The Dirty Little Secret About the Fourteenth Amendment

[Merchant Seaman]

What is wrong with the Second Sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment" That sentence reads as follows:

“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.”

Why is the United States missing from the prohibitive declaration, "No State shall"?

[Paleo Conservative]

2) An Amenment cannot be unconstitutional-- it is part of the Constitution.

There is one type of amendment that cannot be put into the existing constitution -- an amendment changing the equal representation of states in the US Senate.

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.

[RayStacy]

ping

[Alberta's Child]

We might as well face it . . . The 14th Amendment was nothing more than the "official stamp" that legitimized the real purpose of the Civil War -- the creation of a unified super-state called the United States of America, and the gradual eradication of the individual state as a distinct sovereign entity.

It's no mere coincidence that the Civil War occurred at just about the same time in history that a number of other such movements were taking place around the world (Canadian Confederation in 1867, the unification of the Prussian states under Bismarck in the 1870s, the unification of Italy under Garibaldi around the same time, etc.).

[Wolfstar]

No, not exactly.

Yes exactly. The purpose of the 14th Amendment, as originally written and intended, constrained the states from denying their citizens the rights written into the Bill of Rights.

To acknowledge the original intent of any part of the Constitution is not the same as failing to acknowledge that courts have interpreted it in many ways over the last two+ centuries, and not always correctly.

Nevertheless, the 14th says that the states can't abridge our freedom of speech, religion, press, due process, right against self-incrimination, etc.

[dirtboy]

If you're quoting Douggie Thompson, one can figure that your Constitutional arguments are as bogus as Douggie's sources.

[theDentist]

Other notes: The Fourteenth Amendment was originally ratified to protect the freedman from the abrogation of his rights by the Southern states. Looking to protect the African American, the amendment made him a citizen and forced the federal government to be responsible for him. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibited the States from denying or abridging the fundamental rights of every citizen and required them to grant all persons equal protection and due process.

the amendment was ratified on July 28, 1868. Southern states were required to ratify it in order to be readmitted into the Union .

Source: http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/USA/14Ammend.html

Hope this helps.

[GrandEagle]

Because the 14th Amendment was specifically enacted because it was then recognized that the Southern States had abridged the Privileges and Immunities, and deprived the lives, liberty, and property, of certain citizens - specifically black slaves.
Interesting, considering that the final state to abolish slavery was a northern state - New Jersey.
Also that Lincoln only emancipated those slaves in the Southern States - not all slaves.

Cordially,
GE

[jude24]

Interesting, considering that the final state to abolish slavery was a northern state - New Jersey. Also that Lincoln only emancipated those slaves in the Southern States - not all slaves.

Irrelevant. Slavery had already been abolished by the 13th Amendment. But don't let the facts get in the way of your blind support of the Confederacy.

[MACVSOG68]

We might as well face it . . . The 14th Amendment was nothing more than the "official stamp" that legitimized the real purpose of the Civil War -- the creation of a unified super-state called the United States of America, and the gradual eradication of the individual state as a distinct sovereign entity.

To the extent that those individual states suppressed the natural rights of its citizens, the 14th Amendment was the proper conclusion of the Civil War. The Amendment was written and pushed through by Republicans in Congress. The Civil War was not started by those responsible for the 14th Amendment, but those responsible for the Civil War could only return to the Union and participate in its governance by ratifying the Amendment.

It's no mere coincidence that the Civil War occurred at just about the same time in history that a number of other such movements were taking place around the world

Again, the Civil War was started by those who wished to continue with slavery and were in disagreement with tariff policies. So no, I don't see any coincidence. The events leading up to the Civil War began at the Consititutional Convention and simmered through over a half century of slavery, tariff disagreements and finally the expansion of slavery into the new territories.

[GrandEagle]

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

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 the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Specifically: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

I couldn't find any mention of the Bill of Rights - please point it out.

Cordially,

GE

[jude24]

#28 came out snarkier than I intended. Sorry.

[edcoil]

To illustrate that example and to expose the unconstitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment...

Did I miss something? How on earth can an amendment be "unconstitional"?
It is AMMENDING the Constituion.
It is the document that defines consitutionality.
Maybe I missed something?

We seem to be lost in the same big box store - let me know if you get an intelligent answer.

[norraad]

Well, there's alot more to the lingering confederacy than many folks understand, the rise of the corp. gov. is a big part of it.

[inquest]

I couldn't find any mention of the Bill of Rights

Not only that, it repeats a section of the BOR - the due-process clause - without repeating the rest of it. If the intent was to apply the entire BOR, then why was that one provision singled out? It would have been redundant.

[cinives]

You got that right. Along with a whole host of other federal takeovers that followed shortly thereafter.

[Baseballguy]

I find this conversation remarkable.

First you can not read any Consitution Admendment independently.

We have translations for the bible that make more sense that the way they wrote the constitution.

I this any real works out thier with a translation to be trusted?

[GrandEagle]

But don't let the facts get in the way of your blind support of the Confederacy.
LOL! Lighten up my FRiend - it is just a conversation.
It is not irrelevant. The current "look back into history" states that the Civil War was fought because of slavery. It was not started because of slavery. For years there had been growing discontent with many of the states and the growing Federal power. The slavery issue found a long overdue and ready audience in the North because their economy was not tied that much to it; and consequently attached itself well to the conflict.
The obvious evidence that the piety of the North about slavery was the two historical facts that I stated.
You can't honestly say that the North was fighting to abolish slavery in the Union when in fact there were slave states fighting for the North. The amendment, along with the final tidbits of slavery, were not abolished until after the War when in April 1865 the South surrendered its troops.
The amendment to the Constitution wasn't even passed by the Congress until Jan 31, 1865 - it barely made it before the war was over. It wasn't ratified until Dec 1865 - 8 months AFTER the war.
Now think about it. For the war to have been about all about slavery, a SCOTUS decision, a law, or an amendment to the Constitution would have had to be passed, after which the South said 'Nope, won't do it". Then the North, in their righteousness (obviously after purging themselves of slavery), could have rode South to enforce the law.
Lincoln, who is credited with abolishing slavery, only anticipated those slaves in the states of the Confederacy, I believe as an economic battle tool.

Now, having said that, I think failing to abolish slavery from the very beginning of our nation was the single most disastrous failure of our founders. I understand why they put the issue off, but in hindsight it seems that it would have been much better just to deal with it at the beginning and be done with it.

Again - very cordially,
GE

[Alberta's Child]

Other notes: The Fourteenth Amendment was originally ratified to protect the freedman from the abrogation of his rights by the Southern states.

What about his rights in the Northern states? Before the Civil War it was Frederick Douglass of all people who pointed out the hypocrisy of the Northern abolitionists in their attempt to "free" the slaves in the South while at the same time denying them equal protection under the law in the North.

[satchmodog9]

How so?