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

[Wiggen]

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?

Just more laughable bull**** from Right Wing extremists who long for the good old days prior to the Civil War when those 'darkies' knew their place.

 

[Moot]

Moot:doh i knew you were going to post this, and this shows perfectly your postings and knowledge constitutional law is a total EMBARRASSMENT TO THE FORUM

BECAUSE if you had read article 1 section 8 clause 18 you see that it says this:

The Congress shall have Power... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

the foregoing powers are powers in article 1 section 8 clauses 1 to 17 the clauses before the 18clause which you posted,....foregoing does not not grant congress a power write federal legislation after article 1 section 8.

i knew you were going to post that clause so i waited for it, and you deliver another failure!

I'm sorry but your forum etiquette and reliance on hyperbole exposes your own ignorance of the subject. Funny how that works.

 

[Master PO]

I'm sorry but your forum etiquette and reliance on hyperbole exposes your own ignorance of the subject. Funny how that works.

funny how you don't address your failure again and seek to avoid it by deflecting with foolishness.

when you have read and understand the constitution and what rights are, then you can possibly talk about constitutional law...but until that day, your postings are an embarrassment.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Just more laughable bull**** from Right Wing extremists who long for the good old days prior to the Civil War when those 'darkies' knew their place.

Yano, with over 14k posts, seems like you might have learned how to debate by now? Ya think? One does not just shrug their shoulders and roll their eyes to win what should be a mental contest. You lose by default, you never showed up. And all the bull about "darkies"? It was my party, party of Lincoln, that freed our black brethren from the chains placed upon them by your party.

Was the 14th passed Constitutionally as required by Article V [No], was extortion utilized to force this upon states [Yes]? Did it even get the required amount of states in agreement to ratify [No]. With that said, should it be a true Amendment to our Constitution [No]?

So maybe, just maybe one could just get off one's ass and say something intelligent... or just move on, yano?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

funny how you don't address your failure again and seek to avoid it by deflecting with foolishness.

when you have read and understand the constitution and what rights are, then you can possibly talk about constitutional law...but until that day, your postings are an embarrassment.

Hey Po, having read your posts, I observe you seem to know your, our, Constitution fairly well. Maybe I missed it but think I have yet to see you actually address the OP. Myself, I was not really concerned so much about the 16th, threw it in so that some might have a say that might otherwise not get involved, but the 14th, to me, seems not have have been ratified in any way near what is required Constitutionally.

Have you read the link on the 14th not being a true amendment and, if so, what is your opinion?

 

[rocket88]

I would suggest you were not clear, that if you were talking about after the Civil War but only about the Republican Party radically remaking America, you wouldn't have slipped the "Confederate sympathizers" in there because the Radical Republicans were anything but Confederate sympathizers... so what else could be your meaning about the party today? I had already agreed that there was a radical faction of the GOP after the war, that they must be held responsible for things like the 14th and its forced, illegitimate passage. Fact of the matter is, though, that the North at various times wanted, itself, to secede. See Hartford Convention, War of 1812, so secession is not just a "Confederate" idea.

What has gone missing, gone wrong, in the US is the proper balance of federal vs state powers. The fraudulent ratification of the 14th adds to this imbalance.

Then you made the incorrect statement about Johnson being a Democrat. He was formerly a Dem, but had switched with Lincoln to form the Union Party which was essentially the Republican Party of Lincoln.

You're still busy debating this straw man.

You expressed that secession was okay, and stated the Union should have let them go. Because of your "sympathy" for the Confederates....

You, on the other hand have basically been begging me to play the race card. I'm not going to give you the satisfaction that your persecution complex demands.

Then of course, there's the red herring of the Hartford convention. Typical apologist BS. Especially given that you're not even debating me.

Johnson was very much a Democrat, but since you appear desperate to have him on your team, you can have him. Worst President ever, and you want him.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

You're still busy debating this straw man.

You expressed that secession was okay, and stated the Union should have let them go. Because of your "sympathy" for the Confederates....

You, on the other hand have basically been begging me to play the race card. I'm not going to give you the satisfaction that your persecution complex demands.

Then of course, there's the red herring of the Hartford convention. Typical apologist BS. Especially given that you're not even debating me.

Johnson was very much a Democrat, but since you appear desperate to have him on your team, you can have him. Worst President ever, and you want him.

Sympathy for Confederates? You didn't know your history on secession and so I taught you, I had thought anyhow, that secession was not only a Southern "thang". So, you are way off here.

Also way off on "begging" you "to play the race card"? Show me where I was doing that, even tangentially, even once.

The Hartford thing was the North's dabbling with secession, no red herring at all since you were calling the GOP Confederate sympathizers. The American Revolution was a secession movement. And how could I debate you, you have had nothing truly to say on the matter of the OP.

Andrew Johnson was, as I indicated, a Union Party member joining Lincoln on its ticket... For the period of time of which we were speaking, he most certainly was not a Democrat. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson#Vice_President_.281865.29 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Union_Party_(United_States)

Hardly the worst president. The current one is way worse, Wilson was way worse, FDR was way worse, Jimmy Carter was way worse.

Dude, cannot accept yes for an answer can you? The Radical Republicans, a faction of the Republican Party, most certainly I indicated they were responsible for the illegitimate 14th and if I didn't say it before, a very poorly organized peace after the Civil War. Reading comprehension problem or just plain obstinate?

 

[Master PO]

Hey Po, having read your posts, I observe you seem to know your, our, Constitution fairly well. Maybe I missed it but think I have yet to see you actually address the OP. Myself, I was not really concerned so much about the 16th, threw it in so that some might have a say that might otherwise not get involved, but the 14th, to me, seems not have have been ratified in any way near what is required Constitutionally.

Have you read the link on the 14th not being a true amendment and, if so, what is your opinion?

well no i have not read about the 14th not being property ratified, but i have heard the same things for the 16th and 17th amendments to the constitution, but not read into them in detail, and to just add i have read into what is known as the "missing 13th amendment".

i will tell you now that the 14th amendment when it was written was meant for the slave population of american only ,and not meant for Citizens or foreign nationals living in america as stated by the USSC in 1873 slaughterhouse case.

 

[Wiggen]

Yano, with over 14k posts, seems like you might have learned how to debate by now? Ya think? One does not just shrug their shoulders and roll their eyes to win what should be a mental contest. You lose by default, you never showed up. And all the bull about "darkies"? It was my party, party of Lincoln, that freed our black brethren from the chains placed upon them by your party.

Was the 14th passed Constitutionally as required by Article V [No], was extortion utilized to force this upon states [Yes]? Did it even get the required amount of states in agreement to ratify [No]. With that said, should it be a true Amendment to our Constitution [No]?

So maybe, just maybe one could just get off one's ass and say something intelligent... or just move on, yano?

Always good to hear from Unreconstructed Rebels who haven't gotten over the Civil War. Funny you don't mention the 13th Amendment. I'm guessing you'd like to get rid of that one, too.

Panama sounds like a great place for you.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Always good to hear from Unreconstructed Rebels who haven't gotten over the Civil War. Funny you don't mention the 13th Amendment. I'm guessing you'd like to get rid of that one, too.

Panama sounds like a great place for you.

Its always nice to hear from folks who cannot or will not debate, mostly libs, that just like slinging as that side doesn't usually have much else to say. Certainly nothing of value.

Btw, I was born in Detroit, Motown, but know history and know that concept of secession was not just a Southern "thang". The 13th, from what I can observe of the record, was passed on the up and up by all sides, North South East and West.

Peanut gallery folk, while not really adding anything, are free to chime in like the rest of us I guess.