Posted on 03/06/2018 9:17:29 AM PST by Bull Snipe
If one actually reads the decision and understands the Constitution of the United States at the time of the decision, it is a legally solid decision. Remember, it was not until 1865 did the Congress pass the 13th Amendment.
Which raises the question: Was the 13th Amendment ever really ratified?
Good point you made about the decision’s validity, under the law then existing. Texas now needs to pass an ABORTION BAN! We will just tell the Libtard “Judges” we are a Sanctuary State for the UNBORN!
Roe v Wade got a pretty substantial stink to it.
“Which raises the question: Was the 13th Amendment ever really ratified?”
Some say NO - that it was just DECLARED ratified, but that it was NOT passed by 3/4 of the States, IN THE SAME WORDING FORMAT!
There are a lot of “legally solid” immoral issues in today’s World. However, just as now, if the issue immoral, even if it is Legal, it is wrongly decided.
Well, it’s pretty obvious that you’ve never read the Cooper Union Address, made by the only real constitutional attorney to ever run for President from Illinois.
More important
The southern states were required to ratify the amendment before they could be readmitted to the union.
If they were not in the union how could they ratify the amendment?
What part of the Constitution said blacks were not and could never be citizens? Or that Congress did not have the power to restrict slavery in the territories?
Sound reasoning perhaps, but might it have called into question why slaves were accounted in the Constitution as three fifths the electoral “value” in each census towards Congressional representation? How can chattel, much less non-citizens, possibly be counted for the purpose at all? The decision certainly sped up the inevitable split since it decided the answer to Lincoln’s contention that the country would eventually have to be wholly free or wholly slave holding in favor of the latter.
Yes.
States vote to approve amendments passed out of Congress in the wording that Congress adopted. If they choose to fiddle with the wording then that doesn't change what they are voting on.
It’s Taney,not Tanney.
.
Two points. First point, the Southern states were not readmitted to the Union because they were never out of the Union. And the second point is that the 13th Amendment was ratified before Reconstruction was enacted, and eight of the eleven Confederate states ratified it before it became part of the Constitution in December 1865.
There is also the question of legality of that requirement
If it is true as asserted that it was illegal for the Southern states to secede, that they did not have the power of secession, such a requirement was illegal.
If the Confederate States had not actually secede then the Northern states had illegally withheld the Southern states rights to their seats in congress.
I recall reading the original 13th Amendment was to prohibit attorneys from taking elected office. Something that had to do with the peerage system carried over from England (the Bar) and the titles awarded for being part of that group (esquire). If I remember correctly, the information stated that the proposed amendment was ‘tabled’ and amendments only die by an up/down vote. Not pushing it to the side waiting for the clock to tick down to ZERO and need to start the process over (tabling a bill). The argument being an up/down vote is still required to put the amendment to rest. Even if true, nothing will happen with it like most constructive things that could be done in Congress.
Most of the Southern congressional delegation voluntarily withdrew from Congress, and Congress could not force their legislature to replace them. Those that were expelled during the war were expelled because they were supporting armed rebellion against the United States.
“More important
The southern states were required to ratify the amendment before they could be readmitted to the union.
If they were not in the union how could they ratify the amendment?”
Or, was the North perhaps contending that they never really LEFT the Union, (because it is one and indissoluable) but that they were on a form of probation for daring to TRY to secede?
“The southern states were required to ratify the amendment before they could be readmitted to the union.
If they were not in the union how could they ratify the amendment?”
Or, was the North perhaps contending that they never really LEFT the Union, (because it is one and indissoluable) but that they were on a form of probation for daring to TRY to secede?”
Wow! Good point! Can you IMAGINE what the Monolithic Media Cartel would say if Trump pronounced that the 13th Amendment was not validly adopted, and that it therefore was VOID and slavery was BACK? Ha-ha!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.