What's new

A mangled Constitution

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.
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.
I asked you what you are talking about, explain the inconsistency, there are many, which most likely wont change that you understood what I said out of context.
 

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.
I asked you what you are talking about, explain the inconsistency, there are many, which most likely wont change that you understood what I said out of context.
I did, you have not, and you don't get to glitz blitz, son. Explain clearly, and we can talk.
 

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.
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.
I asked you what you are talking about, explain the inconsistency, there are many, which most likely wont change that you understood what I said out of context.
I did, you have not, and you don't get to glitz blitz, son. Explain clearly, and we can talk.
the gubmint created the problem in the first place
 

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.
I asked you what you are talking about, explain the inconsistency, there are many, which most likely wont change that you understood what I said out of context.
I did, you have not, and you don't get to glitz blitz, son. Explain clearly, and we can talk.
the gubmint created the problem in the first place
That's a start. Specifics, please.
 

bruzz

marauder
Joined
Jun 22, 2010
Messages
105
Reaction score
6
Points
21
Location
communing with nature
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!
Truth. The Reconstruction amendments were passed with the southern states under martial law and with the condition that they pass the amendments to be reinstated to the union.
 

KokomoJojo

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
1,793
Reaction score
61
Points
85
Truth. The Reconstruction amendments were passed with the southern states under martial law and with the condition that they pass the amendments to be reinstated to the union.
However even if they were included, todays interpretation would still primarily be fraudulent.

Today the interpretation is 'sold' to the people under the guise of their falsely claimed authority and the precedence set by that falsely claimed authority.

In other words 99.99% of the american people including lawyers are brainwashed into believing that SCROTUMUS MAXIMUS was 'intended' to be the "Ultimate Authority on the meaning of the Constitution", which of course removes the gubmint from being 'under' the control of the people to the people being 'under' control of the gubmint.

The Ultimate Authority is the Jury, which of course is held to the same standards set forth by the same fraudulent authority.

Its very easy to see that this country was set up to be a country that adheres to the 'rule of law' not dictating state statutes and the greatest evil being the necessity to defeat summary judgment and the supreme court having the authority to pick and choose which cases they will or will not take.

.......and of course anyone who is capable of creating a national movement to correct the fraud (Martin Luther King) is dead by assassination by those who would not allow the gubmint to rightfully be 'under' the people as intended.

Welcome to the UKofA circus..
 

Porter Rockwell

Silver Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
5,052
Reaction score
268
Points
95
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!
I have long attacked the 14th Amendment as being illegally ratified. It has little to do with slavery... except to the extent that the 14th Amendment was an attempt to nullify unalienable Rights and replace them with government created Rights.

I'm glad that you are questioning not only the 14th Amendment, but that we are able to discuss the unconstitutional method the Constitution is being interpreted so as to change its meaning 180 degrees opposite of what it was intended to mean.
 

Porter Rockwell

Silver Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
5,052
Reaction score
268
Points
95
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.
The Constitution has been under attack by statists, since day one. It now is nothing more than a piece of paper the elites regularly ignore, but occasionally still abide by. The Bill of Rights is gradually being bastardized but always in ways that reduce American's rights. If this trend continues, it will soon be gone.
The Bill of Rights disappeared the day the illegally ratified 14th Amendment was accepted as law.

The Bill of Rights codified pre-existing laws (see the Heller decision, for example.) Codified from what? That answer would be the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That word unalienable has a meaning. the 14th Amendment changed that and changed unalienable Rights, given by a Creator into government granted "rights" that could be taken away through the government's concept of due process. Those two concepts are antithetical to one another.
 

Sunsettommy

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
3,620
Reaction score
843
Points
275
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.
You presented a dishonest narrative since LATER most of the states (who first rejected it) RATIFIED the 14th Amendment, from Wikipedia:

On June 16, 1866, Secretary of State William Seward transmitted the Fourteenth Amendment to the governors of the several states for its ratification. State legislatures in every formerly Confederate state, with the exception of Tennessee, refused to ratify it. This refusal led to the passage of the Reconstruction Acts. Ignoring the existing state governments, military government was imposed until new civil governments were established and the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.[20] It also prompted Congress to pass a law on March 2, 1867, requiring that a former Confederate state must ratify the Fourteenth Amendment before "said State shall be declared entitled to representation in Congress".[21]

The first twenty-eight states to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment were:

LINK

  • North Carolina – July 4, 1868 (after rejection – December 14, 1866)
  • Louisiana – July 9, 1868 (after rejection – February 6, 1867)
  • South Carolina – July 9, 1868 (after rejection – December 20, 1866)
  • Georgia – July 21, 1868 (after rejection – November 9, 1866)
  • Virginia – October 8, 1869 (after rejection – January 9, 1867)

==============================

It was ratified by 1868, July 20.

That makes 28 states have ratified the Amendment, a 2/3rd majority.
 
Last edited:

Porter Rockwell

Silver Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
5,052
Reaction score
268
Points
95
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 illegally ratified:

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

Pure 14th Amendment Study For Proof Of Unconstitutionality

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
 

Porter Rockwell

Silver Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2018
Messages
5,052
Reaction score
268
Points
95
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.
The 14th Amendment is de facto law. That means it is the law in fact though it is illegal / unconstitutional / indefensible. The problem is that lawyers control the process and expecting the United States Supreme Court to declare something illegal - that would end up in taking power from those Justices is delusional thinking. The supporters of the 14th know this.

OTOH, the de jure / legal / constitutional law in this country can be invoked at any time. However, those who are unaware of the 14th Amendment and its impact on citizenship cannot prevail in court NOR in international law. The 14th Amendment created two classes of citizenship:

Preamble
14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment does not and cannot guarantee its subjects unalienable Rights as the 14th Amendment reduces those Rights to mere privileges and immunities AND then grants government rights (as opposed to unalienable Rights) which can be taken away by "due process." By contrast, unalienable Rights are above the law and anyone possessing same cannot forfeit them to a government - God.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top