The Fourteenth Amendment is blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL - it is being used to destroy our Nation

[rahl]

The Fourteenth Amendment was NOT ratified as required by the US Constitution:


The Unconstitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment
by Leander H. Perez

---

The purported Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void, and unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress as required by Article 1, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.
3. The proposed Fourteenth Amendment was rejected by more than one fourth of all the States in the Union, and it was never ratified by three fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution provides: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State...."(1) No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.(2) The fact that twenty-three Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate in order to secure a two thirds vote for the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following State Legislatures.

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

The 14th amendment was ratified in accordance to the constitution. It’s why it’s part of the constitution and has been cited in thousands of SCOTUS cases.

 

[Nickyjo]

PURE UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT

President Andrew Johnson declared that the insurrection ended and that peace , order and tranquility and civil authority existed throughout the whole United States of America on April 2nd 1866. The 13th Amended had been ratified.

So the rest of your post is irrelevant.

When the State of Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867, [making the 10th State to have rejected the same, or more than one-fourth of the total number of 36 States of the Union (as of that date), and leaving less than three-fourths of the States to possibly ratify the same] the Amendment failed of ratification in fact and in law. It could not have been revived except by a new Joint Resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives in accordance with Constitutional requirement. The GD Northern States panicked and began their criminality .

Whatever. It’s there. It protects all of us in a variety of ways. But leaving that aside, and the laughed-out-of-court futility should you sue for it being unconstitutional, what would you replace it with, and what bothers you about what it states?

 

[Gordy327]

Amendments are NOT ratified by forcing Congresspersons to sign at gunpoint.

You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you defend. Its all or none. Otherwise any oath of defense is a lie!

 

[Contumacious]

Whatever. It’s there. It protects all of us in a variety of ways. But leaving that aside, and the laughed-out-of-court futility should you sue for it being unconstitutional, what would you replace it with, and what bothers you about what it states?

We do not need a confusing unnecessary Constitutional Amendment to confer citizenship upon Afro-AMericans. Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, Alaskans , American Indians were granted citizenship by statutes.

The Fifth Amendment secures due process hearings and protects life, liberty and property.

 

[Contumacious]

You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution you defend. Its all or none. Otherwise any oath of defense is a lie!

The 1A recognizes my right to have my own opinion . Based upon, amongst others, the NEW JERSEY RESOLUTION , the 14A is NULL AND VOID.

 

[Nickyjo]

Amendments are NOT ratified by forcing Congresspersons to sign at gunpoint.

The South lost, so it were “forced” to do what happens to most defeated parties, go along with the victors wishes, in this case the abolition of slavery among other things.

Btw, has anyone sued or otherwise lobbied to try to get rid of amendments 13-15, despite the strange logic that 14 at least, as part of the constitution, is unconstitutional?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

PURE UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT

President Andrew Johnson declared that the insurrection ended and that peace , order and tranquility and civil authority existed throughout the whole United States of America on April 2nd 1866. The 13th Amended had been ratified.

So the rest of your post is irrelevant.

When the State of Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867, [making the 10th State to have rejected the same, or more than one-fourth of the total number of 36 States of the Union (as of that date), and leaving less than three-fourths of the States to possibly ratify the same] the Amendment failed of ratification in fact and in law. It could not have been revived except by a new Joint Resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives in accordance with Constitutional requirement. The GD Northern States panicked and began their criminality .

You are wrong.

Feel free to move on.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

The 1A recognizes my right to have my own opinion . Based upon, amongst others, the NEW JERSEY RESOLUTION , the 14A is NULL AND VOID.

No, it's not.

Your opinion of the 14th Amendment is null and void.

Feel free to move on.

 

[Gordy327]

The 1A recognizes my right to have my own opinion . Based upon, amongst others, the NEW JERSEY RESOLUTION , the 14A is NULL AND VOID.

Irrelevant. Have all the opinions you want, even if they're wrong. It doesn't change the fact or the constitution. Neither do your empty declarations of invalidity. But clearly any oath to defend the constitution is a lie!

 

[Nickyjo]

Irrelevant. Have all the opinions you want, even if they're wrong. It doesn't change the fact or the constitution. Neither do your empty declarations of invalidity. But clearly any oath to defend the constitution is a lie!

Especially when Trump is the one taking the oath.

 

[Gordy327]

Especially when Trump is the one taking the oath.

I doubt anyone took that "oath" seriously. It's about as empty an oath as one's oath to defend the constitution, but only the parts they agree with.

 

[Roycarn]

The Fourteenth Amendemnt is being used by the Socialist Demon Rats and those who hate the US to destroy the union by , inter alia, permitting illegal rampant immigration and reducing the authority of the States

How can the 14A be legit when President Andrew Johnson expressed doubt that the amendment was legitimate because of the Reconstruction process put in place to force and coerce the defeated southern states into ratifying it.

In the face of opposition to the Amendment, Congress passed the first Reconstruction Act over President Johnson’s veto. Despite having sent the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Southern states, >>>>>>>Congress declared that no legal government existed there and divided the South into military districts. Martial law was declared even though the war was already over. Congress also disenfranchised millions of white Southern voters. No Southern state would be allowed seats in Congress, the Radicals decreed, absent ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. <<<<<<<<As Attorney Douglas H. Bryant has asked, “Yet what good is ratification by a government that is not legally recognized and entitled to representation in Congress? And if ratification by a congressionally unrecognized state government is allowed, why can’t an unrecognized state government reject an amendment?

Time to Topple the Fourteenth Amendment - Chronicles

The Fourteenth Amendment is not a beatific and integral part of some mythical “Second Founding.” Indeed, it undermines republican government.

chroniclesmagazine.org

You've got to be kidding. The 14th Amendment is by definition a part of the Constitution; how can it be unconstitutional?
Andrew Johnson was a rabid white supremacist who was almost removed from office because of his own corruption and vindictiveness. You're treading dangerously in that direction.
The 14th Amendment was specifically designed to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves. Ironic that you consider yourself "libertarian" when you support the rights of some but not others to be able to have basic and fundamental political rights. That's not libertarianism. That's fascism.

 

[Contumacious]

You've got to be kidding. The 14th Amendment is by definition a part of the Constitution; how can it be unconstitutional?
Andrew Johnson was a rabid white supremacist who was almost removed from office because of his own corruption and vindictiveness. You're treading dangerously in that direction.
The 14th Amendment was specifically designed to protect the rights of the newly freed slaves. Ironic that you consider yourself "libertarian" when you support the rights of some but not others to be able to have basic and fundamental political rights. That's not libertarianism. That's fascism.

I will let the State of New Jersey Delegation ---A NORTHERN STATE --- explain the reason it is bold face unconstitutional


The purported Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void, and unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress as required by Article 1, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.
3. The proposed Fourteenth Amendment was rejected by more than one fourth of all the States in the Union, and it was never ratified by three fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution provides: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State...."(1) No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.(2) The fact that twenty-three Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate in order to secure a two thirds vote for the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following State Legislatures.

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

 

[Jason Warfield]

Agree to disagree

No. Either it is or it isn’t.

I suspect that this is code for you to try to get out of a debate after you’ve discovered you are defending a position that you realize you can’t defend.

Or, I could be wrong but you need to bring forth your evidence that refutes mine.

 

[Contumacious]

The South lost, so it were “forced” to do what happens to most defeated parties, go along with the victors wishes, in this case the abolition of slavery among other things.

Btw, has anyone sued or otherwise lobbied to try to get rid of amendments 13-15, despite the strange logic that 14 at least, as part of the constitution, is unconstitutional?

It has NOTHING to do with "losing"

I will let the State of New Jersey Delegation ---A NORTHERN STATE --- explain the reason it is bold face unconstitutional

The purported Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void, and unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress as required by Article 1, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.
3. The proposed Fourteenth Amendment was rejected by more than one fourth of all the States in the Union, and it was never ratified by three fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution provides: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State...."(1) No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.(2) The fact that twenty-three Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate in order to secure a two thirds vote for the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following State Legislatures.

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

 

[Roycarn]

It has NOTHING to do with "losing"

I will let the State of New Jersey Delegation ---A NORTHERN STATE --- explain the reason it is bold face unconstitutional

The purported Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void, and unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress as required by Article 1, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.
3. The proposed Fourteenth Amendment was rejected by more than one fourth of all the States in the Union, and it was never ratified by three fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution provides: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State...."(1) No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.(2) The fact that twenty-three Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate in order to secure a two thirds vote for the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following State Legislatures.

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

Weird how none of the points you made in arguing for the 14th Amendment are actually valid. I don't really care what New Jersey may or may not have said. States don't have rights, people do. When states violate the rights of the citizens, they lose their legitimacy as states.

 

[Contumacious]

I suspect that this is code for you to try to get out of a debate

I suspect that this is code for you to try to get out of a debate

BUT THERE IS NO ONGOING DEBATE

I HAVE REPETEADLY POSTED THE NEW JERSEY DELEGATION FACTUAL AND LEGAL OBJECTIONS
IN A DEBATE THE OPPONENT IS REQUIRED TO REBUT/REFUTE THEIR POSITION
THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED

 

[Safiel]

I would note that New Jersey re-ratified the 14th Amendment on April 23, 2003, implicitly repudiating their argument of 130+ years earlier.

 

[Jason Warfield]

It has NOTHING to do with "losing"

I will let the State of New Jersey Delegation ---A NORTHERN STATE --- explain the reason it is bold face unconstitutional

The purported Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void, and unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress as required by Article 1, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.
3. The proposed Fourteenth Amendment was rejected by more than one fourth of all the States in the Union, and it was never ratified by three fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution provides: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State...."(1) No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.(2) The fact that twenty-three Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate in order to secure a two thirds vote for the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following State Legislatures.

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

New Jersey first affirmed the amendment in 1866.

Then they tried to rescind it in 1868 which was largely ignored by Congress as the number of states needed was acquired and that those states that had to go through the readmisson process into the union due to their insurrection and had not competed it were not part of it. There is/was nothing unconstitutional about that process.

New Jersey would ultimately offficslly ratify the amendment in 2003.

Your position does not have merit.

 

[Hamish Howl]

The 1A recognizes my right to have my own opinion .

That's correct. Unfortunately, the opinion is stupid and based on racism.

 

[Hamish Howl]

BUT THERE IS NO ONGOING DEBATE

Correct. You're wrong.

I HAVE REPETEADLY POSTED THE NEW JERSEY DELEGATION FACTUAL AND LEGAL OBJECTIONS
IN A DEBATE THE OPPONENT IS REQUIRED TO REBUT/REFUTE THEIR POSITION
THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED

Nobody cares.

 

[Gordy327]

BUT THERE IS NO ONGOING DEBATE

I HAVE REPETEADLY POSTED THE NEW JERSEY DELEGATION FACTUAL AND LEGAL OBJECTIONS
IN A DEBATE THE OPPONENT IS REQUIRED TO REBUT/REFUTE THEIR POSITION
THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED

1 state doesn't not rule over other states. Looks like such objections were dismissed and the 14th remains intact and valid. Therefore, your declaration of the invalidity of the 14th is summarily dismissed too! Deal with it.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

I will let the State of New Jersey Delegation ---A NORTHERN STATE --- explain the reason it is bold face unconstitutional


The purported Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void, and unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress as required by Article 1, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.
3. The proposed Fourteenth Amendment was rejected by more than one fourth of all the States in the Union, and it was never ratified by three fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution provides: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State...."(1) No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.(2) The fact that twenty-three Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate in order to secure a two thirds vote for the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following State Legislatures.

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

That was then.

It's constitutional.

Accept it and move on.

 

[Jason Warfield]

BUT THERE IS NO ONGOING DEBATE

I HAVE REPETEADLY POSTED THE NEW JERSEY DELEGATION FACTUAL AND LEGAL OBJECTIONS
IN A DEBATE THE OPPONENT IS REQUIRED TO REBUT/REFUTE THEIR POSITION
THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED

I did answer in another post, but the post you quoted me was from me pointing out the context of the Jefferson you used didn’t fit your intent when you used it.

 

[Gordy327]

I would note that New Jersey re-ratified the 14th Amendment on April 23, 2003, implicitly repudiating their argument of 130+ years earlier.

Better late than never i suppose. But that is the final legal nail in the proverbial coffin.