14th Amendment

[NWRatCon]

Yes, I’ve quoted Pitt, as opposed to quoting a once-great civil rights organization that has become just another Leftist propaganda machine once it decided that some people’s rights are more important that others.

As for slaves, their existence in early US history didn’t change the fact that traditional due process rights existed for others, and that once we piled up over 700,000 bodies and devastated much of the country in the process of freeing them we had to at least pretend that those rights extended to them as well.

Well, alright then. My point was made and now acknowledged. Appreciated. We are discussing the 14th Amendment, after all; as well as acknowledging that it was only a pretense of extending those rights to them for the next 100 years. The framers of that amendment were in earnest, but much of the nation, particularly the judiciary, were wedded to a different mindset.

I happen to be for extending civil rights to everyone, hence my affiliation. Interesting that you consider that a leftist cause, which I take as a backward compliment. I also take it, then, that you don't believe the agitprop you're posting? That the process that is "due" can still be dependent upon one's social status?

And while I'm acknowledgement mode, I appreciate that you understood the original purpose for creating "substantive due process".

 

[Doug64]

Well, alright then. My point was made and now acknowledged. Appreciated. We are discussing the 14th Amendment, after all; as well as acknowledging that it was only a pretense of extending those rights to them for the next 100 years. The framers of that amendment were in earnest, but much of the nation, particularly the judiciary, were wedded to a different mindset.

“If liberty, with us, is yet but a name, our citizenship is but a sham, and our suffrage this far only a cruel mockery, we may yet congratulate ourselves upon the fact, that the laws and institutions of the country are sound, just, and liberal. There is hope for a people when their laws are righteous, whether for the moment they conform to their requirements or not.”

—Frederick Douglass

I happen to be for extending civil rights to everyone, hence my affiliation. Interesting that you consider that a leftist cause, which I take as a backward compliment. I also take it, then, that you don't believe the agitprop you're posting? That the process that is "due" can still be dependent upon one's social status?

If the ACLU still practiced what they preached, they'd still be the great defenders of individual rights and liberties they used to be. Unfortunately, some years ago they decided that there are some peoples who exercise of their rights and liberties in defense of causes the ACLU doesn't approve of aren't worth defending.

And while I'm acknowledgement mode, I appreciate that you understood the original purpose for creating "substantive due process".

Thank you. Taney was in many ways a fine chief justice and protector of states' rights, but with Dred Scott he became the victim of his own prejudices. It's a shame, really, that that is the decision that he is rightfully remembered for. “The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interrèd with their bones.”

 

[mrjurrs]

What do the scholars think? Does the application of the 14 Amendment need a legal charge or conviction to be enforced? The case is coming in front of a court this Friday. I wonder what the judge is thinking?

Here are two links relative to my post:

U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Talk about a run on sentence. “….except for participation in rebellion, or other crime………”

Does “rebellion“ stand alone or is it grouped in with “other crime,” as in there needs to be a legal charge?

Could the 14th Amendment boot Marjorie Taylor Greene from Congress?

Lawyers say one specific clause disqualifies sedition-abetting lawmakers like MTG and Madison Cawthorn from holding office.

www.mic.com

I would look to Section 3 of the 14th.
"No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Imo, this is pretty clear, the kind of writing originalists love except when it works against them.

 

[Doug64]

"But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

To make things even more fun, Congress did indeed successfully vote to remove such disability. So part of the argument is over whether that vote applies generally going forward, or only applied to those that participated in the American Civil War. My own take would be the limited interpretation, but courts might disagree with me.