I pose this question for serious debate in light of the harm imposed on our country over the years by Nine Unelected For Life Divines, that has used the fourteenth Amendment as a means of subjecting our country to the encroaching aims of socialism.
For starters, I contend it was not properly ratified, and therefore, any and all laws based upon the validity of it being the so called Law of The Land, should be declared null and void.
I offer the following links in support of my position;
http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and...tified.htm
http://www.civil-liberties.com/cases/14con.html
There are more and a quick perusal of Google will point them out.
What say you?
Shooter... I will provide this for those not familiar with the wording of the Amendment.
Quote:Text
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.
Without regard to the legality of it's ratification, which particular proviso of the amendment are you most concerned about? Are you talking about the insurrection provisions?
(Dec. 05, 2009 09:36 AM)BoogyMan Wrote: [ -> ]Without regard to the legality of it's ratification, which particular proviso of the amendment are you most concerned about? Are you talking about the insurrection provisions?
The entire framework of the socialization of our system basically stems from the legal ramifications as established by the SCOTUS, and to a lesser degree, the Congress, based upon the Fourteenth Amendment. If illegally ratified, the entire body of laws established on it's precepts would, at least in my mind, be suspect, null and void. Granted, that is my opinion, and it is far from being mainstream, but if one thinks on it, it has illegally been used as motivation by the SCOTUS for a plethora of decisions.
This has been somewhat a factor in my evolvement ( sp ) as a conservative with strong libertarian ( small L, please ) beliefs. As a contrarian and a son of The South, it has affected my thinking to an extent, and it has affected all of us with regards to the Illegal Alien problem.
I personally feel we need to be discussing things such as this, not necessarily just Debateful, on an ongoing basis.
Please excuse me, but I really do like this fora as my good friend Berrg, calls them, and am trying to present new ideas for debate to the forum.
Section 1: I don't see any problem with this one.
Section 2: So poorly written that I am going to have to read carefully and study.
Section 3: Contradicts the sentiments in the Declaration of Independence. Truly troubling.
How could a country whose first document of existence says the following:
Declaration of Independence Wrote:But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
adopt any such wording of an amendment that limits access to those whom the central government would consider rebellious. What happens when voting against the establishment becomes evidence of rebellion in the eyes of a despotic central government?
Section 4: The validity of the public debt shall not be questioned????? Obama certainly seems to have this one firmly in hand.
(Dec. 05, 2009 10:56 AM)BoogyMan Wrote: [ -> ]Section 1: I don't see any problem with this one.
Section 2: So poorly written that I am going to have to read carefully and study.
Section 3: Contradicts the sentiments in the Declaration of Independence. Truly troubling.
How could a country whose first document of existence says the following:
Declaration of Independence Wrote:But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
adopt any such wording of an amendment that limits access to those whom the central government would consider rebellious. What happens when voting against the establishment becomes evidence of rebellion in the eyes of a despotic central government?
Section 4: The validity of the public debt shall not be questioned????? Obama certainly seems to have this one firmly in hand.
I keep coming back to your post, Boogy, and am having a tad of trouble deciphering whether you think I'm full of crap, thinkl I'm pretty much right, or are ambivalent.
I am starting to think that you are 100% spot on correct Shooter. I am amid a bit of a political transformation from conservative to conservative/libertarian views.
Ooh...great thread subject. I need some time to formulate a good opinion and well thought out response but I wanted to say I am in on this one. Probably going to side with OP on first glance but I'll try to also be a devils advocate here.
(Dec. 05, 2009 02:47 PM)BoogyMan Wrote: [ -> ]I am starting to think that you are 100% spot on correct Shooter. I am amid a bit of a political transformation from conservative to conservative/libertarian views.
Thank you and thanks for clearing up my confusion.
http://www.jtl.org/pittman/
Bookmark and read at your leisure, Boogy. There are few times I visit this site I don't find words of wisdom that astound me. Even though R Carter Pittman was a mid century democrat, I believe he hated what first FDR, then Truman, and then Ike had done to the Constitution. There are other fine links embedded within the site, as well.
The following prefaces the site;
Honorable Carter Pittman is one of the learned men of the legal profession. If you do not like him, remember he is an opponent worthy of your best steel.
His philosophy like that of George Mason is “Rule by consent of the governed.”
T. Whitfield Davidson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DALLAS, TEXAS
May 15, 1962