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

[Contumacious]

The South seceded to protect the institution of slavery. I

That's what the powers that be want you to believe - see post #481

 

[Contumacious]

Read the Constitution. First Amendment says that, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." It doesn't say anything about the States.

Funny, that didn't seem to help slaves.

In the late 1700's the colonists were more concerned about the new federal government - they knew they control the state capitols.

Very sad that they were not considered as human beings then

 

[Contumacious]

Is there a point to all this?

BUT OF COURSE

 

[Gordy327]

BUT OF COURSE

yes, more irrelevance apparently.

 

[dairyair]

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War​

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War: Dilorenzo, Thomas J.: 9780761526469: Amazon.com: Books

The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War [Dilorenzo, Thomas J.] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War

www.amazon.com

The South went to war against the USA. That makes the South traitiors.

No matter what some amazon book may say. Who care what amazon sells?

 

[dairyair]

It has introduced the precedent that the Constitution may be circumvented when the ends justify the means - that is PRECISELY how the NJ Legislature RECENTLY AND FINALLY RATIFIED THE 14A.


It has led people to FALSELY believe that the ONLY way to prevent states from transgressing upon our fundamental rights is by using 14A.


It has allowed individuals, l whose parents are not US citizens , become US citizens.

The US is no longer a Constitutional Republic , it is a welfare state hence any of those individuals qualify for welfare type payments.

Still trying to get Slavery legal in US again?

 

[LostInSeattle]

That's what the powers that be want you to believe - see post #481

Post 481 is all about the motivations of Northern politicians. I am talking about Southern States. They seceded to protect slavery, end of story. Read the declarations by the secessionist states themselves.

The Reasons for Secession: A Documentary Study

The root cause of the American Civil War is perhaps the most controversial topic in American history. Even before the war was over, scholars in the North and South began to analyze and interpret the reasons behind the bloodshed.

www.battlefields.org

The North's failure to be morally "pure" has zero impact on the South's drive to maintain slavery.

 

[Contumacious]

Post 481 is all about the motivations of Northern politicians. I am talking about Southern States. They seceded to protect slavery, end of story. Read the declarations by the secessionist states themselves.

The Reasons for Secession: A Documentary Study

The root cause of the American Civil War is perhaps the most controversial topic in American history. Even before the war was over, scholars in the North and South began to analyze and interpret the reasons behind the bloodshed.

www.battlefields.org

The North's failure to be morally "pure" has zero impact on the South's drive to maintain slavery.

You argument is similar to the one spoused by those who believe in global warming - even if that situation is true - the US can NOT immediately abandon gasoline, coal and LPG.

There was no way that Southern States whose economy was based on agriculture could immediately cease slavery.


"The primary reason northern states opposed slavery was due to a combination of economic concerns and moral objections. Many in the North believed slavery was an unfair economic advantage for the South, as it allowed Southern industries to produce goods at a lower cost. Additionally, a strong moral objection to slavery, based on the belief that it violated fundamental human rights and democratic ideals, fueled the abolitionist movement in the North."

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I have no doubt, before the midterms, most of the Amendments will be gone. There will be no elections, there will only violence.

 

[LostInSeattle]

You argument is similar to the one spoused by those who believe in global warming - even if that situation is true - the US can NOT immediately abandon gasoline, coal and LPG.

Except that I did not make the argument that the North was asking the South to cease slavery immediately. [And FWIW, no serious policymakers I am aware of have advocated immediately abandoning fossil fuels. It's an issue of transition, and the sooner we start the easier it will be.] We were discussing the morality of secession and whether secession was wrong. I said yes, it was absolutely wrong for moral reasons. The South had zero intention of abandoning slavery, either immediately or gradually. They had invested too much capital in slaves.

You insisted that it has never been established that secession was morally wrong (as opposed to legally), and that blaming the South for seceding is a narrative formulated by, "the powers that be." Do you still think that?

There was no way that Southern States whose economy was based on agriculture could immediately cease slavery.

"The primary reason northern states opposed slavery was due to a combination of economic concerns and moral objections. Many in the North believed slavery was an unfair economic advantage for the South, as it allowed Southern industries to produce goods at a lower cost. Additionally, a strong moral objection to slavery, based on the belief that it violated fundamental human rights and democratic ideals, fueled the abolitionist movement in the North."

 

[Jason Warfield]

Don't forget to write this down for future reference :

The right to bear arms has been considered UNALIENABLE, FUNDAMENTAL AND EXTRA CONSTITUTIONAL SINCE WE BECAME A NATION

Amendment II: Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1890--91

But I do agree that Justice Washington also forgot to mention that we have a right to have bowel movements , urinate and expel gas, . Hopefully they were included otherwise I'm in big trouble.

OH WELL, C'EST La Vie.

No. Not since we became a nation.

It became a right when the initial Bill of Rights were passed. Not before.

There was no right to bear arms for the nation prior to the Bill of Rights. The closest we got prior to that was that in the Articles in Confederation it was required that states be able to field a militia and that was it.

 

[Jason Warfield]

For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught
To say the things he truly feels
And not the words of one who kneels
The record shows I took the blows
And did it my way

And did it badly.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Which of course reminds me of Founding Father Patrick Henry :


Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?

Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

The context is not for owning people but rather the freedoms of colonists, not chattel slavery.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Where does the first amendment say anything about US borders?

It doesn’t. It applies to citizens speaking out against the US government and not being punished by said government. Having said that…

Technically, the Bill of Rights are amendments to the US Constitution which means that they apply to the US territory and land only.

Or to put it another way, the government that resides in DC cannot act against a citizen if said citizen said something bad about the government outside of the nation. Basically, the government can only act against the citizen within the country not outside of it.

Constitution is about governance with the nation, the Bill of Rights is an extension of the Constitution so the First doesn’t apply outside of the nation as any action against the citizen can only happen within the nation.

 

[LostInSeattle]

It doesn’t. It applies to citizens speaking out against the US government and not being punished by said government. Having said that…

Technically, the Bill of Rights are amendments to the US Constitution which means that they apply to the US territory and land only.

Or to put it another way, the government that resides in DC cannot act against a citizen if said citizen said something bad about the government outside of the nation. Basically, the government can only act against the citizen within the country not outside of it.

Constitution is about governance with the nation, the Bill of Rights is an extension of the Constitution so the First doesn’t apply outside of the nation as any action against the citizen can only happen within the nation.

The US cannot take extra-judicial action against US citizens abroad. The legality of the killing of Anwar al-Alwaki is still debated.

 

[Jason Warfield]

As a AFro-American Hispanic I agree that slavery was definitely wrong .

But our 1st civil war had NOTHING to do with slavery :

Firstly , in 1787 the Northern States KNEW that Southerners practiced slavery - if they opposed slavery WHY then was the union formed ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Secondly : the northerners were not opposed to slavery because the same was seen as a violation of fundamental human rights and dignity. They opposed it because they were seeking AN ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE OVER SOUTHERN STATES

https://www.civilwarcauses.org/davis.htm

Thirdly , confirmation of the two outlined above


Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:

Dear Sir.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was."If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours,
A. Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley

The reason was that because George Washington assessed if he had the forces he had at hand could hold the South by force within the new nation. The answer was no.

Understanding that it was better for everyone to stay together for everyone’s self protection, Washington kicked the can of slavery to the future. There is plenty of documentation from Washington and Congressional libraries to show the split in the new nation between slaver and anti-slavery.

There was a huge debate over abolishing slavery and it is recorded as well as Washington’s decision and his lamentation of having to do so.

Lincoln’s letter was an echo of Washington’s decision to not abolish slavery for similar reasons. Like Washington, he was trying to avert a war by kicking the can down to a future generation as Washington did.

But because the South decided to secede for a variety of reasons: one of them being to return to slavery as a mode for an agrarian economy…which was in no competition to the powerhouse economy of the North. So, any weird thought that the North felt threatened by the Sourh having slaves as an conic advantage over them is so much crap: the North not only was successful in industry but was quite able to feed and have an additional agrarian economy.

Also, keep in mind the Crisis of 1832 where Sourh Carolina tried to secede over taxes and said never mind when a federal force was formed or prevent them from seceding. So there is legal precedent that secession is not considered legal and a traitorous action.

Side note: you MUST do better at understanding the context of the things you post.

 

[notquiteright]

The Trump Administration is the ONLY one with the need and the gumption to attempt to repeal it.

Is now or never.

My money is on never. MAGA and TACO may wish to misread history and the Constitution to suit themselves but there are limits, even for a felon muti bankrupt immoral man...

 

[Contumacious]

The reason was that because George Washington assessed if he had the forces he had at hand could hold the South by force within the new nation. The answer was no.

Understanding that it was better for everyone to stay together for everyone’s self protection, Washington kicked the can of slavery to the future. There is plenty of documentation from Washington and Congressional libraries to show the split in the new nation between slaver and anti-slavery.

There was a huge debate over abolishing slavery and it is recorded as well as Washington’s decision and his lamentation of having to do so.

Lincoln’s letter was an echo of Washington’s decision to not abolish slavery for similar reasons. Like Washington, he was trying to avert a war by kicking the can down to a future generation as Washington did.

But because the South decided to secede for a variety of reasons: one of them being to return to slavery as a mode for an agrarian economy…which was in no competition to the powerhouse economy of the North. So, any weird thought that the North felt threatened by the Sourh having slaves as an conic advantage over them is so much crap: the North not only was successful in industry but was quite able to feed and have an additional agrarian economy.

Also, keep in mind the Crisis of 1832 where Sourh Carolina tried to secede over taxes and said never mind when a federal force was formed or prevent them from seceding. So there is legal precedent that secession is not considered legal and a traitorous action.

Side note: you MUST do better at understanding the context of the things you post.

1- George Washington was an enslaver for 56 years - the slaves were supposed to be freed AFTER his death, i.e. when he didn't need them anymore

10 Facts About Washington & Slavery

Despite having been an enslaver for 56 years, George Washington struggled with the institution of slavery and wrote of his desire to end the practice. At the end of his life, Washington made the decision to free all of the enslaved people he owned in his 1799 will.

www.mountvernon.org

2- New Englanders contemplated secession as an option . In their The Hartford Convention in 1814 .

3- The Middle States : Middle States: Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York also contemplated secession and supported the CSA

The Secession Movement in the Middle States – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

4- The State of SC also considered Secession over tariffs in 1832.

Research Guides: Nullification Proclamation: Primary Documents in American History: Introduction

On December 10, 1832, Andrew Jackson issued a Proclamation to the People of South Carolina in response to the nullification crisis. This guide provides access to digital materials at the Library of Congress, external websites, and a print bibliography.

guides.loc.gov

5- So as declared by the declaration of independence FREE PEOPLE HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO SECEDE
https://mises.org/mises-wire/rothbard-and-mises-vs-calhoun-natural-right-secede

Side note: you MUST do better at understanding the context of the things you post.

 

[rahl]

1- George Washington was an enslaver for 56 years - the slaves were supposed to be freed AFTER his death, i.e. when he didn't need them anymore

10 Facts About Washington & Slavery

Despite having been an enslaver for 56 years, George Washington struggled with the institution of slavery and wrote of his desire to end the practice. At the end of his life, Washington made the decision to free all of the enslaved people he owned in his 1799 will.

www.mountvernon.org

2- New Englanders contemplated secession as an option . In their The Hartford Convention in 1814 .

3- The Middle States : Middle States: Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York also contemplated secession and supported the CSA

The Secession Movement in the Middle States – Abbeville Institute

www.abbevilleinstitute.org

4- The State of SC also considered Secession over tariffs in 1832.

Research Guides: Nullification Proclamation: Primary Documents in American History: Introduction

On December 10, 1832, Andrew Jackson issued a Proclamation to the People of South Carolina in response to the nullification crisis. This guide provides access to digital materials at the Library of Congress, external websites, and a print bibliography.

guides.loc.gov

5- So as declared by the declaration of independence FREE PEOPLE HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO SECEDE
https://mises.org/mises-wire/rothbard-and-mises-vs-calhoun-natural-right-secede

Side note: you MUST do better at understanding the context of the things you post.

The Declaration of Independence has exactly zero legal weight. The constitution is the law of the land, and expressly precludes a state from seceding. Texas v white.

 

[Contumacious]

Attention Freemen:

I know that the great majority of you spent 12 years at a government school where your mind was dummified and enslaved :

Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey.

A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state. –

Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)

Nevertheless , you must think and act like a freeman , know your rights and do not trust anyone.

Hence the right to bear arms is absolute , unalienable , extra Constitutional . It doesn't matter what the detractors say.

Classical liberals—i.e., also known as libertarians— to which John Locke and Thomas Jefferson belonged also believed that the RIGHT TO SECEDE emanates from the right to defend our lives and is also absolute.

Rothbard and Mises vs. Calhoun on the Natural Right to Secede | Mises Institute

It is only among radical classical liberals where we see a sustained support for a natural right to secession and self-determination, consistently applied. This

mises.org

 

[rahl]

Attention Freemen:

I know that the great majority of you spent 12 years at a government school where your mind was dummified and enslaved :

Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey.

A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state. –

Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)

Nevertheless , you must think and act like a freeman , know your rights and do not trust anyone.

Hence the right to bear arms is absolute , unalienable , extra Constitutional . It doesn't matter what the detractors say.

Classical liberals—i.e., also known as libertarians— to which John Locke and Thomas Jefferson belonged also believed that the RIGHT TO SECEDE emanates from the right to defend our lives and is also absolute.

Rothbard and Mises vs. Calhoun on the Natural Right to Secede | Mises Institute

It is only among radical classical liberals where we see a sustained support for a natural right to secession and self-determination, consistently applied. This

mises.org

 

[iguanaman]

You do know that Article II , Section 3 only requires that President Trump faithfully execute those laws which in his opinion are Constitutional


Article II, Section 3:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The Constitution provides that the President shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . . .

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-3-1/ALDE_00001160/

No Trump's "opinion" has no weight in matters of law. That is what the judicial branch is for. Are you a Nazi?

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

It doesn’t. It applies to citizens speaking out against the US government and not being punished by said government. Having said that…

Technically, the Bill of Rights are amendments to the US Constitution which means that they apply to the US territory and land only.

Or to put it another way, the government that resides in DC cannot act against a citizen if said citizen said something bad about the government outside of the nation. Basically, the government can only act against the citizen within the country not outside of it.

Constitution is about governance with the nation, the Bill of Rights is an extension of the Constitution so the First doesn’t apply outside of the nation as any action against the citizen can only happen within the nation.

Sounds like you are inferring some things from context that were not made explicit in the amendment itself.

 

[Jason Warfield]

1. True. But what I also wrote was also true, which you cannot refute. Plus, Washington was also in favor of phasing slavery out and had misgivings on owning slaves.

"I never mean (unless some particular circumstance should compel me to it) to possess another slave by purchase: it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by the legislature by which slavery in the Country may be abolished by slow, sure, & imperceptible degrees."

"There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for this abolition of [slavery] but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, & that is by Legislative authority."

"Were it not then, that I am principled against selling negroes, as you would do cattle in the market, I would not, in twelve months from this date, be possessed of one, as a slave."

"And to my Mulatto man William (calling himself William Lee) I give immediate freedom…this I give him as a testimony of my sense of his attachment to me, and for his faithful services during the Revolutionary War."

2. True, it was considered...and rejected during the secret meeting known as the Hartford Convention by New England Federalist party leaders. Those same leaders also expelled many who were pro-secession from the Convention. Historians feel that the issue of secession was never really a serious topic as it would have undermined the interests of those involved in the Convention.

3. Those same states also sent troops for the Union armies as well. Several states sent troops to both sides. Also, contemplation or discussion of secession is not the same thing as actually doing it and when you look at the discussions in the states you mentioned, you will also see opposition to it. So, that point holds no water.

4. Yes, I had mentioned this in an earlier post. Also mentioned that a federal army had been raised to keep South Carolina in the Union after Sout Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification and started to raise state militias to counter federal enforcement which prompted Congress to pass the Force Bill, allowing Jackson to use federal troops to subdue South Carolina where their actions were deemed as in line of insurrection. South Carolina didn't consider it: they acted on it. The two reasons why they backed down was that the tariff was re-negotiated by Congress that would allow SC to save face...and that the nation decided that their actions were in line with insurrection and a federal army would soon be on their way to curb stomp them.

5. The Declaration's intent was to separate from British monarchy and did so by addressing that free men can abolish/change their government. The problem for the argument that secession is legal and a right...is the Constitution itself. As well as the fact that...the Declaration has no governing authority...it is a statement of disassociation from the Crown based on the idea that a free people can change/abolish their government for a new one. The Declaration is not a document of governing authority...but the Constitution is.

We actually did what the Declaration said we could do which was to change/abolish the government by abolishing the Articles of Confederation and creating the Constitution by the people and willingly. In doing so, we created a government where the Constitution supersedes state law as stated in the Constitution (the Supremacy Clause). This, in effect, abolishes the so-called right to nullification, which has never been part of a governing document. This is partially the basis of why the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that nullification is not constitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has ruled against nullification, a recent ruling being in 1950, Cooper v Aaron where it was ruled that states may not nullify federal law.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Sounds like you are inferring some things from context that were not made explicit in the amendment itself.

The point I was making is that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution whose legal authority can only be enacted within US lands. The amendment is to the Constitution, not a governing right unto itself...it is amending the Constitution itself which makes it part of the Constitution which is limited to governing lands the US occupies, not outside of it.