What is the Downside of the 14th Amendment?

I'm really tired of libertarians advancing the idea that the 14th amendment (and the general expansion of federal power it embodies) can be used toward libertarian ends, while ignoring all the unlibertarian outcomes that have resulted from it--as if it's somehow possible to have it both ways.

Please cite all the unlibertarian things done or that have come about in the name of the 14th Amendment.

 Well, for one, the ignorance of constitutional procedure in the amendment process, by forcing the Southern states to ratify it or be subject to a bloody military occupation. The Civil Rights Act, which effectively laid another step toward abolishing property rights. Brown vs. Board and other federal rulings and legislation mandating forced intergration. Also, while we're speaking of the court, it is worthy of mentioning that it gave the precedent for the rise of judicial tyranny we've seen in the last century.

The 14th amendment is redundant because the constitution already guaranteed rights to blacks, women, and those under the age of 18.  Everytime i read the constitution I see "people" written everywhere, not "white men over the age of 18 years".   The problem is that the supreme court failed to enforce their civil rights in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857).

So the 14th amendment is good in that it finally put some teeth into the enforcement for civil liberties of black americans, but because it was redundant it really weakend the constitution overall.

The real culprit here is the Supreme Court.  It has failed time and again to properly enforce the plain language of the constitution.  It failed to properly enforce rights of blacks in Dred Scott v. Sandford, it later failed in allowing the seperate but equal doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), it failed to properly apply the 2nd amendment in United States v. Miller (1939), it failed again allowing the racial curfews and interment of japanese americans in Hirabayashi v. United States/Yasui v. United States (1943), it failed to properly apply eminent domain in Kelo v. City of New London (2005), and most recently the court wiped its ass with the constitution with a pair of rulings on the same day in (2007) in Morse v. Frederick and Federal Election Comm'n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. where unbelievably the justices decided that an actual person standing on a public street holding a sign does NOT enjoy freedom of speech while at the same time a corporation -- which is not a person -- DOES have freedom of speech.  (yes i intentionally made all that one sentence)

I give the framers much credit for their forethought when drafting the constitution and later the bill of rights.  On paper it appears that making supreme court justices life tenured would insulate them from the political whims of the day.  In practice however this has been a complete failure as the court seems totally incapable of understanding the plain language of the document.

If i was a black person in 1857 (or 1896, or even today if you happen to be brown and from the middle east) I too would have had zero confidence in the courts ability to correctly interpret the constitution.  Unless the court later reversed its earlier decision -- which they almost never do because they like Precedent so much -- or the federal government stepped in to enforce their rights, the only other option blacks had was a slave revolt.  Unfortunately blacks didn't have any 2nd amendment rights making revolt extremely difficult for them.  Again, although the 14th created long-term problems of diluting the constitution, it was necessary to end slavery in the United States as the court wasn't going to do it.

~don

"So the 14th amendment is good in that it finally put some teeth into the enforcement for civil liberties of black americans..."

"I give the framers much credit for their forethought when drafting the constitution and later the bill of rights.  On paper it appears that making supreme court justices life tenured would insulate them from the political whims of the day.  In practice however this has been a complete failure as the court seems totally incapable of understanding the plain language of the document..."

"Again, although the 14th created long-term problems of diluting the constitution, it was necessary to end slavery in the United States as the court wasn't going to do it." ~don

Thank God that the mighty federal government was there to force us into being a "good" and "free" society!  Constitution and the rule of law be damned!  You'd make a lovely SCOTUS justice.  Ha!  Lame, so lame.

I almost forgot illegal ratification.

The Constitution should be repealed.

donmc:

Again, although the 14th created long-term problems of diluting the constitution, it was necessary to end slavery in the United States as the court wasn't going to do it.

The Constitution clearly permitted slavery, so the Supreme Court would have been violating their own charter had they issued a ruling prohibiting slavery.  That is the sine qua non for limited government:  it obeys its charter.  If the charter is wrong, then the people need to change it.  In any event, slavery was going to follow the draught horse and the grist mill into history due to economic and cultural change.  Organic society would have been preserved and the principle of secession upheld.  The federal government would have remained weak and unable to intervene in World War I, which would have then come to a negotiated end and the classical liberal  order in Europe would have been maintained, but I digress ... 

The effect of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment is probably the same as if the country's founders had written a Bill of Duties and set up a federal Department for Enforcement of Duties.

Byzantine:

donmc:

Again, although the 14th created long-term problems of diluting the constitution, it was necessary to end slavery in the United States as the court wasn't going to do it.

 

The Constitution clearly permitted slavery, so the Supreme Court would have been violating their own charter had they issued a ruling prohibiting slavery.  That is the sine qua non for limited government:  it obeys its charter.  If the charter is wrong, then the people need to change it.  In any event, slavery was going to follow the draught horse and the grist mill into history due to economic and cultural change.  Organic society would have been preserved and the principle of secession upheld.  The federal government would have remained weak and unable to intervene in World War I, which would have then come to a negotiated end and the classical liberal  order in Europe would have been maintained, but I digress ... 

The effect of the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment is probably the same as if the country's founders had written a Bill of Duties and set up a federal Department for Enforcement of Duties.

 Nicely put!