Republicans want to re-write the 14th Amendment

[LJ_Reloaded]

Seriously.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/02/jon-kyl-repeal-14th-amendment-immigrants_n_667098.html

Someone needs to get Fox News to broadcast this. Make MSNBC and the "liberal" media pick it up.

Now.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Seriously.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/02/jon-kyl-repeal-14th-amendment-immigrants_n_667098.html

Someone needs to get Fox News to broadcast this. Make MSNBC and the "liberal" media pick it up.

Now.

No, not seriously. Pure election year posturing full of sound and fury signifying--nothing!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If you check its history the 14th Amendment is illegal. Too many states opposed the amendment so the GOP annulled their votes and barred their Senators and Representatives from the Capitol Building inorder to have the 75% quorum for passage.

"Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Legal scholar Gene Healy has made a powerful argument in favor of abolishing the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. When a fair vote was taken on it in 1865, in the aftermath of the War for Southern Independence, it was rejected by the Southern states and all the border states. Failing to secure the necessary three-fourths of the states, the Republican party, which controlled Congress, passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 which placed the entire South under military rule.

The purpose of this, according to one Republican congressman, was to coerce Southern legislators to vote for the amendment at the point of a bayonet. President Andrew Johnson called this tactic absolute despotism, the likes of which had not been exercised by any British monarch for more than 500 years. For his outspokenness Johnson was impeached by the Republican Congress.

The South eventually voted to ratify the amendment, after which two Northern states Ohio and New Jersey withdrew support because of their disgust with Republican party tyranny. The Republicans just ignored this and declared the amendment valid despite their failure to secure the constitutionally-required three-fourths majority."

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

No, not seriously. Pure election year posturing full of sound and fury signifying--nothing!

Yeah but you can rouse disenchanted liberal voters to stampede to the ballot box with that. You've got big names signing onto this crap.

 

[mynameisben]

If you check its history the 14th Amendment is illegal. Too many states opposed the amendment so the GOP annulled their votes and barred their Senators and Representatives from the Capitol Building inorder to have the 75% quorum for passage.

You're just playing semantics. Legal is what's on the books. The Guardians of Law don't give a rat's rotting ass about what is "right."

 

[Pure]

check 'birthright' thread

peolple might also want to check my thread, for more on this matter:

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=722070

 

[Boxlicker101]

If you check its history the 14th Amendment is illegal. Too many states opposed the amendment so the GOP annulled their votes and barred their Senators and Representatives from the Capitol Building inorder to have the 75% quorum for passage.

"Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Legal scholar Gene Healy has made a powerful argument in favor of abolishing the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. When a fair vote was taken on it in 1865, in the aftermath of the War for Southern Independence, it was rejected by the Southern states and all the border states. Failing to secure the necessary three-fourths of the states, the Republican party, which controlled Congress, passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 which placed the entire South under military rule.

The purpose of this, according to one Republican congressman, was to coerce Southern legislators to vote for the amendment at the point of a bayonet. President Andrew Johnson called this tactic absolute despotism, the likes of which had not been exercised by any British monarch for more than 500 years. For his outspokenness Johnson was impeached by the Republican Congress.

The South eventually voted to ratify the amendment, after which two Northern states Ohio and New Jersey withdrew support because of their disgust with Republican party tyranny. The Republicans just ignored this and declared the amendment valid despite their failure to secure the constitutionally-required three-fourths majority."

I don't place much credence in this "legal scholar" if he thinks it takes 75% of the Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment. It takes a 2/3 majority of both houses, and the amendment must then be passed by 75% (38) of the state legislatures to become effective.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Seriously.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/02/jon-kyl-repeal-14th-amendment-immigrants_n_667098.html

Someone needs to get Fox News to broadcast this. Make MSNBC and the "liberal" media pick it up.

Now.

I see the Huff Post has posted a misleading headline, as is their wont, because they fail to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.

I may be wrong, but I think Lamar Smith and the others must be aware that the Constitution, or any Amendments to it, cannot be changed by a simple statute. It would take another amendment, which is what was required to repeal Prohibition.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I don't place much credence in this "legal scholar" if he thinks it takes 75% of the Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment. It takes a 2/3 majority of both houses, and the amendment must then be passed by 75% (38) of the state legislatures to become effective.

Either way the GOP didnt have enough states for ratification. Oregon opposed it too. He left that out.

The GOP tried to have it both ways; they asserted the Southern states never seceded and then they boot them out inorder to pass the 14th Amendment.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

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

MO INFO ON THE 14TH AMENDMENT RATIFICATION PROBLEM.

 

[Pure]

14th amendment "illegal"?

//If you check its history the 14th Amendment is illegal./

i don't find that at all.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html

http://14thamendment.harpweek.com/HubPages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary=03Passage


http://www.answers.com/topic/fourteenth-amendment-to-the-united-states-constitution


i think jbj's real quarrel, like ami's, is the 13th amendment; those pesky, intrusive feds depriving white man of his human property, that he paid good money for, on the free (and legal) market.

i will agree that all three amendments 13, 14, and 15 reflect a degree of coercion including military law. that said, after a war the victor sets military law, and that's almost, by definition, legal.

at any rate i hope jimbo and company make lots of attacks on the anti slavery amendments, mexican americans and so on. i suppose having lost 90 percent of the Black vote, there may be little to lose. OTOH, there are at least 10 million hispanic voters-z about 10% of the US electorate [15% of the pop.]; GWB got a sizable portion, perhaps as much as 40%,, but rabid white right will ensure that that declines substantially.
===

from jimbo's source:
lawrence: Abraham Lincoln had declared many times that the Union was "inseparable" and "indivisible." After his death, and when the war was over, the ratification by the Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had been accepted as legal. But Congress in the 1867 law imposed the specific conditions under which the Southern States would be "entitled to representation in Congress."

Congress, in passing the 1867 law that declared the Southern States could not have their seats in either the Senate or House in the next session unless they ratified the "Fourteenth Amendment," took an unprecedented step. No such right — to compel a State by an act of Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment — is to be found anywhere in the Constitution. Nor has this procedure ever been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States.

===

it's called victory, jimbo. the victor, its pres and congress set the laws for the vanquished. remember? y'll lost, and your darkies done runned off and in recent decades managed to register to vote. ah... the end of Southern Civilization.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

PURE

The sword cuts both ways. When I'm elected Emperor of the Americas and send you to a concentration camp to spend your life making Sarah Palin cookie buttons think of it as to the victor go the spoils.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The beauty of it is, if we repealed the 13th 14th and 15th amendments blacks would be non-citizens, based on the Dred Scott decision.

 

[Boxlicker101]

(deleted)
===

it's called victory, jimbo. the victor, its pres and congress set the laws for the vanquished. remember? y'll lost, and your darkies done runned off and in recent decades managed to register to vote. ah... the end of Southern Civilization.

I hope you remember that when, in 2013 with the Reps. in control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, they start repealing most of the laws the Dems have rammed through against the people's wishes in the last 18 months.

 

[Seduc1ove]

I hope you remember that when, in 2013 with the Reps. in control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, they start repealing most of the laws the Dems have rammed through against the people's wishes in the last 18 months.

The only thing I've seen done against the people's wishes was the decision by the Supreme Court to prevent the government from being able to limit guns which the people themselves want. That was disgusting.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The beauty of it is, if we repealed the 13th 14th and 15th amendments blacks would be non-citizens, based on the Dred Scott decision.

Are you sure of that? That decision was based on Scott's status as a slave. There were millions of free black men, including some in the South, who were land owners and tradesmen and full voting citizens.

 

[Boxlicker101]

The only thing I've seen done against the people's wishes was the decision by the Supreme Court to prevent the government from being able to limit guns which the people themselves want. That was disgusting.

They ruled on a Constitution issue.

Are you sure "The People" want to severely restrict the right, guaranteed by the Second Amendment, of citizens to own weapons? I say "severely restrict" because I'm sure most people want to prevent crazy people and criminals from having weapons.

 

[Seduc1ove]

They ruled on a Constitution issue.

Are you sure "The People" want to severely restrict the right, guaranteed by the Second Amendment, of citizens to own weapons? I say "severely restrict" because I'm sure most people want to prevent crazy people and criminals from having weapons.

They decided their own interpretation of constitutional amendment written when guns were muzzle loaded and we were at risk of foreign invasion. If anything should be revisited in a modern context it is that. When I say the people I mean rules and restrictions voters and representatives put in place are now being challenged because of this. Meaning we want to have more control and they are now saying you aren't allowed to do that.

 

[Boxlicker101]

They decided their own interpretation of constitutional amendment written when guns were muzzle loaded and we were at risk of foreign invasion. If anything should be revisited in a modern context it is that. When I say the people I mean rules and restrictions voters and representatives put in place are now being challenged because of this. Meaning we want to have more control and they are now saying you aren't allowed to do that.

The Constitution is a living document, and interpretations have to follow what was intended. The nature of guns has changed, but so have Free Speech and Free Press. Originally, they were meant to allow somebody to get up on a soap box and rail against the government or to complain in general, and "Press" meant newspapers or pamphlets. They were expanded to include radio and TV and all the modern media, but they were not changed.

The second amendment was not intended to guard only against foreign invasion. There were also gangs of criminals, and the Congress wanted to make sure the citizens were able to defend themselves against such marauders. Such gangs still exist, or maybe you haven't read or heard of big city riots and lawlessness.

 

[Liar]

I hope you remember that when, in 2013 with the Reps. in control of both houses of Congress and the presidency, they start repealing most of the laws the Dems have rammed through against the people's wishes in the last 18 months.

Which are those, pray tell?

The way that some of those laws are "against the people's wishes" is that the people wanted stronger, more progressive legislation than what could be squeezed though Congress.

The polling on health care reforn that I saw for instance, showed that those in favor of the bill that passed, plus those that wanted it to include a public option before they could get behind it, were the majority, and those that wanted a more conservative solution, or no reform at all, were in the minority.

If the Reps repeal that, what would they replace it with? Something the people want even less?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Which are those, pray tell?

The way that some of those laws are "against the people's wishes" is that the people wanted stronger, more progressive legislation than what could be squeezed though Congress.

The polling on health care reforn that I saw for instance, showed that those in favor of the bill that passed, plus those that wanted it to include a public option before they could get behind it, were the majority, and those that wanted a more conservative solution, or no reform at all, were in the minority.

If the Reps repeal that, what would they replace it with? Something the people want even less?

I would put Obamacare at the top of the list. The majority of the population oppose it, and always have. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Now, let's see what else I can find.

 

[Liar]

I would put Obamacare at the top of the list. The majority of the population oppose it, and always have. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Now, let's see what else I can find.

You didn't read my post, did you?

You just glanced it over, and responded with nothing.


Again, let me repeat:

Yes, 54% of voters (polls vary, but something like that) opposed the health care reform as-is.

So 46% supported it.

Why did the 54% oppose it? Various reasons, that Rasmussen doesn't mention. One strong reason for many is that it didn't incluse the pubic option.

Lookie here, where someone asked the RELEVANT question:

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/h...ink-health-care-reform-isnt-ambitious-enough/

If that one whoosh you by too, that's the end of this conversaion.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Are you sure of that? That decision was based on Scott's status as a slave. There were millions of free black men, including some in the South, who were land owners and tradesmen and full voting citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
DRED SCOTT vs SANFORD

An dats duh truff.

 

[Seduc1ove]

The Constitution is a living document, and interpretations have to follow what was intended. The nature of guns has changed, but so have Free Speech and Free Press. Originally, they were meant to allow somebody to get up on a soap box and rail against the government or to complain in general, and "Press" meant newspapers or pamphlets. They were expanded to include radio and TV and all the modern media, but they were not changed.

The second amendment was not intended to guard only against foreign invasion. There were also gangs of criminals, and the Congress wanted to make sure the citizens were able to defend themselves against such marauders. Such gangs still exist, or maybe you haven't read or heard of big city riots and lawlessness.

Actually, freedom of speech and press have both been drastically perverted from their original forms as well. Regardless, these rights were meant to protect us not be used against us. Yet, nowadays that is mostly what they are used for.

I'm fairly sure armed militias were for foreign invasion. Also, riots and lawlessness are not gangs. That is poor and middle classed citizens in extreme circumstances. The gangs deal drugs, murder, and steal. That is also why we have a military, national guard, FBI, and police force. I would venture a guess that the average citizen with a gun probably ends up getting killed because of it more often then being saved because of it. With all the non-lethal weapons we have why is it necessary for someone to own a semi-automatic machine gun and be able to openly carry it to work, school, and church?

 

[Seduc1ove]

I would put Obamacare at the top of the list. The majority of the population oppose it, and always have. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Now, let's see what else I can find.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/more_polls_show_health-care_re.html