For Constitutionalists Only!

[RetiredGySgt]

Ruling either way puts the US in the wrong and cal;ls into question the validity of laws which they do not want to endanger, as the form the basis of everything from the Civil Rights movement to anchor babies and would through a serious wrench in the status quo and call a lot of political agendas on both sides into question.

It's far easier to just ignore the matter entirely.

Which does not address why it was not challenged as soon and repeatedly after the Southern States were readmitted to the Union, now does it?

Yeah, they were really in a position to do jack shit while the carpetbaggers were bending them over

Are you mentally ill? By 1878 they had more power then before. They had the power to return to treating blacks like virtual slaves, denying them the vote, openly murdering them ( in South Carolina a former black US Senator with a large black following was surrounded at his home and all the people there were murdered as I recall) Grant pulled federal troops out and let the South do as it pleased after all his cronies had caused so many scandals he had no power.

I suggest you crack open a history book or two dumb ass.

 

[JBeukema]

Any attempt to overturn the law directly would have triggered a massive reactionary response and been harmful to their agenda.

Your ignorance is astounding.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Any attempt to overturn the law directly would have triggered a massive reactionary response and been harmful to their agenda.

Your ignorance is astounding.

Ahh but now suddenly it is safe to do something about it?

This is nothing more then crying about something someone doesn't like. Just like the ignorant claim that the Tax amendment was not properly passed as well.

It will go no where and rightfully so.

 

[editec]

1. When the Constitution was signed, there was some fear that it could lead to a repressive central government- so they passed the 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights, basic rights to protect citizens against abuse by the federal government.

2. But in America, there are two government: the federal, and the government of the state in which we live. The Bill of Rights only limits what the federal government can do to us; there are no protections against human and civil rights violations by state governments. And state laws are the ones that affect our lives much more directly: police matters, public works, real estate, auto regulations, domestic relations, wills, and civil lawsuits, among other aspects of daily life.

3. After the Civil War, the Thirteenth Amendment was enacted to prohibit slavery. But in the South and in the North, state legislatures passed hundreds of laws discriminating against blacks, such as voting, holding office, using public facilities, testifying in court, etc.
So Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, which included: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

4. How is an amendment ratified? Article 5: “it does not become part of the Constitution unless it is ratified by three-quarters of the states (either the legislatures thereof, or in amendment conventions).”
The requisite number of states (28) ratified it in 1868. Maybe.

5. But-
a. . When a fair vote was taken on it in 1865, in the aftermath of the Civil War, it was rejected by the Southern states and all the border states. Failing to secure the necessary three-fourths of the states, the Republican party, which controlled Congress, passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 which placed the entire South under military rule (designed to remove with "Military force'' the lawfully constituted State Legislatures of the 10 Southern States), and they were ‘forced’ to ratify.

b. The Joint Resolution proposing said amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress per Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

c. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution.

d. 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, thus leaving less than three fourths of the states possibly to ratify the same, the Amendment failed of ratification in fact and in law, and it could not have been revived except by a new Joint Resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives in accordance with Constitutional requirement.

e. Ohio and New Jersey-withdrew support after it was ratified.


So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury:

Was the Fourteenth Amendment legally and constitutionally ratified and enacted?

Yes.

And, what are the ramifications if it is ruled unconstitutional?

It will never be ruled unconsitutional.

 

[JBeukema]

Any attempt to overturn the law directly would have triggered a massive reactionary response and been harmful to their agenda.

Your ignorance is astounding.

Ahh but now suddenly it is safe to do something about it?

This is nothing more then crying about something someone doesn't like. Just like the ignorant claim that the Tax amendment was not properly passed as well.

It will go no where and rightfully so.

In other words, you don't care about the law so long as it serves your own ends.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, not saying I doubt you, but why do you say the southern states were forced to ratify the amendment? In other words, link?

Perfectly valid question..

"The Southern states and all the border states. Failing to secure the necessary three-fourths of the states, the Republican party, which controlled Congress, passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 which placed the entire South under military rule.

The South eventually voted to ratify the amendment, after which two Northern states-Ohio and New Jersey-withdrew support because of their disgust with Republican party tyranny. The Republicans just ignored this and declared the amendment valid despite their failure to secure the constitutionally-required three-fourths majority."
The 14th Amendment Was NOT Ratified


"The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution was passed by Congress in 1867. The amendment was designed to grant citizenship to and protect the civil liberties of recently freed slaves. Most Southern states refused to ratify this amendment and therefore Radical Republicans such as Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, Benjamin Wade, Henry Winter Davies and Benjamin Butler urged the passing of further legislation to impose these measures on the former Confederacy.

Congress passed the first Reconstruction Act on 2nd March, 1867. The South was now divided into five military districts, each under a major general. New elections were to be held in each state with freed male slaves being allowed to vote. The act also included an amendment that offered readmission to the Southern states after they had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment and guaranteed adult male suffrage....supplementary Reconstruction Act on 23rd March that authorized the military commanders to supervise elections and generally to provide the machinery for constituting new governments. Once again Andrew Johnson vetoed the act on the grounds that it interfered with the right of the American citizen to "be left to the free exercise of his own judgment when he is engaged in the work of forming the fundamental law under which he is to live."

The first two Reconstruction Act were followed by a series of supplementary acts that authorized the military commanders to register the voters and supervise the elections. As a result of these measures all of the states had returned to the Union by 1870. "
Reconstruction

Andrew Johnson vetoed the act, but was overridden.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In my opinion, the XIV Amendment was not properly ratified.

And how does the 14th amendment stand with the Supreme Court? Has anyone tried to seek a ruling on its constitutionality? After all, that is what the Supreme Court is for.

To my knowledge, the SCOTUS has never directly addressed the issue. And to my knowledge, no suit has been filed and granted standing by the Court, that sought address of that direct issue.

I know of no case which questioned the legitimacy of the 14th, but it has been used in deciding a number of cases.
This, re: the New Orleans slaughter-house case:
"This legal case probe the intent and scope of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the US Constitution. The justices give a broad defense of individual civil rights as protected from infringement by state laws (the case involves business regulations in Louisiana, not race relations)."
American Memory from the Library of Congress))

You can see that the 14th is accepted and used to decide other cases.

And, IMO, the SCOTUS is not immune to political pressure, and would never entertain a case that would disallow the 14th.
But, I would love to see it used to incorporate ALL of the first 10 amendments.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Can you imagine a United States where the Bill of Rights did not apply?

Would the reactions be violent?

Would they be political?

Would the Congress simply reproduce the 14th, and submit it to the states? And would the states ratify?

Of would folks 'vote with their fee' and move to states more attuned to their political wishes.

 

[Arawyn]

Furthermore though, could there even be a sustainable suit about the question of an Amendment to the Constitution?

I mean, I know, of course, that suits can be brought to challenge federal laws, etc., and how they might conflict with the Constitution.

But whether or not a suit can be sustained challenging a Constitutional Amendment is something I am not sure can be done.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

And how does the 14th amendment stand with the Supreme Court? Has anyone tried to seek a ruling on its constitutionality? After all, that is what the Supreme Court is for.

To my knowledge, the SCOTUS has never directly addressed the issue. And to my knowledge, no suit has been filed and granted standing by the Court, that sought address of that direct issue.

I know of no case which questioned the legitimacy of the 14th, but it has been used in deciding a number of cases.
This, re: the New Orleans slaughter-house case:
"This legal case probe the intent and scope of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the US Constitution. The justices give a broad defense of individual civil rights as protected from infringement by state laws (the case involves business regulations in Louisiana, not race relations)."
American Memory from the Library of Congress))

You can see that the 14th is accepted and used to decide other cases.

And, IMO, the SCOTUS is not immune to political pressure, and would never entertain a case that would disallow the 14th.
But, I would love to see it used to incorporate ALL of the first 10 amendments.

The worst thing you can have, is further incorporation. The Bill of Rights were not meant to be incorporated to begin with, and the XIV Amendment was not meant to do that.

Why would you want to give more power to the federal government, by taking away the rightful power of the states?

 

[Tech_Esq]

And how does the 14th amendment stand with the Supreme Court? Has anyone tried to seek a ruling on its constitutionality? After all, that is what the Supreme Court is for.

To my knowledge, the SCOTUS has never directly addressed the issue. And to my knowledge, no suit has been filed and granted standing by the Court, that sought address of that direct issue.

Which makes me wonder why, considering so many issues such as Roe v. Wade that hinge on the 14th amendment.

Roe does not hinge on the 14th Amendment. Roe hinges more directly on the errounious, in my view, holding in Griswold v. Connecticut, that found a "pnumbra" of rights "flowing" from the 9th, 5th, 4th etc amendment that created a "right to privacy." Please read Mr. Justice Black's dissent in the case.

 

[PoliticalChic]

To my knowledge, the SCOTUS has never directly addressed the issue. And to my knowledge, no suit has been filed and granted standing by the Court, that sought address of that direct issue.

I know of no case which questioned the legitimacy of the 14th, but it has been used in deciding a number of cases.
This, re: the New Orleans slaughter-house case:
"This legal case probe the intent and scope of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the US Constitution. The justices give a broad defense of individual civil rights as protected from infringement by state laws (the case involves business regulations in Louisiana, not race relations)."
American Memory from the Library of Congress))

You can see that the 14th is accepted and used to decide other cases.

And, IMO, the SCOTUS is not immune to political pressure, and would never entertain a case that would disallow the 14th.
But, I would love to see it used to incorporate ALL of the first 10 amendments.

The worst thing you can have, is further incorporation. The Bill of Rights were not meant to be incorporated to begin with, and the XIV Amendment was not meant to do that.

Why would you want to give more power to the federal government, by taking away the rightful power of the states?

On the contrary in both cases.

The Bill of Rights was actually meant to restrain the federal government, by specifying protections of the people.

And the amendment that I wish to see incorporated is the Second.

It was a moot point until 1833, Barron v. Baltimore, which would have granted you your wish.
After the Civil War, many states passed laws that would have obviated the 13th Amendment, and thus the necessity of the 14th.

So, if you think black citizenship, and voting rights is a states rights issue, you would be opposed to the 14th.
I do not.

 

[midcan5]

Consensus appears to be precedent / stare decisis holds and this may not be perfect law, none are, but it worked and works.

I still want to know why anyone would want to repeal it? What is the goal of the appeal? What is it you want to change?

Stari Decisis legal definition of Stari Decisis. Stari Decisis synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

I know of no case which questioned the legitimacy of the 14th, but it has been used in deciding a number of cases.
This, re: the New Orleans slaughter-house case:
"This legal case probe the intent and scope of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the US Constitution. The justices give a broad defense of individual civil rights as protected from infringement by state laws (the case involves business regulations in Louisiana, not race relations)."
American Memory from the Library of Congress))

You can see that the 14th is accepted and used to decide other cases.

And, IMO, the SCOTUS is not immune to political pressure, and would never entertain a case that would disallow the 14th.
But, I would love to see it used to incorporate ALL of the first 10 amendments.

The worst thing you can have, is further incorporation. The Bill of Rights were not meant to be incorporated to begin with, and the XIV Amendment was not meant to do that.

Why would you want to give more power to the federal government, by taking away the rightful power of the states?

On the contrary in both cases.

The Bill of Rights was actually meant to restrain the federal government, by specifying protections of the people.

And the amendment that I wish to see incorporated is the Second.

It was a moot point until 1833, Barron v. Baltimore, which would have granted you your wish.
After the Civil War, many states passed laws that would have obviated the 13th Amendment, and thus the necessity of the 14th.

So, if you think black citizenship, and voting rights is a states rights issue, you would be opposed to the 14th.
I do not.

I understand that the Bill of Rights is a restriction on the federal government. Incorporation removes powers from the states, and enlarges that of the federal government.

Again, why do you wish to give power to the federal government that it should not have to begin with, if restriction of the federal government is your belief? Your argument for incorporation is not in keeping with the original intent of the Bill of Rights or the XIV Amendment.

There is no right to vote in a federal election in the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The worst thing you can have, is further incorporation. The Bill of Rights were not meant to be incorporated to begin with, and the XIV Amendment was not meant to do that.

Why would you want to give more power to the federal government, by taking away the rightful power of the states?

On the contrary in both cases.

The Bill of Rights was actually meant to restrain the federal government, by specifying protections of the people.

And the amendment that I wish to see incorporated is the Second.

It was a moot point until 1833, Barron v. Baltimore, which would have granted you your wish.
After the Civil War, many states passed laws that would have obviated the 13th Amendment, and thus the necessity of the 14th.

So, if you think black citizenship, and voting rights is a states rights issue, you would be opposed to the 14th.
I do not.

I understand that the Bill of Rights is a restriction on the federal government. Incorporation removes powers from the states, and enlarges that of the federal government.

Again, why do you wish to give power to the federal government that it should not have to begin with, if restriction of the federal government is your belief? Your argument for incorporation is not in keeping with the original intent of the Bill of Rights or the XIV Amendment.

There is no right to vote in a federal election in the Constitution.

The states make up one nation. Some standards should be applied to every citizen. IMO there are additional standards that could be applied, beyond the first ten amendments. For example, I would be happy to see English made the official language of the country. I believe it was Theodore White who said that language is the glue that holds a country together.

Please list the protections in the Bill of Rights that you would not like to carry with you as you move from one state to another, or that you would rather see mutated in fifty different manifestations.

The Second Amendment give Americans a right that every statistic proves is a positive, not a negative. Yet, liberals the country over, imbued with the ability to tell the rest of us what is best for us, would remove the right to bear arms were it not in the Constitution, even though it has yet to be incorporate. Thus the battle must be fought repeatedly.

Even now, the newest Supreme Court Justice believes that it applies only to the federal government. Liberals, who live by the motto 'feeling is as good as knowing,' would find a constellation of statutes and laws to replace the protections in the Bill of Rights if they are not incorporated.

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

On the contrary in both cases.

The Bill of Rights was actually meant to restrain the federal government, by specifying protections of the people.

And the amendment that I wish to see incorporated is the Second.

It was a moot point until 1833, Barron v. Baltimore, which would have granted you your wish.
After the Civil War, many states passed laws that would have obviated the 13th Amendment, and thus the necessity of the 14th.

So, if you think black citizenship, and voting rights is a states rights issue, you would be opposed to the 14th.
I do not.

I understand that the Bill of Rights is a restriction on the federal government. Incorporation removes powers from the states, and enlarges that of the federal government.

Again, why do you wish to give power to the federal government that it should not have to begin with, if restriction of the federal government is your belief? Your argument for incorporation is not in keeping with the original intent of the Bill of Rights or the XIV Amendment.

There is no right to vote in a federal election in the Constitution.

The states make up one nation. Some standards should be applied to every citizen. IMO there are additional standards that could be applied, beyond the first ten amendments. For example, I would be happy to see English made the official language of the country. I believe it was Theodore White who said that language is the glue that holds a country together.

Please list the protections in the Bill of Rights that you would not like to carry with you as you move from one state to another, or that you would rather see mutated in fifty different manifestations.

The Second Amendment give Americans a right that every statistic proves is a positive, not a negative. Yet, liberals the country over, imbued with the ability to tell the rest of us what is best for us, would remove the right to bear arms were it not in the Constitution, even though it has yet to be incorporate. Thus the battle must be fought repeatedly.

Even now, the newest Supreme Court Justice believes that it applies only to the federal government. Liberals, who live by the motto 'feeling is as good as knowing,' would find a constellation of statutes and laws to replace the protections in the Bill of Rights if they are not incorporated.

Lets analyse your position. You don't like the position "liberals" have when it comes to the II Amendment, even though they have the right as citizens of their respective state to petition their government elected to pass restrictions on said right. In an attempt to prevent your fellow Americans from exercising their constitutional rights, both state and federal, you want the Bill of Rights to be incorporated to the federal government, thus removing their rights as citizens of their respective states to redress their government on that matter and other matters.

When you get down the core of your position and the reasoning their of, it isn't about strict adherence to the Constitution in its proper context and adjudication. Your position is an authoritarian one, which seeks to bastardize the Constitution even further.

You speak of equality while promoting an authoritarian partisan hack position. Do you not see the hypocrisy of your position. Your position would do even more damage to the Republic.

There is no need for me to go through the entire list of the Bill of Rights with you. Your position is clear and it is unacceptable. I don't see how anyone who believes in strict constructionism, could agree with your position.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Consensus appears to be precedent / stare decisis holds and this may not be perfect law, none are, but it worked and works.

I still want to know why anyone would want to repeal it? What is the goal of the appeal? What is it you want to change?

Stari Decisis legal definition of Stari Decisis. Stari Decisis synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Good God Damn, I am gonna die. I actually agree with something the board Communist posted.

There is only one result of repelling the 14th, the lose of the Civil Rights act and numerous other Laws that rest solely on it as a foundation. The return to States violating the Constitution at will claiming it is none of the Federal Governments Business.

While I agree the Federal Government has usurped numerous things from States and the Individual THIS is not the answer. Repelling the 14th or invalidating it would be criminally negligent. It was lawfully passed since the Southern States Governments that voted against it were still the rebellious Governments and had no right to Govern to begin with.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The worst thing you can have, is further incorporation. The Bill of Rights were not meant to be incorporated to begin with, and the XIV Amendment was not meant to do that.

Why would you want to give more power to the federal government, by taking away the rightful power of the states?

On the contrary in both cases.

The Bill of Rights was actually meant to restrain the federal government, by specifying protections of the people.

And the amendment that I wish to see incorporated is the Second.

It was a moot point until 1833, Barron v. Baltimore, which would have granted you your wish.
After the Civil War, many states passed laws that would have obviated the 13th Amendment, and thus the necessity of the 14th.

So, if you think black citizenship, and voting rights is a states rights issue, you would be opposed to the 14th.
I do not.

I understand that the Bill of Rights is a restriction on the federal government. Incorporation removes powers from the states, and enlarges that of the federal government.

Again, why do you wish to give power to the federal government that it should not have to begin with, if restriction of the federal government is your belief? Your argument for incorporation is not in keeping with the original intent of the Bill of Rights or the XIV Amendment.

There is no right to vote in a federal election in the Constitution.

Incorporation does not grant to the Federal Government new powers at all. It simply enforces the power of the Federal Government and that of the protections for the citizenry from the State Governments.

The problem with the Federal Government has nothing to do with incorporation it has to do with creating laws by lying about what an enumerated power actually gives the Federal Government the right to do. The worst offender was FDR and it has been down hill since.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Consensus appears to be precedent / stare decisis holds and this may not be perfect law, none are, but it worked and works.

I still want to know why anyone would want to repeal it? What is the goal of the appeal? What is it you want to change?

Stari Decisis legal definition of Stari Decisis. Stari Decisis synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Good God Damn, I am gonna die. I actually agree with something the board Communist posted.

There is only one result of repelling the 14th, the lose of the Civil Rights act and numerous other Laws that rest solely on it as a foundation. The return to States violating the Constitution at will claiming it is none of the Federal Governments Business.

While I agree the Federal Government has usurped numerous things from States and the Individual THIS is not the answer. Repelling the 14th or invalidating it would be criminally negligent. It was lawfully passed since the Southern States Governments that voted against it were still the rebellious Governments and had no right to Govern to begin with.

Well since they were still rebellious and had no right to govern to begin with, would you say that their ratification of the 13th Amendment is illegitimate?

 

[BasicGreatGuy]

On the contrary in both cases.

The Bill of Rights was actually meant to restrain the federal government, by specifying protections of the people.

And the amendment that I wish to see incorporated is the Second.

It was a moot point until 1833, Barron v. Baltimore, which would have granted you your wish.
After the Civil War, many states passed laws that would have obviated the 13th Amendment, and thus the necessity of the 14th.

So, if you think black citizenship, and voting rights is a states rights issue, you would be opposed to the 14th.
I do not.

I understand that the Bill of Rights is a restriction on the federal government. Incorporation removes powers from the states, and enlarges that of the federal government.

Again, why do you wish to give power to the federal government that it should not have to begin with, if restriction of the federal government is your belief? Your argument for incorporation is not in keeping with the original intent of the Bill of Rights or the XIV Amendment.

There is no right to vote in a federal election in the Constitution.

Incorporation does not grant to the Federal Government new powers at all. It simply enforces the power of the Federal Government and that of the protections for the citizenry from the State Governments.

The problem with the Federal Government has nothing to do with incorporation it has to do with creating laws by lying about what an enumerated power actually gives the Federal Government the right to do. The worst offender was FDR and it has been down hill since.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights is not an established power of the feds to begin with. Incorporating removes power from the states. All we have is federal and state. Where do you think that power goes to that was taken from the states? It doesn't just evaporate. The federal government's power increases beyond that which it was supposed to.

When the federal government is allowed to stick its nose where it doesn't belong whether directly or passively, that is an enlargement of the government.

The federal government has too much power as it is. They already infringe on the II Amendment. You incorporate the II Amendment, and they will take power creating more laws on the II Amendment across all the states. That is one of the hideous things about incorporation theory.

Most people don't think about that though. They are resolved to keep putting up with the abuse.