• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

14th and 16th Amendments, frauds perpetrated on We, the People?

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Especially the 14th Amendment.

With examples of twisting this Amendment to artificially make it fit immigration wherein its original intent was to correct citizenship for newly freed slaves... then its clear use by activist courts to basically signal that now its pretty much open season, anything goes,

“...well, you let them over there do it, so its discrimination if you don't let us [pick your virtue or, more often, vice ] do it"

Not to mention this is an avenue, a backdoor, to allow an overreach by the Federal government into areas not specifically enumerated in our Constitution. Seems to me that is somewhat of a breach of the contract under which the states, those 13 independent nations under the Articles of Confederation, were made promises to get them to give up part of their sovereignty in order to become a union.

If you study the 14ths ratification do you find it unacceptable that, apparently, besides being passed under duress, it seemingly does not comply with the strict Constitutional guidelines as set up under Article V of the US Constitution?

Article V, U.S. Constitution

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

As this last part of the rules regarding amendments was undeniably not followed, should it be an amendment? Please read [ or at least skim to have a basic working knowledge ] both links to assure a decent understanding.

While I know many of you may desperately want it to be valid, if it is not...then it just is not.

David Lawrence: There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!

The Constitution For The United States, Its Sources and Its Applications - Article I

Then the 16th, for reasons small and large, is also quite questionable.

The Law That Never Was: The Fraud of Income & Social Security Tax — {0}


One of those interesting little nuggets garnered in researching this topic was a fact I didn't know:

Ohio had, in 1953, to be retroactively admitted into the union. Though the Ohio state convention had agreed to petition for admittance into the Union in 1802 and our US Congress approved that action in 1803, the convention simply did not complete the proper steps to grant statehood. The*8th Congress*(1803–1805) missed a critical part of the statehood process: congressional ratification of the state constitution.*So in 1953 it was retroactively admitted into the Union."

Error Document in Historical-Highlights/1951-2000/The-admission-of-Ohio-as-a-state/

Of course, as stated in the link on the 16th amendment, that is Ex Post Facto. All of which goes to show these things must done correctly for these to be legal.

Maybe there are other amendments that might not truly be amendments?
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
15,323
Reaction score
8,650
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think you are looking for the CT forum
 

Mr Person

A Little Bitter
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 14, 2015
Messages
52,069
Reaction score
37,103
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Given the thread title, I won't even bother to read this because an amendment ratified by the people is not a "fraud on the people."

Just...

:doh







PS: Sorry that it bothers you so much that the right to the equal protection of the laws is applicable to the states
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
84,921
Reaction score
38,812
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Given the thread title, I won't even bother to read this because an amendment ratified by the people is not a "fraud on the people."

Just...

:doh







PS: Sorry that it bothers you so much that the right to the equal protection of the laws is applicable to the states

He's just really mad that equal protection applies to more than just race.

He might be mad about it applying to race also, but I can't speak to that.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The fourteenth and sixteen amendment were government power grabs.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
84,921
Reaction score
38,812
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
He's just really mad that equal protection applies to more than just race.

He might be mad about it applying to race also, but I can't speak to that.

Given the thread title, I won't even bother to read this because an amendment ratified by the people is not a "fraud on the people."

Just...

:doh

PS: Sorry that it bothers you so much that the right to the equal protection of the laws is applicable to the states
Neither of you can be bothered with facts can you? What about just sticking to the OP, were they passed legally... or not?

Facts would prove you both incorrect and it was specifically these styled responses, where there is a voluntary blindness expected from all, that do not help debate much of anything.

Or hey, imagine this...if you exerted any effort at all you might prove me wrong. Nah.

Nope, that is not either of your styles, sling mud then leave since you do not care for truth... or just stay and sling mud. If that is all you care to do... its a free country, don't let that screen door slap shut on your way out...
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
84,921
Reaction score
38,812
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
14th reduces the power of government
Yes, but was it legally passed and therefore its use is legal, for whatever uses... or should it be considered, based on the facts, a non amendment therefore void?

Maybe, since there have been so many laws that have been adjudicated based on these false amendments, we should sunset them all for some date in the future and phase them out... or keep them, based on current correct law and Constitution.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
84,921
Reaction score
38,812
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes, but was it legally passed and therefore its use is legal, for whatever uses... or should it be considered, based on the facts, a non amendment therefore void?

Maybe, since there have been so many laws that have been adjudicated based on these false amendments, we should sunset them all for some date in the future and phase them out... or keep them, based on current correct law and Constitution.

New Jersey and Ohio did ratify the amendment, making the required 28 states.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes, but was it legally passed and therefore its use is legal, for whatever uses... or should it be considered, based on the facts, a non amendment therefore void?

It doesn't reduce the power of government. What two rationalizations did the court use to support the civil rights act that restricted the rights of property owners? The commerce clause and the equal protection clause. In fact, without the equal protection clause that law would have likely fallen right on its face.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
84,921
Reaction score
38,812
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It doesn't reduce the power of government. What two rationalizations did the court use to support the civil rights act that restricted the rights of property owners? The commerce clause and the equal protection clause.

It denies the government the power of unequal protection.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It denies the government the power of unequal protection.

You don't even realize that it apples to private business, do you? That was exactly what the court said to uphold the civil rights act. You also don't seem to realize that there is valid reasons to protect one thing and not another.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
New Jersey and Ohio did ratify the amendment, making the required 28 states.
Actually Ohio rejected it on Jan 16, 1868 [House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50 -- Senate Journal 1868, pp. 33-38.] and New Jersey on March 24, 1868 [.Minutes of the Assembly 1868, p. 743---Senate Journal 1868, p. 356.]

The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution of March 27, 1868, protested as follows:

"The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent the three-fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw its assent is undeniable ".

"That it being necessary by the constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven states of the union, upon the pretence that there were no such states in the Union: but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in palpable violation of the constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the said houses."[New Jersey Acts, March 27, 1868.]

Sorry, no go.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
84,921
Reaction score
38,812
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Actually Ohio rejected it on Jan 16, 1868 [House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50 -- Senate Journal 1868, pp. 33-38.] and New Jersey on March 24, 1868 [.Minutes of the Assembly 1868, p. 743---Senate Journal 1868, p. 356.]

The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution of March 27, 1868, protested as follows:

"The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent the three-fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw its assent is undeniable ".

"That it being necessary by the constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven states of the union, upon the pretence that there were no such states in the Union: but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in palpable violation of the constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the said houses."[New Jersey Acts, March 27, 1868.]

Sorry, no go.

The rejected it after ratifying it.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Given the thread title, I won't even bother to read this because an amendment ratified by the people is not a "fraud on the people."

Just...

:doh







PS: Sorry that it bothers you so much that the right to the equal protection of the laws is applicable to the states


why do you say" ratified by the people", when amendments are rafted by the states legislatures.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
15,323
Reaction score
8,650
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why, is it interfering with your reception you get with new aluminum foil?

Get out of here if you got nothing more to add than pablum. Go, get.

There is nothing to add your argument has no merit

US v Thomas said:
Thomas insists, repeating the argument of W. Benson & M. Beckman, The Law That Never Was (1985). Benson and Beckman review the documents concerning the states' ratification of the sixteenth amendment and conclude that only four states ratified the sixteenth amendment; they insist that the official promulgation of that amendment by Secretary of State Knox in 1913 is therefore void.

Benson and Beckman did not discover anything; they rediscovered something that Secretary Knox considered in 1913. Thirty-eight states ratified the sixteenth amendment, and thirty-seven sent formal instruments of ratification to the Secretary of State. (Minnesota notified the Secretary orally, and additional states ratified later; we consider only those Secretary Knox considered.) Only four instruments repeat the language of the sixteenth amendment exactly as Congress approved it. The others contain errors of diction, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling. The text Congress transmitted to the states was: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Many of the instruments neglected to capitalize "States," and some capitalized other words instead. The instrument from Illinois had "remuneration" in place of "enumeration"; the instrument from Missouri substituted "levy" for "lay"; the instrument from Washington had "income" not "incomes"; others made similar blunders.

Thomas insists that because the states did not approve exactly the same text, the amendment did not go into effect. Secretary Knox considered this argument. The Solicitor of the Department of State drew up a list of the errors in the instruments and — taking into account both the triviality of the deviations and the treatment of earlier amendments that had experienced more substantial problems — advised the Secretary that he was authorized to declare the amendment adopted. The Secretary did so.

Although Thomas urges us to take the view of several state courts that only agreement on the literal text may make a legal document effective, the Supreme Court follows the "enrolled bill rule." If a legislative document is authenticated in regular form by the appropriate officials, the court treats that document as properly adopted. Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 36 L.Ed. 294, 12 S.Ct. 495 (1892). The principle is equally applicable to constitutional amendments. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 66 L.Ed. 505, 42 S.Ct. 217 (1922), which treats as conclusive the declaration of the Secretary of State that the nineteenth amendment had been adopted. In United States v. Foster, 789 F.2d. 457, 462-463, n.6 (7th Cir. 1986), we relied on Leser, as well as the inconsequential nature of the objections in the face of the 73-year acceptance of the effectiveness of the sixteenth amendment, to reject a claim similar to Thomas's. See also Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 83 L. Ed. 1385, 59 S. Ct. 972 (1939) (questions about ratification of amendments may be nonjusticiable). Secretary Knox declared that enough states had ratified the sixteenth amendment. The Secretary's decision is not transparently defective. We need not decide when, if ever, such a decision may be reviewed in order to know that Secretary Knox's decision is now beyond review.

The argument was even called a fraud in 2007 and again in 2009

US v Benson said:
Benson knew or had reason to know that his statements were false or fraudulent.  26 U.S.C. § 6700(a)(2)(A).   Benson's claim to have discovered that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified has been rejected by this Court in Benson's own criminal appeal.  United States v. Benson, 941 F.2d 598, 607 (7th Cir.1991) (“In Thomas, we specifically examined the arguments made in The Law That Never Was, and concluded that ‘Benson ․ did not discover anything.’ ” (quoting United States v. Thomas, 788 F.2d 1250, 1253 (7th Cir.1986))).  “[W]e have repeatedly rejected the claim that the Sixteenth Amendment was improperly ratified.   One would think this repeated rejection of Benson's Sixteenth Amendment argument would put the matter to rest.”
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is nothing to add your argument has no merit



The argument was even called a fraud in 2007 and again in 2009
So you are not for looking into anything for yourself, if the government says its so, bow down and worship eh?

And you speak nothing to the 14th
 
Top Bottom