[RickSp]

I remain unconvinced regarding the "evil" of the 14th Amendment. The "Original Intent" site is one where I find myself either disagreeing every third paragraph or at least questioning his rambling discussions of citizenship and so on. It reads like Badnarik.

The Hammerstrom article argues not that the 14th Amendment is bad, but merely ineffective, a very different point from the "Original-intent" rambler. The DiLorenzo link strikes me as typically DiLorenzo, incomplete and badly argued. I find the Healy argument better and interesting but somehow missing the basic point. The USA-the-Republic link seems to be written buy the same person who wrote the "Original Intent" rambles, or if not they seem to be smoking the same substance.

I agree that the 14th Amendment has been used to eggregiously expand the power of government, which is obviously not a good thing. On the other hand, I doubt that the 13th Amendment would necessarily mean much without the 14th. I also find that extending the Bill of Rights to the states to be not a terrible thing. Personally I generally agree with Cato's Roger Pilon's views on the 14th.

Under any circumstances I do find the description - Pure Evil to apply more to a slasher movie than to the 14th Amendment.