https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...y-president-biden-on-gun-violence-prevention/ Wait... The 5th amendment is not absolute? -The state CAN force you to bear witness against yourself? -The state CAN try you twice for the same crime? The 8th Amendment is not absolute? - The state CAN inflict cruel or unusual punishment? The 13th Amendment is not absolute? - Slavery and/or involuntary servitude CAN exist within the US? The 14th Amendment is not absolute? - People born here CAN be denied citizenship? The 15th Amendment is not absolute? - People CAN be denied the right to vote based on color? The 19th Amendment is not absolute? - People CAN be denied the right to vote based on sex? Well, this is good to know. Thanks, Joe!
Conservatives have been trying to change the 14th Amendment for decades, it's the whole basis for the anchor baby thingy, remember?
No, no amendment is absolute as the constitution can be amended through legal precedent / SCOTUS interpretation as well as can be edited (or removed) with a new amendment. The entire constitution can be dissolved if we so choose.
Sure thing. So instead of mucking around with the 2nd Amendment because a specific portion of the country doesn't particularly like it how about we go about amending it via the legally outlined process instead? I am 100% in favor of the United States going through the legal constitutionally outlined process to amend the 2nd Amendment.
That pesky old Constitution always getting in the way of the liberal agenda we ought to do away with that antiquated old document
the first amendment : you can not yell "fire" in the theatre you can not protest too close to the convention native americans and rastafarians can not practice their religious sacraments the fourth amendment: asset forfeiture the 5th amendment: you must testify under immunity the 8th amendment: people routinely are killed, beaten, and raped in prison. etc etc etc
Common sense says that people born here are, by definition, citizens. There shouldn't even be an argument.
True. Though to be legitimate (lawful), it has to be done via constitutional convention. It was always intended to be a difficult process requiring overwhelming public support. The reason our political system never tries to go this route is because that overwhelming support isn't there. Most of what we do that is constitutionally forbidden only has a tiny simple majority (just over 50%), if even that. The constitution was meant to be a check against that sort of mob rule.
So, you agree: -The state CAN force you to bear witness against yourself -The state CAN try you twice for the same crime - The state CAN inflict cruel or unusual punishment - Slavery and/or involuntary servitude CAN exist within the US - People born here CAN be denied citizenship - People CAN be denied the right to vote based on color - People CAN be denied the right to vote based on sex Good to know.
According to Joe, there -can- be exceptions to birth right citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
I agree, but to be fair we — as a nation — would probably have an issue agreeing that dihydrogen monoxide shouldn’t be banned if left up to a majority. There is very little each side agrees on and when both sides do agree government officials try and block it (think marijuana legalization). Several of the founders also believed the constitution should be rewritten occasionally to keep the document modern. Reading some of the federalist papers the constitution doesn’t even remotely resemble what it was intended to be. States were largely supposed to be independent with the federal government being involved only in the largest of issues. This would be unworkable in today’s society.
So, you agree: -The state CAN force you to bear witness against yourself -The state CAN try you twice for the same crime - The state CAN inflict cruel or unusual punishment - Slavery and/or involuntary servitude CAN exist within the US - People born here CAN be denied citizenship - People CAN be denied the right to vote based on color - People CAN be denied the right to vote based on sex Good to know.
Should a pregnant woman who is a non-citizen be allowed to fly into the country, have a child within a few hours / days of arrival and that child be a US citizen? In your opinion...
None of this matters. According to Joe, there -can- be exceptions to birth right citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Or, the 14th could be strengthened by CHANGING the language to cover even more situations. Ergo - changed, but still having the core rights. Therefor, all Amendments could be altered without denying the guarantee rights contained in the original version. That would be a point for Joe and a fail for you. Just say'n. The 2nd could be ALTERED by spelling out gun rights in a more modern fashion WITHOUT taking present rights away from citizens, merely modernizing the language. That would be another point for Joe's argument, and another fail for you.
Oh, no, no no no... Joe didn't say anything about --changing-- any amendment, he said no amendment -- NO amendment - as written, is absolute. If you agree, it means you believe, among other things, there -can- be exceptions to birthright citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Every one of these items can be removed by various constitutional processes. Do you need me to post the definition of absolute or do you need me to explain the amendment process?
He didn’t say exceptions. He said no amendment is absolute. Those are two different words with two different meanings. Why can’t you answer the question? Let me guess!?! You agree with *gasp* Biden?
Oh, no, no no no... Joe didn't say anything about --changing-- any amendment, he said no amendment -- NO amendment - as written, is absolute. If you agree, it means you believe, among other things, there -can- be exceptions to birthright citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
Correct. It means the statement in the 14th amendment that all people born here are citizens is not absolute. This means there -can- be exceptions to birthright citizenship. If you agree with Joe, it means you agree with me.
Correct, no amendment as written or conceptualized is unlimited, permanent or unquestionable. The entire constitution can be revoked. Something that is permanent cannot be revoked. Do the people of this nation have the ability to revoke the constitution, yes or no?