- Joined
- Apr 20, 2013
- Messages
- 12,331
- Reaction score
- 1,941
- 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?
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?