Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a joke right? For one,if you repeal It,you wpuld also take away the right of black americans to be citizens of this country,which was the original intent of the 14th amendment.
Oh boy... you are ill equipped to even argue this if you are even saying that the 14th Amendment isn't constitutional.
Join us in the 21st century, please.
While I do admit that I am ill-equipped to argue whether or not the 14th amendment is or isn't constitutional. I would still be interested in how anyone, anyone at all, could say that the 14th amendment was actually lawfully, fairly, or constitutionally ratified. Anyone who does any amount of research at all can find all the information that would need to conclude that it was absolutely an abridgement to the constitutional process, and therefore wasn't lawful.
"Though the Northern states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, it was decisively rejected by the Southern and border states, failing to secure the 3/4 of the states necessary for ratification under Article V. The Radical Republicans responded with the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which virtually expelled the Southern states from the Union and placed them under martial law. To end military rule, the Southern states were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. As one Republican described the situation: "the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet."
This is why so many southern states originally opposed the 14th amendment in 1866, then after the reconstruction act of 1867, all of the sudden the southern states ratified the amendment in 1868?
The only argument anyone could have in regards to the 14th amendment and its constitutionality, is that no states actually oppose the amendment now, and every state has officially ratified the amendment as of the year 2003(where Ohio and New Jersey rescinded their previous rejections).
But that is kind of a silly conclusion to draw. Lets pretend there were 5 million illegal immigrants in Arizona. Then Congress illegally passed amnesty by blocking Arizona, Texas and many other southern states from voting. Then after amnesty was given, all the illegals are now legal and have the right to vote. Now that there are 12-20 million new voters in these southern states, it is impossible to repeal the law. So we should just accept this unconstitutional law a fact of life?
While I do admit that I am ill-equipped to argue whether or not the 14th amendment is or isn't constitutional. I would still be interested in how anyone, anyone at all, could say that the 14th amendment was actually lawfully, fairly, or constitutionally ratified. Anyone who does any amount of research at all can find all the information that would need to conclude that it was absolutely an abridgement to the constitutional process, and therefore wasn't lawful.
"Though the Northern states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, it was decisively rejected by the Southern and border states, failing to secure the 3/4 of the states necessary for ratification under Article V. The Radical Republicans responded with the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which virtually expelled the Southern states from the Union and placed them under martial law. To end military rule, the Southern states were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. As one Republican described the situation: "the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet."
This is why so many southern states originally opposed the 14th amendment in 1866, then after the reconstruction act of 1867, all of the sudden the southern states ratified the amendment in 1868?
The only argument anyone could have in regards to the 14th amendment and its constitutionality, is that no states actually oppose the amendment now, and every state has officially ratified the amendment as of the year 2003(where Ohio and New Jersey rescinded their previous rejections).
But that is kind of a silly conclusion to draw. Lets pretend there were 5 million illegal immigrants in Arizona. Then Congress illegally passed amnesty by blocking Arizona, Texas and many other southern states from voting. Then after amnesty was given, all the illegals are now legal and have the right to vote. Now that there are 12-20 million new voters in these southern states, it is impossible to repeal the law. So we should just accept this unconstitutional law a fact of life?
Do you think black americans are here illegally? The amemdment was intended for black americans.
This is a joke right? For one,if you repeal It,you wpuld also take away the right of black americans to be citizens of this country,which was the original intent of the 14th amendment.
Well, that depends on the process to repeal it. If it was repealed through a typical amendment process, it wouldn't actually take away your citizenship. It would just prevent the 14th amendment from having further effect(just as birthright citizenship to illegals).
If it was repealed through nullification on unconstitutional grounds. Then it could technically be made retroactive and thusly deprive people of citizenship. Of course, in reality, the states would immediately grant all previous citizens citizenship(they already have all your information in their computers).
I think you don't really understand the basis of the 14th amendment. Let me read something to you.
"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."
This amendment was not just about giving blacks citizenship. This amendment created American citizenship. If this amendment was only to provide blacks citizenship then it would not say that blacks are both citizens of the United States and of the state they reside in. It would merely say that they are citizens of the state wherein they reside and would immediately terminate itself a day later(after providing citizenship to all the current blacks).
The 14th amendment created American citizenship. Before the 14th amendment people were only citizens of their states. The federal government had no control over an individual person within these state borders, it only had control over the states proper.
The 14th amendment allows the federal government to pass laws directly onto the people, because you are now a citizen of the United States, so they have the jurisdiction over you. The 14th amendment turned this country from a conglomeration of sovereign nations, into a single country. The 14th amendment destroyed all notions of states' rights. And this was a rather well-known intent of the amendment even during the reconstruction period.
The civil war itself was never really about slavery to begin with. In the beginning of the civil war, the north never talked about slavery as cause for the war. Slavery didn't even come into the equation until towards the end of the war. The war was sold in the north as "preserving the union." And the war itself was terrible and unnecessary.
Almost all western countries had slaves, how many of those countries fought a war to abolish it? The only one I can think of is Haiti.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 07-29-2010 at 03:20 AM..
Do you think black americans are here illegally? The amemdment was intended for black americans.
I don't believe blacks are here illegally. The situation surrounding the 14th amendment and slavery is difficult to put a good answer to. Obviously slavery should have never existed in the first place in this country. But at the same time, if slavery hadn't existed in this country, there would simply be no black people living here right now(or an extremely small number). Yes, you blacks might be in Africa right now, wouldn't that be wonderful?
Slavery needed to be abolished and it would have been abolished despite the civil war. America was actually one of the last countries to abolish slavery. Most of the other large countries of the world had already abolished slavery with no conflict, no war, and very little political upheaval. These ex-slaves did not stay in Europe, they were removed to overseas colonies. This was the road that was most likely going to fall upon America. Because you have to understand that even though the vast majority of whites opposed slavery. Most of them did not actually want blacks here in America at all, it was just simply immoral to make a man(even a black man) a slave(especially a Christian man, in which blacks had largely been converted to christianity). Slavery hadn't existed among the white European christians, because it is against our religion for a christian to enslave another christian. On the contrary, slavery had existed throughout Africa and the middle-east for thousands of years.
Well even before the civil war there was a large movement to return the freed blacks(as one state after another in the north was abolishing slavery) back to Africa through a group called the American colonization society.
We created the country Liberia as a home for freed slaves. Of course, the slaves had no money, and it was far too expensive to "ship back" the millions of blacks in this country. So it was a fairly impractical system.
The Civil war really wasn't about slavery. It was about states' rights vs the federalism that had become more and more popular. With concepts like manifest destiny(and the defeat of the Mexicans in the Mexican-American war), it had become more and more important for a single federal entity to try to unite this country as a single entity. All throughout the early 1800's you had one state after another threatening to secede, first it was New England, then it was the Southern states. No one believed the south would secede, and no one believed there would actually be a war, and no one believed the war would last as long as it did.
After the war ended, and then Lincoln had been assassinated. There was a need to prevent such a terrible travesty from ever happening again. And since blacks actually outnumber whites in some areas of the south. By providing blacks with citizenship and voting rights, and then tying the south to the federal system under a single citizenship(and the protections of the constitution). This would be a way to help lock the south into the Union, because a democratically elected government with so many blacks would vote pro-union on many issues(who they saw as their saviors).
A large part of why blacks were given citizenship was not because of compassion towards blacks, it was just politics(as usual), and was largely used as a way to punish and control the south.
As for blacks and immigration status. Blacks should have never been in this country to begin with. But, I will admit the blacks back in 1865 earned their right to be here. By with the definition of citizen at the time in 1865, it is difficult to make a case if blacks were technically illegal immigrants or not. They weren't really immigrants, they were just slaves, so they weren't legal or illegal. Did you know that around half of all the Europeans that came to America up until the early 1800's, came as indentured servants? An indentured servant was basically a slave. The Irish came over during the potato famine on ships commonly referred to as "coffin ships". Where it was typical for as many as 30% of the passengers to die on the way to America. Many of these ships were rodent infested, overpacked with people, and didn't provide the passengers with nearly enough food and water. And this is all after they left Ireland because everyone was starving to death because of the famine. And after the oppression of the catholics by the British that had been going on for hundreds of years..
The truth is, I have very little sympathy for anyone. The majority of the people that came to America came from a very bad environment. If it wasn't slavery, it was oppression, tyranny, misery, serfdom(which is basically slavery), and starvation. The people in America today have it easy, and the blacks in America should feel absolutely blessed. Whatever your great-great-grandparents had to endure, has given you the gift of being born here and not in some craphole like Sierra Leone, or Rwanda, or Zimbabwe.
The only group of people I would ever have any sympathy at all for in America, are the native-americans. They have easily been the worst treated group in this country. They didn't even get citizenship in this country until 1924. Which is almost 60 years after blacks received citizenship. They are a tiny fraction of the population compared to blacks, and this was once all their land. Not only were many of them made slaves, but they were also basically exterminated like cockroaches(got smallpox?).
Many people seem to think Asians had it easy coming here, because they seem to have to relatively easy now? Well Asians were constantly the target of hatred and racism. Asians(mostly males) were brought here to help build the railroads. Afterwards, we wanted to get rid of them. We closed immigration entirely from Asia, but Asian males outnumbered Asian females in this country something like 30 to 1. And this was a time where miscegenation laws were common. We made fun of Asians for being small, and usually only gave them "female work". California prevented Asians from owning land. And then in WWII we imprisoned all the Japanese-Americans in internment camps and stole all their land.
Almost everyone who came here before the mid 1900's had a crappy life here, only the people that came here recently have had it easy. Yes, hispanics(regardless of all the talk about immigration, show me your papers stuff), are getting in here with relative ease compared to most of our ancestors. I just don't have much sympathy.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 07-29-2010 at 07:06 AM..
I don't believe blacks are here illegally. The situation surrounding the 14th amendment and slavery is difficult to put a good answer to. Obviously slavery should have never existed in the first place in this country. But at the same time, if slavery hadn't existed in this country, there would simply be no black people living here right now(or an extremely small number). Yes, you blacks might be in Africa right now, wouldn't that be wonderful?
Slavery needed to be abolished and it would have been abolished despite the civil war. America was actually one of the last countries to abolish slavery. Most of the other large countries of the world had already abolished slavery with no conflict, no war, and very little political upheaval. These ex-slaves did not stay in Europe, they were removed to overseas colonies. This was the road that was most likely going to fall upon America. Because you have to understand that even though the vast majority of whites opposed slavery. Most of them did not actually want blacks here in America at all, it was just simply immoral to make a man(even a black man) a slave(especially a Christian man, in which blacks had largely been converted to christianity). Slavery hadn't existed among the white European christians, because it is against our religion for a christian to enslave another christian. On the contrary, slavery had existed throughout Africa and the middle-east for thousands of years.
Well even before the civil war there was a large movement to return the freed blacks(as one state after another in the north was abolishing slavery) back to Africa through a group called the American colonization society.
We created the country Liberia as a home for freed slaves. Of course, the slaves had no money, and it was far too expensive to "ship back" the millions of blacks in this country. So it was a fairly impractical system.
The Civil war really wasn't about slavery. It was about states' rights vs the federalism that had become more and more popular. With concepts like manifest destiny(and the defeat of the Mexicans in the Mexican-American war), it had become more and more important for a single federal entity to try to unite this country as a single entity. All throughout the early 1800's you had one state after another threatening to secede, first it was New England, then it was the Southern states. No one believed the south would secede, and no one believed there would actually be a war, and no one believed the war would last as long as it did.
After the war ended, and then Lincoln had been assassinated. There was a need to prevent such a terrible travesty from ever happening again. And since blacks actually outnumber whites in some areas of the south. By providing blacks with citizenship and voting rights, and then tying the south to the federal system under a single citizenship(and the protections of the constitution). This would be a way to help lock the south into the Union, because a democratically elected government with so many blacks would vote pro-union on many issues(who they saw as their saviors).
A large part of why blacks were given citizenship was not because of compassion towards blacks, it was just politics(as usual), and was largely used as a way to punish and control the south.
As for blacks and immigration status. Blacks should have never been in this country to begin with. But, I will admit the blacks back in 1865 earned their right to be here. By with the definition of citizen at the time in 1865, it is difficult to make a case if blacks were technically illegal immigrants or not. They weren't really immigrants, they were just slaves, so they weren't legal or illegal. Did you know that around half of all the Europeans that came to America up until the early 1800's, came as indentured servants? An indentured servant was basically a slave. The Irish came over during the potato famine on ships commonly referred to as "coffin ships". Where it was typical for as many as 30% of the passengers to die on the way to America. Many of these ships were rodent infested, overpacked with people, and didn't provide the passengers with nearly enough food and water. And this is all after they left Ireland because everyone was starving to death because of the famine. And after the oppression of the catholics by the British that had been going on for hundreds of years..
The truth is, I have very little sympathy for anyone. The majority of the people that came to America came from a very bad environment. If it wasn't slavery, it was oppression, tyranny, misery, serfdom(which is basically slavery), and starvation. The people in America today have it easy, and the blacks in America should feel absolutely blessed. Whatever your great-great-grandparents had to endure, has given you the gift of being born here and not in some craphole like Sierra Leone, or Rwanda, or Zimbabwe.
The only group of people I would ever have any sympathy at all for in America, are the native-americans. They have easily been the worst treated group in this country. They didn't even get citizenship in this country until 1924. Which is almost 60 years after blacks received citizenship. They are a tiny fraction of the population compared to blacks, and this was once all their land. Not only were many of them made slaves, but they were also basically exterminated like cockroaches(got smallpox?).
Many people seem to think Asians had it easy coming here, because they seem to have to relatively easy now? Well Asians were constantly the target of hatred and racism. Asians(mostly males) were brought here to help build the railroads. Afterwards, we wanted to get rid of them. We closed immigration entirely from Asia, but Asian males outnumbered Asian females in this country something like 30 to 1. And this was a time where miscegenation laws were common. We made fun of Asians for being small, and usually only gave them "female work". California prevented Asians from owning land. And then in WWII we imprisoned all the Japanese-Americans in internment camps and stole all their land.
Almost everyone who came here before the mid 1900's had a crappy life here, only the people that came here recently have had it easy. Yes, hispanics(regardless of all the talk about immigration, show me your papers stuff), are getting in here with relative ease compared to most of our ancestors. I just don't have much sympathy.
You have articulated your post so well that, I'm jealous. (rep 1+)
I think this is the part that so many people do not want to understand.
"The Civil war really wasn't about slavery. It was about states' rights vs the federalism that had become more and more popular."
You brought up so many true points about our history, that I have not heard since my high school years. (much of which has been lost over the years)
You don't see it? Where do you think liberal policies come from? It isn't from the south. Who does the south vote for? Republicans if I do recall, every single election.
Uh, well then, I think it could be equally argued that the South is oppressing the North. Who's coming up with most of the conservative policies? It isn't the North.
I guess if some Southerners feel better by seeing themselves as victims, they're free to do that, but it's not the healthiest way to live.
Redshadowz is failing on his argument that the 14th was never ratified.
NEWS FLASH - there is no time limit as to when or how long it takes to ratify any amendment to the constitution.
the 14th aMendment was ratified, gaining 28 of the 37 states at the time, 3/4ths to vote yes for ratification.
2 states wanted to rescind, but in that time, 2 more states ratified (so nullifying New Jersey and Ohio's attempt to not ratify)
Many rely on the fact that many of the Southern states were not able to "vote" on the amendment for ratification because they lost the Civil War; well, they EVENTUALLY did, and long before the Civil Rights movement of the 60's.
Point is, today, in the 21st CENTURY, the # of states required to ratify was reached, and the 14th Amendment is FULL and LEGALLY a part of our Constitution
Redshadowz is failing on his argument that the 14th was never ratified.
NEWS FLASH - there is no time limit as to when or how long it takes to ratify any amendment to the constitution.
the 14th aMendment was ratified, gaining 28 of the 37 states at the time, 3/4ths to vote yes for ratification.
2 states wanted to rescind, but in that time, 2 more states ratified (so nullifying New Jersey and Ohio's attempt to not ratify)
Many rely on the fact that many of the Southern states were not able to "vote" on the amendment for ratification because they lost the Civil War; well, they EVENTUALLY did, and long before the Civil Rights movement of the 60's.
Point is, today, in the 21st CENTURY, the # of states required to ratify was reached, and the 14th Amendment is FULL and LEGALLY a part of our Constitution
END of Story.
You are technically correct. In fact the two states that ratified the amendment and thus negated the rescinding of the ratification by Ohio and New Jersey was "Alabama and Georgia". And the three states prior to Alabama and Georgia were South Carolina, Louisiana, and North Carolina.
Why would these five southern states ratify the 14th amendment(which gave blacks citizenship and the right to vote) after overwhelmingly rejecting it just two years earlier? And at the same time two Northern states move to rescind their ratification of the 14th amendment(and Oregon would also rescind their vote)?
What was the motivation of Ohio and New Jersey to rescind their vote? Did they change their mind on the 14th amendment? Was it not in the best interests of those two states but at the same time it was in the best interests of these five deep south states?
This is where the illegality/unconstitutionality of the 14th amendment should become obvious.
The first thing you need to understand is the reconstruction acts and what they did, then understand the reconstruction acts weren't passed until March of 1867, in contrast the 13th amendment was adopted to the constitution on December 6th 1965. The 13th amendment was voted on and passed by the southern states almost a year and a half before the reconstruction acts. Which means the southern governments had been acknowledged to be part of the United States and they had representation in the senate. So what did the reconstruction acts do?
Under the reconstruction acts, martial law was imposed on the south. The states were declared to be conquered territory, they were no longer considered to be part of the United States, so their votes in the senate were taken away. Union military governors were now in the control of the southern states to appoint new legislators to the state government(who would obviously be pro-union). These newly appointed legislatures(not democratically elected) were there to create new state constitutions which were required to give blacks the right to vote. These state constitutions could only be accepted by approval of the United States congress.
In truth, every single part of the reconstruction acts were unconstitutional.
"Despite being vetoed by the Congress, Johnson faithfully executed their decisions. He appointed military commanders who led 20,000 troops (including Afro-American militia) into the South. Governments that he had previously set up were displaced. 703,000 Afro-Americans and 627,000 whites were registered as voters. In Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina, black voters were in the majority. In other states, a black-white coalition formed under the Radical banner. Southern whites allied with the Radicals were called “scalawags”. Northerners who went south to assist in Reconstruction were called “carpetbaggers”.
You can read much of the timeline here. Read the years from 1965 on, look at the individual months.
"October 2, 1865 - Connecticut holds a vote to legalize black suffrage in the state: For: 27,217 Against: 33,489"
"November 7, 1865 - Minnesota and Wisconsin hold votes for black state suffrage. Minnesota: For 12,170, Against 14,840, Wisconsin: For: 46,388, Against: 55,591" - Every northern states voted against black voting rights at this point.
"December 2, 1865 Alabama ratifies the 13th Amendment, the 27th state to do so"
"March 27, 1866 President Johnson vetos the Civil Rights Act of 1866 on the grounds that it was unconstitutional"
"April 9, 1866 Congress overrides President Andrew Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Act "
The Civil rights act of 1866 was unconstitutional. Which is why there was a need to pass the 14th amendment, which would actually make it constitutional.
"March 2, 1867 Federal army restores military rule to Mississippi (2nd Reconstruction). "
"August 8, 1867 President Andrew Johnson demands the resignation of Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War."
"January 13, 1868 Edwin Stanton is illegally restored to Secretary of War by the U. S. Senate "
"January 15, 1868 Ohio rescinds its ratification of the 14th Amendment when the Peace Democrats gain control of the legislature. The Federal government refuses to recognize the action and counts Ohio as for ratification."
"March 11, 1868 4th Reconstruction Act passed by Congress. This changed the defination of majority from majority of all voters to majority of voters casting ballots in the election to approve or reject a state constitution." - Extremely unconstitutional, in fact, the federal government still has absolutely no power over voting rights in states, outside of the specific voting amendments to the consitution. The original constitution did not provide anyone the right to vote.
"March 24, 1868 Following the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the New Jersey legislature voted through a resolution of rescission. Governor Marcus L. Ward then vetoed the recission. On this date, New Jersey readopted the recission over the governor's veto "
"May 16, 1868 The Senate votes 35 guilty, 19 not guilty in the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. It is one vote shy of the necessary 2/3rds majority." - This is 54 votes(which was only 27 states out of 37 at the time), guess which states didn't get to vote? And it still didn't pass.
"July 28, 1868 The Secretary of State certifies the 14th Amendment has been approved by the required 28 of the 37 states. "
"October 15, 1868 Oregon rescinds its ratification of the 14th Amendment"
Even if you believe the amendment to the constitution is valid because Alabama and Georgia later ratified it. You need to actually read the constitution.
"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."
The southern states were deprived of their equal suffrage in the senate, therefore the amendment is simply unconstitutional.
If you still can't understand that the 14th amendment was illegal and unconstitutional, then you are hopeless. The fact that three states, that didn't even have slaves, rescinded their ratification of the amendment should spell it out in pretty plain English. These states saw the abuses of the government and stated very plainly why they rescinded their previous ratification.
"That it being necessary, by the Constitution, that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, the authors of the said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two Houses eighty Representatives from eleven States of the Union, upon the pretence that there were no such States in the Union; but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of said Houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of power, without the right, and in palpable violation of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this State, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the Senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the said House."
You should actually read the entire New Jersey explanation for their rescission of the 14th amendment, it is in the previous link.
LOL! Ok, buddy. You just keep on claiming the constitution is unconstitutional and I'll find a thread with more intelligent conversation in it.
+1 baby!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
