Posted on 10/13/2010 3:04:13 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus and Application for a Stay of Proceedings, the petition is DENIED.
(Excerpt) Read more at caaflog.com ...
Watch it disappear.....
‘>If an absolute dictatorship is such a good idea who do you suggest be the Fuehrer, or Caesar?
I never said it was a good idea; I did however imply that it might be no less a horrible an idea than our current rule-by-bureaucrats.’
So given the choice between our current status and establishing an absolute dictatorship which do you prefer? I do not wish to derive my opinions based only on an implication.
The Founders who were for the BOR wanted certain unalienable rights affirmed, they didn't feel the Constitution granted enough protection......John Jay who wrote the Constitution with Madison wouldn't sign without it witout them...
I did not accuse you of being an enemy of the USA. I accuse anyone who consistently posts on FR for hours a day, many days a week, month after month after month, in support of 0thugga, and trashing those who are sincerely researching and discussing the truth of his ineligibility.
I am not naming any names; if the shoe fits, people can wear it. I am not accusing you personally. People who attack obviously sincere conservatives like Las Vegas Ron are immediately suspect.
I know good conservative freepers who are not interested in 0thugga’s eligibility, for whatever reason. They never, ever post on these threads; instead, they use their valuable time fighting leftist crap in other ways.
If people claim to be conservatives and therefore opposed to 0thugga’s agenda, methods and goals, and still post for hours and hours on these threads attacking sincere freepers, then it’s crystal clear whose side they are on. And it not the side that Constitutionalists are on.
The 14th is fraudulent.
Vicious, lol lol lol....what kind of character or spine do you have???/
What a weak individual you must be, no wonder....why, I bet you're a moderate, right?
Geezzzz....grow up.
John Jay who wrote the Constitution with Madison wouldn't sign without it witout them...
I think it's you who needs to study some history. John Jay wasn't even AT the Constitutional Convention. He was among the Federalists, though, corresponding with Madison and Hamilton and writing parts of the Federalist Papers. It was the Anti-Federalists like Patrick Henry who insisted on including the Bill of Rights before they'd ratify.
Recent article in the Omaha World Herald regarding the 14th Amendment:
http://www.omaha.com/article/20101018/NEWS01/710189899/1014#janssen-14th-amendment-misapplied
If you can not discern the difference between the meaning/origin of a word and its function, there is nothing I can do to help your ignorance. Maybe you should have paid attention in language class!
Redacted scan ok?
Okay, perhaps you have not remembered what I have had to say about this in the past so I'll repeat it now....no, I do not think what Lakin is doing is a good thing, the possible repercussions are very dangerous, but I support him because of his courage and convictions because I agree with him.
It is a very sad time in this Country when a man has to sacrifice himself for a cause he believes is just....many men have done it before, they choose a side and fight.....you have chosen your side.
You on the other hand lend your time to defeat him, you glorify his defeat at the cost of your Country....that I don't understand.
If you think this issue is a no go then leave it alone and let the rest of us figure out what the truth is........you have an agenda, it shows, because......?
Why don't you question what this man is hiding while he is destroying a Country you profess to love and supposedly fought for???????
You're the weak one...Nothing but an E-thug. Not just on this thread. Anyone can read your posting history and see what a jerk you are. And no, you gaffer, i'm not a moderate.
I have nothing more to say on this thread.
Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on October 27, 1866. (House Journal 1866, pp. 578-584; Senate Journal 1866, p. 471)
Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on November 9, 1866. (House Journal 1866, p. 68; Senate Journal 1866, p. 72.)
Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on December 6, 1866. (House Journal 1866, p. 76; Senate Journal 1866, p. 8)
Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on December 7, 1866. (House Journal 1866, pp. 210-213; Senate Journal 1866, p. 183)
North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 14, 1866. (House Journal 1866-1867, p. 183; Senate Journal 1866-1867, p. 138)
Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866. (House Journal 1866, pp. 288-291; Senate Journal 1866, p. 262
South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 20, 1866. (McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194; Annual Encyclopedia, p. 452)
Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on January 8, 1867. (House Journal 1867, p. 60; Senate Journal 1867, p. 62)
Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on January 9, 1867. (House Journal 1866-1867, p. 108; Senate Journal 1866-1867, p. 101)
Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867. (McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194; Annual Encyclopedia, p. 452)
Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on February 7, 1867 (House Journal 1867, p. 223; Senate Journal 1867, p. 176)
Maryland rejected the 14th Amendment on March 23, 1867 (House Journal 1867, p. 1141; Senate Journal 1867, p. 808)
Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on January 31, 1867. (McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194)
Ohio rejected the 14th Amendment on January 15, 1868 (House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50; Senate Journal 1868, pp. 33-38.)
New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on March 24, 1868. (Minutes of the Assembly 1868, p. 743; Senate Journal 1868, p. 356)
Natural born citizen in the Constitution is NOT put into “_”, they are individual words to be defined individually. Get the picture? You all want to define a phrase when there is none to define and that IS your problem.
You didn’t express yourself clearly, that’s all. First you said we were talking about the root of the word, then you asked me if I thought the word had a function. Why would you ask me if I thought the word had a function if we’re talking about its root? Make up your mind. Actually, your latest reply is even more muddled. What do you mean by the function of a word, if not its meaning? Are you asking me about parts of speech?
Also, “meaning” and “origin” of a word are not the same thing, unlike what you imply. Or do you think the only real “citizens” are those who live in cities?
My post above was to your previous post. I still have no idea why you think the origins of the words “subject” and “citizen” is relevant, or what support you think Story gives you for looking at the roots. Your posts are like a bunch of ideas chopped into a salad and offered for the reader to untangle. (For example, how can an 1828 dictionary have been written “for the constitution”? What does that even mean?)
The fact that New Jersey and Ohio later voted to rescind ratification is irrelevant. The Constitution does not give states the power to change their mind on ratification. The reasoning should be clear - one or two states today could rescind their vote and the First or Second Amendments could be stricken from the Constitution. Regardless, 9 more states voted to ratify after South Carolina. The 14th Amendment was ratified, it's legal, and it's part of the Constitution.
Good, get lost then....if'n you can't stand the heat, git out er the kitchen.
You represent the epitome of weak in this Country, sniveling whiner little child.....stand up for your self and fight....you can't even defend yourself on a black and white anonymous screen.....
Good grief.
Oh, yeah......boooooooooo!
Proposal and ratification
The United States Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment on June 13, 1866, and, by July 9, 1868, three-fourths of the states (28 of 37) had ratified the amendment:
Connecticut (June 25, 1866)
New Hampshire (July 6, 1866)
Tennessee (July 19, 1866)
New Jersey (September 11, 1866)*
Oregon (September 19, 1866)
Vermont (October 30, 1866)
Ohio (January 4, 1867)*
New York (January 10, 1867)
Kansas (January 11, 1867)
Illinois (January 15, 1867)
West Virginia (January 16, 1867)
Michigan (January 16, 1867)
Minnesota (January 16, 1867)
Maine (January 19, 1867)
Nevada (January 22, 1867)
Indiana (January 23, 1867)
Missouri (January 25, 1867)
Rhode Island (February 7, 1867)
Wisconsin (February 7, 1867)
Pennsylvania (February 12, 1867)
Massachusetts (March 20, 1867)
Nebraska (June 15, 1867)
Iowa (March 16, 1868)
Arkansas (April 6, 1868)
Florida (June 9, 1868)
North Carolina (July 4, 1868, after having rejected it on December 14, 1866)
Louisiana (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on February 6, 1867)
South Carolina (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)
*Ohio passed a resolution that purported to withdraw its ratification on January 15, 1868. The New Jersey legislature also tried to rescind its ratification on February 20, 1868. The New Jersey governor had vetoed his state’s withdrawal on March 5, and the legislature overrode the veto on March 24. Accordingly, on July 20, 1868, Secretary of State William H. Seward certified that the amendment had become part of the Constitution if the rescissions were ineffective. The Congress responded on the following day, declaring that the amendment was part of the Constitution and ordering Seward to promulgate the amendment.
Meanwhile, two additional states had ratified the amendment:
Alabama (July 13, 1868, the date the ratification was “approved” by the governor)
Georgia (July 21, 1868, after having rejected it on November 9, 1866)
Thus, on July 28, Seward was able to certify unconditionally that the amendment was part of the Constitution without having to endorse the Congress’s assertion that the withdrawals were ineffective.
There were additional ratifications and rescissions; by 2003, the amendment had been ratified by all of the 37 states that were in the Union in 1868:
Virginia (October 8, 1869, after having rejected it on January 9, 1867)
Mississippi (January 17, 1870)
Texas (February 18, 1870, after having rejected it on October 27, 1866)
Delaware (February 12, 1901, after having rejected it on February 7, 1867)
Maryland (1959)
California (1959)
Oregon (1973, after withdrawing it on October 15, 1868)
Kentucky (1976, after having rejected it on January 8, 1867)
New Jersey (2003, after having rescinded it on February 20, 1868)
Ohio (2003, after having rescinded on January 15, 1868)
Corporate personhood
1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
[edit] Privileges or immunities
1868 Crandall v. Nevada
1873 Slaughter-House Cases
1908 Twining v. New Jersey
1920 United States v. Wheeler
1948 Oyama v. California
1999 Saenz v. Roe
Procedural due process/Incorporation
1833 Barron v. Baltimore
1873 Slaughter-House Cases
1883 Civil Rights Cases
1884 Hurtado v. California
1897 Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago
1900 Maxwell v. Dow
1908 Twining v. New Jersey
1925 Gitlow v. New York
1932 Powell v. Alabama
1934 Snyder v. Massachusetts
1937 Palko v. Connecticut
1947 Adamson v. California
1952 Rochin v. California
1961 Mapp v. Ohio
1962 Robinson v. California
1963 Gideon v. Wainwright
1964 Malloy v. Hogan
1966 Miranda v. Arizona
1967 Reitman v. Mulkey
1968 Duncan v. Louisiana
1969 Benton v. Maryland
1970 Goldberg v. Kelly
1972 Furman v. Georgia
1974 Goss v. Lopez
1975 O’Connor v. Donaldson
1976 Gregg v. Georgia
2010 McDonald v. Chicago
Substantive due process
1876 Munn v. Illinois
1887 Mugler v. Kansas
1897 Allgeyer v. Louisiana
1905 Lochner v. New York
1908 Muller v. Oregon
1923 Adkins v. Children’s Hospital
1923 Meyer v. Nebraska
1925 Pierce v. Society of Sisters
1937 West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish
1973 Roe v. Wade
1992 - Planned Parenthood v. Casey
1996 BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
2003 Lawrence v. Texas
Equal protection
1880 Strauder v. West Virginia
1886 Yick Wo v. Hopkins
1896 Plessy v. Ferguson
1908 Berea College v. Kentucky
1917 Buchanan v. Warley
1942 Skinner v. Oklahoma
1944 Korematsu v. United States
1948 Shelley v. Kraemer
1954 Hernandez v. Texas
1954 Brown v. Board of Education
1962 Baker v. Carr
1965 Griswold v. Connecticut
1967 Loving v. Virginia
1976 Examining Board v. Flores de Otero
1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
1982 Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan
1986 Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico
1996 United States v. Virginia
1996 Romer v. Evans
2000 Bush v. Gore
Apportionment of Representatives
1974 Richardson v. Ramirez
[edit] Power of enforcement
1883 Civil Rights Cases
1966 Katzenbach v. Morgan
1997 City of Boerne v. Flores
2000 United States v. Morrison
2001 Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett
2003 Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs
2004 Tennessee v. Lane
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.