Bill to repeal Lautenberg Amendment introduced!

That argument does not stand upon examination. While seemingly impressive the documentation does not support the argument that the amendment was not consitutionally adopted.
The clownish Johnson's attempt to allow the slavers to regain power before Lincoln's body was cold was rightly rejected by Congress which demanded new legislatures not filled by traitors. This resulted in millions being allowed to vote who had been suppressed by the Slaverocracy. Reconstruction could only take place after the suppression and removal from power of all traitors who had fought against the Constitution.

No legitimate legal authority maintains that this amendment or others whackjobs dispute were not legally adopted. Crackpot sites and organizations' opinions are irrelevent.

When the South attempted to destroy the Union it brought destruction upon itself. When the Slavers attempted through a campaign of Terror to reconstitute slavery in all but name Congress stepped to remove the Traitor-filled legislatures and allow ones to be elected which represented ALL their populations not just the slavers. Case dismissed.

Those same "Traitor-Filled" Legislators of the southern states voted to ratify the 13th amendment.

So either the 13th Amendment is Void, or the 14th is void. Take your pick, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Like there is some doubt the new legislatures would have not passed the 13th? I don't think so. Johnson impetuousity in reforming the legislatures was a mistake as their refusal to admit Blacks to citizenship showed. Congress rectified that mistake.

These arguments are as lame as those proporting to show there was "an original 13th" amendment (there wasn't since the requisite proportion never ratified it at the same time as a check of dates would show.) Nor are the arguments that the 16th is illegal worth a bucket of warm spit. But the lunatic fringe has to have something to talk about, I suppose.

I do want to thank you for posting the link. It inadvertently led me to some useful information about the case which established the citizenship of children born of aliens while here. Someone had claimed this was not the case and it had been dreamed up by some "liberal" court. I maintained that to change it would require another amendment. That may well be warranted as things have developed.

bump

I should have said the 14th in particular. Thanks for pointing that out.

Trying to stuff some meaning into the 10th by removing those two sounds a bit far-fetched.

Before Congress took it upon themselves to decide they are the only ones capable to decide what constitutes life and liberty, the founders left it up to the states to decide what they wanted to do since the Federal government was limited. IE, Congress was allowed to:

1. Levy taxes and conduct a census
2. Determine it's rules of proceedings
3. Keep a journal
4. Be paid compensation for their services
5. Overturn Presidential veto by 2/3 vote
6. Pay debts
7. Provide for common defense
8. Borrow money
9. Regulate commerce
10. Uniform rule of naturalization
11. Uniform laws for bankruptcies
12. Coin money and fix the standards of weights and measures
13. Provide for punishment for counterfeiting
14. Establish post offices and post roads
15. Establish copyright laws
16. Constitute tribunals inferior to Superior Court
17. Define and punish piracies
18. Declare war, grant letters of marquee, make rules concerning captures
19. Raise and support armies
20. Provide and maintain a navy
21. Provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining militia called into service of the United States
22. Create a territory 10 miles square for the capital and maintain it as well as fortifications (with permission of state legislature where it will be)
23. Suspend habeaus corpus

That is all they can do as expressed by our Constitution. The 9th and 10th amendment says that any power not delegated to Congress is reserved by the states, to wit:

Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Contrast that with the following from the 14th amendment:

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.

And

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.

No where in the original Articles and 12 Amendments does the Congress have the ability to do any such thing. Those are left expressly to the states via the 9th and 10th amendments.

I realize that much of the reason it was originally added was to protect and reassure slavers...

What? It was put there as a check to the power of the federal government so it did not turn into a bloated, centralized, unresponsive monster that it has become today. Stretching the meaning of the 10th amendment to mean something about protecting slave owners "sounds a bit far fetched". To assume that would mean that the 5th amendment only applied to slave owners.

...but tying it to the 14th and 15th makes it appear that was ALL it was intended to do.

Really? What about section 4 of the 14th? It was worded to protect the slave owners that were not part of the CSA. IE, they got compensation for the emancipation of their slaves. Not only that, the 14th amendment was used to overturn several states laws banning abortion. Was it written to protect the abortion industry, also?

Since cops can breath down our necks and talk about taking responsibility they can eat some too when involved in Domestic violence. They dont like it get over and move on. Other jobs are lost from outside activities. Cops and military better snap out of the Domestic violence if they dont care for Lautenberg.

Maybe it is not the lautenberg amendment as a whole which people should be attacking, but the text within the lautenberg amendment.

I am currently creating a bill that will be on my website www.lautenbergact.com that will allow exlusions for first time offenders, as well as loopholes for military, as well as law enforcement officers so that their careers do not get affected. FACT: Felony convictions of assault result in one not being able to possess a firearm, however they can join our nations military service.

The Lautenberg amendment must have an exlusion added to it, at the bare minimum allow for persons affected by this law to be unaffected if they are law enforcement as well as persons that are required by duty.

see the petition online at
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/amend-lautenberg-act-amendment.html

I’ve been trying to enlist in the Army for about 3 Years now and due to this Lautenberg amendment I can serve my country till this is repealed. Good to know that the past three years I could have been in the fight and trying to help. However something that happned to me as a minor, took toll on my life and partically the out come of Iraq. I’m currently studying two of about fifteen critical languages. You would figure there would be some kind of loophole for me?? I thought so but I guess I was wrong huh ?