer\nThos. FitzSimons\nJared Ingersoll\nJames Wilson\nGouv Morris \nJ. Rutledge\nCharles Cotesworth Pinckney\nCharles Pinckney\nPierce Butler \nWilliam Few\nAbr Baldwin \nWilliam Jackson, Secretary