Saturday, January 19, 2013

The Right Can Learn From Liberal Abuse of the 14th Amendment

Much has been discussed on Sunday political talk shows about the 2nd amendment recently. The Daily Show has even pitched in for propaganda purposes to say that things have changed, the constitution is old, and muskets aren't the same as AK-47s. The NRA has held firm. They should. Reverse roles on an over 200 year old law that liberals hold to fast, and we all know they would be proclaiming their love of the constitution and the founding fathers. It is smart to hold firm on the 2nd amendment. Many conservatives have caught onto how liberals only defend or attack something when it suits them. The liberal, Humpty Dumpty mindset of a law means what I mean it to mean when I mean it has changed our society in a horrendous fashion, poisoning our political and legal process. A perfect example of liberal malfeasance is how they have used the 14th amendment to fit whatever argument they have to change laws to craft the liberal society we live in today. The right should pay attention to the past and stick to their guns.

The 14th amendment was designed to deal specifically with the outcome of the Civil War and Emancipation. Because the legislature never anticipated the odd legal challenges of the 20th century, they did not limit the scope of the law by using specific language. They didn't anticipate marxism's rise. They had no clue a cathedral of liberals would rise up and manipulate the system to create classes to suit their aims in a system of universal suffrage. Liberals have abused the 14th amendment for uses it was not intended to address, yet they turn around and say the 2nd amendment was not for citizens to own whatever gun they wanted, only muskets of the late 18th century. Liberals always want to have it both ways, and no one mentions this two faced behavior in the media because the media agrees with them.

The 14th amendment was used to overrule state laws that were put in place to foster positive civilization and encourage moral behavior. Many states had laws that gave illegitimate children lesser rights to money, inheritance or state support. Liberal activist lawyers took up the fight, and used the 14th amendment to overturn these laws (crafted by state legislatures per their right) for the march of the progressive system. The first use of 14th for bastard rights was for inheritance was Levy v. Louisiana in 1968, which started the illegitimacy law tsunami. Supreme Court used the 14th amendment and Levy as prior case precedent for allowing bastards to receive paternal financial support like legit kids. A follow on effect of that decision was that newly created government welfare programs (LBJ's Great Society had just started) had to be available for poor illegitimate children not just poor children in lower income, married households. The incredibly important consequence of that decision was that there was no disincentive to having a child out of wedlock anymore. The US illegitimacy rate went from 5% to 41% (multiple variables at play) since this decision. People respond to economics and money, so requiring dads pay for bastard children as well as the government has removed all negative, financial consequences to having illegitimate kids. The 14th amendment also allows corporations to be sued and taxed as legal entities. Liberals may whine about corporate personhood, but it's the only way they can shake them down and confiscate a share of profits legally.

Rehnquist summarizes the danger of writing laws as liberals will use them as they see fit at the time for any argument. Rehunquist was upset that the 14th amendment was intended to specifically apply to the issue of freed slaves and the post-Civil War legal issues stemming from emancipation and reconstruction, but had become a "sonic screwdriver" for liberals to use where and when they see fit. His take on the 14th amendment might as well apply to any law for a leftist:

"Unfortunately, more than a century of decisions under this Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment have produced .... a syndrome wherein this Court seems to regard the Equal Protection Clause as a cat-o'-nine-tails to be kept in the judicial closet as a threat to legislatures which may, in the view of the judiciary, get out of hand and pass 'arbitrary', 'illogical,' or 'unreasonable' laws. Except in the area of the law in which the Framers obviously meant it to apply—classifications based on race or on national origin, the first cousin of race—the Court's decisions can fairly be described as an endless tinkering with legislative judgments, a series of conclusions unsupported by any central guiding principle."
 
Funny how the 14th amendment didn't protect unborn children in Roe v. Wade. Funny how in all of the illegitimate children decisions, no equal protection thought was given for a father's right to deny support if they didn't want the child or to have a say in keeping a child rather than aborting it. The only thing that matters in these cases being picked up by liberal, activist lawyers and decided one way by liberal, activist judges is to help their side's proxy partner win. Lawyers get paid handsomely and a coalition voting bloc member gets a benefit to help for their bad decision.

This attitude, already on display in 1968, is behind Nixon's move to appoint 'strict constructionist' judges. The explosion of crime created Nixon's "Law and Order" slogan, which fit into this as well. His nomination of Rehnquist reflected that approach. Nixon was smart enough to see how the liberals rarely stick to their word. How fast does liberal opinion change? Hollywood just gave an ex-president a standing ovation at the Golden Globes only 16 years after he signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (over 100 Dems voted for it). When a law is written, activists will push and pull to argue how it can be used for their benefit. Eventually, judges long steeped in that academic setting and those arguments will decide on important cases, using laws here or there that suit their side's argument at the time. Just as in all past liberal victories (Rhodesia, Libya, Egypt, family law, welfare), the win at the moment counts, and no thought is ever given to the consequences or to returning to the old ways. It's the law! The right should adopt this approach to the 2nd amendment. Not one inch. Not one gun.

1 comment:

PRCD said...

I think this may be the last straw of the United States. IOW, we won't be united anymore if they manage to railroad us on the 2nd ammendment. People - namely the producers paying taxes - are beginning to wake up to what a raw deal this country is becoming for them. We instinctively know we'll be defenseless if they take away our guns and the EBT stops showing up in the protected classes accounts. It'll be the Great Terror all over again.

The best thing to preserve the peace is just for several states to go their separate ways. I firmly believe it.