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

[AConcernedCitizen]

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.

That is true. Just as it is also true that the Bill of Rights was initially a limitation upon the Federal Government, and did not extend to limiting State Governments until incorporation through the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment.

But the amendment itself does not explicitly state either of those things. Instead, they must be inferred through context.

 

[Fledermaus]

The fact that you are unwilling to discuss the LANDMARK CASE STYLED CORFIELD V CORYELL TELLS ME THAT THE SAME THOROUGHLY DESTROYED YOUR AGENDA

Big Letters =/= Logical conclusions.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Big Letters =/= Logical conclusions.

To be fair, "The Berenstain Bears" is typically set in much larger font than a lot of other literature, so I can understand how it would feel more familiar to him.

 

[rahl]

That is true. Just as it is also true that the Bill of Rights was initially a limitation upon the Federal Government, and did not extend to limiting State Governments until incorporation through the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment.

You can not cite anything in the constitution supporting this position. Other than the 1st amendment which specifically says “Congress”.

But the amendment itself does not explicitly state either of those things. Instead, they must be inferred through context.

 

[Cordelier]

WHY is forcing the Southern STates to ratify the 14A WHILE THEY UNDER MARTIAL LAW a "bullshit reason" ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

What about the 13th Amendment? Is that "unconstitutional" as well?

 

[Contumacious]

What about the 13th Amendment? Is that "unconstitutional" as well?

Yes, indeed.

The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution was proposed by Joint Resolution of Congress, (13 Statutes at Large, p. 567) and was approved February 1, 1865 by President Abraham Lincoln, as required by Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution. the President's signature is affixed to the Resolution. The 13th Amendment was ratified by 27 states of he then thirty-six (36) states of the Union, including the Southern States of Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, and Georgia. This is shown by the Proclamation of the Secretary of State December 18, 1865. (13 Statutes at Large, p. 774.) Without the votes of these seven (7) Southern State Legislatures the 13th Amendment would have failed. There can be no doubt but that the ratification by these seven (7) Southern States of the 13th Amendment again established the fact that their Legislatures and State governments were duly and lawfully constituted and functioning as such under their States Constitutions.

 

[Contumacious]

Cooper v Aaron

I am certain that King George III had issued a royal decree stating the same thing which the colonists used to wipe their derrieres.

The Founding Fathers did not want the SCOTUS to become rubber stampers as was the case in the UK.

As long as WE THE PEOPLE believe that SCOTUS is not being controlled by a political party or a powerful political faction we shall comply.

 

[Cordelier]

Yes, indeed.

The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution was proposed by Joint Resolution of Congress, (13 Statutes at Large, p. 567) and was approved February 1, 1865 by President Abraham Lincoln, as required by Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution. the President's signature is affixed to the Resolution. The 13th Amendment was ratified by 27 states of he then thirty-six (36) states of the Union, including the Southern States of Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, and Georgia. This is shown by the Proclamation of the Secretary of State December 18, 1865. (13 Statutes at Large, p. 774.) Without the votes of these seven (7) Southern State Legislatures the 13th Amendment would have failed. There can be no doubt but that the ratification by these seven (7) Southern States of the 13th Amendment again established the fact that their Legislatures and State governments were duly and lawfully constituted and functioning as such under their States Constitutions.

I'm not sure what your point is here.... the 14th Amendment was ratified by 28 States, including the Southern States of Tennessee (July 19, 1866); Arkansas (April 6, 1868); Florida (June 9, 1868); North Carolina (July 4, 1868); Louisiana & South Carolina (July 9. 1868); Alabama (July 13, 1868); and Georgia (July 21, 1868).

So what's the difference?

 

[LostInSeattle]

I am certain that King George III had issued a royal decree stating the same thing which the colonists used to wipe their derrieres.

The Founding Fathers did not want the SCOTUS to become rubber stampers as was the case in the UK.

Well then you must be really upset with the current court.

As long as WE THE PEOPLE believe that SCOTUS is not being controlled by a political party or a powerful political faction we shall comply.

So no compliance today?

 

[Jason Warfield]

I am certain that King George III had issued a royal decree stating the same thing which the colonists used to wipe their derrieres.

The Founding Fathers did not want the SCOTUS to become rubber stampers as was the case in the UK.

As long as WE THE PEOPLE believe that SCOTUS is not being controlled by a political party or a powerful political faction we shall comply.

Oh, now I get it....you disagree with SCOTUS and because they did something you didn't like you cry "activist judge", but when you agree, it's "justice".

Grow up.

SCOTUS has been politically biased since day one of the Constitution and the Founders who became presidents packed the courts with men that had similar ideologies with possibly some exceptions due to Washington. After Washington left teh Whtie House, political parties developed and justices were chosen as per political affiliation by those Founders who became president. And it has been that way ever since.

But if you honestly feel that way: then you should rebuke Trump's packing of SCOUTUS based on political ideology and you should also rebuke MAGA for supporting it.

So, will you rebuke them? Do you have the courage of your naive convictions? If you do, great...if you won't then your whole point of this thread is just so much whiny garbage.

So, what do you say: rebuke or not?

 

[Mr. Invisible]

I'm curious. How an part of the Constitution, itself unconstitutional. That literally makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Contumacious]

Oh, now I get it....you disagree with SCOTUS and because they did something you didn't like you cry "activist judge", but when you agree, it's "justice".

Grow up.

SCOTUS has been politically biased since day one of the Constitution and the Founders who became presidents packed the courts with men that had similar ideologies with possibly some exceptions due to Washington. After Washington left teh Whtie House, political parties developed and justices were chosen as per political affiliation by those Founders who became president. And it has been that way ever since.

But if you honestly feel that way: then you should rebuke Trump's packing of SCOUTUS based on political ideology and you should also rebuke MAGA for supporting it.

So, will you rebuke them? Do you have the courage of your naive convictions? If you do, great...if you won't then your whole point of this thread is just so much whiny garbage.

So, what do you say: rebuke or not?

SCOTUS case Law is Constitutional if the rulings do not adversely affect INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.

 

[Contumacious]

I'm not sure what your point is here.... the 14th Amendment was ratified by 28 States, including the Southern States of Tennessee (July 19, 1866); Arkansas (April 6, 1868); Florida (June 9, 1868); North Carolina (July 4, 1868); Louisiana & South Carolina (July 9. 1868); Alabama (July 13, 1868); and Georgia (July 21, 1868).

So what's the difference?

AFTER AFTER AFTER the 13A was duly ratified and AFTER President Johnson declared that the hostilities had ended, the Yankees concluded that the States were NOT going to RATIFY the 14A consequently they declared MARTIAL LAW and deprived southern states of their congressional delegations !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

COERCION IS NOT CONSENT , IS NOT RATIFICATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE V

Article V​

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,

 

[craig]

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

So you are arguing that is was unconstitutional to allow the confederate states back into the Union?

Southern states were readmitted to the Union after the Civil War through a process called Reconstruction, which involved meeting specific requirements set by Congress. These requirements included ratifying the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, drafting new state constitutions, and guaranteeing certain rights to formerly enslaved people.

 

[rahl]

Yes, indeed.

The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution was proposed by Joint Resolution of Congress, (13 Statutes at Large, p. 567) and was approved February 1, 1865 by President Abraham Lincoln, as required by Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution. the President's signature is affixed to the Resolution. The 13th Amendment was ratified by 27 states of he then thirty-six (36) states of the Union, including the Southern States of Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, and Georgia. This is shown by the Proclamation of the Secretary of State December 18, 1865. (13 Statutes at Large, p. 774.) Without the votes of these seven (7) Southern State Legislatures the 13th Amendment would have failed. There can be no doubt but that the ratification by these seven (7) Southern States of the 13th Amendment again established the fact that their Legislatures and State governments were duly and lawfully constituted and functioning as such under their States Constitutions.

The 13th amendment, just like the 14th, is of course constitutional as it was ratified according to the constitution.

 

[rahl]

I am certain that King George III had issued a royal decree stating the same thing which the colonists used to wipe their derrieres.

The Founding Fathers did not want the SCOTUS to become rubber stampers as was the case in the UK.

As long as WE THE PEOPLE believe that SCOTUS is not being controlled by a political party or a powerful political faction we shall comply.

You’ll comply regardless.

 

[rahl]

SCOTUS case Law is Constitutional if the rulings do not adversely affect INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM.

SCOTUS rulings are case law regardless of how you feel about them.

 

[Contumacious]

So you are arguing that is was unconstitutional to allow the confederate states back into the Union?

Southern states were readmitted to the Union after the Civil War through a process called Reconstruction, which involved meeting specific requirements set by Congress. These requirements included ratifying the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, drafting new state constitutions, and guaranteeing certain rights to formerly enslaved people.

HUH?

WTF.

Identify the Constitutional Proviso(s) - by Article, Section and Clause - which define(s) (a) state readmission (b) and reconstruction

 

[ColdHardTruth]

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

Nonsensical bullshit.

Just stop.

It's constitutional whether you like it or not.

 

[Contumacious]

Hopelessness is a feeling of despair and pessimism, characterized by the belief that a situation is so bad that there is no possibility of improvement or success. It involves a sense of helplessness and powerlessness to change one's circumstances, leading to resignation and a feeling of defeat. Hopelessness can be a symptom of mental health issues, particularly depression​

​

Breaking Free from Mental Enslavement​

Reclaiming Your Mind from Fear, Limitation, and Social Conditioning​

Mental enslavement is not about physical chains or prison bars. It is far more subtle and widespread. It is the condition of being trapped by your own thoughts — by fear, doubt, insecurity, and the limiting beliefs planted in your mind by society, culture, or your past. You may walk freely in the world, but if your mind is held hostage by negative patterns, you are not truly free.

Breaking Free from Mental Enslavement

Reclaiming Your Mind from Fear, Limitation, and Social Conditioning

vocal.media

 

[Cordelier]

AFTER AFTER AFTER the 13A was duly ratified and AFTER President Johnson declared that the hostilities had ended, the Yankees concluded that the States were NOT going to RATIFY the 14A consequently they declared MARTIAL LAW and deprived southern states of their congressional delegations !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

COERCION IS NOT CONSENT , IS NOT RATIFICATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE V

Article V​

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States,

Johnson didn't have the power to readmit States to the Union - under Article IV §3 cl. 2, it belongs solely to Congress:

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

It exercised this power by passing the Reconstruction Laws over President Johnson's vetoes.

 

[Contumacious]

Johnson didn't have the power to readmit States to the Union - under Article IV §3 cl. 2, it belongs solely to Congress:

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

It exercised this power by passing the Reconstruction Laws over President Johnson's vetoes.

HUH?

President Johnson declared the event an insurrection.

NONE of the Southern States requested to be RE-ADMITTED

An insurrection means that the states never left .

President Johnson stated : Insurrection suppressed - back to business as usual

IF PROPERLY RATIFIED - as determined by those whose minds are not enslaved, dummified or who are not undergoing a severe depressive episode - The 14A was merely a reversal of the Dred Scott decision - AFro-Americans are US CItizens

 

[Cordelier]

HUH?

President Johnson declared the event an insurrection.

NONE of the Southern States requested to be RE-ADMITTED

An insurrection means that the states never left .

President Johnson stated : Insurrection suppressed - back to business as usual

IF PROPERLY RATIFIED - as determined by those whose minds are not enslaved, dummified or who are not undergoing a severe depressive episode - The 14A was merely a reversal of the Dred Scott decision - AFro-Americans are US CItizens

Only that's not the way it works. See Article IV §3 cl. 2 of the Constitution.

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Only Congress has the power to make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory of the United States. The President has the power to declare an end to hostilities, but only the Congress has the power to determine the legal status of the rebellious states. It's up to the Congress to determine when it's "back to business as usual".

 

[Contumacious]

Only that's not the way it works. See Article IV §3 cl. 2 of the Constitution.

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Only Congress has the power to make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory of the United States. The President has the power to declare an end to hostilities, but only the Congress has the power to determine the legal status of the rebellious states. It's up to the Congress to determine when it's "back to business as usual".

You are missing the point


PRESIDENT JOHNSON HAD EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE IF AN INSURRECTION HAD OCCURRED


Nothing in the text of the Insurrection Act defines “insurrection,” “rebellion,” “domestic violence,” or any of the other key terms used in setting forth the prerequisites for deployment. Absent statutory guidance, the Supreme Court decided early on that this question is for the president alone to decide. In the 1827 case Martin v. Mott, the Court ruled that “the authority to decide whether [an exigency requiring the militia to be called out] has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and . . . his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.

The Insurrection Act Explained

The law, which lets the president deploy the military domestically and use it for civilian law enforcement, is dangerously vague and in urgent need of reform.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[Cordelier]

You are missing the point


PRESIDENT JOHNSON HAD EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE IF AN INSURRECTION HAD OCCURRED


Nothing in the text of the Insurrection Act defines “insurrection,” “rebellion,” “domestic violence,” or any of the other key terms used in setting forth the prerequisites for deployment. Absent statutory guidance, the Supreme Court decided early on that this question is for the president alone to decide. In the 1827 case Martin v. Mott, the Court ruled that “the authority to decide whether [an exigency requiring the militia to be called out] has arisen belongs exclusively to the President, and . . . his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.

The Insurrection Act Explained

The law, which lets the president deploy the military domestically and use it for civilian law enforcement, is dangerously vague and in urgent need of reform.

www.brennancenter.org

Of course an insurrection occurred. President Lincoln declared as much in his Proclamation of April 15, 1861. It was formally declared to have ended by President Johnson's Proclamation of August 20, 1866. But just because active hostilities may have ceased doesn't mean that the States had been fully reintegrated into the Union. There are two sides of the coin - ending the insurrection and establishing the peace. The first was up to the President, the second was up to Congress.