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.
Basically, you cannot even propose an amendment to the constitution if you illegally deprive any senator of his suffrage.
Now, lets look at the text of New Jersey's 1868 complaint...
"That it being necessary, by the constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven states of the union, upon the pretense that there were no such states in the Union; but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in palpable violation of the constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the said houses."
While I do not have time right at the moment to research the point, I find it highly unlikely that the Senate did not offer a "pretext" for expelling its member from NJ. But whether the ratification was defective as of July, 1868 or not, enough states have ratified it in the meantime to make NJ irrelevant.
It would be like, in 2000, continuing to argue that Gore won Florida if it were discovered that Bush had won California. Why bother?
Considering the number of appalling right-wing neo-nazis (literally), fundamentalist Christians that the ACLU has defended over the year I would love to know where the animus towards the ACLU comes from.
And can we broaden this out beyond simply the 2nd Amendment because I have a pretty good grasp on that conflict.
I don't see how "right-wing" and Constitutionalist can even be spoken in the same breath, much less be refereed to as one in the same.
Neither did the Sierra Club. Neither did AARP. Neither, to my knowledge, did the NRA. These are all American organizations and their missions did not include critiquing the internal policies of foreign governments.
Sierra Club, AARP and NRA are not about human rights....poor analogy.
One would think that a 'rights' organization like the glorious ACLU would not be 'timid' in pointing out horrific abuses in other countries... Cowards.
The same can be said to radical Socialist Dems and the Environments Crazies. The point is those of us who basically normal middle of row views, vie those on the extremes as crazies.
These groups use the law to their benefit and or commit crimes to advance their idea of normal.
The ACLU is a good cause, but it depends on h lawyers agenda and "what is their interest?" to determining a merit of a case. Sometimes I think they do nor weigh any case of perceived "against your rights" case well in some cases.
When you do not manage your cases the ACL?U has left themselves for criticism.
Ask yourself why the ACLU so vehemently opposes school vouchers. For some reason, allowing tax payers to choose which local schools their children can go to, is somehow a violation of their civil liberties.
While I do not have time right at the moment to research the point, I find it highly unlikely that the Senate did not offer a "pretext" for expelling its member from NJ. But whether the ratification was defective as of July, 1868 or not, enough states have ratified it in the meantime to make NJ irrelevant.
It would be like, in 2000, continuing to argue that Gore won Florida if it were discovered that Bush had won California. Why bother?
The man who was expelled was named "John P. Stockton". The challenge came from a debate about whether or not a plurality vote was sufficient to appoint a senator instead of a majority. The state of New Jersey and the original determination by the Senate Judicial committee declared his election to be valid. And he was seated in Congress upon his original arrival. Only after it became known of his opposition to the 14th amendment did the Senate decide they had the right to vote for his removal. In which they did by a bare majority.
The problem is that, the Congress does not have a right to unseat a Senator without a 2/3rd's majority vote in the Senate. They did not have a 2/3rd's majority. Thus the only entity which could unseat him was the State of New Jersey, which they did not do. In fact, the next election after he was barred from the Senate, he was reelected to his same post.
Which is why New Jersey would then rescind its ratification of the 14th amendment.
Now, on what basis did the Congress have the right to refuse him a seat? If they had no right, then the 14th amendment cannot stand.
If you believe that they did have the right, then you are effectively saying that a majority of Senators can simply dismiss any Senator of their choosing through whatever excuse they can find, and then pass any amendment they want.
To believe such a thing is nonsensical and dangerous.
No informed and rational man could possibly argue that the 14th amendment was constitutional on the day of its original adoption. The evidence simply does not support such an argument.
The only argument anyone has for the validity of the 14th amendment, is that it was eventually ratified by all of the states. With the last two states ratifying it a full 135 years later. And three other states ratifying it about 100 years later.
But is that how amendments are supposed to work? Pass them illegally, and keep them in effect for more than a century until people just accept them?
I would expect the right to support the ACLU -- they have always been out front in sticking up for individual liberty, privacy, opposition to militarization of the police, etc.
Sierra Club, AARP and NRA are not about human rights....poor analogy.
One would think that a 'rights' organization like the glorious ACLU would not be 'timid' in pointing out horrific abuses in other countries... Cowards.
They are not the Human Rights Union. Human rights is even a vague concept at that.
Ask yourself why the ACLU so vehemently opposes school vouchers. For some reason, allowing tax payers to choose which local schools their children can go to, is somehow a violation of their civil liberties.
Why Do Right Wing "constitutionalist" Hate the ACLU?
Do you mean the "American Communist Lawyer's Union"? Oh, they represent a token amount of "conservative" issues when it is in their interest or just to say "See, we're not that bad after all". But in the majority of major cases they take the liberal side. Did you know that one of their founders, Roger Baldwin, once proclaimed "The goal is communism"? Don't take my word for it, look it up. Of course later he came to his senses and recanted when he took a good look at life in the Soviet union. And why do the lefties always refer to anything with a traditional, conservative flavor with "right wing" in the title. You isolate yourselves.
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.
