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

[Gordy327]

Accept it and move on.

Apparently, some cannot. But that is their problem.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

HUH?

Tenth Amendment​

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment, in the context of "commandeering," prohibits the federal government from compelling states to enact or enforce federal laws. This means the federal government cannot force states to pass specific legislation or implement federal regulations. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Tenth Amendment has established that the federal government cannot "commandeer" state resources or personnel to carry out federal mandate"

New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997),

 

[Contumacious]

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.

HUH?
WTF !!!!

Provide a LINK to the the website which shows that NJ ratified the Amendment in >>>>>1866<<<<<<<

 

[NatMorton]

It's an interesting theoretical argument, but to the best of my knowledge there is no criteria in the Constitution establishing legitimacy for a state government, so I don't see how SCOTUS could possibly rule one state's government valid and another not.

It was simply a fact that the southern state governments in power in 1868 were in power because of the Reconstruction Act. That certainly made them different, but it didn't make them illegitimate.

 

[Jason Warfield]

HUH?
WTF !!!!

Provide a LINK to the the website which shows that NJ ratified the Amendment in >>>>>1866<<<<<<<

Sorry, trying to post the link but you can find it on nj.gov, or google it and it will give you that link.

Once I get home from work, I’ll try it from my laptop, not sure why I can my phone to do it. But you can look it up on the meantime.

To be clear, as I said before, they ratified it in 1866 but tried to rescind it on 1868. Then ratified it in 2003.

All on the nj.gov site.

 

[Roycarn]

HUH?

Tenth Amendment​

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Tenth Amendment, in the context of "commandeering," prohibits the federal government from compelling states to enact or enforce federal laws. This means the federal government cannot force states to pass specific legislation or implement federal regulations. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Tenth Amendment has established that the federal government cannot "commandeer" state resources or personnel to carry out federal mandate"

New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997),

I frankly don't see your point. It's widely known and accepted that states don't have to enforce federal statutes. How is this relevant?

And your tenth amendment example has holes: what about the clause "or to the people?"

And how about this clause? Are you also against it?:

Section 1: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

[Nickyjo]

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.

Trump outdoes anyone in Constitution-ignoring.

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

I was raised in New York. Other than Tony Soprano, much of what comes out of Jersey is not worth considering.

Seriously, what do you find offensive about the 14th Amendment? I don’t particularly like the Second Amendment. It’s a poorly written sentence, pretty obviously about militias, or else it doesn’t make sense, but its ambiguity can be and has been interpreted differently by the courts at times. But the 14th has been interpreted in ways that make our country more free and more representative.

 

[Contumacious]

I frankly don't see your point.

The so-called 14A

1) fraudulently, unlawfully, illegally proposed by the U.S. Congress rendering it null and void at the outset;
ARTICLE V: The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures

2) ratified in the Southern states by 'rump legislatures', literally by military force at bayonet point — threat, duress and coercion — rendering it null and void in the second instance;

Article V provides: "No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The fact that twenty-three (23) Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following state legislatures:.​

 

[Contumacious]

Trump outdoes anyone in Constitution-ignoring.
I was raised in New York. Other than Tony Soprano, much of what comes out of Jersey is not worth considering.

Seriously, what do you find offensive about the 14th Amendment? I don’t particularly like the Second Amendment. It’s a poorly written sentence, pretty obviously about militias, or else it doesn’t make sense, but its ambiguity can be and has been interpreted differently by the courts at times. But the 14th has been interpreted in ways that make our country more free and more representative.

See #358

 

[Nickyjo]

See #358

#358 states your belief that the 14th Amendment was passed illegally. 1- It’s not going to be repealed; 2- it has been a part of the Constitution that has protected us in many ways for many years; 3- Assuming you agree that it’s here to stay, what harm do you think it has caused us?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The so-called 14A

1) fraudulently, unlawfully, illegally proposed by the U.S. Congress rendering it null and void at the outset;
ARTICLE V: The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures

2) ratified in the Southern states by 'rump legislatures', literally by military force at bayonet point — threat, duress and coercion — rendering it null and void in the second instance;

Article V provides: "No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The fact that twenty-three (23) Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following state legislatures:.​

Thank goodness for the radical Republicans!

 

[ColdHardTruth]

The so-called 14A

1) fraudulently, unlawfully, illegally proposed by the U.S. Congress rendering it null and void at the outset;

Bullshit.

ARTICLE V: The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures

2) ratified in the Southern states by 'rump legislatures', literally by military force at bayonet point — threat, duress and coercion — rendering it null and void in the second instance;

Bullshit.

Article V provides: "No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The fact that twenty-three (23) Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following state legislatures:.​

None were.

This is more Faux bullshit.

 

[Along Came Jones]

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.

Without incorporation via the 14th Amendment the 5th Amendment, along with the remainder of the Bill of Rights, only applies to the federal government. Not the states. Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

 

[Along Came Jones]

The so-called 14A

1) fraudulently, unlawfully, illegally proposed by the U.S. Congress rendering it null and void at the outset;
ARTICLE V: The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures

2) ratified in the Southern states by 'rump legislatures', literally by military force at bayonet point — threat, duress and coercion — rendering it null and void in the second instance;

Article V provides: "No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The fact that twenty-three (23) Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following state legislatures:.​

Article I, Section 5, defines a quorum as a simple majority, gives each house power to judge the qualifications of its members, and authorizes each to make its own rules.

Accordingly, acting within the rules established in the Constitution, the Thirty-ninth Congress approved the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866 by more than two-thirds of the members present in each house.

 

[Nickyjo]

Article I, Section 5, defines a quorum as a simple majority, gives each house power to judge the qualifications of its members, and authorizes each to make its own rules.

Accordingly, acting within the rules established in the Constitution, the Thirty-ninth Congress approved the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866 by more than two-thirds of the members present in each house.

For some reason our bro (or sis) Contumacious, true to his screen name, stubbornly focuses on flaws he saw in the process through which we got the 14th Amendment (and for all I know the 13th and 15th) without stating how the presence of the Amendment has harmed the US or Americans, nor to my knowledge referred us to some article or other reference that agrees with him or to any attempts to get the Amendment repealed.

 

[Contumacious]

Article I, Section 5, defines a quorum as a simple majority, gives each house power to judge the qualifications of its members, and authorizes each to make its own rules.

Accordingly, acting within the rules established in the Constitution, the Thirty-ninth Congress approved the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866 by more than two-thirds of the members present in each house.

Article V provides: "No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The fact that twenty-three (23) Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the state legislatures:​

 

[Nickyjo]

Article V provides: "No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The fact that twenty-three (23) Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the state legislatures:​

You still haven’t said why you care about this, what harm has been done by the 14th, nor referred us to any article that agrees with you. And of course, you haven’t said what we should do about this.

 

[Along Came Jones]

Article V provides: "No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The fact that twenty-three (23) Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the state legislatures:​

And the protests failed because they lacked validity.

Accordingly, acting within the rules established in the Constitution, the Thirty-ninth Congress approved the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866 by more than two-thirds of the members present in each house.

 

[Contumacious]

Without incorporation via the 14th Amendment the 5th Amendment, along with the remainder of the Bill of Rights, only applies to the federal government. Not the states. Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

WHAT ?!?!?!?!?

Are You are claiming that the Founding Fathers ONLY wanted to protect our rights to life liberty and property from the Federal government ? But they were cool if their state , county , municipality or tribe arbitrarily interfered with those rights ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?

Why then did they adopt the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV ?

https://constitutionallawreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Corfield-v.-Coryell.pdf

Furthermore the states enacted statutes similar to the 5th Am.

 

[Contumacious]

You still haven’t said why you care about this, what harm has been done by the 14th, nor referred us to any article that agrees with you. And of course, you haven’t said what we should do about this.

It is OUR Constitution - adopted for OUR protection. I will not tacitly consent to its destruction.

At any rate the 14A is unnecessary since we have the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV

https://constitutionallawreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Corfield-v.-Coryell.pdf

 

[Contumacious]

And the protests failed because they lacked validity.

Accordingly, acting within the rules established in the Constitution, the Thirty-ninth Congress approved the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866 by more than two-thirds of the members present in each house.

NONSENSE.

 

[Along Came Jones]

NONSENSE.

SENSE. AND FACT.

 

[Jason Warfield]

HUH?
WTF !!!!

Provide a LINK to the the website which shows that NJ ratified the Amendment in >>>>>1866<<<<<<<

My apologies, I fell asleep when I got home. Here is the promised link:

New Jersey Department of State

 

[Slartibartfast]

The so-called 14A

1) fraudulently, unlawfully, illegally proposed by the U.S. Congress rendering it null and void at the outset;
ARTICLE V: The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures

2) ratified in the Southern states by 'rump legislatures', literally by military force at bayonet point — threat, duress and coercion — rendering it null and void in the second instance;

Article V provides: "No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The fact that twenty-three (23) Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following state legislatures:.​

Tell them not to rebel against the country next time.

 

[Roycarn]

The so-called 14A

1) fraudulently, unlawfully, illegally proposed by the U.S. Congress rendering it null and void at the outset;
ARTICLE V: The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures

2) ratified in the Southern states by 'rump legislatures', literally by military force at bayonet point — threat, duress and coercion — rendering it null and void in the second instance;

Article V provides: "No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The fact that twenty-three (23) Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U.S. Senate, in order to secure a two-thirds vote for adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following state legislatures:.​

Again, your "facts" are completely off base.

First, the Civil War was legally an armed insurrection; therefore, the federal government had the right to reorganize those governments to prevent further acts of rebellion. By participating in the insurrection, the former state governments were no longer valid governments; thus, the division of the territories into military districts and requiring them to pursue a "republican" form of government was completely legal.

Second, you seem not to understand what a "rump" legislature is. A rump legislature is one that consists only of a minority of its elected representatives. The reconstructed legislatures of the South were completely opposite to it.