A mangled Constitution

Discussion in 'Legal Philosophy' started by Packyderm, Aug 8, 2016.

  1. Wry Catcher
    Offline

    Wry Catcher Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    43,378
    Thanks Received:
    5,754
    Trophy Points:
    1,860
    Location:
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Ratings:
    +15,983
    I have no source to verify your explanation. I find it credible, given my source shows the rejections on the dates you posted, and in two years most every state voted to pass it. I wondered about CA, which finally passed it in 1959. Please cite your resource, this is some history I would like to read more about.
     
  2. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    32,188
    Thanks Received:
    4,396
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,790
    Isn't Packy the poor soul who confused the Powers of the States with the Rights of people?

    That's a JV blunder. You may want to call on more informed friends.
     
  3. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    32,188
    Thanks Received:
    4,396
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,790

    Here's the official ratification tally, including dates.

    A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

    And when you read it, Packy is predictably withholding pretty vital information.

    That's 4 States that Packy insisted didn't ratify the amendment that did, in fact, ratify it. All of which Packy is aware of. All of which Packy really hopes you aren't aware of.

    As I said, this is some JV shit here.
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2016
  4. Packyderm
    Offline

    Packyderm Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2016
    Messages:
    69
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Ratings:
    +27
    What is wrong with you? To pretend, with all the evidence right there in what you yourself quoted, that I never mentioned the chain of events for Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Louisiana? The honest answer would be to say "read back what *I* posted and *you* quoted. But I'll try to reiterate it one more time.
    The 14th Amendment was rejected by more than 1/4 of the states. It failed. It was rejected by the four states you mentioned and additionally six more without question or doubt. Not ignored or not acted upon. Voted on and rejected. President Johnson mentioned it in his protest. I listed the dates of rejection.
    We know the state legislatures were valid and legal for several reasons with not the least being their ratification of the 13th Amendment was accepted and entered into the record by the Congress as well as the senators they chose being seated in the Congress without complaint.. As a matter of fact if the legislatures were NOT valid then the 13th Amendment never passed as it was only passed with Southern state's ratifying votes.
    After rejection the Reconstruction acts were passed. The rejecting state's legislatures were overthrown, the citizens disenfranchised and military occupation governments established. Georgia was in military district 3 ruled by General Pope. Louisiana was in military district 5 ruled by a vicious animal named General Phillip Sheridan. North and South Carolina were in military district 2 ruled by General Sickles.
    Only then, after the amendment had failed and should have been discarded, did the puppet legislatures vote to accept it.
    That it was was not consistent with free government or liberty is more or less an opinion though an easily defended one.
    That it was illegal and was demonstrably and irrefutably not passed by "the same legislatures" is just a fact. The legislatures which rejected the 14th Amendment were disbanded and new legislatures constituted with bayonets. Putting the contrary in the record only wastes ink...it does not undo historical fact.
    By the way ratification was made a condition of reattaining suffrage and statehood. So you have the odd, to say the least, situation of former states being ejected and called non-states but forced to vote as states in order to regain the status of statehood. (And we wonder where weirdness like gay marriage comes from?)

    Why dont we rewrite Article V to you satisfaction?

    "Amendments....shall be valid...when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states or...if such ratification fails then the state legislatures will be overthrown and military troops will be used to force their ratification...and if such ratification can still not be achieved...ye olde supreme court can pretend that it was"
     
  5. TheGreatGatsby
    Offline

    TheGreatGatsby Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    23,759
    Thanks Received:
    2,807
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    California
    Ratings:
    +8,858
    I largely agree. And I think freedom of speech and the right to bare arms was wisely listed one and two to give those tenants a fighting chance....
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Packyderm
    Offline

    Packyderm Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2016
    Messages:
    69
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Ratings:
    +27
    Hello wry catcher. At its most basic you can see it play out in the congressional record...the expulsion of senators, the reconstruction, the protests of the President and Secretary of State. Im not sure how hard it would be but I am sure the vote to reject is available for every state which did so. They sent rejections to the Secretary of State and their votes were recorded.
    As far as books I know of none *specifically* on this issue but "Battle Cry of Freedom" is a great book which covers it (McPherson is always good though he drifted more anti-southern as time passed) and "Reconstruction" by Foner.
    There is one book dealing with this issue heavily now that I think of it by the Kennedy brothers. I wouldn't call it scholarly though. It seems accurate but its pretty one sided pro-Confederate (not that I object to pro-Confederate) and should be read with that caution in mind. I believe its called "Jefferson Davis was Right" or "The South was Right".
    The main thing to remember though is...liberals always lie.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Packyderm
    Offline

    Packyderm Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2016
    Messages:
    69
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Ratings:
    +27
    So this is where that nonsense about confusing the powers of the state with rights of the people come from? I wondered (oh so briefly) about that.
    But it so happens you are wrong. Every Amendment is submitted to the people via the House of Representatives. The people must first concur, through the House of Representatives, before the states even see a proposed amendment. This is basic stuff. That the lower house is considered "the people" is basic to our government as founded and comes from our English heritage.
    You are so fond of the Federalist Papers...get to reading.

    No I cant make it disappear. it is defacto the law now despite not being dejeur. Doesn't mean we should roll over for the statists who use it for control.
     
  8. Packyderm
    Offline

    Packyderm Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2016
    Messages:
    69
    Thanks Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Ratings:
    +27
    After i say "boo hoo the Federal Government had no recourse" I will mostly agree with you on the first part that is the states didn't consider themselves bound by the Bill of Rights. Mostly because Constitutionally the states were not bound by the Bill of Rights. Right?
    As for the second part I disagree that it was a "hole". It was intentional. The states refused to cede that much power to the central government.
    The Constitution was designed to LIMIT the Federal Government. Not empower it to impose itself on the states. The Bill of Rights as well. Since each state had, and has, a functioning legislature, executive, and court system it was assumed the people of each state would choose how to restrict their respective state governments.
    In fact to this day I do not understand the awe in which decisions at the Federal level are held as opposed to the local level except to note that it is easier for small lunatic groups to impose their will centrally than state by state. For example if you can't convince the people in each state...or even one state...that abortion should be unrestricted you have to go central and impose it by force. If you lose vote after vote after vote and court case after court case on homosexual marriage then your only recourse is an all powerful central government. (preferably the unelected branch).
     
  9. Skylar
    Offline

    Skylar Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2014
    Messages:
    32,188
    Thanks Received:
    4,396
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +12,790
    I looked at the *actual* list of states that ratified the 14th amendment rather than the comically inaccurate bullshit you offered us?

    See, Packy....your argument requires an ignorant audience. Folks who either don't know, or don't care enough about the topic to find out if the list you put up is even remotely accurate. So when someone actually follows you link and *checks*...

    ......your version of the States that ratified the 14th and your own sources list of the States that ratified the 14th don't match.

    This is your own source. These are 4 states that you told us DIDN'T ratifify the 14th. But your own source confirms did.

    Now we're left with only two conclusions:

    1) You don't know what the fuck you're talking about

    2) You knew damn well that you were wrong...but intentionally misrepresented the truth in the hopes to deceive us into believing something you knew wasn't true.

    Pick one, JV.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. KokomoJojo
    Offline

    KokomoJojo VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,792
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +188
    No it didnt, with no 'opt out' it converted everyone to slavery, its called 'bond' slavery.
     

Share This Page