Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The more I think about it, the more it just makes sense. It is just unnecessary, and is the constitutional foundation for the immigration debate. And it was never properly ratified from day one, it shouldn't even exist.
The automatic birthright citizenship is one of the largest issues we have right now in immigration debate. It creates anchor babies, and encourages criminal behavior.
Repealing of the 14th amendment would almost eliminate the ability of the federal government to control immigration(they would set the rules, but they can't invite anyone in). So California could basically allow as many legal immigrants as they wanted to come into California, while Arizona could completely cut off all immigration.
It is unconstitutional because it was unconstitutionally ratified. The radical congress prohibited 11 states from representation in the senate, saying that they weren't fully-functioning states. So that way they could get the necessary votes in the senate to start the amendment process. But if the southern states weren't fully-functioning, then why were they allowed to vote for the 13th amendment? Which the southern states passed and ratified.
Andrew Johnson(who was the president after Lincoln died), tried to stop this abuse by the radical congress by veto'ing the radical reconstruction laws and the 14th amendment, but his veto was overturned by the radical senate. Who would then try to impeach him.
The Southern states were treated as conquered territory and their representatives were replaced by military governors doing the bidding of the radical northern senate, these people were coined "carpetbaggers", which were northern politicians that were appointed the old state legislature positions under the military despotism. After this absolute despotism became known, New Jersey and Ohio withdrew their ratification of the 14th amendment, but the congress refused to acknowledge them withdrawing their support because they wanted the amendment to be passed.
The so-called constitutional conventions in the south(needed to pass the amendment) did not allow democrats into the convention at all. So the convention was made up only of white republicans and blacks. This would be akin to the black panthers sitting outside a voting station, blocking access to Republicans and whites to vote through intimidation, force, or violence. But the black panthers in this story was the northern radical reconstructionist government.
If that isn't unconstitutional, please tell me what is.
It is unconstitutional because it was unconstitutionally ratified. The Congress passed a law that prohibited 11 states from representation in the senate, that way they could get the necessary votes in the senate to start the amendment process.
Andrew Johnson(who was the president after Lincoln died), tried to stop this abuse by the congress by veto'ing these laws and the 14th amendment, but his veto was overturned by the radical senate.
The Southern state legislatures were treated as conquered territory and their representatives were replaced by military governors doing the bidding of the radical northern senate, these people were coined "carpetbaggers", which were northern politicians that were appointed the old state legislature positions under the military despotism. After this absolute despotism became known, New Jersey and Ohio withdrew their ratification of the 14th amendment, but the congress refused to acknowledge them withdrawing their support because they wanted the amendment to be passed.
The so-called constitutional conventions in the south(needed to pass the amendment) did not allow democrats into the convention at all. So the convention was made up only of white republicans and blacks. This would be akin to the black panthers sitting outside a voting station, blocking access to Republicans and whites. But the black panthers in this story was the northern radical reconstructionists.
If that isn't unconstitutional, please tell me what is.
And that is why to this day, the North still continues to oppress the South and that so many Southerners have the rebel flag everywhere. It's funny that if it weren't for Southerners, we'd have cap and trade and who knows what else. We'd be as bad as Europe
And that is why to this day, the North still continues to oppress the South and that so many Southerners have the rebel flag everywhere. It's funny that if it weren't for Southerners, we'd have cap and trade and who knows what else. We'd be as bad as Europe
The North is oppressing the South? I don't see it.
The North is oppressing the South? I don't see it.
You don't see it? Where do you think liberal policies come from? It isn't from the south. Who does the south vote for? Republicans if I do recall, every single election.
This northern control over politics(especially being that so many northern states are tiny but have equal representation in the senate to a state like Texas), has effectively passed legislation that every single southern state disagrees with. The northern states are effectively in control of immigration policy(which doesn't even affect them). Maybe Texas(which is larger than all of new England combined) should cut itself up into like 6-10 different states. Then it would have 12-20 votes in the senate rather than just two, and this whole immigration problem can be resolved quickly by actual immigration reform.
I dunno, seems like the issues in Arizona and Texas right now would be a pretty clearcut case of oppression, or better "tyranny of the majority". But the truth is, the majority of this country supports Arizona and not Obama on immigration. So it isn't even tyranny of the majority, more like tyranny of the elite.
This is the 2000 election, which is a better representation of general voting trends. 2008 was an anomaly because of the backlash from the economy and the Iraq war.
The 14th amendment isn't even constitutional to begin with. It was illegally ratified.
How do you go about declaring the 14th amendment completely unconstitutional and ignoring it?
Oh boy... you are ill equipped to even argue this if you are even saying that the 14th Amendment isn't constitutional.
Join us in the 21st century, please.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
