The 14th amendment unconstitutional?

The League of the South | Leander H. Perez

[H.Akston]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc86628.htm
The SQUALID 14th Amendment.

[H.Akston]

"It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.
That explains everything."

Salmon couldn't bear to be the bringer of bad news to Walt's predecessors. But I'll gladly carry his water, with you, and the reason you are "4 Conservative Justices" is because the 14th Amendment creates a Judicial monopoly in this country. It routinely nullifies state legislative prerogatives, and deprives the governed their own consent. Brown Vs. Board of Education was a tissue of lies, that destroyed our cities, and harmed well-meaning blacks, leaving the riff raff to take over down town. White flight is not a sign that the governed are getting their way. Do-gooders are in charge, and they're hypocrits. Sending their kids to Sidwell Friends. Any enemy of an enemy of the 14th Amendment is a bleeding heart liberal at heart.

[steve-b]

2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution.

At this point, I know that there's no point in bothering to read any further. The President has no role whatsoever in the process of amending the Constitution.

[4CJ]

But I'll gladly carry his water, with you, and the reason you are "4 Conservative Justices" is because the 14th Amendment creates a Judicial monopoly in this country. It routinely nullifies state legislative prerogatives, and deprives the governed their own consent.

You nailed it. It's the Amendment that turned the Constitution upside-down. What liberties we had died with it's alleged ratification.

Even though the founders held that states were immune from lawsuits by citizens of a different state Chisholm v Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, (1793) was heard by the Supreme Court. The state of Georgia immediately passed legislation making it illegal to comply with the decision (penalty was death by hanging without benefit of attending clergy). The states quickly ratified the 11th Amendment reasserting the sovereignty (proposed 4 Mar 1794 - ratified 7 Feb 1795).

[steve-b]

But there is now a Supreme Court decision squarely holding that Presidents have no constitutional role in the amendment process.
Supreme court decision or no, Article 1, Section 7 seems pretty clear on the point. It's not surprising that the courts would rule after the fact that the president doesn't have to sign such proposals.

Court, schmort. It is quite clear from the text of the Constitution that the President has no direct role in the amendment process (though of course he may use his bully pulpit to exert influence):

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Article 1, Section 7 pertains to the passage of bills into statutory laws, and has nothing to do with the amendment process.

[steve-b]

My PERSONAL opinion is that Hugo Black's view of "total incorporation" is what the writers of the 14th amendment had in mind.

That was also the opinion of the drafters of the amendment. As you say, they should have done a better job on the legal language.

[inquest]

If it wasn't for the third paragraph of Section 7, your argument would have some force, but that paragraph makes it very clear that it's not just talking about bills:

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

That last phrase is particularly telling. It pretty much indicates that even when it's not a "bill" (however one may define that), the rules for bills still apply.

[tpaine]

Congratulations. You've won a delusional victory. You love meaningless taunts.

[H.Akston]

The original Article III, section 2, said that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction, in cases between "a State and Citizens of another State", so I can't give the Founders as a group credit for espousing 11th Amendment principles in the original Constitution. This is probably one of the things that caused George Mason great heartburn, and I'm sure he was pleased to see the 11th Amendment remedy this error.

Isn't it sad that only two Amendments were made to the Constitution, before the War came along and made all the rest of the amendments, amendments under duress, and thus not quite legitimate, to varying degrees, the 14th being the least legitimate of all.

It truly turned the Constitution UpSide Down.

We the people haven't had the control over our government that the Founders intended us to have, for 140 years. The more 14th Amemdment vagaries and vulgarities we get, the less we control our own schools. The less we control our own lives. The less property we have. And the white liberals, and closet liberals lurking in the Conservative party just love it.

[4CJ]

The original Article III, section 2, said that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction, in cases between "a State and Citizens of another State..."

The understanding espoused by Hamilton et al was that a state could sue a citizens of a different state, not that a citizen could sue a state (unless the state permitted such suit).

"It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual WITHOUT ITS CONSENT. This is the general sense, and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union. Unless, therefore, there is a surrender of this immunity in the plan of the convention, it will remain with the States, and the danger intimated must be merely ideal."
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers, Federalist 81, "The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority", 28 Jun 1788.

James Madison and John Marshall both argued similarly in In the Virginia ratifying convention, and several states requested amendments clarifying the issue, New York held that "the judicial power of the United States, in cases in which a state may be a party, does not extend to criminal prosecutions, or to authorize any suit by any person against a state".