Which means that, if there was some case decided using the 14th amendment prior to this ratification that it is illegitimate. That would be like the USSC deciding Obamacare was legal during its initial vote. Furthermore, the ratifications mentioned (recognizing the 14th as valid) may be fraudulent; that is, if the government put out that "everyone else accepts this" to each state individually, and then uses each state's individual answer as proof of consensus may indeed produce a different result than that of a straight and open yea-or-nay type of vote. This is especially true when the law in question is regarded as "settled law" by most people.
The federal government has lost its benefit of the doubt from me; I no longer think that "procedural irregularities" are aught but the practice of "might makes right" / "we're the government; you're not" type philosophies.
The same things that help keep witnesses from lying on the witness stand: an oath to tell the truth, with associated punishments, hard evidence, cross examinations and opposing witnesses.
Ultimately, juries of experts and public opinions decide which assertions to accept or reject.
Ah, like in Fast & Furious? Or Zimmerman?
No, there is objective good and evil and there is nothing keeping the government from committing great evil; Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, are all instances supporting this.
But if you chose to reject as false established facts which most people hold true, then you eliminate any possibility of your arguments influencing their opinions, FRiend.
Oy vey. You do not seem to grasp; I am trying to talk about a concept, of which the fraudulent passage of the 14th amendment (at that time), is an example.
Furthermore, that argument is exactly that used on anyone who is skeptical of AGW. Because AGW is settled science, based on a consensus of scientists.
I'd say it's a poor example because, if I understand: you do not claim the 14th Amendment is invalid today, only that it may have been somewhat invalid at some particular point in the past?
And this is based on what?
So, when exactly would OneWingedShark officially declare the 14th Amendment passed?
And which exact laws or court rulings would you therefore declare invalid?
And what, precisely, would be the point of such an exercise?
OneWingedShark: "The federal government has lost its benefit of the doubt from me; I no longer think that "procedural irregularities" are aught but the practice of "might makes right" / "we're the government; you're not" type philosophies."
Well, of course, in politics the "might" of voting majorities can make a lot of dubious-seeming laws "right" constitutionally.
We saw that most recently in Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts' plaintive cry on Obama-care: that he can't protect voters from the consequences of their own foolish choices.
Indeed, this is precisely how for 100 years now liberal "Progressive" majorities have transformed our Founders' constitutionally Free Republic into a European style Socialist Democracy.
So what recourses do we have?
Well, first of all, we need to remember that by margins of two-to-one, more people consider themselves "conservative" (40+%) than "liberal" (20-%), so the rule of Liberalism over our Republic is not guaranteed or automatic.
We need first only remind self-confessed conservatives of what the word "conservative" means -- beginning with smaller, more constitutionally restricted Federal Government.
Second, we should remember that longevity in Washington office seldom makes politicians more conservative -- most find it easier just to go-along-to-get-along, and grow steadily more "big government Liberal" over time.
And there are actual quantitative measures of these things, so when our guys & gals fall below a certain level of conservatism, they need to be quickly replaced.
Finally, don't forget that enthusiasm plays a huge role in politics, and tends to flow in waves, waves that can sweep whole groups in and out of office.
So the trick is to stand fast when the "wave" crashes against us, while working to increase "waves" in Conservatives' favor.
OneWingedShark: "No, there is objective good and evil and there is nothing keeping the government from committing great evil; Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, are all instances supporting this."
It's a bit, ah, premature to compare your typical US politician to history's monstrosities.
None of ours fall into those categories.
Indeed, my point is precisely the opposite -- our politicians are still subject to some legal and constitutional restrictions, and still sometimes spend quality-jail time for enumerated infractions.
Yes, sadly, the number in jail should doubtless be much larger, but the fact remains that enough go to demonstrate that those folks are not free to do just anything they wish.
And yes, also unfortunately, so far as I can learn no politician has ever been jailed for voting too much "free stuff" for his or her constituents.
So, if we want less government, we just have to vote and keep voting for it.
OneWingedShark: "Furthermore, that argument is exactly that used on anyone who is skeptical of AGW.
Because AGW is settled science, based on a consensus of scientists."
It's another poor example, since despite endless claims of politicians like AlGore, AGW science is not "settled", it is in fact vigorously challenged by many recognized scientists.
Indeed, as it turns out, mere scientific facts of alleged global warming or "climate change" are irrelevant to Liberal-Progressive politicians who are merely looking for yet another excuse to grow yet more government -- and the more international the big-government, the better for their liking.
Bottom line: we have not yet lost this war, and should not act as if we did.
The Federal Government can still be reduced, controlled and restored toward something closer to our Founders' original vision, if but only if we take advantage of opportunities such as the one which seems to be coming this year...