Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Kuros]

I posted this on another thread, where it received no attention. I worked hard on this, so I think I'll give it another shot.

The basic premise is that Ron Paul's implicit opposition to the 14th Amendment belies his hidden (and weak) racism.

(1790) The US Naturalization Act of 1970 was passed. This law limited naturalization to aliens who were "free white persons" and thus left out indentured servants, slaves, free African-Americans, and later Asian Americans. These racial restrictions were not abolished until 1952.

(1789-1865) States beneath the Mason-Dixon line held black people as slaves, and treated them like cattle. In 1850, a law was passed called the Fugitive Slave Law, which forced NORTHERN STATES to recognize the southern states' 'property rights' over African-Americans. This pre-dated the 14th Amendment, so the Federal System could not strike down the law as unconstitutional; thereby a majority of states were able to oppress a strong minority of states into oppressing a minority.

(1868) The 14th Amendment was ratified by 28 states and became part of the Constitution.

(1870) California's Cubic Air Law required lodging houses to have at least five hundred cubic feet of open space for each adult occupant. California's Sidewalk Ordinance made it criminal for anyone to walk through cities carrying over their shoulders a pole with baskets. Both provisions were aimed at Chinese, and poor whites flouted the Cubic Air Law while Chinese were thrown into twenty cubic foot jail cells for violating the act.

(1898) The Supreme Court decided Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was a Californian-born whose parents were Toishanese Chinese. He was detained by the Port of San Francisco when he arrived with his parents from China. The Supreme Court, through its powers of judicial review of State decisions from the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause, heard the case. It held that:

Quote:
In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.



The resulting doctrines are known as jus soli and jus sanguinis, which guarantee US citizenship through place of birth and citizenship inherited from parents respectively. Wong Kim Ark's holding effectively navigated around the Federal Naturalization Act of 1790, but could only do so through the 14th Amendment challenging State detention of rightfully American-born citizens.

(1954) Brown v Board of Education was decided by the Supreme Court. This overturned Plessy v Ferguson's Seperate but Equal decision. Brown v Board held that:

Quote:
Segregation of students in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because separate facilities are inherently unequal

This ended segregation, which was mandatory state law throughout the Southern United States.

(1972) Nixon wins the Presidential Election by taking the Deep South, a traditionally Democratic stronghold. Pundits credit his win to the morally dubious Southern Strategy. Employed following LBJ's term of pushing Civil Rights legislation, Nixon used codewords such as "law and order" and "states' rights" to subtlely appeal to Southern white audiences. "States rights" signaled discomfort with Federal judicial review, national Civil Rights laws, and ultimately with the outcome of the Civil War and the foundation of the 14th Amendment itself.

(1973) Roe v Wade held that:
Quote:
Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated her due process rights. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas affirmed in part, reversed in part.

The Supreme Court asserted its powers over Texas through the 14th Amendment, that it had the power to protect a woman's right to choose.

(2005) Kelo v New London is decided by the Supreme Court 5-to-4 in favor of the town of New London. New London created an economic development plan to accompany the arrival of Pfizer and revitalize the community. By doing so, it exercised eminant domain, traditionally reserved for developing on open and unoccupied lands for public purposes more expansive than economic ones. Petitioners Kelo and company were forced off their homes in exchange for compensation. The Supreme Court would never even had had the authority to hear the case if not for the 14th Amendment.

(2007-2008) Candidate Ron Paul emerges as a Republican candidate for President. Among other positions, he appeals to Constitutionalism and States' Rights. Ron Paul overtly opposes Roe v Wade, but even goes so far as to villify Abraham Lincoln for starting the Civil War. Ron Paul, ignoring Southern suppression of Northern States' Rights after the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Law, makes facile claims that the North could have purchased the slaves and avoided the war. Ron Paul talks about the sanctity of the original Constitution, leaving some of us to wonder which additions he opposes. Ron Paul also opposes the "anchor-babies" established by the 14th Amendment.

[bacasper]

Thanks, Kuros, for your efforts.

However if Ron Paul gets abortion wrong and everything else right, that is a pretty damn good trade-off.