What's new

A mangled Constitution

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
I think the Constitution has been bent and twisted into a form the Founders and Framers would not recognize except as an example of their worst fears. They crystallized a document to restrict the central government for all time yet left an amendment process, with high hurdles, for necessary changes. And they depended on an educated and moral people of a common heritage to zealously guard it, a divided government where each branch kept a lid on the others ambitions and finally...a set of sovereign entities called states to bind the central government to its duties.

The assault on these protections has been devastating. First you had the 14th amendment imposed by force of bayonets and conquest rather than will of people. It may have been backed by good intentions but so is the road to hell. Rulings relying on the 14 th amendment are the fruit of a poisoned tree... Imposed on an unwilling citizenry over their objections. And the tyrants doing it can grin and say "it's your constitution"...a lie. Neither the people nor the states ever ratified or accepted it.

But the attacks go deeper than that springboard. Like something from Orwells imagination they then claim that rights which didn't exist yesterday, and which the authors never saw, were really there all along waiting for jurists smart enough to see them.
The authors didn't know about it.... They were supernaturally channeling Oprah and Cher from the future and hiding it away in code all along!
The 14th Amendment was ratified by every state. It is the law of the land. Don't like it, repeal it; I'm sure there are others who will support you in that endeavor.
There is nothing to repeal nor does the process seem to even exist any longer. As I pointed out earlier when the Equal Rights Amendment was rejected the liberals just pretended it had passed.
But where do you get the idea every state passed the 14th Amendment? You dont have to take my word for it. It is a matter of record. I'll help a little but you should read it for yourself so you will know the truth of the matter.

Even a victorious Union balked adding the 14th to the Constitution. And that was in a time when the amendment process was actually followed...the forms anyhow. The Constitution sets a high bar for amendments and rightfully so. In fact it sets it so high liberals now just use the courts to modify the constitution.
In the case of the 14th amendment even the Northern states knew it would lead to totalitarianism. There was no way it would get the 2/3 votes in Congress it needed to even be presented to the states. BUT, since it only takes a bare majority to refuse a seat in congress, they proceeded to unseat 22 Senators and 58 representatives from the South. These were senators and represenatives who had supported the 13th Amendment by the way. Now they felt confident. Except they still couldn't get a 2/3 vote in favor. Too many northern states objected that free government died with this amendment. They fell one short in the Senate even after disenfranchising half the country. The solution? The senate expelled New Jersey illegally LINK whose Senators were refusing to vote for the amendment and thus were able to pass the resolution by a bare one vote. Link
"...no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Article V

President Johnson objected and impeachment proceeedings were begun against him. The President of the United States OBJECTED for the same reasons everyone should have. "This importance is at the present time enhanced by the fact that the joint resolution was not submitted by the two Houses for the thirty-six States which constitute the Union, eleven are excluded from representation in either House of Congress, although with the single exception of Texas, they have been entirely restored to all their functions as States, in conformity with the organic law of the land, and have appeared at the National Capitol by Senators and Representatives who have applied for and have been refused admission to the vacant seats."

And so on to the states unlawfully..or at least unjustly.

Oct 1866 Texas rejects
Nov 1866 Georgia rejects
Dec 1866 NC rejects
Dec 1866 SC rejects
Jan 1867 KY rejects
Jan 1867 Virginia rejects
Feb 1867 LA rejects
Feb 1867 Delaware rejects
March 1867 Maryland rejects
Jan 1868 Mississippi rejects

Amendment fails mathematically! You can look up the rejection votes and proclamations yourself. I assume that having done so you can add them up yourself and decide what 3/4 would be for acceptance...and agree with me the amendment failed. "Amendments...shall be valid...when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states"..Artricle V

Secretary of State Seward reports the failure to Congress. Except tyrants don't take rejection well. Ten states were ejected from the Union and military dictatorships set up to rule them. Generals recomposed the state legislators and, in some cases, attended with troops to force the new legislators to ratify the 14th. In outrage two more northern states rejected the amendment while California objected by refusing to vote either way. Then Ohio, Maryland and New Jersey rescinded their ratification citing the illegal use of force to impose a change in the Constitution (a coup in other words) joined by Oregon who cited an illegal state government.
Congress passed a resolution *ordering* the Secty of State to proclaim the amendment passed and on July 20 1868 the Secretary of State obliged but implied that the amendment lacked validity by inserting the words "if valid" in his proclamation he had published in the press.
None of which seem like very good methods for free people to change their constitution.
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.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
35,598
Reaction score
4,692
Points
1,130
hey jillian.....lol packy is my old friend ...we have known each other for over a couple of decades now....he is a close and dear friend ...packy this may or may not help ya ....i invited him here....evil smile

play nice ...everyone...
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.
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
35,598
Reaction score
4,692
Points
1,130
I think the Constitution has been bent and twisted into a form the Founders and Framers would not recognize except as an example of their worst fears. They crystallized a document to restrict the central government for all time yet left an amendment process, with high hurdles, for necessary changes. And they depended on an educated and moral people of a common heritage to zealously guard it, a divided government where each branch kept a lid on the others ambitions and finally...a set of sovereign entities called states to bind the central government to its duties.

The assault on these protections has been devastating. First you had the 14th amendment imposed by force of bayonets and conquest rather than will of people. It may have been backed by good intentions but so is the road to hell. Rulings relying on the 14 th amendment are the fruit of a poisoned tree... Imposed on an unwilling citizenry over their objections. And the tyrants doing it can grin and say "it's your constitution"...a lie. Neither the people nor the states ever ratified or accepted it.

But the attacks go deeper than that springboard. Like something from Orwells imagination they then claim that rights which didn't exist yesterday, and which the authors never saw, were really there all along waiting for jurists smart enough to see them.
The authors didn't know about it.... They were supernaturally channeling Oprah and Cher from the future and hiding it away in code all along!
The 14th Amendment was ratified by every state. It is the law of the land. Don't like it, repeal it; I'm sure there are others who will support you in that endeavor.
There is nothing to repeal nor does the process seem to even exist any longer. As I pointed out earlier when the Equal Rights Amendment was rejected the liberals just pretended it had passed.
But where do you get the idea every state passed the 14th Amendment? You dont have to take my word for it. It is a matter of record. I'll help a little but you should read it for yourself so you will know the truth of the matter.

Even a victorious Union balked adding the 14th to the Constitution. And that was in a time when the amendment process was actually followed...the forms anyhow. The Constitution sets a high bar for amendments and rightfully so. In fact it sets it so high liberals now just use the courts to modify the constitution.
In the case of the 14th amendment even the Northern states knew it would lead to totalitarianism. There was no way it would get the 2/3 votes in Congress it needed to even be presented to the states. BUT, since it only takes a bare majority to refuse a seat in congress, they proceeded to unseat 22 Senators and 58 representatives from the South. These were senators and represenatives who had supported the 13th Amendment by the way. Now they felt confident. Except they still couldn't get a 2/3 vote in favor. Too many northern states objected that free government died with this amendment. They fell one short in the Senate even after disenfranchising half the country. The solution? The senate expelled New Jersey illegally LINK whose Senators were refusing to vote for the amendment and thus were able to pass the resolution by a bare one vote. Link
"...no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Article V

President Johnson objected and impeachment proceeedings were begun against him. The President of the United States OBJECTED for the same reasons everyone should have. "This importance is at the present time enhanced by the fact that the joint resolution was not submitted by the two Houses for the thirty-six States which constitute the Union, eleven are excluded from representation in either House of Congress, although with the single exception of Texas, they have been entirely restored to all their functions as States, in conformity with the organic law of the land, and have appeared at the National Capitol by Senators and Representatives who have applied for and have been refused admission to the vacant seats."

And so on to the states unlawfully..or at least unjustly.

Oct 1866 Texas rejects
Nov 1866 Georgia rejects
Dec 1866 NC rejects
Dec 1866 SC rejects
Jan 1867 KY rejects
Jan 1867 Virginia rejects
Feb 1867 LA rejects
Feb 1867 Delaware rejects
March 1867 Maryland rejects
Jan 1868 Mississippi rejects

Amendment fails mathematically! You can look up the rejection votes and proclamations yourself. I assume that having done so you can add them up yourself and decide what 3/4 would be for acceptance...and agree with me the amendment failed. "Amendments...shall be valid...when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states"..Artricle V

Secretary of State Seward reports the failure to Congress. Except tyrants don't take rejection well. Ten states were ejected from the Union and military dictatorships set up to rule them. Generals recomposed the state legislators and, in some cases, attended with troops to force the new legislators to ratify the 14th. In outrage two more northern states rejected the amendment while California objected by refusing to vote either way. Then Ohio, Maryland and New Jersey rescinded their ratification citing the illegal use of force to impose a change in the Constitution (a coup in other words) joined by Oregon who cited an illegal state government.
Congress passed a resolution *ordering* the Secty of State to proclaim the amendment passed and on July 20 1868 the Secretary of State obliged but implied that the amendment lacked validity by inserting the words "if valid" in his proclamation he had published in the press.
None of which seem like very good methods for free people to change their constitution.
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.

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.

Page 710 of U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774 to 1875 said:
....the legislature of Georgia rejected it November 13th, 1866, and the same legislature of the same State ratified it July 21st, 1868...

....the legislature of North Carolina rejected it December 4th 1866, and the legislature of the same State ratified it July 4th, 1868...

...the legislature of South Carolina rejected it December 20th 1866, and the legislature of the same State ratified it July 9th, 1868...

...the legislature of Louisianan ratified it July 9th, 1868....
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:
OP
P

Packyderm

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2016
Messages
69
Reaction score
6
Points
21
I think the Constitution has been bent and twisted into a form the Founders and Framers would not recognize except as an example of their worst fears. They crystallized a document to restrict the central government for all time yet left an amendment process, with high hurdles, for necessary changes. And they depended on an educated and moral people of a common heritage to zealously guard it, a divided government where each branch kept a lid on the others ambitions and finally...a set of sovereign entities called states to bind the central government to its duties.

The assault on these protections has been devastating. First you had the 14th amendment imposed by force of bayonets and conquest rather than will of people. It may have been backed by good intentions but so is the road to hell. Rulings relying on the 14 th amendment are the fruit of a poisoned tree... Imposed on an unwilling citizenry over their objections. And the tyrants doing it can grin and say "it's your constitution"...a lie. Neither the people nor the states ever ratified or accepted it.

But the attacks go deeper than that springboard. Like something from Orwells imagination they then claim that rights which didn't exist yesterday, and which the authors never saw, were really there all along waiting for jurists smart enough to see them.
The authors didn't know about it.... They were supernaturally channeling Oprah and Cher from the future and hiding it away in code all along!
The 14th Amendment was ratified by every state. It is the law of the land. Don't like it, repeal it; I'm sure there are others who will support you in that endeavor.
There is nothing to repeal nor does the process seem to even exist any longer. As I pointed out earlier when the Equal Rights Amendment was rejected the liberals just pretended it had passed.
But where do you get the idea every state passed the 14th Amendment? You dont have to take my word for it. It is a matter of record. I'll help a little but you should read it for yourself so you will know the truth of the matter.

Even a victorious Union balked adding the 14th to the Constitution. And that was in a time when the amendment process was actually followed...the forms anyhow. The Constitution sets a high bar for amendments and rightfully so. In fact it sets it so high liberals now just use the courts to modify the constitution.
In the case of the 14th amendment even the Northern states knew it would lead to totalitarianism. There was no way it would get the 2/3 votes in Congress it needed to even be presented to the states. BUT, since it only takes a bare majority to refuse a seat in congress, they proceeded to unseat 22 Senators and 58 representatives from the South. These were senators and represenatives who had supported the 13th Amendment by the way. Now they felt confident. Except they still couldn't get a 2/3 vote in favor. Too many northern states objected that free government died with this amendment. They fell one short in the Senate even after disenfranchising half the country. The solution? The senate expelled New Jersey illegally LINK whose Senators were refusing to vote for the amendment and thus were able to pass the resolution by a bare one vote. Link
"...no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Article V

President Johnson objected and impeachment proceeedings were begun against him. The President of the United States OBJECTED for the same reasons everyone should have. "This importance is at the present time enhanced by the fact that the joint resolution was not submitted by the two Houses for the thirty-six States which constitute the Union, eleven are excluded from representation in either House of Congress, although with the single exception of Texas, they have been entirely restored to all their functions as States, in conformity with the organic law of the land, and have appeared at the National Capitol by Senators and Representatives who have applied for and have been refused admission to the vacant seats."

And so on to the states unlawfully..or at least unjustly.

Oct 1866 Texas rejects
Nov 1866 Georgia rejects
Dec 1866 NC rejects
Dec 1866 SC rejects
Jan 1867 KY rejects
Jan 1867 Virginia rejects
Feb 1867 LA rejects
Feb 1867 Delaware rejects
March 1867 Maryland rejects
Jan 1868 Mississippi rejects

Amendment fails mathematically! You can look up the rejection votes and proclamations yourself. I assume that having done so you can add them up yourself and decide what 3/4 would be for acceptance...and agree with me the amendment failed. "Amendments...shall be valid...when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states"..Artricle V

Secretary of State Seward reports the failure to Congress. Except tyrants don't take rejection well. Ten states were ejected from the Union and military dictatorships set up to rule them. Generals recomposed the state legislators and, in some cases, attended with troops to force the new legislators to ratify the 14th. In outrage two more northern states rejected the amendment while California objected by refusing to vote either way. Then Ohio, Maryland and New Jersey rescinded their ratification citing the illegal use of force to impose a change in the Constitution (a coup in other words) joined by Oregon who cited an illegal state government.
Congress passed a resolution *ordering* the Secty of State to proclaim the amendment passed and on July 20 1868 the Secretary of State obliged but implied that the amendment lacked validity by inserting the words "if valid" in his proclamation he had published in the press.
None of which seem like very good methods for free people to change their constitution.
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.

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.

Page 710 of U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774 to 1875 said:
....the legislature of Georgia rejected it November 13th, 1866, and the same legislature of the same State ratified it July 21st, 1868...

....the legislature of North Carolina rejected it December 4th 1866, and the legislature of the same State ratified it July 4th, 1868...

...the legislature of South Carolina rejected it December 20th 1866, and the legislature of the same State ratified it July 9th, 1868...

...the legislature of Louisianan ratified it July 9th, 1868....
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.
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"
 

TheGreatGatsby

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
24,083
Reaction score
2,899
Points
280
Location
California
I think the Constitution has been bent and twisted into a form the Founders and Framers would not recognize except as an example of their worst fears.
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....
 
OP
P

Packyderm

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2016
Messages
69
Reaction score
6
Points
21
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.
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.
 
OP
P

Packyderm

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2016
Messages
69
Reaction score
6
Points
21
I think the Constitution has been bent and twisted into a form the Founders and Framers would not recognize except as an example of their worst fears. They crystallized a document to restrict the central government for all time yet left an amendment process, with high hurdles, for necessary changes. And they depended on an educated and moral people of a common heritage to zealously guard it, a divided government where each branch kept a lid on the others ambitions and finally...a set of sovereign entities called states to bind the central government to its duties.
The assault on these protections has been devastating. First you had the 14th amendment imposed by force of bayonets and conquest rather than will of people. It may have been backed by good intentions but so is the road to hell. Rulings relying on the 14 th amendment are the fruit of a poisoned tree... Imposed on an unwilling citizenry over their objections. And the tyrants doing it can grin and say "it's your constitution"...a lie. Neither the people nor the states ever ratified or accepted it.
But the attacks go deeper than that springboard. Like something from Orwells imagination they then claim that rights which didn't exist yesterday, and which the authors never saw, were really there all along waiting for jurists smart enough to see them.
The authors didn't know about it.... They were supernaturally channeling Oprah and Cher from the future and hiding it away in code all along!
The people don't vote for Amendments under the Constitution. State legislatures do. And the State legislatures voted in the 14th amendment.

That you don't like the amendment doesn't magically make it disappear. Especially when you lamented about how the constitution can only be changed by the very process used when passing the 14th amendment.
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.
 
OP
P

Packyderm

Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2016
Messages
69
Reaction score
6
Points
21
And the 14th amendment served a wildly valuable purpose: preventing the States from violating the rights of people. Check out Barron V. Baltimore.

Before the 14th amendment the States were not bound to the Bill of Rights. The States can and did flagrantly violate the Bill of Rights. And the Federal government had no recourse and the Bill of Rights limited only the Federal Government.

That's fucking ridiculous. It was a huge, truck sized hole in our constitution, a place where the founders utterly fucked up.....and the 14th corrected their mistake.
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).
 

Skylar

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2014
Messages
35,598
Reaction score
4,692
Points
1,130
I think the Constitution has been bent and twisted into a form the Founders and Framers would not recognize except as an example of their worst fears. They crystallized a document to restrict the central government for all time yet left an amendment process, with high hurdles, for necessary changes. And they depended on an educated and moral people of a common heritage to zealously guard it, a divided government where each branch kept a lid on the others ambitions and finally...a set of sovereign entities called states to bind the central government to its duties.

The assault on these protections has been devastating. First you had the 14th amendment imposed by force of bayonets and conquest rather than will of people. It may have been backed by good intentions but so is the road to hell. Rulings relying on the 14 th amendment are the fruit of a poisoned tree... Imposed on an unwilling citizenry over their objections. And the tyrants doing it can grin and say "it's your constitution"...a lie. Neither the people nor the states ever ratified or accepted it.

But the attacks go deeper than that springboard. Like something from Orwells imagination they then claim that rights which didn't exist yesterday, and which the authors never saw, were really there all along waiting for jurists smart enough to see them.
The authors didn't know about it.... They were supernaturally channeling Oprah and Cher from the future and hiding it away in code all along!
The 14th Amendment was ratified by every state. It is the law of the land. Don't like it, repeal it; I'm sure there are others who will support you in that endeavor.
There is nothing to repeal nor does the process seem to even exist any longer. As I pointed out earlier when the Equal Rights Amendment was rejected the liberals just pretended it had passed.
But where do you get the idea every state passed the 14th Amendment? You dont have to take my word for it. It is a matter of record. I'll help a little but you should read it for yourself so you will know the truth of the matter.

Even a victorious Union balked adding the 14th to the Constitution. And that was in a time when the amendment process was actually followed...the forms anyhow. The Constitution sets a high bar for amendments and rightfully so. In fact it sets it so high liberals now just use the courts to modify the constitution.
In the case of the 14th amendment even the Northern states knew it would lead to totalitarianism. There was no way it would get the 2/3 votes in Congress it needed to even be presented to the states. BUT, since it only takes a bare majority to refuse a seat in congress, they proceeded to unseat 22 Senators and 58 representatives from the South. These were senators and represenatives who had supported the 13th Amendment by the way. Now they felt confident. Except they still couldn't get a 2/3 vote in favor. Too many northern states objected that free government died with this amendment. They fell one short in the Senate even after disenfranchising half the country. The solution? The senate expelled New Jersey illegally LINK whose Senators were refusing to vote for the amendment and thus were able to pass the resolution by a bare one vote. Link
"...no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Article V

President Johnson objected and impeachment proceeedings were begun against him. The President of the United States OBJECTED for the same reasons everyone should have. "This importance is at the present time enhanced by the fact that the joint resolution was not submitted by the two Houses for the thirty-six States which constitute the Union, eleven are excluded from representation in either House of Congress, although with the single exception of Texas, they have been entirely restored to all their functions as States, in conformity with the organic law of the land, and have appeared at the National Capitol by Senators and Representatives who have applied for and have been refused admission to the vacant seats."

And so on to the states unlawfully..or at least unjustly.

Oct 1866 Texas rejects
Nov 1866 Georgia rejects
Dec 1866 NC rejects
Dec 1866 SC rejects
Jan 1867 KY rejects
Jan 1867 Virginia rejects
Feb 1867 LA rejects
Feb 1867 Delaware rejects
March 1867 Maryland rejects
Jan 1868 Mississippi rejects

Amendment fails mathematically! You can look up the rejection votes and proclamations yourself. I assume that having done so you can add them up yourself and decide what 3/4 would be for acceptance...and agree with me the amendment failed. "Amendments...shall be valid...when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states"..Artricle V

Secretary of State Seward reports the failure to Congress. Except tyrants don't take rejection well. Ten states were ejected from the Union and military dictatorships set up to rule them. Generals recomposed the state legislators and, in some cases, attended with troops to force the new legislators to ratify the 14th. In outrage two more northern states rejected the amendment while California objected by refusing to vote either way. Then Ohio, Maryland and New Jersey rescinded their ratification citing the illegal use of force to impose a change in the Constitution (a coup in other words) joined by Oregon who cited an illegal state government.
Congress passed a resolution *ordering* the Secty of State to proclaim the amendment passed and on July 20 1868 the Secretary of State obliged but implied that the amendment lacked validity by inserting the words "if valid" in his proclamation he had published in the press.
None of which seem like very good methods for free people to change their constitution.
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.

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.

Page 710 of U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774 to 1875 said:
....the legislature of Georgia rejected it November 13th, 1866, and the same legislature of the same State ratified it July 21st, 1868...

....the legislature of North Carolina rejected it December 4th 1866, and the legislature of the same State ratified it July 4th, 1868...

...the legislature of South Carolina rejected it December 20th 1866, and the legislature of the same State ratified it July 9th, 1868...

...the legislature of Louisianan ratified it July 9th, 1868....
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.
What is wrong with you?
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.

Page 710 of U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates 1774 to 1875 said:
....the legislature of Georgia rejected it November 13th, 1866, and the same legislature of the same State ratified it July 21st, 1868...

....the legislature of North Carolina rejected it December 4th 1866, and the legislature of the same State ratified it July 4th, 1868...

...the legislature of South Carolina rejected it December 20th 1866, and the legislature of the same State ratified it July 9th, 1868...

...the legislature of Louisiana ratified it July 9th, 1868....
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.
 

KokomoJojo

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
61
Points
85
I think the Constitution has been bent and twisted into a form the Founders and Framers would not recognize except as an example of their worst fears. They crystallized a document to restrict the central government for all time yet left an amendment process, with high hurdles, for necessary changes. And they depended on an educated and moral people of a common heritage to zealously guard it, a divided government where each branch kept a lid on the others ambitions and finally...a set of sovereign entities called states to bind the central government to its duties.
The assault on these protections has been devastating. First you had the 14th amendment imposed by force of bayonets and conquest rather than will of people. It may have been backed by good intentions but so is the road to hell. Rulings relying on the 14 th amendment are the fruit of a poisoned tree... Imposed on an unwilling citizenry over their objections. And the tyrants doing it can grin and say "it's your constitution"...a lie. Neither the people nor the states ever ratified or accepted it.
But the attacks go deeper than that springboard. Like something from Orwells imagination they then claim that rights which didn't exist yesterday, and which the authors never saw, were really there all along waiting for jurists smart enough to see them.
The authors didn't know about it.... They were supernaturally channeling Oprah and Cher from the future and hiding it away in code all along!
So are you saying that you want to go BACK to SLAVERY then?

13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments are the anti slavery amendments.

The 13th set the slaves free.

The 14th made them citizens.

And the 15th gave them the right to vote.
No it didnt, with no 'opt out' it converted everyone to slavery, its called 'bond' slavery.
 

KokomoJojo

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
61
Points
85
I think the Constitution has been bent and twisted into a form the Founders and Framers would not recognize except as an example of their worst fears. They crystallized a document to restrict the central government for all time yet left an amendment process, with high hurdles, for necessary changes. And they depended on an educated and moral people of a common heritage to zealously guard it, a divided government where each branch kept a lid on the others ambitions and finally...a set of sovereign entities called states to bind the central government to its duties.
The assault on these protections has been devastating. First you had the 14th amendment imposed by force of bayonets and conquest rather than will of people. It may have been backed by good intentions but so is the road to hell. Rulings relying on the 14 th amendment are the fruit of a poisoned tree... Imposed on an unwilling citizenry over their objections. And the tyrants doing it can grin and say "it's your constitution"...a lie. Neither the people nor the states ever ratified or accepted it.
But the attacks go deeper than that springboard. Like something from Orwells imagination they then claim that rights which didn't exist yesterday, and which the authors never saw, were really there all along waiting for jurists smart enough to see them.
The authors didn't know about it.... They were supernaturally channeling Oprah and Cher from the future and hiding it away in code all along!

yep the whole shebang was brought forward in fraud.


We the People? or We the States?

Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788

you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost.

It will be necessary for this Convention to have a faithful historical detail of the facts that preceded the session of the federal Convention, and the reasons that actuated its members in proposing an entire alteration of government, and to demonstrate the dangers that awaited us. If they were of such awful magnitude as to warrant a proposal so extremely perilous as this, I must assert, that this Convention has an absolute right to a thorough discovery of every circumstance relative to this great event. And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking.

I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor [George Washington], I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information.

The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration.

--------------------------------------------

So now that they rammed their illegal constitution through, now they had to clean up the mess they made.

The constitution/BoR is said to be a product between the states therefore applied only to the states.

So.....The second amendment therefore assures the 'states' the right to exercise their religion, and if a 'state' murders someone a right to a jury and so forth. I would like to know how we can throw a state in jail for a murder or a capital crime?:ack-1: Makes perfect sense doesnt it? Prima facia fraud and Henry blew the whistle on them.


You heard it here first
 
Last edited:

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
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.
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
I'll take your advice and read every thing you post with caution in mind (case in point: "liberals always lie").

BTW, the Congressional Record is not an accurate source of what really went on, every member of Congress has the right to revise their comments before it is published. The Prof. who told me (us) that was a former Congressman from CA who was teaching courses in Poli Sci at SFSU.
 

KokomoJojo

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
61
Points
85
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.
I dont have the case right in front of me but it seems t me it was the idaho supreme court went right up to the very edge in dicta stating it is unconstituional and left it without a positive affirmation because that was not the cause of action. Maybe someone else remembers the case.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
53,586
Reaction score
11,173
Points
2,030
Location
In a Republic, actually
I think the Constitution has been bent and twisted into a form the Founders and Framers would not recognize except as an example of their worst fears. They crystallized a document to restrict the central government for all time yet left an amendment process, with high hurdles, for necessary changes. And they depended on an educated and moral people of a common heritage to zealously guard it, a divided government where each branch kept a lid on the others ambitions and finally...a set of sovereign entities called states to bind the central government to its duties.
The assault on these protections has been devastating. First you had the 14th amendment imposed by force of bayonets and conquest rather than will of people. It may have been backed by good intentions but so is the road to hell. Rulings relying on the 14 th amendment are the fruit of a poisoned tree... Imposed on an unwilling citizenry over their objections. And the tyrants doing it can grin and say "it's your constitution"...a lie. Neither the people nor the states ever ratified or accepted it.
But the attacks go deeper than that springboard. Like something from Orwells imagination they then claim that rights which didn't exist yesterday, and which the authors never saw, were really there all along waiting for jurists smart enough to see them.
The authors didn't know about it.... They were supernaturally channeling Oprah and Cher from the future and hiding it away in code all along!

yep the whole shebang was brought forward in fraud.


We the People? or We the States?

Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788

you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost.

It will be necessary for this Convention to have a faithful historical detail of the facts that preceded the session of the federal Convention, and the reasons that actuated its members in proposing an entire alteration of government, and to demonstrate the dangers that awaited us. If they were of such awful magnitude as to warrant a proposal so extremely perilous as this, I must assert, that this Convention has an absolute right to a thorough discovery of every circumstance relative to this great event. And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking.

I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor [George Washington], I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information.

The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration.

--------------------------------------------

So now that they rammed their illegal constitution through, now they had to clean up the mess they made.

The constitution/BoR is said to be a product between the states therefore applied only to the states.

So.....The second amendment therefore assures the 'states' the right to exercise their religion, and if a 'state' murders someone a right to a jury and so forth. I would like to know how we can throw a state in jail for a murder or a capital crime?:ack-1: Makes perfect sense doesnt it? Prima facia fraud and Henry blew the whistle on them.


You heard it here first
Repeating the same ridiculous lie doesn’t make it ‘true.’
 

KokomoJojo

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
61
Points
85
I think the Constitution has been bent and twisted into a form the Founders and Framers would not recognize except as an example of their worst fears. They crystallized a document to restrict the central government for all time yet left an amendment process, with high hurdles, for necessary changes. And they depended on an educated and moral people of a common heritage to zealously guard it, a divided government where each branch kept a lid on the others ambitions and finally...a set of sovereign entities called states to bind the central government to its duties.
The assault on these protections has been devastating. First you had the 14th amendment imposed by force of bayonets and conquest rather than will of people. It may have been backed by good intentions but so is the road to hell. Rulings relying on the 14 th amendment are the fruit of a poisoned tree... Imposed on an unwilling citizenry over their objections. And the tyrants doing it can grin and say "it's your constitution"...a lie. Neither the people nor the states ever ratified or accepted it.
But the attacks go deeper than that springboard. Like something from Orwells imagination they then claim that rights which didn't exist yesterday, and which the authors never saw, were really there all along waiting for jurists smart enough to see them.
The authors didn't know about it.... They were supernaturally channeling Oprah and Cher from the future and hiding it away in code all along!

yep the whole shebang was brought forward in fraud.


We the People? or We the States?

Patrick Henry, June 4, 1788

you ought to be extremely cautious, watchful, jealous of your liberty; for, instead of securing your rights, you may lose them forever. If a wrong step be now made, the republic may be lost forever. If this new government will not come up to the expectation of the people, and they shall be disappointed, their liberty will be lost, and tyranny must and will arise. I repeat it again, and I beg gentlemen to consider, that a wrong step, made now, will plunge us into misery, and our republic will be lost.

It will be necessary for this Convention to have a faithful historical detail of the facts that preceded the session of the federal Convention, and the reasons that actuated its members in proposing an entire alteration of government, and to demonstrate the dangers that awaited us. If they were of such awful magnitude as to warrant a proposal so extremely perilous as this, I must assert, that this Convention has an absolute right to a thorough discovery of every circumstance relative to this great event. And here I would make this inquiry of those worthy characters who composed a part of the late federal Convention. I am sure they were fully impressed with the necessity of forming a great consolidated government, instead of a confederation. That this is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear; and the danger of such a government is, to my mind, very striking.

I have the highest veneration for those gentlemen; but, sir, give me leave to demand, What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask, Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states. I have the highest respect for those gentlemen who formed the Convention, and, were some of them not here, I would express some testimonial of esteem for them. America had, on a former occasion, put the utmost confidence in them--a confidence which was well placed; and I am sure, sir, I would give up any thing to them; I would cheerfully confide in them as my representatives. But, sir, on this great occasion, I would demand the cause of their conduct. Even from that illustrious man who saved us by his valor [George Washington], I would have a reason for his conduct: that liberty which he has given us by his valor, tells me to ask this reason; and sure I am, were he here, he would give us that reason. But there are other gentlemen here, who can give us this information.

The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception. Disorders have arisen in other parts of America; but here, sir, no dangers, no insurrection or tumult have happened; every thing has been calm and tranquil. But, notwithstanding this, we are wandering on the great ocean of human affairs. I see no landmark to guide us. We are running we know not whither. Difference of opinion has gone to a degree of inflammatory resentment in different parts of the country, which has been occasioned by this perilous innovation. The federal Convention ought to have amended the old system; for this purpose they were solely delegated; the object of their mission extended to no other consideration.

--------------------------------------------

So now that they rammed their illegal constitution through, now they had to clean up the mess they made.

The constitution/BoR is said to be a product between the states therefore applied only to the states.

So.....The second amendment therefore assures the 'states' the right to exercise their religion, and if a 'state' murders someone a right to a jury and so forth. I would like to know how we can throw a state in jail for a murder or a capital crime?:ack-1: Makes perfect sense doesnt it? Prima facia fraud and Henry blew the whistle on them.


You heard it here first
Repeating the same ridiculous lie doesn’t make it ‘true.’
what are you talking about, I didnt post any lies.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
166,399
Reaction score
15,786
Points
2,165
Anyone one who puts the "state" supremacy before We the People is a Statist of massive proportions.
 

KokomoJojo

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
61
Points
85
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.

Found it:

Supreme Court Justice Ellet:

Dyett v. Turner, 439 P. 2d 266 - Utah: Supreme Court 1968

It is necessary to review the historical background to understand how the Fourteenth Amendment came to be a part of our Federal Constitution.

General Lee had surrendered his army on April 9, 1865, and General Johnston surrendered his 17 days later. Within a period of less than six weeks thereafter, not one Confederate soldier was bearing arms. By June 30, 1865, the Confederate states were all restored by presidential proclamation to their proper positions as states in an indissoluble union,[1] and practically all citizens thereof[2] had been granted amnesty. Immediately thereafter each of the seceding states functioned as regular states in the Union with both state and federal courts in full operation.

President Lincoln had declared the freedom of the slaves as a war measure, but when the war ended, the effect of the proclamation was ended, and so it was necessary to propose and to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment in order to insure the freedom of the slaves.

The 11 southern states having taken their rightful and necessary place in the indestructible Union proceeded to determine whether to ratify or reject the proposed Thirteenth Amendment. In order to become a part of the Constitution, it was necessary that the proposed amendment be ratified by 27 of the 36 states. Among those 27 states ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment were 10 from the South, to wit, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, and Texas.

When the 39th Congress assembled on December 5, 1865, the senators and representatives from the 25 northern states voted to deny seats in both houses of Congress to anyone elected from the 11 southern states. The full complement of senators from the 36 states of the Union was 72, and the full membership in the House was 240. Since it requires only a majority vote (Article I, Section 5, Constitution of the United States) to refuse a seat in Congress, only the 50 senators and 182 congressmen from the North were seated. All of the 22 senators and 58 representatives from the southern states were denied seats. They declared that the states never 'really' seceded and at the same time denied them suffrage.

Joint Resolution No. 48 proposing the Fourteenth Amendment was a matter of great concern to the Congress and to the people of the Nation. In order to have this proposed amendment submitted to the 36 states for ratification, it was necessary that two thirds of each house concur. A count of noses showed that only 33 senators were favorable to the measure, and 33 was a far cry from two thirds of 72 and lacked one of being two thirds of the 50 seated senators.

While it requires only a majority of votes to refuse a seat to a senator, it requires a two thirds majority to unseat a member once he is seated. (Article 1, Section 5, Constitution of the United States) One John P. Stockton was seated on December 5, 1865, as one of the senators from New Jersey. He was outspoken in his opposition to Joint Resolution No. 48 proposing the Fourteenth Amendment. The leadership in the Senate not having control of two thirds of the seated senators voted to refuse to seat Mr. Stockton upon the ground that he had received only a plurality and not a majority of the votes of the New Jersey legislature. It was the law of New Jersey and several other states that a plurality vote was sufficient for election. Besides, the Senator had already been seated. Nevertheless, his seat was refused, and the 33 favorable votes thus became the required two thirds of the 49 members of the Senate.

In the House of Representatives it would require 122 votes to be two thirds of the 182 members seated. Only 120 voted for the proposed amendment, but because there were 30 absententions it was declared to have been passed by a two thirds vote of the House.

Whether it requires two thirds of the full membership of both houses to propose an amendment to the Constitution or only two thirds of those seated or two thirds of those voting is a question which it would seem could only be determined by the United States Supreme Court. However, it is perhaps not so important for the reason that the amendment is only proposed by Congress. It must be ratified by three fourths of the states in the Union before it becomes a part of the Constitution. The method of securing the passage through Congress is set out above, as it throws some light on the means used to obtain ratification by the states thereafter.

Nebraska had been admitted to the Union, and so the Secretary of State in transmitting the proposed amendment announced that ratification by 28 states would be needed before the amendment would become part of the Constitution, since there were at the time 37 states in the Union. A rejection by 10 states would thus defeat the proposal.

By March 17, 1867, the proposed amendment had been ratified by 17 states and rejected by 10, with California voting to take no action thereon, which was equivalent to rejection. Thus the proposal was defeated.

One of the ratifying states, Oregon, had ratified by a membership wherein two legislators were subsequently held not to be duly elected, and after the contest the duly elected members of the legislature of Oregon rejected the proposed amendment. However, this rejection came after the amendment was declared passed.

Despite the fact that the southern states had been functioning peacefully for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern states. It excluded Tennessee from military occupation, and one must suspect it was because Tennessee had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 7, 1866. The Act further disfranchised practically all white voters and provided that no senator or congressman from the occupied states could be seated in Congress until a new constitution was adopted by each state which would be approved by Congress, and further provided that each of the 10 states must ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment must become a part of the Constitution of the United States before the military occupancy would cease and the states be allowed to have seats in Congress.

By the time the Reconstruction Act had been declared to be the law, three more states had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and two — Louisiana and Delaware — had rejected it. Then Maryland withdrew its prior ratification and rejected the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. Ohio followed suit and withdrew its prior ratification, as also did New Jersey. California, which earlier had voted not to pass upon the proposal, now voted to reject the amendment. Thus 16 of the 37 states had rejected the proposed amendment.

By spurious, nonrepresentative governments seven of the southern states which had theretofore rejected the proposed amendment under the duress of military occupation and of being denied representation in Congress did attempt to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The Secretary of State on July 20, 1868, issued his proclamation wherein he stated that it was his duty under the law to cause amendments to be published and certified as a part of the Constitution when he received official notice that they had been adopted pursuant to the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution and has never hesitated in a proper case to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional — except when the act purported to amend the Constitution.[6] The duty of the Secretary of State was ministerial, to wit, to count and determine when three fourths of the states had ratified the proposed amendment. He could not determine that a state once having rejected a proposed amendment could thereafter approve it, nor could he determine that a state once having ratified that proposal could thereafter reject it. The court and not Congress should determine such matters. Consistency would seem to require that a vote once cast would be final or would not be final, whether the first vote was for ratification or rejection.

In order to have 27 states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, it was necessary to count those states which had first rejected and then under the duress of military occupation had ratified, and then also to count those states which initially ratified but subsequently rejected the proposal.

To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of Congress is dangerous in the extreme. What is to prevent any political party having control of both houses of Congress from refusing to seat the opposition and then without more passing a joint resolution to the effect that the Constitution is amended and that it is the duty of the Administrator of the General Services Administration[7] to proclaim the adoption? Would the Supreme Court of the United States still say the problem was political and refuse to determine whether constitutional standards had been met?

How can it be conceived in the minds of anyone that a combination of powerful states can by force of arms deny another state a right to have representation in Congress until it has ratified an amendment which its people oppose? The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by means almost as bad as that suggested above.[8]

We have spoken in the hope that the Supreme Court of the United States may retreat from some of its recent decisions affecting the rights of a sovereign state to determine for itself what is proper procedure in its own courts as it affects its own citizens. However, we realize that because of that Court's superior power, we must pay homage to it even though we disagree with it; and so we now discuss the merits of this case just the same as though the sword of Damocles did not hang over our heads.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
166,399
Reaction score
15,786
Points
2,165
"To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of Congress is dangerous in the extreme", however, is exactly what the Alt Right wants to do when SCOTUS is not in their corner" and "The Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution" comes directly from the long post above, #58 by kokomojo. The inherent inconsistency of those two statement render the post's logic null and void. The Alt Right wants total control, period.
 

KokomoJojo

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
61
Points
85
"To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of Congress is dangerous in the extreme", however, is exactly what the Alt Right wants to do when SCOTUS is not in their corner" and "The Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution" comes directly from the long post above, #58 by kokomojo. The inherent inconsistency of those two statement render the post's logic null and void. The Alt Right wants total control, period.
nah it renders your comprehension of his intended meaning null and void.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
166,399
Reaction score
15,786
Points
2,165
"To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of Congress is dangerous in the extreme", however, is exactly what the Alt Right wants to do when SCOTUS is not in their corner" and "The Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution" comes directly from the long post above, #58 by kokomojo. The inherent inconsistency of those two statement render the post's logic null and void. The Alt Right wants total control, period.
nah it renders your comprehension of his intended meaning null and void.
So you can't handle the truth of the inconsistency of the two parts of the post. OK. Your inability does not render my conclusion invalid.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top