Replies

You should take any opinion that says the 14th Amendment isn't legitimate with a grain of salt. While initially it was not ratified by all States (because of the Civil War)- the basis for the argument against the 14th Amendment, most analysis fail to realize (or hide) that after the Civil War, those States that didn't ratify it initially, did so.
This is still argued by those who don't think the 'Union' installed governments in these States was legitimate.

You should take any opinion that says the 14th Amendment isn't legitimate with a grain of salt.

The article does supply some legitimate documentation to make the point that the legitimacy of the 14th "can" be questioned. Not being a legal scholar, I'll just have to keep reading some more about it.

You should take any opinion that says the 14th Amendment isn't legitimate with a grain of salt. While initially it was not ratified by all States (because of the Civil War)- the basis for the argument against the 14th Amendment, most analysis fail to realize (or hide) that after the Civil War, those States that didn't ratify it initially, did so.
This is still argued by those who don't think the 'Union' installed governments in these States was legitimate.

It is not as simplistic as you make it sound. First of all the fact that the Congress submitted the 14th amendment to the Southern states shows that they were considered states at the time the 14th was submitted to them. Constitutional amendments afterall may only be ratified by states. (The Congress had also submitted the 13th and counted the southern states ratifications which was willingly ratified without the heavy handed tactics used to secure the 14th amendments ratification). Second of all the fact that the Construction Acts deprived these same states of any representation in the Congress until they ratified the amendment is an inherent violation of republican principles. To place states under martial law and deprive them of representation AFTER they have been declared by the President to be full fledged operational states again is dubious. The Supreme Court also later declared that the states were full members states and had never left the union in Texas v White (1869). So how can Congress unilaterally dissolve state legislatures and militarily install new unrepresentative legislatures? Doesn't that go against the very ideals of republicanism?

Also several of the northern states were appalled at the heavy handed tactics of the ratification process and subsequently rescinded their ratifications before the amendment was ratified. Without those ratifications even with the questionably legal ratifications of the Southern states, the Secretary of State declared that the amendment could not be ratified. The Congress then ordered the Secretary to ignore the will of the rescinding legislatures and count them as ratifying states anyway. The ratification history of the 14th amendment is unorthodox at best and hence carries questions of its legitimacy which have not yet been completely resolved. In fact, some of the methods used in securing the 14ths ratification have set a precedent which could potentially result in the use of military occupation as a method to secure ratification of a constitutional amendment, an idea that suggests that it is not the constitution, but the the army that makes the law legal.