It's time we REPEAL Senator Richard Burr!
Submitted by Elaine Marshall on Tue, 04/06/2010 - 10:11am
Senator Richard Burr is pandering to his right-wing conservative friends in Washington with the promise of repealing health care reform. On the campaign trail, he is pledging to allow health insurance companies to discriminate against those with preexisting conditions, prevent 32 million Americans from getting health care, and cripple your pocketbooks by banning thousands of dollars in tax credits. I'm not going to let him get away it. Repeal reform? I say we repeal Burr!
This morning we launched a brand new website -- RepealBurr.com -- as a new central hub for North Carolinians who are sick and tired of Richard Burr's legendary failed leadership.
Burr was wrong when he sided with contractors instead of victims of sexual assault. He was wrong when he voted against extending unemployment benefits. He was wrong when he shut down the Armed Services Committee for his Republican colleagues -- and he’s wrong right now!
I am not going to sit back and watch while Richard Burr tries to undo health care reform -- especially as we need to move onto other important issues like jobs and financial reform. That's why I'm running for U.S. Senate; because while Richard Burr is trying to repeal good legislation of the past, North Carolina needs a real United States Senator fighting to enact great legislation for our state's future.
So I declare it's time to repeal Richard Burr on November 2nd, 2010!
The only way we can do that is to elect a new Senator -- and that's me.
But I need your help to win.
So come on over and join the thousands rejecting Burr by pledging to repeal him. If you don't live in the state -- feel free to pledge your help from afar by signing the petition as well.
Together, we can restore common sense leadership for Washington.
Together, we can fight back against Richard Burr -- and repeal him in November.
Running away from his own words
It'll be interesting to see Dick backtrack, as he's already trying to do, from his overheated rhetoric on health insurance reform. The guy has a long track record of saying stupid things and then trying to paper over them with a bunch of slippery double talk.
According to Burr, the US banking industry was on the verge of collapse when he sent his wife out on his own private little bank run. Or was it?
Which is it, Dick?
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Forget Burr, REPEAL the 14th!
Burr is just another professional politician. If you want to cure the disease rather than replacing the bandage, repeal the 14th Amendment, and Burr, and all of his friends become irrelevant. Don't miss the forest for the tree.
Do you even know what the 14th Amendment does?
Most of the rights given to American citizens by the bill of rights are protected at the state and local level because of the due process clause of the 14th Amdendment (the equal protection clause is also pretty durn important). Without the 14th Amendment, a state government would have the power to prohibit you from making the ignorant-but-constitutionally-protected statement you just made.
I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks
Rights Originate from the Sovereign Citizen
With all due respect, the 14th doesn't have anything at all to do with whether or not one has Rights guaranteed within the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights outlined in the Constitution predate the 14th Amendment, and Citizens enjoyed all of those Rights, even to a greater extent than today, without federal meddling via the 14th.
The inalienable Rights of man, and all those Rights outlined in the Bill of Rights aren't provided to the People via the federal government, nor do they need to be protected by the federal government. We the People delegate Rights to the federal government, not vice versa. It is nonsensical to think that a Citizen with inalienable Rights must have a strong central government in order to protect what is naturally ours in the first place. Your logic would dictate that all smaller governments must have a larger and stronger government to ensure the smaller doesn't encroach upon Rights. If this were the case, then the federal government would need a world government to ensure that both the federal and state governments don't violate Rights. And, who keeps the world government in check? This is contrary to the spirit of the American Revolution and in direct violation of the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. Rights originate with each and every Citizen and then are delegated upward to the States, and then only those limited powers contained in Art 1, Sec 8 passed upward to the federal government.
The 14th was the Republicans attempt to redirect where Rights originate, thereby allowing the federal government to coerce Citizens rather than govern by consent. You are correct in your assertion that the federal government now, via the 14th, has the power to "protect" its Citizens and grant privileges, special protected classes of people, and whatever else they desire since the 14th has created "subjects" of the federal government rather than a government that serves sovereign Citizens.
Democrats used to champion this ideal, but have instead decided to engage in competition with Republicans over who gets to coerce who. Presidents Jefferson, Jackson and other true defenders of liberty would be ashamed of what we've allowed to occur.
Slaves in the South weren't citizens,
until the Federal government made them so. Their descendents, almost a hundred years later, didn't enjoy the same liberties as their White neighbors, until the Federal government stepped in again.
Your assertion that all of our rights existed before Federal encroachment flies in the face of historical proof to the contrary. Unless you're only talking about rights for White males, that is.
14th Missed the Mark
There was a problem contained within the Constitution concerning slaves and the 3/5 provision. Unfortunately, the proper answer would have been to provide all humans, regardless of any physical characteristic with the same inalienable Rights as white males. That language could have easily been iserted into the 13th. Instead, the 14th did nothing but make everyone "subjects" of the federal government rather than provide sovereign Citizenship to those that needed to be included into the fold.
The 14th has outlived its usefulness and should be repealed so all Americans, regardless of skin, hair, or eye color, can enjoy the status that antebellum whites fought so hard to secure in the 18th century.
Professional politicians
If you will care to check it, the VAST majority of the "representatives" in D.C. are "professional politicians". Look at how long most of them serve if they manage to continue to be re-elected. How old is Byrd? How many years has he served. How long has the likes of Howard Coble served and how long did Strom Thurmand serve? That particular trait is NOT party specific (and I am not saying that is what you are offering up to us). But, there are a lot of good arguments for Term Limits that I think many that love their current long-standing congressperson or senator are against.
Oh, and as far as repealing the 14th Amendment, can you elaborate on how that would help our plight in America? Not questioning your statement, but would like to know your reasoning. Thanks.
Repealing the 14th would be a "Win" Win" for All
BTW, the 16th and 17th Amendments ought to be repealed as well.
1) It would instantly return our country to what is most needed right now; civility.
2) It would fix our national debt issues since the federal government would be limited to only those items contained in Art 1, Sec 8.
3) It would move all other issues to where they belong, at the State level. Most States are required to balance their budgets.
4) It would drastically limit the amount of power that has been usurped by folks like Hank Johnson http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHM_DhtiGIg and his friends in Washington.
It is what I like to call, progressive liberalism. A return to the concept of consent of the governed over what we are currently doing; fighting over which party gets to coerce the other party at the federal level. Believe me, this isn't my ideal system of government, but would at least be heading in the right direction. Imagine when a State Governor is more powerful than a U.S. Senator? Right now, former Governors run for U.S. Senate. Our country was completely turned upside down when this Amendment was jammed down the throats of the American People. It created a new class of citizenship; federal citizen with civil liberties rather than State citizenship with inalienable Rights. We all gave up our Constitutional guarantees and the common law for being mere subjects of the federal government with watered down privileges, granted and taken away at the whim of the federal government, subject to statutory rules and regulations of our new master, the US Code. This is a huge topic unto itself that takes quite a bit of study to have a firm grasp of its implications and effects today. Bottom line, Americans wouldn't believe how much more power and freedom they would immediately possess as a result of its repeal.
Repealing the 14th Amendment?
Is that a standard tenet of the modern libertarian movement? I have to say that it's one of the more radical legal proposals I've heard in a serious setting in a long time.
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 as part of the post-Civil War enterprise to break down the legal structures of slavery, and address some other lingering consequences of armed rebellion. (For example, section 3 dealt with disqualifying those who had participated in armed rebellion from serving in Congress. Section 4 dealt with validating public debt incurred in the supression of rebellion.)
But the centerpiece of the 14th Amendment in its continuing relevance today lies in its application of the legal principles of equal protection and due process to the workings of the state governments. Without the 14th Amendment, for example, the federal courts would never have applied the freedoms of speech, press, and religion to limit the actions of the states. There's much more than that, but it gives an idea of how fundamental to the rule of modern American law this amendment still is.
You're sure that's what you want to repeal?
Dan Besse
Looks like we were thinking the same thing at the same time.
Though it's practically irrevelant from a legal standpoint, he'd also lose the privlidges and immunities of being a US Citizen!
I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks
Yes
I was checking on something else altogether when "repeal the 14th amendment" jumped out at me from the recent comments column. I thought it worth a short detour to help underscore what the 14th does for us today.
Dan Besse
Citizenship vs. federal Citizenship
And gladly so! Citizens of the several States had inalienable Rights and the Common Law as their protection. Today's 14th Amendment federal U.S. Citizens have nothing more than watered down Civil Liberties, which are nothing more than privileges that can be given and/or taken away at the whim of a professional politician. Your assertion that the 14th creates Citizenship is nonsensical. This would mean that there were no Citizens of the united States until passage of the 14th Amendment. It is important to note that the federal government didn't create the States, but rather vice versa after sovereign Citizens created the States. All Rights originate from the sovereign Citizen, not from federal recognition. The Constitution dictates only three jurisdictions of law; Common, Admiralty, and Equity. There is no such law as "statutory" law which dictates almost every move of 14th Amendment U.S. Citizens today.
This is true, but things are far different today
A hundred years and more ago, what you're saying is correct, Thinker. Today, the federal government is far stronger and more influential than "back then". Me? I would like to see it as it was in past days..but, that probably isn't possible now.
A Radical Proposal
Dan, I don't know if there is any movement, organization, party, or otherwise that is proposing repeal of the 14th Amendment. I simply don't like what I'm seeing in Washington and am trying to figure out a way where we don't have parties battling over who gets to coerce who, thereby always resulting in somebody losing their liberty. Personally, I don't care what conservatives, liberals, independents, or anyone else does as long as they respect my Rights as well. We're a long way from where we started out in this country and it seems to me the crux of the problems originate with this Amendment. There must be a way to return civility to our government and secure the Rights of Citizens. The only way I see this happening is to return power to the People at their local levels whereby we can better control lobbyists, etc.. It scares me to death watching folks like Hank Johnson http://toppayingideas.com/blog/2010/04/02/guam-tipping-over-hank-johnson... making decision about my life from Washington D.C.. Professional politicians need to be kept very close, and those far off, very limited in what they can and can't do.
Keep in mind, I know the federal government will never return power they've worked so hard to steal from each and every one of us, but I do enjoy considering each and every option that would ensure all of us are allowed to pursue our life, liberty, and happiness without coercion. Love to hear your thoughts on this.
Political philosophy vs. practical democratic governance
Generally speaking, this is what I think on this topic. You seem to be expressing an internally consistent, fairly developed political philosophy that would have found substantial mainstream public support in the 18th and 19th centuries. You're expressing interpretations of Constitutional language that were hotly debated at the time.
As a practical matter, however, they are anachronisms today. Consider: One of your statements in this thread above is that there is no such thing as "statutory" law. In reality, every law adopted by Congress or a state legislature is statutory law. They're subject to challenge on Constitutional grounds in case-specific examples, of course, but it's well established as an uncontested matter of Constitutional law today that statutes are valid on their face unless a controlling court rules otherwise.
There's no reason you can't argue that the law should be otherwise, but I wouldn't suggest holding out much hope that such a fundamental reversal will come to pass now.
Similarly, you've made a clear statement of political philosophy that the natural rights of humanity emanate from inherent natural principles which don't rely on the 14th Amendment, or protection by the federal government. Well and good--as a matter of political philosophy. In practical political reality, however, the entire string of U.S. Supreme Court decisions applying the principles of due process, equal protection, and most other provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states originates in the 14th Amendment. And, as we have seen from the Civil War forward, it has often been only the coercive power of the federal government which has compelled states to recognize and implement those rights.
I don't consider myself a deep thinker on the history of Constitutional law or the finer points of philosophy. I'm more of a practical politician and advocate for environmental quality and social justice (as I see them). I take today's Constitution and law as I find them, asking only how we can affect some specific change to advance some more concrete and limited policy goal at any given time.
So you won't find me engaged in many of these extended discussions of broader political/legal philosophy. But, since you'd answered one of my questions I felt obliged to respond to your inquiry. The good news is, not to worry, you'll find others here more than happy to engage in extended debate over the points you're raising. So have fun.
Dan Besse
Not me
I'm not sure about the likely level of extended debate. I personally have reached the end of my tolerance for it, for all the reasons you've articulated so well.
This reminds me of myself thirty years ago, when I wished fervently that I could be taller and have a full head of hair. You know how much good that did.
Do good. Be nice. Have fun.
Nor I
There are aspects of this debate that I enjoy, for instance Dan's excellent post above, but all the Libertarian (sorry NCthinker but there have been others here before you who write just like you do) points sound the same after a while. I quit my class in philosophy when I realized it was not much more than verbal algebra.
Progressives are the true conservatives.
Philosophy and Algebra
No need to be sorry; most likely to be expected since I'm quite sure I'm not the only American interested in personal liberty and freedom. Some simply enjoy "mental algebra".
I Wish...
You know James, medicine has come a long way. We can make you taller, give you a full head of hair, and even make you better looking, if you so desire.
Getting rid of a "professional politician"
We need to get rid of this fugly individual..fer sher !!
Elaine, you will prevail
When you represent the majority of the people in NC and when you have shown that you have shown your support for those people throughout your career, you have the upper hand. Be damned with the polls and be damned with the national party that is backing Cal. I was a Cal supporter but after seeing your effort and after realizing your dedication for our state, it is was a no-brainer for me. I changed my dedication. And, I am thinking that despite the D.C. involvement in Cal's campaign, you will prevail. I love ya gal...and don't take that wrong. It is all about our state and what our state representatives in D.C. can do to help us be successful. You are that person. I am certain of it.
Elaine Marshall: "Progressive Outsider"
Great stuff from Mother Jones this evening on RepealBurr.com:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/04/dem-contender-calls-repeal-and-repla...