Is the 14th Amendment Constitutionally Valid?

[The Immortal]

Article 5 of the US Constitution states:

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.

To begin with, the Southern States were FORCED to ratify the 14th amendment under the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 or face military occupation and those States and the citizens within would have no representation in congress until they ratified. Clearly this was unconstitutional according to Article 5 "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate". The signatures from the Southern States are no more valid than a signature by a landowner who was forced to sign over his property with a gun pointed at his head.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you can somehow rationalize that the Southern States signatures were valid. The 14th amendment was still not legally ratified. As stated in Article 5 ratification requires the legislatures of 3/4 of the states to sign. At that point in time there were 38 states. That means 29 states need to sign. While the Government claimed to have 29 signatures, Oregon and New Jersey both rescinded their earlier acts of ratification before the ratification was made legal.

The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 three months after the Secretary's proclamation was issued passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the "Fourteenth Amendment" had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the "ratifications" in the Southern States were "usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void" and that, "until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment."

That being the case, there were only 27 legally binding signatures (even if you accept the signatures that the Southern States gave against their will) out of 29 needed to ratify the 14th amendment.

As such, the 14th amendment is not valid.

And if you claim that it IS valid... then the constitution itself is meaningless. Because what you are asserting is that the Federal Government has the right to unilaterally change the constitution as they see fit and if the populous disagrees then they can be violently suppressed, subjugated under military rule, and denied representation in government until that populous signs onto the unilateral changes the government made.

And if that's the case... then the constitution has no meaning.

 

[prometeus]

Article 5 of the US Constitution states:

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.

To begin with, the Southern States were FORCED to ratify the 14th amendment under the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 or face military occupation and those States and the citizens within would have no representation in congress until they ratified. Clearly this was unconstitutional according to Article 5 "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate". The signatures from the Southern States are no more valid than a signature by a landowner who was forced to sign over his property with a gun pointed at his head.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you can somehow rationalize that the Southern States signatures were valid. The 14th amendment was still not legally ratified. As stated in Article 5 ratification requires the legislatures of 3/4 of the states to sign. At that point in time there were 38 states. That means 29 states need to sign. While the Government claimed to have 29 signatures, Oregon and New Jersey both rescinded their earlier acts of ratification before the ratification was made legal.

The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 three months after the Secretary's proclamation was issued passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the "Fourteenth Amendment" had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the "ratifications" in the Southern States were "usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void" and that, "until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment."

That being the case, there were only 27 legally binding signatures (even if you accept the signatures that the Southern States gave against their will) out of 29 needed to ratify the 14th amendment.

As such, the 14th amendment is not valid.

And if you claim that it IS valid... then the constitution itself is meaningless. Because what you are asserting is that the Federal Government has the right to unilaterally change the constitution as they see fit and if the populous disagrees then they can be violently suppressed, subjugated under military rule, and denied representation in government until that populous signs onto the unilateral changes the government made.

And if that's the case... then the constitution has no meaning.

Right. Maybe instead of being very conservative you could try to be a bit more realistic and better informed.

 

[The Immortal]

Right. Maybe instead of being very conservative you could try to be a bit more realistic and better informed.

And on what part was I incorrect?

 

[Paleocon]

Article 5 of the US Constitution states:

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.

To begin with, the Southern States were FORCED to ratify the 14th amendment under the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 or face military occupation and those States and the citizens within would have no representation in congress until they ratified. Clearly this was unconstitutional according to Article 5 "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate". The signatures from the Southern States are no more valid than a signature by a landowner who was forced to sign over his property with a gun pointed at his head.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you can somehow rationalize that the Southern States signatures were valid. The 14th amendment was still not legally ratified. As stated in Article 5 ratification requires the legislatures of 3/4 of the states to sign. At that point in time there were 38 states. That means 29 states need to sign. While the Government claimed to have 29 signatures, Oregon and New Jersey both rescinded their earlier acts of ratification before the ratification was made legal.

The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 three months after the Secretary's proclamation was issued passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the "Fourteenth Amendment" had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the "ratifications" in the Southern States were "usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void" and that, "until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment."

That being the case, there were only 27 legally binding signatures (even if you accept the signatures that the Southern States gave against their will) out of 29 needed to ratify the 14th amendment.

As such, the 14th amendment is not valid.

And if you claim that it IS valid... then the constitution itself is meaningless. Because what you are asserting is that the Federal Government has the right to unilaterally change the constitution as they see fit and if the populous disagrees then they can be violently suppressed, subjugated under military rule, and denied representation in government until that populous signs onto the unilateral changes the government made.

And if that's the case... then the constitution has no meaning.

1. Coercion does not invalidate legal acts under the Constitution.

2. The Constitution does not provide for states to rescind ratification.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That being the case, there were only 27 legally binding signatures (even if you accept the signatures that the Southern States gave against their will) out of 29 needed to ratify the 14th amendment.

As such, the 14th amendment is not valid.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#Am14

The 14th Amendment, which guarantees the rights of citizens and other persons, was proposed on June 13, 1866.
# State Date *
1 Connecticut Jun 25, 1866
2 New Hampshire Jul 6, 1866
3 Tennessee Jul 19, 1866
4 New Jersey Sep 11, 1866
5 Oregon Sep 19, 1866
6 Vermont Oct 30, 1866
7 Ohio Jan 4, 1867
8 New York Jan 10, 1867
9 Kansas Jan 11, 1867
10 Illinois Jan 15, 1867
11 West Virginia Jan 16, 1867
12 Michigan Jan 16, 1867
13 Minnesota Jan 16, 1867
14 Maine Jan 19, 1867
15 Nevada Jan 22, 1867
16 Indiana Jan 23, 1867
17 Missouri Jan 25, 1867
18 Rhode Island Feb 7, 1867
19 Wisconsin Feb 7, 1867
20 Pennsylvania Feb 12, 1867
21 Massachusetts Mar 20, 1867
22 Nebraska Jun 15, 1867
23 Iowa Mar 16, 1868
24 Arkansas Apr 6, 1868
25 Florida Jun 9, 1868
26 North Carolina Jul 4, 1868
27 Louisiana Jul 9, 1868
28 South Carolina Jul 9, 1868 *
29 Alabama Jul 13, 1868
30 Georgia Jul 21, 1868
31 Virginia Oct 8, 1869
32 Mississippi Jan 17, 1870
33 Texas Feb 18, 1870
34 Delaware Feb 12, 1901
35 Maryland Apr 4, 1959
36 California May 6, 1959
37 Kentucky Mar 18, 1976
Ratified in 757 days

This amendment was specifically rejected by Texas on Oct 27, 1866; by Georgia on Nov 6, 1866; by North Carolina on Dec 14, 1866; by South Carolina on Dec 20, 1866; by Kentucky on Jan 8, 1867; by Virginia on Jan 9, 1867; by Louisiana on Feb 6, 1867; by Delaware on Feb 8, 1867; and by Maryland on Mar 23, 1867. New Jersey's ratification was rescinded on Mar 24, 1868; Ohio rescinded its ratification on Jan 15, 1868 and ratified again on Mar 13, 2003.


>>>>

 

[The Immortal]

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#Am14

The 14th Amendment, which guarantees the rights of citizens and other persons, was proposed on June 13, 1866.
# State Date *
1 Connecticut Jun 25, 1866
2 New Hampshire Jul 6, 1866
3 Tennessee Jul 19, 1866
4 New Jersey Sep 11, 1866
5 Oregon Sep 19, 1866
6 Vermont Oct 30, 1866
7 Ohio Jan 4, 1867
8 New York Jan 10, 1867
9 Kansas Jan 11, 1867
10 Illinois Jan 15, 1867
11 West Virginia Jan 16, 1867
12 Michigan Jan 16, 1867
13 Minnesota Jan 16, 1867
14 Maine Jan 19, 1867
15 Nevada Jan 22, 1867
16 Indiana Jan 23, 1867
17 Missouri Jan 25, 1867
18 Rhode Island Feb 7, 1867
19 Wisconsin Feb 7, 1867
20 Pennsylvania Feb 12, 1867
21 Massachusetts Mar 20, 1867
22 Nebraska Jun 15, 1867
23 Iowa Mar 16, 1868
24 Arkansas Apr 6, 1868
25 Florida Jun 9, 1868
26 North Carolina Jul 4, 1868
27 Louisiana Jul 9, 1868
28 South Carolina Jul 9, 1868 *
29 Alabama Jul 13, 1868
30 Georgia Jul 21, 1868
31 Virginia Oct 8, 1869
32 Mississippi Jan 17, 1870
33 Texas Feb 18, 1870
34 Delaware Feb 12, 1901
35 Maryland Apr 4, 1959
36 California May 6, 1959
37 Kentucky Mar 18, 1976
Ratified in 757 days

This amendment was specifically rejected by Texas on Oct 27, 1866; by Georgia on Nov 6, 1866; by North Carolina on Dec 14, 1866; by South Carolina on Dec 20, 1866; by Kentucky on Jan 8, 1867; by Virginia on Jan 9, 1867; by Louisiana on Feb 6, 1867; by Delaware on Feb 8, 1867; and by Maryland on Mar 23, 1867. New Jersey's ratification was rescinded on Mar 24, 1868; Ohio rescinded its ratification on Jan 15, 1868 and ratified again on Mar 13, 2003.


>>>>

Except for it was ratified on July 1868. Without legal signatures of Ohio or New Jersey. Which leaves them 2 short of ratification.

 

[The Immortal]

1. Coercion does not invalidate legal acts under the Constitution.

Actually it does when that coercion was unconstitutional. The constitution explicitly says in article 5, "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." The South was unconstitutionally deprived of it's equal suffrage in order to force them to sign the 14th amendment. Therefore those signatures are not valid.

2. The Constitution does not provide for states to rescind ratification.

That's funny because States have been allowed to rescind ratification legally on other occasions for other amendments. So the precedent has already been set that yes in fact the States can rescind ratification as long as it occurs before it's legally ratified.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Article 5 of the US Constitution states:

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.

To begin with, the Southern States were FORCED to ratify the 14th amendment under the Reconstruction Acts of 1867 or face military occupation and those States and the citizens within would have no representation in congress until they ratified. Clearly this was unconstitutional according to Article 5 "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate". The signatures from the Southern States are no more valid than a signature by a landowner who was forced to sign over his property with a gun pointed at his head.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say you can somehow rationalize that the Southern States signatures were valid. The 14th amendment was still not legally ratified. As stated in Article 5 ratification requires the legislatures of 3/4 of the states to sign. At that point in time there were 38 states. That means 29 states need to sign. While the Government claimed to have 29 signatures, Oregon and New Jersey both rescinded their earlier acts of ratification before the ratification was made legal.

The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 three months after the Secretary's proclamation was issued passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the "Fourteenth Amendment" had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the "ratifications" in the Southern States were "usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void" and that, "until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment."

That being the case, there were only 27 legally binding signatures (even if you accept the signatures that the Southern States gave against their will) out of 29 needed to ratify the 14th amendment.

As such, the 14th amendment is not valid.

And if you claim that it IS valid... then the constitution itself is meaningless. Because what you are asserting is that the Federal Government has the right to unilaterally change the constitution as they see fit and if the populous disagrees then they can be violently suppressed, subjugated under military rule, and denied representation in government until that populous signs onto the unilateral changes the government made.

And if that's the case... then the constitution has no meaning.

Except that if you'll recall the southern states seceded from the US. After they were defeated in the Civil War they could get back in and be represented on the condition that they ratified the 14th. Sucks to be them that they lost the war but thems the breaks.

 

[Paleocon]

Actually it does when that coercion was unconstitutional. The constitution explicitly says in article 5, "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." The South was unconstitutionally deprived of it's equal suffrage in order to force them to sign the 14th amendment. Therefore those signatures are not valid.



That's funny because States have been allowed to rescind ratification legally on other occasions for other amendments. So the precedent has already been set that yes in fact the States can rescind ratification as long as it occurs before it's legally ratified.

1. That doesn't state that coercion is invalidating.

2. False.

 

[The Immortal]

Except that if you'll recall the southern states seceded from the US. After they were defeated in the Civil War they could get back in and be represented on the condition that they ratified the 14th. Sucks to be them that they lost the war but thems the breaks.

The South seceded because the North was attempting to unilaterally change the constitution. The North blatantly ignored constitutional authority and when the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government had no right to regulate slavery in ANY of the territories since they entered the union the North ignored them as well.

The South was fighting to defend the constitution and the North was fighting to change it.

So what you're asserting is that the federal government can ignore the constitution as well as the supreme court, they can do as they like with the provisions of the constitution and if you don't like it, you can either accept it or they can violently suppress you. And if you lose, they can force military occupation on you and remove your representation in government until you're willing to sign onto the changes that the government wanted and then they'll declare those changes constitutional.

That's patently absurd.

 

[The Immortal]

1. That doesn't state that coercion is invalidating.

So what you're asserting is that it's constitutionally valid for the Federal government to change the constitution, place military occupation upon a state and remove the ability for a State to have representation in government until they sign those changes that the Federal Government made to the constitution. And that's constitutionally valid?

You've got to be a parody poster.

2. False.

Really? That's funny because both Ohio and Maryland rescinded their signatures on the Corwin Amendment and their right to do so is universally accepted.

 

[WorldWatcher]

"WorldWatcher"]
The 14th Amendment, which guarantees the rights of citizens and other persons, was proposed on June 13, 1866.
# State Date *
1 Connecticut Jun 25, 1866
2 New Hampshire Jul 6, 1866
3 Tennessee Jul 19, 1866
4 New Jersey Sep 11, 1866
5 Oregon Sep 19, 1866
6 Vermont Oct 30, 1866
7 Ohio Jan 4, 1867
8 New York Jan 10, 1867
9 Kansas Jan 11, 1867
10 Illinois Jan 15, 1867
11 West Virginia Jan 16, 1867
12 Michigan Jan 16, 1867
13 Minnesota Jan 16, 1867
14 Maine Jan 19, 1867
15 Nevada Jan 22, 1867
16 Indiana Jan 23, 1867
17 Missouri Jan 25, 1867
18 Rhode Island Feb 7, 1867
19 Wisconsin Feb 7, 1867
20 Pennsylvania Feb 12, 1867
21 Massachusetts Mar 20, 1867
22 Nebraska Jun 15, 1867
23 Iowa Mar 16, 1868
24 Arkansas Apr 6, 1868
25 Florida Jun 9, 1868
26 North Carolina Jul 4, 1868
27 Louisiana Jul 9, 1868
28 South Carolina Jul 9, 1868 *
29 Alabama Jul 13, 1868
30 Georgia Jul 21, 1868
31 Virginia Oct 8, 1869
32 Mississippi Jan 17, 1870
33 Texas Feb 18, 1870
34 Delaware Feb 12, 1901
35 Maryland Apr 4, 1959
36 California May 6, 1959
37 Kentucky Mar 18, 1976
Ratified in 757 days

This amendment was specifically rejected by Texas on Oct 27, 1866; by Georgia on Nov 6, 1866; by North Carolina on Dec 14, 1866; by South Carolina on Dec 20, 1866; by Kentucky on Jan 8, 1867; by Virginia on Jan 9, 1867; by Louisiana on Feb 6, 1867; by Delaware on Feb 8, 1867; and by Maryland on Mar 23, 1867. New Jersey's ratification was rescinded on Mar 24, 1868; Ohio rescinded its ratification on Jan 15, 1868 and ratified again on Mar 13, 2003.


>>>>

Except for it was ratified on July 1868. Without legal signatures of Ohio or New Jersey. Which leaves them 2 short of ratification.

#1 You said: "That being the case, there were only 27 legally binding signatures (even if you accept the signatures that the Southern States gave against their will) out of 29 needed to ratify the 14th amendment." More than the number you said was required has ratified it.


#2 Article V does not contain any provisions for "oops, we take back our ratification". The idea that a valid part of the Constitution can be passed by the required 3/4's ratification and a single state can "take it back" invalidating that section of the Constitution make no sense. Even though if you discount Ohio and New Jersey, it became ratified when Georgia and Virginia ratified it.



>>>>

 

[The Immortal]

#1 You said: "That being the case, there were only 27 legally binding signatures (even if you accept the signatures that the Southern States gave against their will) out of 29 needed to ratify the 14th amendment." More than the number you said was required has ratified it.

That's irrelevant. You can't legally ratify an amendment without the required signatures and then re-educate the populace and wait until they're properly re-educated enough to actually sign the document. That's patently absurd.

That's like asserting the Federal Government can create a constitutional amendment, enact it as law and THEN get the required signatures to ratify. It doesn't work that way guy.

##2 Article V does not contain any provisions for "oops, we take back our ratification". The idea that a valid part of the Constitution can be passed by the required 3/4's ratification and a single state can "take it back" invalidating that section of the Constitution make no sense. Even though if you discount Ohio and New Jersey, it became ratified when Georgia and Virginia ratified it.

That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about Ohio and NJ rescinded their signatures BEFORE it had been legally ratified. Not after. That makes their signatures invalid.

Without the coerced signatures from the South that were unconstitutionally tied to their regaining representation in government then they're not even remotely close to ratification.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That's irrelevant. You can't legally ratify an amendment without the required signatures and then re-educate the populace and wait until they're properly re-educated enough to actually sign the document. That's patently absurd.

That's like asserting the Federal Government can create a constitutional amendment, enact it as law and THEN get the required signatures to ratify. It doesn't work that way guy.




That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about Ohio and NJ rescinded their signatures BEFORE it had been legally ratified. Not after. That makes their signatures invalid.

The Constitution says that 3/4's of the States are required for ratification, therefore it became ratified when Georgia and Virginia ratified it.



>>>>

 

[The Immortal]

The Constitution says that 3/4's of the States are required for ratification, therefore it became ratified when Georgia and Virginia ratified it.>>>>

*slap forehead* You have to be being purposefully obtuse.

Let me put it this way... Could the Federal Government change the constitution and then declare it legally enacted with 3 signatures. Then after years of re-education get the signatures requires to then make it constitutional. Is that acceptable constitutional process for an amendment?

 

[Kal'Stang]

The South seceded because the North was attempting to unilaterally change the constitution. The North blatantly ignored constitutional authority and when the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government had no right to regulate slavery in ANY of the territories since they entered the union the North ignored them as well.

The South was fighting to defend the constitution and the North was fighting to change it.

So what you're asserting is that the federal government can ignore the constitution as well as the supreme court, they can do as they like with the provisions of the constitution and if you don't like it, you can either accept it or they can violently suppress you. And if you lose, they can force military occupation on you and remove your representation in government until you're willing to sign onto the changes that the government wanted and then they'll declare those changes constitutional.

That's patently absurd.

This post reminds me of when I was in 4th grade when I got into a fight with a 5th grader about who won the civil war. I said north, he said south. Looking back on it the whole thing was really silly.

 

[1750Texan]

*slap forehead* You have to be being purposefully obtuse.

Let me put it this way... Could the Federal Government change the constitution and then declare it legally enacted with 3 signatures. Then after years of re-education get the signatures requires to then make it constitutional. Is that acceptable constitutional process for an amendment?

I guess you are correct. The 14th is not valid.

Thanks for the heads up. I will no long cite it as constitutional judicial reasoning in my posts.

 

[SILVER SURFER]

Except that if you'll recall the southern states seceded from the US. After they were defeated in the Civil War they could get back in and be represented on the condition that they ratified the 14th. Sucks to be them that they lost the war but thems the breaks.

I believe the 14th is valid. But just for the sake of argument, as far as the north was concerned, the south never ceased being states because the north never recognized the secession. So in that respect, wouldn't making representation conditional on ratification be a violation of article 5?

 

[Wiggen]

The South seceded because the North was attempting to unilaterally change the constitution. The North blatantly ignored constitutional authority and when the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government had no right to regulate slavery in ANY of the territories since they entered the union the North ignored them as well.

The South was fighting to defend the constitution and the North was fighting to change it.So what you're asserting is that the federal government can ignore the constitution as well as the supreme court, they can do as they like with the provisions of the constitution and if you don't like it, you can either accept it or they can violently suppress you. And if you lose, they can force military occupation on you and remove your representation in government until you're willing to sign onto the changes that the government wanted and then they'll declare those changes constitutional.

That's patently absurd.

No, actually the South was fighting to preserve the right to buy and sell other human beings. The North was fighting to preserve the Union.

This just in - the South lost. You need to get on with your life now. Slavery isn't coming back, the Confederacy isn't relevant, the South 'ain't gonna rise agin', and the Fourteenth
Amendment is here to stay. May I suggest moving to another country that doesn't have a Fourteenth amendment? There are a number of those in the Middle East that I'm sure would welcome your valuable contribuitons.

 

[The Immortal]

No, actually the South was fighting to preserve the right to buy and sell other human beings. The North was fighting to preserve the Union.

This just in - the South lost. You need to get on with your life now. Slavery isn't coming back, the Confederacy isn't relevant, the South 'ain't gonna rise agin', and the Fourteenth
Amendment is here to stay. May I suggest moving to another country that doesn't have a Fourteenth amendment? There are a number of those in the Middle East that I'm sure would welcome your valuable contribuitons.

Regardless of how you frame it, that was something provided for in the constitution.

What you're saying is that if the federal government considers a right to be immoral enough then they have the right to unilaterally change the constitution and if the people don't like it they can be violently oppressed and forced into signing it. Right?

So when the government declares the 2nd amendment to be immoral because FAR more people have died and been oppressed because of guns than slavery ever even imagined.... we shouldn't hear you complain a wink. Right?

 

[Mr.Nick]

I'm a patriot that firmly embraces the Bill of Rights but after that I sometimes feel that the other 17 amendments weren't wrote for the citizens but rather wrote for politicians own gain(s) or for an advantage for their political party....

I just wanted to keep my opinion here brief without having to list obvious citations such as ones being debated today.

 

[1750Texan]

I'm a patriot that firmly embraces the Bill of Rights but after that I sometimes feel that the other 17 amendments weren't wrote for the citizens but rather wrote for politicians own gain(s) or for an advantage for their political party....

I just wanted to keep my opinion here brief without having to list obvious citations such as ones being debated today.

The Constitution was not written solely as a guarantee of rights...it was also written as the framework for our form of governance.

That be said, amendments would also be written to alter that frame work. The Bill of Right are the first 10 amendments. There is nothing in the Constitution that infers that all subsequent amendments to the Constitution were solely to be affirmation of rights.

 

[Mr.Nick]

The Constitution was not written solely as a guarantee of rights...it was also written as the framework for our form of governance.

That be said, amendments would also be written to alter that frame work. The Bill of Right are the first 10 amendments. There is nothing in the Constitution that infers that all subsequent amendments to the Constitution were solely to be affirmation of rights.

I know corruption is only a blink of an eye to prostitution.

 

[1750Texan]

I know corruption is only a blink of an eye to prostitution.

Im glad you know something.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Im glad you know something.

It's common knowledge, what I said was just witty.