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

[Fearandloathing]

Even though we are considered second or third class Americans - Puerto Ricans Are Americans.

View attachment 67573609

I like Puerto Ricans. I've been there a few times.

I'd rather think of them as "Puerto Ricans" kind of like Canada's Quebeckers, simply nicer and calmer than most Americans

 

[ColdHardTruth]

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

Nope.

It is NOT unconstitutional.

Stop spewing reich-wing bullshit.

 

[Fearandloathing]

I must accept that I cannot change, have the courage to change what I can, and hope to continue to find wisdom in discerning the difference.

Not even close!!!!

Each post exposes your truth.

And each truth is another reason to ignore your entire argument.

I suggest a book "Understanding Democracy" 101, Yankee Doddle Press 1939.

 

[OlNate]

It's funny to mock this bullshit, but not so funny when you realize that there is a significant portion of your population that probably believes it, and would defend it.

This is why Trump said he loves the uneducated.

 

[hecatmoggie]

it doesn't have to be repealed

the Supreme Court needs to rule the INTENT of the 14th and we need reasonable restrictions/rules

just like liberals put on the 2nd Amendment

 

[Rich2018]

I like Puerto Ricans. I've been there a few times.

I'd rather think of them as "Puerto Ricans" kind of like Canada's Quebeckers, simply nicer and calmer than most Americans

So you'd deny them US citizenship, even if they voted for it ?

 

[rahl]

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

 

[StillBallin75]

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

Just as a reminder, at the time the 14th Amendment was passed, we had open borders.

Going back to how things were in 1868 is treasonous to you? Were Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) and Andrew Johnson (a Democrat) - Presidents at that time, who presided over said open border policy, were they treasonous?

 

[Contumacious]

Just as a reminder, at the time the 14th Amendment was passed, we had open borders.

Going back to how things were in 1868 is treasonous to you? Were Abraham Lincoln (a Republican) and Andrew Johnson (a Democrat) - Presidents at that time, who presided over said open border policy, were they treasonous?

True - we did have open borders

but up to that time no presidential candidate or political party was controlled by the WEF Globalists

No political Party or Presidential Candidate was eagerly inviting AND FLYING IN ILLEGAL ALIENS and demanding that they show their gratitude by voting for the SOCIALIST DEMON RATS.

Big difference.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

You think it might not be a counter argument because it isn't meant to be an argument? It is a flat-out statement.

How does that address that it is infeasible to come into existence?

Ok, it a statement that says, “This is how I’d have it, it think it ought to be.”, but if that also can’t take place it’s moot. An amendment to cancel the 14th, which would be required, ain’t gonna happen.

 

[Contumacious]

An amendment to cancel the 14th, which would be required, ain’t gonna happen.

You don't need an amendment it the 14A wasn't Constitutionally Amended


I would like to hear the powers-that-be explain how

FORCING THE SOUTHERN STATES UNDER MARTIAL LAW TO ADOPT THE 14A WAS/IS CONSTITUTIONAL

 

[ModernDiogenes]

You don't need an amendment it the 14A wasn't Constitutionally Amended


I would like to hear the powers-that-be explain how

FORCING THE SOUTHERN STATES UNDER MARTIAL LAW TO ADOPT THE 14A WAS/IS CONSTITUTIONAL

It’s 100+ years old. I’d beg to differ with you in that.

An amendment is part of the Constitution. We have never had SCOTUS rule on the Constitutionality of an amendment re: removing it in its entirety. I doubt even this court goes there. That’s what you’d need. So…

You’d need the other way and that’s Congress to draft an Amendment, pass it, and have 38 states ratify it. Like I said, that ain’t gonna happen.

 

[SavannahMann]

it doesn't have to be repealed

the Supreme Court needs to rule the INTENT of the 14th and we need reasonable restrictions/rules

just like liberals put on the 2nd Amendment

I do so love the RW. The Second says what it means. Any other part of the Constitution. It doesn’t mean what it says.

 

[Along Came Jones]

How does that address that it is infeasible to come into existence?

Ok, it a statement that says, “This is how I’d have it, it think it ought to be.”, but if that also can’t take place it’s moot. An amendment to cancel the 14th, which would be required, ain’t gonna happen.

The only part of your reply I understand (and agree with) is that an amendment canceling the 14th Amendment "ain't gonna happen."

"And, as I repeat as often as possible, there is much more in Section One that we do not want messed with: privileges or immunities of citizens; due process of law; and the equal protection of the laws."

If Section 1 were somehow to be rescinded/amended and ratified, the Bill of Rights could be in jeopardy. There is no way we can foresee who drafts and submits the amendment. Can you foresee their motives? I think not.

Without the language of Section 1 the civil rights provisions gained through incorporation will no longer apply to the states. The precedent will revert to Barron v Baltimore (1893) which held that the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution applies only to the Federal government and does not limit State governments.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

The only part of your reply I understand (and agree with) is that an amendment canceling the 14th Amendment "ain't gonna happen."

"And, as I repeat as often as possible, there is much more in Section One that we do not want messed with: privileges or immunities of citizens; due process of law; and the equal protection of the laws."

If Section 1 were somehow to be rescinded/amended and ratified, the Bill of Rights could be in jeopardy. There is no way we can foresee who drafts and submits the amendment. Can you foresee their motives? I think not.

Without the language of Section 1 the civil rights provisions gained through incorporation will no longer apply to the states. The precedent will revert to Barron v Baltimore (1893) which held that the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution applies only to the Federal government and does not limit State governments.

Ok, then relate back to our first exchange where I state precisely that in different wording. I state you wouldn’t want the 14th rescinded as it references back to these points, fleshes them out and makes them stronger. The 14th isn’t just for Black people, or immigrants. It’s for all of us.

 

[hecatmoggie]

I do so love the RW. The Second says what it means. Any other part of the Constitution. It doesn’t mean what it says.

so 12 year olds can buy guns, right?

Constitution doesn't say anything about ages, right ?

 

[Gordy327]

so 12 year olds can buy guns, right?

Constitution doesn't say anything about ages, right ?

That would explain school shootings.

 

[Helix]

As funny as it is that someone argued that a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional, I think that I see a way that the SCOTUS could pull off something similar. I'm not going to outline that strategy unless it happens, though. I tend to doubt that they'll actually do it, but you never know.

 

[hecatmoggie]

That would explain school shootings.

actually false

from the 1800's when school houses were built until the 1950's and even into the 1980's when I was a kid, boys took guns to schools. When my Dad was a kid, each boy put his gun in the school house corner. When it was me in 1980's, we had gun racks in our trucks to keep them

nobody killed anybody really

 

[Pound4abrown]

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

And that is where I stopped. Stupid ****ing bullshit.

 

[Pound4abrown]

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

Is now or never.

Right. Its never.
Thanks for playing.

 

[Pound4abrown]

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

yo, if you want me to take you super cereal, you need to employ more ? and !
Thank you in advance!!

 

[Gordy327]

actually false

from the 1800's when school houses were built until the 1950's and even into the 1980's when I was a kid, boys took guns to schools. When my Dad was a kid, each boy put his gun in the school house corner. When it was me in 1980's, we had gun racks in our trucks to keep them

nobody killed anybody really

And yet, school shootings have become more frequent. Can't have a shooting without a gun.

 

[hecatmoggie]

And yet, school shootings have become more frequent. Can't have a shooting without a gun.

they have - but its not because guns are in schools

I literally just showed you that. What has changed is the people

 

[Gordy327]

they have - but its not because guns are in schools

I literally just showed you that. What has changed is the people

Yes, people suck. But you still need guns to shoot.