I went to Facebook to post a link to "FYI I'm One of the People in the Capitol - An Interview" by cskendrick (fabulous diary, btw) made of an interview with Kossack lil bear who has been in the WI Capitol pretty much since the beginning of the protest.
I found something strange posted on my wall and my intuition tells me it is not right, but I need some of the better legal minds here on DKos to help me parse this. Follow me below the fold to see what the hell is going on.
When I got to my FB wall, I'd found a You Tube of an interview with an Ohio SB 5 protester.
Somebody I'm not familiar with posted this in response to the video:
Here is the problem. All the demonstrators are 14th amenendment citizens. Now what does that mean? It means that they were given privilages and immunities. They are trying to take away privilages and immunites and constitutionally they ...can.
The only way, they win this fight is by renouncing their status as 14th amendment citizens and fight it from that aspect. if they do not, they have no grounds to fight and they will lose period.
That why the constitution is not taught in school anymore kids.
My understanding of the 14th Amendment is that it didn't confer citizenship on anybody, it was done to spell out the already existing moral truth for fools who believed shit like black people are not even people. A quick peek after Googling tells me the 14th was in response to people who tried to gin up "states rights" laws to continue de facto slavery after the Civil War and to counteract the Dred Scott decision.
The people protesting to save their collective bargaining rights, as I understand it, would not have to depend on the 14th Amendment in any way. Am I right? What the hell is this Louis person talking about?
EDIT Check out the size of the crowd in Ohio. It is awesome.