PrintSmith wrote: We could delve into whether or not 2/3 of the states voted to submit the 14th Amendment for ratification and whether or not the federal government had the right to require ratification of it by a state before that state would once again be represented in the general Congress if you'd like.
We could, but that's settled case law, and your Sovereign Citizen crap is as silly as ever.
Given that so much of the authority claimed by the general government rests on the "new law for a new day" interpretations of that amendment, I think the history of how the general government conducted itself during the process is something that the citizens of every State should become well acquainted with. I'm willing to bet that the number of this forum's users who are aware of its history is quite small. I'd be willing to wager that few are aware that the Senators from 11 of the States along with 1 other, 23 in all, were unaccounted for entirely when the Senate proclaimed that 2/3 of its members had approved the amendment for submission to the States and that the 2/3 majority was only a 2/3 majority of 27 states, not the 38 that were present in the union at that time.
I'd also be willing to wager that most do not know that the rejection of that amendment after if failed to secure the necessary 3/4 approval of the States (13 States had rejected it through their legislatures or conventions as of March 1867 and a maximum of 10 was all that was necessary to reject the amendment) was what prompted the general Congress, again denying existing States (the southern States, according to the general government could not secede from the Union, remember? They were still States belonging to the Union according to the general government, and always had been) their suffrage in Congress in violation of the Constitution, to first pass the First Reconstruction Act and then override the veto of President Johnson, an override which depended upon that unconstitutional denial of a State's suffrage in the Senate to succeed.
I don't know that an application of the "lateness of the hour" doctrine (did you know that has a scriptural origin?) is quite the same as "settled case law". In 1968 the Utah Supreme Court had this to say in the opinion it issued in the case of Dyett v Turner which was before it:
In fact, the Tenth Amendment was adopted to make sure that the federal entity did not take unto itself any powers not specifically granted to it. That amendment reads:*405(Cite as: 20 Utah 2d 403, *405, 439 P.2d 266, **267)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. For over 140 years more than 70 justices of the Supreme Court consistently held that the first ten amendments to the Constitution applied as a limitation to the Federal Government only and not in any manner to the states, and for 70 years following the so-called adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment some 35 justices from every corner of the Nation have held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not make the first ten amendments applicable to the states. Some of those justices had helped to frame the original Constitution and the first ten amendments and had worked to secure the adoption thereof. Others had participated in the war between the states and were acquainted at first hand with the purposes intended to be accomplished by the Fourteenth Amendment. All of them interpreted the Constitution, including the amendments, with knowledge and wisdom born of intimacy with the problems which had called forth the documents in the first place.The United States Supreme Court, as at present constituted, has departed from the Constitution as it has been interpreted from its inception and has followed the urgings of social reformers in foisting upon this Nation laws which even Congress could not constitutionally pass. It has amended the Constitution in a manner unknown to the document itself. While it takes three fourths of the states of the Union to change the Constitution legally, yet as few as five men who have never been elected to office can by judicial fiat accomplish a change just as radical as could three fourths of the states of this Nation. As a result of the recent holdings of that Court, the sovereignty of the states is practically abolished, and the erst while free and independent states are now in effect and purpose merely closely supervised units in the federal system. We do not believe that justices of once free and independent states should surrender their constitutional powers without being heard from. We would betray the trust of our people if we sat supinely by and permitted the great bulk of our powers to be taken over by the federal courts without at least stating reasons why it should not be so. By attempting to save the dual relationship which has heretofore existed between state and federal authority and which is clearly set out in the Constitution, we think we act in the best interest of our country.**268(Cite as: 20 Utah 2d 403, *405, 439 P.2d 266, **268)We feel like galley slaves chained to our oars by a power from which we cannot free ourselves, but like slaves of old we think we must cry out when we can see the boat heading into the maelstrom directly ahead of us; and by doing so, we hope the master of the craft will heed the call and avert the *406
(Cite as: 20 Utah 2d 403, *406, 439 P.2d 266, **268)dangers which confront us all. But by raising our voices in protest we, like the galley slaves of old, expect to be lashed for doing so. We are confident that we will not be struck by 90 per cent of the people of this Nation who long for the return to the days when the Constitution was a document plain enough to be understood by all who read it, the meaning of which was set firmly like a jewel in the matrix of common sense and wise judicial decisions. We shall not complain if those who berate us belong to that small group who refuse to take an oath that they will not overthrow this government by force. When we bare our legal backs to receive the verbal lashes, we will try to be brave; and should the great court of these United States decide that in our thinking we have committed error, then we shall indeed feel honored, for we will then be placed on an equal footing with all those great justices who at this late date are also said to have been in error for so many years
More Sovereign Citizen "crap" for you to chew on LJ. If holding to this sentiment likewise exposes me to what is presumed to be a slur when you reference "Sovereign Citizen", it is a badge I will wear with great pride and honor.
Not the last 17, only, in the language of the Utah Supreme Court, the so-called 14th Amendment. There are a couple more I feel we should repeal through additional amendments, and one or two more I'd like to see put out for ratification, but the only one that was clearly not lawfully adopted which should be tossed out as a result of the unconstitutional actions taken to secure its passage is the so-called 14th Amendment.
Y'know, you have no idea how much I don't give a sh*t about your cockamamie interpretations of US Federal Law... (That's FEDERAL law...not "General" law") (There ARE NO "so called Amendments". Only "Amendments".)
You remind me of the lunatic that stands on the front lawn of an insane-asylum insisting that he's Napoleon Bonaparte...And wears it as "a badge of honor" when someone addresses him as "Mr. Bonaparte."
You're so far off the deep end you're merely a source of constant amusement.
And you have no idea how much I don't give a hoot that you don't give a sh*t. My purpose is to restore what has been taken from us and to inform and educate those who are ill informed both as to what has been taken and the manner in which it was taken.
You'll have to take up your opposition to the use of "so-called" with the learned justices of the Utah Supreme Court who penned the phrase - it's their legal interpretation, not mine. I am simply the one who passed what they wrote along. I care not whether you agree or disagree with their use of the term, or with their legal opinions. What I care about is sharing the facts of the matter regarding how the so-called amendment was adopted so that others can arrive at their own reasoned and informed opinion on whether or not the manner in which it was adopted was in itself constitutional.
PrintSmith wrote: And you have no idea how much I don't give a hoot that you don't give a sh*t. My purpose is to restore what has been taken from us and to inform and educate those who are ill informed both as to what has been taken and the manner in which it was taken.
You'll have to take up your opposition to the use of "so-called" with the learned justices of the Utah Supreme Court who penned the phrase - it's their legal interpretation, not mine. I am simply the one who passed what they wrote along. I care not whether you agree or disagree with their use of the term, or with their legal opinions. What I care about is sharing the facts of the matter regarding how the so-called amendment was adopted so that others can arrive at their own reasoned and informed opinion on whether or not the manner in which it was adopted was in itself constitutional.
:can't hear rofllol
God I love it when you go off the rails....
You are consistent... Just insert key, wind-up, and you spew your predictable alternate-reality from Constitution Party, LawAndLiberty, ReasonOfFreedom, PoliticsOfLiberty, TeaPartyPatriot and excursions into what you THINK the Constitution says, or should have said,.
Wake me when you have something new.... or relevant. Just keep pontificating and be the blowhard you aspire to be. You don't have a clue about the real world. Enjoy your fantasy life.
And you're such a fraud that you don't even give attribution to the bullsh*t that you steal from these wacko sites:
