The 14th amendment unconstitutional?

The League of the South | Leander H. Perez

[Fish out of Water]

I have read this argument before and was wondering if you have an opinion or could shed some light on the subject.
Thanks

[Blood of Tyrants]

In a nutshell, the 14th Amendment was rejected by enough states to nullify ratification so the North forcefully removed all the southern state legislators and governors by declaring that they were not lawfully elected. They then placed in their own carpetbaggers who dutifully voted for the amendment when it was reintroduced.

The big stumbling block that the pro-14 can't get past is if the Southern legislators were lawful enough to ratify the 13th Amendment, why weren't they lawful enough to reject the 14th?

Do some of you Yankees begin to understand why the South is STILL ticked about the War of Northern Conquest?

[ml/nj]

See also Was the 14th Amendment Legally Ratified? that I posted here over a year ago.

ML/NJ (Honest Yankee)

[litany_of_lies]

Despite the obvious deficiencies, the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional only if:

- you can find someone to litigate against it because they are or have been harmed by its existence.

- that person has the nerve and the deep pockets to take their argument all the way to the Supreme Court. If the government were to lose at any level, they would certainly appeal to the highest level. If the litigant loses, they would have to continue appealing and hope that the Supremes will see fit to hear it.

- the Supreme Court has the cajones to declare it null and void.

Similar arguments relating to errors in the ratification process have been made forever about income taxation, but no judge has ever, to my knowledge, ever come out and said that the 16th Amendment is null and void. And IMHO, no judge, even if convinced that it should be null and void, ever will.

So the amendments will stand unless specifically repealed by legislative action; the rest is nice table talk signifying nothing.

[litany_of_lies]

"Do some of you Yankees begin to understand why the South is STILL ticked about the War of Northern Conquest?"

Actually, no. Get over it. I don't have anything against a single Jew, ever though certain Jews killed Christ.

I noticed from visiting Constitution.org that the 14th Amendment is considered "ratified under duress." Okay, fine, but it's still ratified. Anyway, I sort of like the part about "insurrection"--maybe we should apply it to Barabara Lee, Maxine Waters, and Cynthia McKinney. I'm sure we can find quotes where they have "given aid and comfort to the enemies (of the United States)."

[Arkinsaw]

I would guess that, regardless, the 14th Amendment would be re-reatified by the States and with the approval of the people if necessary. I think discussion of it's illegality/legality is fairly useless. It was indeed "shoved down the throat" but it remains that it has since been swallowed successfully.

The 14th Amendment is in reality an amazingly good amendment in practice. Especially for one generated by a Radical Congress. The 14th is fine when it is balanced by strong States that stand up for themselves. This has certainly not always been the case.

Recently, the Sons of Confederate Veterans won a case where the State was attempting to deny them the same free speech rights afforded to any other historical/heritage group because the majority's perception of their organizations symbol. They won their case on 14th Amendment grounds and rightfully so. The Federal government protected them from oppression by a State.

This is a useful thing, as long as there is also a strong way for a State to protect its citizens from Federal oppression. That method is through the 10th Amendment. Unfortunately the 10th Amendment has been violated and weakened purposefully. With the two you have a nice balance, with only one or the other you have potential oppression.

[jackbill]

The 14th Amendment is in reality an amazingly good amendment in practice.

Horse Hockey. The 14th Amendment is the vehicle whereby any pregnant woman in the world can come into this country, drop her kid, and have him automatically become a citizen. Of course she has to stay here to take care of him but she can't earn a living. So we put her on welfare. Yes, the 14th Amendment is "amazingly good".

[Drammach]

Most everyone has a "World Almanac" handy.

Look up the Constitution & amendments in Your Almanac.
Consider the notations accompanying some of those amendments, including the 14th, 16th, etc.
whereas it is noted, "amendment was 'declared' ratified by secretary of state, etc., etc..

Even the publishers of the world almanac are cognizant of the questionable nature of the ratification of these amendments.
Such notations alongside those amendments go back as far as I can remember, and I am well past the 1/2 century mark.

[DeaconBenjamin]

That is only the consequence of lazy and inconsistent analysis by the US Supreme Court in the case of Wong Kim Ark. Maybe someone should challenge Wong Kim Ark as they challenged Plessy v. Ferguson.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Of course you wouldn't. The 14th Amendment was written SPECIFICALLY to punish Southerners. Since the North could find no law or Constitutional provision that they could enforce, they simply made up one and then when the South wouldn't play along in their own persecution, the North simply used force to accomplish their means. After all they had gotten so good and forcing their will on the South in the past 15 years or so.

BTW, do you not understand the term "under duress"? Do you not understand that it is one of the basic tenements of freedom that no vote or admission or confession is valid if it is done under duress? If you can't understand that, then you are in the wrong forum.

[ned]

It was indeed "shoved down the throat" but it remains that it has since been swallowed successfully.

That's a great line.

Interesting issue. I want to learn more about this one.

[MadRobotArtist]

Yeah I live across the hall from 3 examples of the abuse of this Amendment. I'm harmed by it every day, by my loss of sleep, and inability to not be interruped by the screaming of these kids being abused. I love My Country, but truly despise some of the people in government.

[Bubba_Leroy]

I thought it might help the discussion to have the text.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[Vladiator]

The South lost.

We are all created equal.

The amendment passed.

Get over it.

[litany_of_lies]

I understand what "under duress" means. And I understand that it was vengefully enacted to be rough on the South, but has turned out to be generally useful. And I understand that a truly honest judge would rule it null and void even today, but that it will never happen.

We're going back 135 years and trying to undo something that, for better or worse, has become settled law. So either bring a court action for nullification or work on a constitutional memo to repeal it already.

No one alive today did a d*** thing to harm the South. If you want to take it out on somebody, start digging up graves in the Midwest and thrash the skeletons.

Or do you want to go for Reconstruction reparations in stereo with the slavery reparations movement?

[DonQ]

Lincoln's recognition (or non-recognition) of the secession is immaterial. The Constitution says that each house of Congress is the judge of the election and qualifications of its members. When the southern states seceded, their members of Congress resigned, both chambers recalculated their membership without counting the Confederate states, so there was no lack of quorum. When the southern states seceded, that act was their "consent" to be deprived of equal sufferage in the Senate, etc.

Perez is wrong that the President has to sign the Joint Resolution proposing an amendment; the Supreme Court explicitly said that a proposed amendment is a unique activity that does not require the President's signature ... nor does a state legislature's ratification of a proposed amendment require the Governor's signature.

I remember Perez (he died about 35 years ago), a really nasty redneck racist.

[Arkinsaw]

Horse Hockey. The 14th Amendment is the vehicle whereby any pregnant woman in the world can come into this country, drop her kid, and have him automatically become a citizen. Of course she has to stay here to take care of him but she can't earn a living. So we put her on welfare. Yes, the 14th Amendment is "amazingly good".

I'm not really willing to blame the failure of the Federal government to protect the borders on the 14th Amendment. The Amendment did not contemplate that failure. Nor do I think that it contemplated the collapse of the 10th Amendment.

Nonetheless, the 14th provides for the Federal government to protect us from tyranny by the States. The 10th Amendment through States Rights allows the States to interpose themselves between Federal tyranny against their people. When both are used by the people for the purpose of defending themselves against tyranny, then they are safe from both directions.

[tpaine]

The 14th well may be the amendment that saves our 2nd amendment rights.

The Feds hold that the RKBA can be 'regulated'. Ashcrofts recent decision claims that ALL existing fed gun laws perfectly conform to the 2nd.
The administration also agrees that states, like CA, can 'regulate' as much as they like.

Ashcroft & the feds are against the USSC hearing the new 'Emerson' case, for fear that the 2nd amendment will be 'incorporated' as an individual right, as written, thus invalidating most existing federal & state gun law infringements. -- They lobby for 'business as usual' on gun rights.

THe 14th is not an 'evil' amendment. - This view is simple propoganda by 'states rights' movements, working to undermine respect for constitutional principles on individual liberty.