Conservative Political Forum

General Category => The Constitution => Topic started by: Solar on January 27, 2015, 02:14:21 PM

Title: There is No Fourteenth Amendment?
Post by: Solar on January 27, 2015, 02:14:21 PM
I haven't had time to read it, but thought I'd throw it out for discussion anyway.

There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!
by
David Lawrence
U.S. News & World Report
September 27, 1957

A MISTAKEN BELIEF — that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the "Fourteenth Amendment" — is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it failed of ratification.

The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the unanimous writings of historians, establishes these events as occurring in 1867 and 1868:

Outside the South, six States — New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland — failed to ratify the proposed amendment.
In the South, ten States — Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana — by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.
A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the "Fourteenth Amendment."
Congress — which had deprived the Southern States of their seats in the Senate — did not lawfully pass the resolution of submission in the first instance.
The Southern States which had rejected the amendment were coerced by a federal statute passed in 1867 that took away the right to vote or hold office from all citizens who had served in the Confederate Army. Military governors were appointed and instructed to prepare the roll of voters. All this happened in spite of the presidential proclamation of amnesty previously issued by the President. New legislatures were thereupon chosen and forced to "ratify" under penalty of continued exile from the Union. In Louisiana, a General sent down from the North presided over the State legislature.
Abraham Lincoln had declared many times that the Union was "inseparable" and "indivisible." After his death, and when the war was over, the ratification by the Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had been accepted as legal. But Congress in the 1867 law imposed the specific conditions under which the Southern States would be "entitled to representation in Congress."
Congress, in passing the 1867 law that declared the Southern States could not have their seats in either the Senate or House in the next session unless they ratified the "Fourteenth Amendment," took an unprecedented step. No such right — to compel a State by an act of Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment — is to be found anywhere in the Constitution. Nor has this procedure ever been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States.
President Andrew Johnson publicly denounced this law as unconstitutional. But it was passed over his veto.
Secretary of State Seward was on the spot in July 1868 when the various "ratifications" of a spurious nature were placed before him. The legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey had notified him that they rescinded their earlier action of ratification. He said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State "to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification." He added that the amendment was valid "if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States." This was a very big "if." It will be noted that the real issue, therefore, is not only whether the forced "ratification" by the ten Southern States was lawful, but whether the withdrawal by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey — two Northern States — was legal. The right of a State, by action of its legislature, to change its mind at any time before the final proclamation of ratification is issued by the Secretary of State has been confirmed in connection with other constitutional amendments.
The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 — three months after the Secretary's proclamation was issued — passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the "Fourteenth Amendment" had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the "ratifications" in the Southern States were "usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void" and that, "until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment."
What do the historians say about all this? The Encyclopedia Americana states:

"Reconstruction added humiliation to suffering.... Eight years of crime, fraud, and corruption followed and it was State legislatures composed of Negroes, carpetbaggers and scalawags who obeyed the orders of the generals and ratified the amendment."

W. E. Woodward, in his famous work, "A New American History?" published in 1936, says:

"To get a clear idea of the succession of events let us review [President Andrew] Johnson's actions in respect to the ex-Confederate States.

"In May, 1865, he issued a Proclamation of Amnesty to former rebels. Then he established provisional governments in all the Southern States. They were instructed to call Constitutional Conventions. They did. New State governments were elected. White men only had the suffrage the Fifteenth Amendment establishing equal voting rights had not yet been passed]. Senators and Representatives were chosen, but when they appeared at the opening of Congress they were refused admission. The State governments, however, continued to function during 1866.

"Now we are in 1867. In the early days of that year [Thaddeus] Stevens brought in, as chairman of the House Reconstruction Committee, a bill that proposed to sweep all the Southern State governments into the wastebasket. The South was to be put under military rule.

"The bill passed. It was vetoed by Johnson and passed again over his veto. In the Senate it was amended in such fashion that any State could escape from military rule and be restored to its full rights by ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment and admitting black as well as white men to the polls."

In challenging its constitutionality, President Andrew Johnson said in his veto message:

"I submit to Congress whether this measure is not in its whole character, scope and object without precedent and without authority, in palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution, and utterly destructive of those great principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood and expended so much treasure."

Many historians have applauded Johnson's words. Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, known today as "liberals," wrote in their book, "The Growth of the American Republic":

"Johnson returned the bill with a scorching message arguing the unconstitutionality of the whole thing, and most impartial students have agreed with his reasoning."

James Truslow Adams, another noted historian, writes in his "History of the United States":

"The Supreme Court had decided three months earlier, in the Milligan case, ... that military courts were unconstitutional except under such war conditions as might make the operation of civil courts impossible, but the President pointed out in vain that practically the whole of the new legislation was unconstitutional. ... There was even talk in Congress of impeaching the Supreme Court for its decisions! The legislature had run amok and was threatening both the Executive and the Judiciary."

Actually, President Johnson was impeached, but the move failed by one vote in the Senate.

The Supreme Court, in case after case, refused to pass on the illegal activities involved in "ratification." It said simply that they were acts of the "political departments of the Government." This, of course, was a convenient device of avoidance. The Court has adhered to that position ever since Reconstruction Days.

Andrew C. McLaughlin, whose "Constitutional History of the United States" is a standard work, writes:

"Can a State which is not a State and not recognized as such by Congress, perform the supreme duty of ratifying an amendment to the fundamental law? Or does a State — by congressional thinking — cease to be a State for some purposes but not for others?"

This is the tragic history of the so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" — a record that is a disgrace to free government and a "government of law."

Isn't the use of military force to override local government what we deplored in Hungary?

It is never too late to correct injustice. The people of America should have an opportunity to pass on an amendment to the Constitution that sets forth the right of the Federal Government to control education and regulate attendance at public schools either with federal power alone or concurrently with the States.

That's the honest way, the just way to deal with the problem of segregation or integration in the schools. Until such an amendment is adopted, the "Fourteenth Amendment" should be considered as null and void.

There is only one supreme tribunal — it is the people themselves. Their sovereign will is expressed through the procedures set forth in the Constitution itself.

[END]

[OCR'd text from U.S. News & World Report, September 27, 1957, page 140 et seq.]
Title: Re: There is No Fourteenth Amendment?
Post by: supsalemgr on January 27, 2015, 02:24:37 PM
I haven't had time to read it, but thought I'd throw it out for discussion anyway.

There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!
by
David Lawrence
U.S. News & World Report
September 27, 1957

A MISTAKEN BELIEF — that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the "Fourteenth Amendment" — is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it failed of ratification.

The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the unanimous writings of historians, establishes these events as occurring in 1867 and 1868:

Outside the South, six States — New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland — failed to ratify the proposed amendment.
In the South, ten States — Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana — by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.
A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the "Fourteenth Amendment."
Congress — which had deprived the Southern States of their seats in the Senate — did not lawfully pass the resolution of submission in the first instance.
The Southern States which had rejected the amendment were coerced by a federal statute passed in 1867 that took away the right to vote or hold office from all citizens who had served in the Confederate Army. Military governors were appointed and instructed to prepare the roll of voters. All this happened in spite of the presidential proclamation of amnesty previously issued by the President. New legislatures were thereupon chosen and forced to "ratify" under penalty of continued exile from the Union. In Louisiana, a General sent down from the North presided over the State legislature.
Abraham Lincoln had declared many times that the Union was "inseparable" and "indivisible." After his death, and when the war was over, the ratification by the Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had been accepted as legal. But Congress in the 1867 law imposed the specific conditions under which the Southern States would be "entitled to representation in Congress."
Congress, in passing the 1867 law that declared the Southern States could not have their seats in either the Senate or House in the next session unless they ratified the "Fourteenth Amendment," took an unprecedented step. No such right — to compel a State by an act of Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment — is to be found anywhere in the Constitution. Nor has this procedure ever been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States.
President Andrew Johnson publicly denounced this law as unconstitutional. But it was passed over his veto.
Secretary of State Seward was on the spot in July 1868 when the various "ratifications" of a spurious nature were placed before him. The legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey had notified him that they rescinded their earlier action of ratification. He said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State "to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification." He added that the amendment was valid "if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States." This was a very big "if." It will be noted that the real issue, therefore, is not only whether the forced "ratification" by the ten Southern States was lawful, but whether the withdrawal by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey — two Northern States — was legal. The right of a State, by action of its legislature, to change its mind at any time before the final proclamation of ratification is issued by the Secretary of State has been confirmed in connection with other constitutional amendments.
The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 — three months after the Secretary's proclamation was issued — passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the "Fourteenth Amendment" had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the "ratifications" in the Southern States were "usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void" and that, "until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment."
What do the historians say about all this? The Encyclopedia Americana states:

"Reconstruction added humiliation to suffering.... Eight years of crime, fraud, and corruption followed and it was State legislatures composed of Negroes, carpetbaggers and scalawags who obeyed the orders of the generals and ratified the amendment."

W. E. Woodward, in his famous work, "A New American History?" published in 1936, says:

"To get a clear idea of the succession of events let us review [President Andrew] Johnson's actions in respect to the ex-Confederate States.

"In May, 1865, he issued a Proclamation of Amnesty to former rebels. Then he established provisional governments in all the Southern States. They were instructed to call Constitutional Conventions. They did. New State governments were elected. White men only had the suffrage the Fifteenth Amendment establishing equal voting rights had not yet been passed]. Senators and Representatives were chosen, but when they appeared at the opening of Congress they were refused admission. The State governments, however, continued to function during 1866.

"Now we are in 1867. In the early days of that year [Thaddeus] Stevens brought in, as chairman of the House Reconstruction Committee, a bill that proposed to sweep all the Southern State governments into the wastebasket. The South was to be put under military rule.

"The bill passed. It was vetoed by Johnson and passed again over his veto. In the Senate it was amended in such fashion that any State could escape from military rule and be restored to its full rights by ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment and admitting black as well as white men to the polls."

In challenging its constitutionality, President Andrew Johnson said in his veto message:

"I submit to Congress whether this measure is not in its whole character, scope and object without precedent and without authority, in palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution, and utterly destructive of those great principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood and expended so much treasure."

Many historians have applauded Johnson's words. Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, known today as "liberals," wrote in their book, "The Growth of the American Republic":

"Johnson returned the bill with a scorching message arguing the unconstitutionality of the whole thing, and most impartial students have agreed with his reasoning."

James Truslow Adams, another noted historian, writes in his "History of the United States":

"The Supreme Court had decided three months earlier, in the Milligan case, ... that military courts were unconstitutional except under such war conditions as might make the operation of civil courts impossible, but the President pointed out in vain that practically the whole of the new legislation was unconstitutional. ... There was even talk in Congress of impeaching the Supreme Court for its decisions! The legislature had run amok and was threatening both the Executive and the Judiciary."

Actually, President Johnson was impeached, but the move failed by one vote in the Senate.

The Supreme Court, in case after case, refused to pass on the illegal activities involved in "ratification." It said simply that they were acts of the "political departments of the Government." This, of course, was a convenient device of avoidance. The Court has adhered to that position ever since Reconstruction Days.

Andrew C. McLaughlin, whose "Constitutional History of the United States" is a standard work, writes:

"Can a State which is not a State and not recognized as such by Congress, perform the supreme duty of ratifying an amendment to the fundamental law? Or does a State — by congressional thinking — cease to be a State for some purposes but not for others?"

This is the tragic history of the so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" — a record that is a disgrace to free government and a "government of law."

Isn't the use of military force to override local government what we deplored in Hungary?

It is never too late to correct injustice. The people of America should have an opportunity to pass on an amendment to the Constitution that sets forth the right of the Federal Government to control education and regulate attendance at public schools either with federal power alone or concurrently with the States.

That's the honest way, the just way to deal with the problem of segregation or integration in the schools. Until such an amendment is adopted, the "Fourteenth Amendment" should be considered as null and void.

There is only one supreme tribunal — it is the people themselves. Their sovereign will is expressed through the procedures set forth in the Constitution itself.

[END]

[OCR'd text from U.S. News & World Report, September 27, 1957, page 140 et seq.]

Neither party would ever touch this.
Title: Re: There is No Fourteenth Amendment?
Post by: zewazir on January 27, 2015, 07:30:59 PM
Though there are accusations of doing so under duress**, several southern states legislatures did revisit the ratification vote in 1868, and passed the measure. South Carolina was the 28th state to pass the ratification vote, and the record of the SC legislature of 1868 and the ratification vote are available for anyone to peruse at will.

**(The accusation is that when the south was divided into 5 military districts, the federal government sent them the message that they would not be allowed full states' authority unless they ratified the reconstruction amendments. Of course, any records of such outright extortion no longer exist - assuming they ever did.)
Title: Re: There is No Fourteenth Amendment?
Post by: daidalos on February 02, 2015, 09:00:03 PM
Ratification at the working end of Federalist guns, is not quite what the framers had in mind when developing the whole amendment process.

Nor can an amendment be passed by ratification after the fact.

Unless the amendment is put forward all over once again.
Title: Re: There is No Fourteenth Amendment?
Post by: zewazir on February 02, 2015, 09:28:50 PM
Nor can an amendment be passed by ratification after the fact.

Unless the amendment is put forward all over once again.
Not quite true. The Constitution does not provide for a time limit on the ratification process, so if the language of the amendment itself does not provide for a time limit - an inclusion which did not appear until the proposal of the 18th - the ratification could potentially last 200 or more years. Case in point, the 27th Amendment was originally proposed along with 11 other amendments, 10 of which became our Bill of Rights. But #27 (which, if ratified at the time would have been #11) was not ratified until 1992, after 203 years after being handed to the state legislatures.

All proposed amendments since the 18th (inclusive) have included language which placed a time limit on the ratification process. But there is no requirement for that language to be included, just tradition.

http://www.thisnation.com/textbook/constitution-amend.html (http://www.thisnation.com/textbook/constitution-amend.html)

Since the 14th did NOT include such language, IF anyone were to push through the courts the idea that the original ratification process was not valid, and further postulating that the courts upheld such a claim, I have no doubt that enough states would have a ratification vote within days of SCOTUS declaring the 14th invalid, in which case it would become the 28th Amendment.

(or would everything else move up one notch, making the 15th into the 14th, .... the 27th the 26th, and the 14th the 27th?

I'm so confused!!!   :confused:)
Title: Re: There is No Fourteenth Amendment?
Post by: Solar on February 03, 2015, 04:59:26 AM
Not quite true. The Constitution does not provide for a time limit on the ratification process, so if the language of the amendment itself does not provide for a time limit - an inclusion which did not appear until the proposal of the 18th - the ratification could potentially last 200 or more years. Case in point, the 27th Amendment was originally proposed along with 11 other amendments, 10 of which became our Bill of Rights. But #27 (which, if ratified at the time would have been #11) was not ratified until 1992, after 203 years after being handed to the state legislatures.

All proposed amendments since the 18th (inclusive) have included language which placed a time limit on the ratification process. But there is no requirement for that language to be included, just tradition.

http://www.thisnation.com/textbook/constitution-amend.html (http://www.thisnation.com/textbook/constitution-amend.html)

Since the 14th did NOT include such language, IF anyone were to push through the courts the idea that the original ratification process was not valid, and further postulating that the courts upheld such a claim, I have no doubt that enough states would have a ratification vote within days of SCOTUS declaring the 14th invalid, in which case it would become the 28th Amendment.

(or would everything else move up one notch, making the 15th into the 14th, .... the 27th the 26th, and the 14th the 27th?

I'm so confused!!!   :confused:)
Quite the puzzle to wrap ones mind around.
This is the reason I hate precedent becoming law, simply because it wasn't originally challenged and States capitulate out of fear.
We wind up suffering further degradation of our Constitution as a result.
Title: Re: There is No Fourteenth Amendment?
Post by: zewazir on February 03, 2015, 07:17:13 PM
Quite the puzzle to wrap ones mind around.
This is the reason I hate precedent becoming law, simply because it wasn't originally challenged and States capitulate out of fear.
We wind up suffering further degradation of our Constitution as a result.
Actually, this is not a case of precedent becoming law.  There is no provision for limiting the ratification process in the Constitution, nor is there any law, nor even precedent which added that limit later. What happened is during the passage of the 18th amendment, the congress of the time added a 7 year time limit on the ratification process. It was the first time such a provision was added to an amendment, and was probably done to appease a few fence sitters in getting the measure passed since prohibition was such a divisive issue, despite a super majority being in favor.  Since the 18th, almost all proposed amendments have also included a time limit on the ratification process.

As for the 14th amendment, it was ratified. And while I acknowledge the points made that the ratification process was usurped in certain southern states by appointed legislatures in the so-called "reconstruction", I also am of the opinion that applying the Bill of Rights to all levels of government is a good thing in the long run. One specific comes to mind: were it not for the 14th Amendment, all those anti-gun laws passed by state legislatures and municipal governments would be 100% constitutional, to include the D.C. law that led to the Heller decision, as well as many other draconian, anti-liberty laws the humanist progressives are so fond of.
Title: Re: There is No Fourteenth Amendment?
Post by: daidalos on May 19, 2015, 08:05:45 AM
It was upheld by the SCOTUS even though it never passed ratification. Solar you've hit on another example of an out of control Federal Government, that ignores the Constitution when it suits them to do so. Much like Lincoln's Emancipation proclomation or Jackson's trail of tears moments. Both ruled unconstitutional, but still done by a branch of the Federal Government so that makes it ok.  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: There is No Fourteenth Amendment?
Post by: daidalos on June 28, 2015, 01:59:05 AM
I haven't had time to read it, but thought I'd throw it out for discussion anyway.

There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!
by
David Lawrence
U.S. News & World Report
September 27, 1957

A MISTAKEN BELIEF — that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the "Fourteenth Amendment" — is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it failed of ratification.

The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the unanimous writings of historians, establishes these events as occurring in 1867 and 1868:

Outside the South, six States — New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland — failed to ratify the proposed amendment.
In the South, ten States — Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana — by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.
A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the "Fourteenth Amendment."
Congress — which had deprived the Southern States of their seats in the Senate — did not lawfully pass the resolution of submission in the first instance.
The Southern States which had rejected the amendment were coerced by a federal statute passed in 1867 that took away the right to vote or hold office from all citizens who had served in the Confederate Army. Military governors were appointed and instructed to prepare the roll of voters. All this happened in spite of the presidential proclamation of amnesty previously issued by the President. New legislatures were thereupon chosen and forced to "ratify" under penalty of continued exile from the Union. In Louisiana, a General sent down from the North presided over the State legislature.
Abraham Lincoln had declared many times that the Union was "inseparable" and "indivisible." After his death, and when the war was over, the ratification by the Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had been accepted as legal. But Congress in the 1867 law imposed the specific conditions under which the Southern States would be "entitled to representation in Congress."
Congress, in passing the 1867 law that declared the Southern States could not have their seats in either the Senate or House in the next session unless they ratified the "Fourteenth Amendment," took an unprecedented step. No such right — to compel a State by an act of Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment — is to be found anywhere in the Constitution. Nor has this procedure ever been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States.
President Andrew Johnson publicly denounced this law as unconstitutional. But it was passed over his veto.
Secretary of State Seward was on the spot in July 1868 when the various "ratifications" of a spurious nature were placed before him. The legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey had notified him that they rescinded their earlier action of ratification. He said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State "to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification." He added that the amendment was valid "if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States." This was a very big "if." It will be noted that the real issue, therefore, is not only whether the forced "ratification" by the ten Southern States was lawful, but whether the withdrawal by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey — two Northern States — was legal. The right of a State, by action of its legislature, to change its mind at any time before the final proclamation of ratification is issued by the Secretary of State has been confirmed in connection with other constitutional amendments.
The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 — three months after the Secretary's proclamation was issued — passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the "Fourteenth Amendment" had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the "ratifications" in the Southern States were "usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void" and that, "until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment."
What do the historians say about all this? The Encyclopedia Americana states:

"Reconstruction added humiliation to suffering.... Eight years of crime, fraud, and corruption followed and it was State legislatures composed of Negroes, carpetbaggers and scalawags who obeyed the orders of the generals and ratified the amendment."

W. E. Woodward, in his famous work, "A New American History?" published in 1936, says:

"To get a clear idea of the succession of events let us review [President Andrew] Johnson's actions in respect to the ex-Confederate States.

"In May, 1865, he issued a Proclamation of Amnesty to former rebels. Then he established provisional governments in all the Southern States. They were instructed to call Constitutional Conventions. They did. New State governments were elected. White men only had the suffrage the Fifteenth Amendment establishing equal voting rights had not yet been passed]. Senators and Representatives were chosen, but when they appeared at the opening of Congress they were refused admission. The State governments, however, continued to function during 1866.

"Now we are in 1867. In the early days of that year [Thaddeus] Stevens brought in, as chairman of the House Reconstruction Committee, a bill that proposed to sweep all the Southern State governments into the wastebasket. The South was to be put under military rule.

"The bill passed. It was vetoed by Johnson and passed again over his veto. In the Senate it was amended in such fashion that any State could escape from military rule and be restored to its full rights by ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment and admitting black as well as white men to the polls."

In challenging its constitutionality, President Andrew Johnson said in his veto message:

"I submit to Congress whether this measure is not in its whole character, scope and object without precedent and without authority, in palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution, and utterly destructive of those great principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood and expended so much treasure."

Many historians have applauded Johnson's words. Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, known today as "liberals," wrote in their book, "The Growth of the American Republic":

"Johnson returned the bill with a scorching message arguing the unconstitutionality of the whole thing, and most impartial students have agreed with his reasoning."

James Truslow Adams, another noted historian, writes in his "History of the United States":

"The Supreme Court had decided three months earlier, in the Milligan case, ... that military courts were unconstitutional except under such war conditions as might make the operation of civil courts impossible, but the President pointed out in vain that practically the whole of the new legislation was unconstitutional. ... There was even talk in Congress of impeaching the Supreme Court for its decisions! The legislature had run amok and was threatening both the Executive and the Judiciary."

Actually, President Johnson was impeached, but the move failed by one vote in the Senate.

The Supreme Court, in case after case, refused to pass on the illegal activities involved in "ratification." It said simply that they were acts of the "political departments of the Government." This, of course, was a convenient device of avoidance. The Court has adhered to that position ever since Reconstruction Days.

Andrew C. McLaughlin, whose "Constitutional History of the United States" is a standard work, writes:

"Can a State which is not a State and not recognized as such by Congress, perform the supreme duty of ratifying an amendment to the fundamental law? Or does a State — by congressional thinking — cease to be a State for some purposes but not for others?"

This is the tragic history of the so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" — a record that is a disgrace to free government and a "government of law."

Isn't the use of military force to override local government what we deplored in Hungary?

It is never too late to correct injustice. The people of America should have an opportunity to pass on an amendment to the Constitution that sets forth the right of the Federal Government to control education and regulate attendance at public schools either with federal power alone or concurrently with the States.

That's the honest way, the just way to deal with the problem of segregation or integration in the schools. Until such an amendment is adopted, the "Fourteenth Amendment" should be considered as null and void.

There is only one supreme tribunal — it is the people themselves. Their sovereign will is expressed through the procedures set forth in the Constitution itself.

[END]

[OCR'd text from U.S. News & World Report, September 27, 1957, page 140 et seq.]
Solar I'm not saying it didn'thappen or something, but if there is no 14th, then there is no such thing as equality for all Americans under the law...and THAT'S something I was really unaware of. Here I always thought, that the "fairness  clause" of the Constitution (that's the 14th) amendment. Had long ago been ratified.
Title: Re: There is No Fourteenth Amendment?
Post by: quiller on June 29, 2015, 05:49:50 AM
The 14th Amendment argument has (according to this Breitbart item) opened the door for some overhaul of reciprocity laws between states over concealed firearms. Maybe it's just a case of trying to find roses blooming among the manure, but if it DOES apply and the Court must again revisit this issue, it truly is the good news from the rubble-pile.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/27/same-sex-ruling-sets-up-national-reciprocity-for-concealed-carry/

Title: Re: There is No Fourteenth Amendment?
Post by: daidalos on July 01, 2015, 10:47:55 AM
Given the civil war itself near that time it doesn't surprise me that the 14th while technically failing ratification was/is upheld anyhow.

The war itself was unconstitutional, the emancipation proclomation a power way outside that enumerated to the President of the United States.

And the whole damn thing was ruled as being unconstitutional by the supreme court.

What was Lincolns reaction? That's nice now enforce it.

Just as Jackson did when the supreme court ruled that his forced march of the Cherokee on the trail of tears, and subsequent war of genocide against those who refused to leave our homeland was unconstitutional. That's the problem with a Congress that won't grow a spine and stand up to a tyrannical president.

Title: Re: There is No Fourteenth Amendment?
Post by: Dori on July 01, 2015, 10:55:04 AM
The fourteenth amendment was about slavery.  They've taken it completely out of context, as there is nothing in the Constitution about marriage.  Same thing with abortion.  Somehow they construed abortion as a right of privacy.  The Supreme Court is not supposed to make laws, but that's exactly what they do.   
Title: Re: There is No Fourteenth Amendment?
Post by: daidalos on August 19, 2015, 01:19:21 PM
Not quite true. The Constitution does not provide for a time limit on the ratification process, so if the language of the amendment itself does not provide for a time limit - an inclusion which did not appear until the proposal of the 18th - the ratification could potentially last 200 or more years. Case in point, the 27th Amendment was originally proposed along with 11 other amendments, 10 of which became our Bill of Rights. But #27 (which, if ratified at the time would have been #11) was not ratified until 1992, after 203 years after being handed to the state legislatures.

All proposed amendments since the 18th (inclusive) have included language which placed a time limit on the ratification process. But there is no requirement for that language to be included, just tradition.

http://www.thisnation.com/textbook/constitution-amend.html (http://www.thisnation.com/textbook/constitution-amend.html)

Since the 14th did NOT include such language, IF anyone were to push through the courts the idea that the original ratification process was not valid, and further postulating that the courts upheld such a claim, I have no doubt that enough states would have a ratification vote within days of SCOTUS declaring the 14th invalid, in which case it would become the 28th Amendment.

(or would everything else move up one notch, making the 15th into the 14th, .... the 27th the 26th, and the 14th the 27th?

I'm so confused!!!   :confused:)
Yeah it does, that would be an ex-post facto law, which the Constitution expressly forbids the gov from enacting.

However that said, the Fed Gov, likes too, and always has, played fast and loose with our Constitution. Ignoring it when it suits the Gov, and the politico's in Washington to do so. The latest b.s. from Trump, and so called "conservatives" like O'reilly who are running around saying there's no need for a Constitutional amendment to end birth citizenship is a prime example of that.

Another is the civil war itself. Particularly the emancipation proclamation which the Scotus did eventually rule, was an unconstitutional act by Lincoln.
Title: Re: There is No Fourteenth Amendment?
Post by: TXborn on March 11, 2016, 04:37:44 PM
... articularly the emancipation proclamation which the Scotus did eventually rule, was an unconstitutional act by Lincoln.

Whoever said a Presidential fiat doesn't have teeth overlooks Lincoln's executive order freeing the slaves; now if we only had a President w/guts enough to write executive order defining birthright citizenship where at least one parent must be a natural born or naturalized U.S citizen, then we might end the "anchor baby" trend for some illegals coming here to gain citizenship via backdoor actions..!!
Title: Re: There is No Fourteenth Amendment?
Post by: Solar on March 11, 2016, 04:42:45 PM
Whoever said a Presidential fiat doesn't have teeth overlooks Lincoln's executive order freeing the slaves; now if we only had a President w/guts enough to write executive order defining birthright citizenship where at least one parent must be a natural born or naturalized U.S citizen, then we might end the "anchor baby" trend for some illegals coming here to gain citizenship via backdoor actions..!!
Excellent idea!
Title: Re: There is No Fourteenth Amendment?
Post by: TheResister on May 13, 2016, 08:45:22 PM
Seems I'm a little late to the party, but I wanted to leave a link with you:

http://www.sweetliberty.org/fourteenth.amend.htm#.VzacF77jO1s

Legal scholars, historians and patriots have been discussing this subject for years.  But, let's face it:

Without the 14th Amendment, it takes the anchor baby discussion OFF the table.  Then we're back to the issue that non-whites will not be citizens.  As you know, the Constitution came into force in 1789.  It was followed by the Naturalization Act of 1790 which limited citizenship to free white persons of good character.

That law was amended several times up until non-whites were allowed to be citizens after the illegal ratification of the 14th Amendment. 

If you're into the whole equality thing and you're squeamish, then what I have to say here is probably not for you:

We don't have the votes to return to the original intent of the Constitution.  Still, the people have choices.  One choice is to educate the people you know and to practice the non-violent political and legal avenues of redress.  If more and more people do not acknowledge the law to the best of their ability (passive resistance) coupled with education and civil disobedience when appropriate, you start to chip away at an illegal law until it has no force.
Title: Re: There is No Fourteenth Amendment?
Post by: Liquid Reigns on May 14, 2016, 01:40:22 PM
Let's say for a moment there is no 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendments, you do realize that there are laws already that define what those amendments pretty much declare, right? The 14th for example regarding Citizenship: The 1866 Civil Rights Act is still law and is what would be reverted to, in which it grants all rights and citizenship to all male persons in the US without distinction of race or color. So, no it would not revert back to whites were only allowed citizenship.

Non-whites were allowed to be state citizens of the state in which they resided, they were only denied US Citizenship. They were still allowed to be Congressman in the US Congress. So the 14th Amendment has little to no bearing on much of anything regarding citizenship, if you want to change citizenship status you need only pass a law to do so. Here it is directly from Justice Grey in the Wong Kim Ark decision:

In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms.

The Civil Rights Act, passed at the first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress, began by enacting that

all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.

and
No one doubts that the Amendment, as soon as it was promulgated, applied to persons of African descent born in the United States, wherever the birthplace of their parents might have been, and yet, for two years afterwards, there was no statute authorizing persons of that race to be naturalized. If the omission or the refusal of Congress to permit certain [p704] classes of persons to be made citizens by naturalization could be allowed the effect of correspondingly restricting the classes of persons who should become citizens.by birth, it would be in the power of Congress, at any time, by striking negroes out of the naturalization laws, and limiting those laws, as they were formerly limited, to white persons only, to defeat the main purpose of the Constitutional Amendment.

The 14th Amendment really has no bearing on much of anything and is merely declaratory of what is/was existing law already. It is the Naturalization Laws that need changed, not whether the 14th was ratified or not.