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

[j brown's body]

How can you accept the validity of an alleged Amendment in which the SOUTHERN STATES WERE FORCED TO SIGN AT GUN POINT , DURING MARTIAL ****ING LAW WHICH IGNORED ARTICLE V ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

They were required to, to prevent insurrectionists from gaining power. We used to disqualify Trump, but the SC ignored it.

Do you have any evidence that they objected to the requirement?

 

[Jason Warfield]

HUH?

PURE UNADULTERATED BULLCRAP


"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility >>>>>against every form of tyranny<<<<<< over the mind of man."

While it is true that in his letter to Benjamin Rush he was concerned about religious tyranny ALL his writings demonstrate that

"The above-quoted words reflect sentiments so essential to a condition of liberty that they are at the forefront of the history of American political thought. Jefferson's quotation as well as the first of the listings in the so-called Bill of Rights, represent a theme carried over from the Revolutionary War period: minds should be free to explore and express >>>>whatever is of concern to them<<<<. If one reads the First Amendment closely, it becomes evident that this provision was >>>>>>intended to prohibit government intrusions upon the then-known means and settings for free thought.<<<<<<<

Speak Truth to Power? - LewRockwell

Recently by Butler Shaffer: Democracy and Violence I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. ~ Thomas Jefferson Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or...

www.lewrockwell.com

No. You are wrong.

It’s in the letter I posted a link to as well as his continued correspondence with Rush which you can look up or go to the library to look up as well.

Did you read the letter in the link I provided? I doubt you did, but am curious, did you?

Because if you say you did, you will have to provide proof that the context of the letter is not what I said it was. The letter that you grabbed the quote from is pretty clear in its intent. Not sure what you could possibly come up with to say that the letter means something else, though….

 

[Nickyjo]

They were required to, to prevent insurrectionists from gaining power. We used to disqualify Trump, but the SC ignored it.

Do you have any evidence that they objected to the requirement?

NOT IN THESE UNITED STATES

>>>>>THEY MUST BE RATIFIED FIRST<<<<<

What’s your point? They were ratified.

 

[Contumacious]

No. You are wrong.

It’s in the letter I posted a link to as well as his continued correspondence with Rush which you can look up or go to the library to look up as well.

Did you read the letter in the link I provided? I doubt you did, but am curious, did you?

Because if you say you did, you will have to provide proof that the context of the letter is not what I said it was. The letter that you grabbed the quote from is pretty clear in its intent. Not sure what you could possibly come up with to say that the letter means something else, though….

Agree to disagree

 

[Contumacious]

Do you have any evidence that they objected to the requirement?

Of course

The Unconstitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment, by Leander H. Perez

 

[Contumacious]

Didn't the southern state legislatures ratify it?

If you have sex at gun point , is that RAPE or CONSENSUAL?

 

[The Brad Dad]

"What part of ALL PERSONS does the OP refuse to understand?"

It’s too encompassing. There’s some persons they do not want included in “all” so they attempt to rewrite what the word “all” means.

 

[Nickyjo]

If you have sex at gun point , is that RAPE or CONSENSUAL?

If you’ve fought to preserve slavery, if the fight costs hundreds of thousands of lives, if you lose, you can expect someone to hold a gun to your head to make you change your ways. If the massa has sex with a slave, is that rape or consensual?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

The US is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

The Founding Fathers used the CATO LETTERS as a reference

Cato’s Letters Explained “the Glorious Principles of Liberty” to the American Founders

“Let people alone, and they will take care of themselves, and do it best; and if they do not, a sufficient punishment will follow their neglect, without the magistrate's interposition and penalties. It is plain, that such busy care and officious intrusion into the personal affairs, or private...

fee.org

More lies and bullshit.

 

[j brown's body]

Of course

The Unconstitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment, by Leander H. Perez

It says

"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."

It was ratified by the necessary 28 of the 37 States.

 

[Nickyjo]

They were required to, to prevent insurrectionists from gaining power. We used to disqualify Trump, but the SC ignored it.

Do you have any evidence that they objected to the requirement?

From what I read, they did. But it was ratify or not be readmitted.

 

[j brown's body]

From what I read, they did. But it was ratify or not be readmitted.

Yeah, they didnt want traitors in power. One of the things they did was remove Confederate leaders and their sympathisizers from government, enfranchised blacks and they got it done. Probably happily. You can bet there were plenty of powerful white folks who didnt want it done

Contumacious is using a strict racial segregationist as a source. And the first claim I struck upon appears to be wrong.

 

[rahl]

Good News to the Residents of the Southern District of Illinois - if you are a "felon" you can now buy and use a firearms
This case really surprised me because the Afro-American Judge is AN OBAMA APPOINTEE. US v CHERRY , 23-cr-30112-SMY (02-2024)

No felon anywhere in the US can own or buy a firearm.

 

[rahl]

IS that right ?

I stand corrected .

Stupid me thought that ONLY those Amendments which complied with Article V were considered Amendments :

Article V, U.S. Constitution​

* * * * * * * * * *


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 thelegislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention forproposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents andpurposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures ofthree fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof,as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousandeight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clausesin the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without itsconsent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

The 14th amendment was ratified by the required number of states. It’s why it’s part of the constitution.

 

[rahl]

NOT IN THESE UNITED STATES

>>>>>THEY MUST BE RATIFIED FIRST<<<<<

Every amendment we have was ratified. Thats how they become amendments.

Why do you post such silly, retarded shit?

 

[rahl]

Post #174 shows that it wasn't

What is really really interesting is that THE ENTIRE NEW JERSEY DELEGATION -----A NORTHERN STATE - AGREED THAT THE 14A was UNCONSTITUTIONAL NULL AND VOID


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 said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent of three fourths of the States, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this State to withdraw its assent is undeniable....
That it being necessary by the Constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two thirds of both houses of Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven States of the Union, upon the pretense that there were no such States in the Union; but, finding that two thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in the palpable violation of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this State, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the Senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two thirds of the said house.(3)

(3) The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution on March 27, 1868,

Why do you post such silly, stupid, and hilariously retarded shit?

 

[Safiel]

(snipped for brevity)

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.

(snipped for brevity)

1. The southern states treasonously abandoned Congress of their own accord. The Union was under no obligation to readmit them to representation like nothing had happened and was correct in withholding representation until enough southern residents took the Ironclad Oath and demonstrated loyalty to form lawful governments in the south. And the Union certainly was justified in amending the Constitution during this period when they were assured of the votes necessary to pass the amendment. The southern States committed treason and left of their own accord, that is not the North's problem.

The 39th Congress of the United States was duly constituted of loyal States. They had no obligation to admit disloyal States and individuals to membership.

2. Constitutional Amendments arise under the authority of Article V of the Constitution, not Article I. Article V does not either mention or mandate a Presidential signature. The Supreme Court affirmed this position in 1798.

3. Even if you count the rescissions as valid, something the Supreme Court has never addressed, it is plain (as I showed in post #175) that the Amendment was ratified by the necessary 3/4 States.

The south can whine about Senators being excluded. They left of their own accord and engaged in a treasonous rebellion that killed over 600,000 Americans. It is entirely their own ****ing fault they were excluded. If they had not seceded and engaged in a treasonous rebellion, there would never have been a 13th, 14th or 15th Amendment. The fact that the reconstruction amendments passed is entirely the fault of the South for rebelling.

 

[Blue Dog]

 

[Contumacious]

1. The southern states treasonously abandoned Congress of their own accord. The Union was under no obligation to readmit them to representation like nothing had happened and was correct in withholding representation until enough southern residents took the Ironclad Oath and demonstrated loyalty to form lawful governments in the south. And the Union certainly was justified in amending the Constitution during this period when they were assured of the votes necessary to pass the amendment. The southern States committed treason and left of their own accord, that is not the North's problem.

The 39th Congress of the United States was duly constituted of loyal States. They had no obligation to admit disloyal States and individuals to membership.

2. Constitutional Amendments arise under the authority of Article V of the Constitution, not Article I. Article V does not either mention or mandate a Presidential signature. The Supreme Court affirmed this position in 1798.

3. Even if you count the rescissions as valid, something the Supreme Court has never addressed, it is plain (as I showed in post #175) that the Amendment was ratified by the necessary 3/4 States.

The south can whine about Senators being excluded. They left of their own accord and engaged in a treasonous rebellion that killed over 600,000 Americans. It is entirely their own ****ing fault they were excluded. If they had not seceded and engaged in a treasonous rebellion, there would never have been a 13th, 14th or 15th Amendment. The fact that the reconstruction amendments passed is entirely the fault of the South for rebelling.

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 .

 

[Contumacious]

Why do you post such silly, stupid, and hilariously retarded shit?

In 1968 I was drafted into the military and swore to defend and support the Constitution against ALL enemies

 

[Gordy327]

In 1968 I was drafted into the military and swore to defend and support the Constitution against ALL enemies

That includes the 14th Amendment then, as its part of the Constitution.

 

[rahl]

In 1968 I was drafted into the military and swore to defend and support the Constitution against ALL enemies

Ok. Thank you for your service. This had nothing to do with the post you quoted though.

 

[Contumacious]

That includes the 14th Amendment then, as its part of the Constitution.

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

 

[rahl]

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

The 14th amendment was ratified as required by the constitution.

 

[Contumacious]

The 14th amendment was ratified as required by the constitution.

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 said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent of three fourths of the States, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this State to withdraw its assent is undeniable....​

That it being necessary by the Constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two thirds of both houses of Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven States of the Union, upon the pretense that there were no such States in the Union; but, finding that two thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in the palpable violation of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this State, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the Senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two thirds of the said house​