Replies

What is there to say? The 14th amendment was the most irresponsibly written amendment in the Constitution. the people who wrote and ratified it(the ones who did not have a gun to their head, IE the 11 southern States). Were irresponsible, shortsighted, overzealous idiots.

Even among that lot the amendment was only ever passed because 1 state was not allowed to rescind its foolish ratification after having held an election on the matter.

The 14th Admenment does not suffer a fatal flaw and may have effect on its desired outcome. I am surprised how supposed "experts" here on FR can spout on and on about Wom Kim Ark nonsense and the 14th Amendment when they have absolutely no apparent familiarity with the basic rules of legislative interpretation. Sadly, in a free republic we cannot avoid hearing their blubbering nonsense as they pontificate their falsehoods.

LOL, well, you're brazen, I'll give you that.

But legislative construction is exactly where the 14th is terminally flawed in it's entirety, because it specifies positive protections for previously exemplified negative rights.

That's about as fundamental a contradiction as can possibly be made. And it led to the Supreme Court ruling that because it could not be reconciled with negative rights personam jurisdiction, it must therefore be limited solely to applicability within federal administrative law.

And from this, came the administrative overreach of the feds we all enjoy today, and the swapping of statutory and regulatory "privileges" for natural rights that is endemic in what is passing for "law."

And, oh yeah, by-the-by, does therefore establish a "fatal flaw" in the very essence of the 14th Amendment, as it disqualifies it from the very population towards which the original Bill of Rights was addressed.

Which would be educational, but it's actually not, for you, now is it? Because your careful description of basic interpretive legal construction, combined with your sneering close, indicates you're someone who well understands the tightrope of bald-faced fraudulent deceit he's walking.

For in fact, by fraudulently and calculatedly narrow logical construction, you invoked the rules of federal administrative construction in order to mislead your readers about original Constitutional construction, without noting the different applications involved.

Not nice. Not nice at all. Or just stupid. But I rather think it's more than mere stupidity on your part, don't you?

Your arrogance will be your downfall, grasshopper - and the downfall of the rest of the insects you serve.