Scuffling around for the text of the Constitution to see just who it says could be impeached, I found this. The annotations include hotlinks to the cases they site.
On the subject of the Constitution, I have decided that the best resolution between my conflicting ideas about states' rights is to just accept my inconsistency. I shall be a proponent of states' rights on those issues where I feel I should be (education and drugs, for instance) and a fierce defender of the 14th Amendment when I feel I should be (civil rights, and, uhm, hmmm.) Maybe I need to think about this inconsistency thing and make sure that it's real.
3 comments:
This post, at least, shows no inconsistency. Civil rights are derived from the U.S. Constitution, while (although the Fourteenth Amendment has been read to include damn near everything) there are no specific Constitutional provisions addressing the issues of education and drugs. The broad language of the Constitution has lead, unfortunately, to the diminishment of state's rights on those issues not expressly covered.
Yes, that's all well and good that you can pick and choose about the Tenth and Fourteenth Amendments, but how would you resolve disagreements with those who site the Tenth Amendment when you want to apply the Fourteenth and vice versa?
djh
14th trumps 10th. At least that's what the federal courts have always said. I just want the 14th to be applied *my* way, not his.
I thought of something else where I support the 14th over the 10th: universal health care.
Post a Comment