Posted on 05/19/2002 5:57:12 PM PDT by aconservaguy
Strange reaction to losing your gun rights, bit by bit, in the 'business as usual' federal war on guns.
Not to mention states 'rights' to regulate. I would have laughed myself, if thirty years ago, someone had said that it would be illegal to even give away a gun in CA. -- It now is. -- Things change, even in Texas. Even for you statists, tex.
This objection would wipe out most constitutional amendments, including #'s 1-10. Not that it isn't a valid objection, but one shouldn't be under the impression that it's unique to this amendment.
As for the larger question does anyone here know of any instance in American legal history where a law was declared invalid, after it was reputed to have gone into effect, on the grounds that the proper procedure for passing it had not been followed? I have to wonder if there's any precedent for this.
It was ordained thus. They were obeying the law, and in so doing, they brought at end to the blood sacrifice which could only have occurred with the offering of The perfect sacrifice -- The 'lamb without spot or blemish.' Once they offered the perfect sacrifice, it satisfied the law once and for all. The resulting vacuum allowed for The 'higher' law to come forth and function -- our destiny and our inheritance, thanks to the Jews who would not usurp the law of God.
To allow the 'higher' law to function was like getting one's freedom after being a slave.
How many humans on both sides were sacrificed to abolish slavery during the uncivil war? All of which were un-necessary had the 'higher' law, which was already here, been allowed to function.
Back on topic, the irony is that the 14th Amendment paved the way for all of us to become slaves again -- as we trade our rights for privileges. Had the blacks been regarded as Sovereign Citizens (Upper case 'C') after the war, the 14th Amendment would not have been on the drawing board. The 14th federalized the black race with the designation of 'citizen,' (lower case 'c'). Since, the federal government has become the slavemaster of us all -- black, brown, red, white and yellow, under the 14th Amendment.
Leaving the ratification history aside, whether the Fourteenth Amendment or something similar to does fit into the Constitutional scheme is an interesting one. Some protection for the rights of individuals against state and local governments seems to be a reasonable contribution to the Framers' program.
Of course it was a change. That's why the Fourteenth Amendment was an amendment, like the Bill of Rights were amendments to the original documents. But one can view it more as a completion or contribution to the original plan. Not to have provided such protection would have been a mistake.
Automatic citizenship for the children of people just of the plane or boat does seem to be a mistake. That can also be rectified by the amendment process.
The Thirteenth Amendment was ratified by twenty-seven States of the then thirty-six States of the Union, including the Southern States of Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia.
There can be no doubt but that the ratification by these seven Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment again established the fact that their Legislatures and State governments were duly and lawfully constituted and functioning as such under their State constitutions.
For the federal government to declare that they were no longer states in the union (which is what the wanted all along), to accept one Amendment vote and reject another, then to institute military governments because the NORTH again refused to abide by the terms of the Constitution speaks volumes about those that accept the legality of their actions, prior to and after their illegal invasion of the South.
It is both logical and constitutional for the same provision to apply to any State seeking re-admission to the Union, after having been excluded for its own act of rebellion. In these Acts for State Admission, Congress places conditions on the states. For instance, it rejected Wyoming's request six times, because Wyoming allowed women to vote and hold office per its Territorial Constitution and proposed State Constitution. (On the seventh try, Congress relented, and accepted that State.)
In the same way, whatever conditions Congress placed on the States which rebelled, were constitutional, and were binding on the States. You will note that the official histories of the Confederate States give two dates for admission to the Union (except for those that were among the original 13 States, and became part of the Union by their ratification of the Constitution in the 18th century). The second date is the one on which, by Act of Congress, they again became part of the United States of America.
This comment answers the heart of this argument. There are so many errors of detail in this piece that it's hard to know where to start. I'll pick just one as a blatant example.
The article asserts that proposed Amendmkents must be signed by the President. The Constitution requires no such thing, A few early Presidents did sign such documents. But there is now a Supreme Court decision squarely holding that Presidents have no constitutional role in the amendment process. (Neither do the State Governors. This process is purely legislative.)
In short, the writer of this piece has demonstrated to me that he is dumb as a hoe handle on the Constitution as written and the history of its application and use, I urge anyone who reading this thread to stop at this point and go do something more worthwhile with his/her time, such as sorting one's socks or cleaning out the cat's litter box.
That may not be the "opinion" you were looking for, my friend, but you asked for my opinion as a scholar and practitioner of constitutional law. This is it. As the saying goes, if you don't like my peaches, don't shake my tree.
Congressman Billybob
And if someone murdered your family, your position is that you should just get over it?
In response to the second part of your statement above, it was my sins, and yours, and that of all sinners that killed our Lord.
Just to clear things up, did their representatives and senators in Congress also have the opportunity to cast their votes on whether or not to propose the amendments in the first place?
Supreme court decision or no, Article 1, Section 7 seems pretty clear on the point. It's not surprising that the courts would rule after the fact that the president doesn't have to sign such proposals. If they had ruled the other way, that would have invalidated the first ten amendments. I know people seem to have this image of judges as being completely detached and sublime in their thoughts, so it might come as a shock to discover that they really are human with human frailties, and as such I'm sure they wouldn't have felt too comfortable at the thought of ruling that the BOR doesn't actually exist. So they would have done anything, twisted themselves in any direction, to avoid having to rule that way. But that doesn't make it right.
Walt
Since the so-called seceded states claimed the U.S. Constitution no longer applied to them, they deprived themselves of equal suffrage.
If I wanted to take the time, could I find a quote from you saying that the Militia Act, for instance, no longer applied to the so-called seceded states?
Walt
But that was not Lincoln's view, now was it? He maintained that the states never left the Union.
That the South lost does not change the irregularities in the 14th Amendment, which would never have been proposed had Lincoln lived to rein in the fanaticism of the Reconstructionists.
The late David Lawrence, who was the publisher of U.S. News for many years, considered the "14th Amendment" to be the greatest Constitutional wrong in American History. Your breezy response to this thread, neither answers the Perez argument, nor Lawrence's argrument, which was shared by many legal scholars in the era since. Some of this is referred to in an article on Conservative Pot-Pourri.
The statement that we are all created equal, that you offer, is of course a quotation from Jefferson, used in the Declaration of Independence to deny the divine right of Kings. It is hardly an endorsement for the corruption of legal procedures.
It is very important that only the highest standards be applied to matters that effect the integrity of our written Constitution. Otherwise, it is easily reduced to the nullity that the Left has been seeking for a long time. A full and frank debate on the 14th Amendment--the basic cover for all of the excesses of the activist Supreme Court in the 20th Century, including many regularly denounced at this venue--is long overdue. [It is the l4th Amendment that made possible the legalization of Abortion and the illegalization of school prayer. It is the 14th Amendment that enabled the Federal Courts to take over Legislative aportionment and order school bussing. It is the 14th Amendment that has shifted the balance against Law enforcement; that compounds the problem with illegal immigration, by giving the children, born here to illegal immigrants, automatic citizenship, etc., etc.. Its effect has been an ongoing disaster.]
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
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.