The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

Government and Political Conspiracies

THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 14th AMENDMENT

Throughout time, there have been countless government and political conspiracies that have kept us wondering. This forum is dedicated to that very topic. Got a conspiracy theory of your own? Post it, and try to back it up as best you can!

Postby greeney2 » Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:38 am

If your links were credible, we would be reading the 14th Amendment has been stricken from the Constitution, however every single state has ratified it.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9671
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby AlphaOmega » Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:58 am

This site is full of conspiracy theory and opinion...So I therefore apply your logic to blackvault.com.
ergo......
The Government does not lie or take away civil rights and basic freedoms therefore there is this site in its entirety has no legitimate reason for it's existence and is nothing more than scam for the owner to make money form the gullible and uneducated who donate monies to it.

Therefore, this site is a subversive site run by subversives to undermine the United States Government, therefore by it's subversive nature is actually promoting or inciting organized sedition and civil unrest which under the constitution is an act of treason.

:roll:

For the sake of discussion let us say for a moment that the Congressional Records I have provided are correct, Princeton Law School, and Judge L.H Perez was correct in every detail...in other words the 14 Amendment was indeed UNCONSTITUTIONAL and the opinions as to why it remains on the books is 100% correct.

Taking what you have said into account Greeney2 and others. I pose this question.

IF the Government has this amendment on the books which gives them broader sweeping powers than what they should have and they knew it and it served their purposes and the majority of the population was unaware of it's UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, would they openly say this law is unconstitutional so we will now repeal it and by doing so lose their ill-gotten powers over an ignorant population???

The answer is clearly NO!

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" I don't know the person this quote is attributed to, but never have truer words been uttered.

There are reasons why elements of the Kennedy Assassination, 9-11, etc., are classified it is because they are hiding the truth which in all likelihood implicates them or shows their direct involvement in these events or the active shielding of those who are truly guilty.

READ THE INFORMATION...The Copies of The CONGRESSIONAL RECORD CAN NOT BE DENIED AND CAN NOT BE CLAIMED TO BE UNRELIABLE OR UNTRUTHFUL as the documentation from the Congress comes from the Government itself unless you are complete moron.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson
Copies of all my posts are now kept on file.
AlphaOmega
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:59 am

Postby AlphaOmega » Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:20 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution, along with the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, was adopted after the Civil War as one of the Reconstruction Amendments on July 9, 1868.


Not the date given as the date of Ratification at that time there were only 26 states in the Union.

Greeney2 Submits the following as evidence NOTE THE highlighted (in Green) in your post Greeney2. The Claim of the Claim of the Government is that the Amendment was Ratified in 1867 it was enforced since 1867 as though it were ratified. Constitutionally the president of the United states had to also Ratify it by signing it into law ...he did not,and no president to this day has.

The United States Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment on June 13, 1866 and on July 9, 1868, three-fourths of the states (28 of 37) had ratified the amendment:[47]

Connecticut (June 25, 1866)
New Hampshire (July 6, 1866)
Tennessee (July 19, 1866)
New Jersey (September 11, 1866)*
Oregon (September 19, 1866)
Vermont (October 30, 1866)
Ohio (January 4, 1867)*
New York (January 10, 1867)
Kansas (January 11, 1867)
Illinois (January 15, 1867)
West Virginia (January 16, 1867)
Michigan (January 16, 1867)
Minnesota (January 16, 1867)
Maine (January 19, 1867)
Nevada (January 22, 1867)
Indiana (January 23, 1867)
Missouri (January 25, 1867)
Rhode Island (February 7, 1867)
Wisconsin (February 7, 1867)
Pennsylvania (February 12, 1867)
Massachusetts (March 20, 1867)
Nebraska (June 15, 1867)
Iowa (March 16, 1868)
Arkansas (April 6, 1868)
Florida (June 9, 1868)
North Carolina (July 4, 1868, after having rejected it on December 14, 1866)
Louisiana (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on February 6, 1867)
South Carolina (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)
*Ohio passed a resolution that purported to withdraw its ratification on January 15, 1868. The New Jersey legislature also tried to rescind its ratification on February 20, 1868. The New Jersey governor had vetoed his state's withdrawal on March 5, and the legislature overrode the veto on March 24. Accordingly, on July 20, 1868, Secretary of State William H. Seward certified that the amendment had become part of the Constitution if the rescissions were ineffective. The Congress responded on the following day, declaring that the amendment was part of the Constitution and ordering Seward to promulgate the amendment.

Meanwhile, two additional states had ratified the amendment:

Alabama (July 13, 1868, the date the ratification was "approved" by the governor)
Georgia (July 21, 1868, after having rejected it on November 9, 1866)
[color=#80FF00]Thus, on July 28, Seward was able to certify unconditionally that the Amendment was part of the Constitution without having to endorse the Congress's assertion that the withdrawals were ineffective.There were additional ratifications and rescissions; by 2003, the Amendment had been ratified by every state in the Union as of 1868:[48]Virginia (October 8, 1869, after having rejected it on January 9, 1867)
Mississippi (January 17, 1870)
Texas (February 18, 1870, after having rejected it on October 27, 1866)

Delaware (February 12, 1901, after having rejected it on February 7, 1867)
Maryland (1959)
California (1959)
Oregon (1973, after withdrawing it on October 15, 1868)
Kentucky (1976, after having rejected it on January 8, 1867)
New Jersey (2003, after having rescinded on February 20, 1868)
Ohio (2003, after having rescinded on January 15, 1868)
[/color]

At the cessation of the Civil War there were only 35 States in the Union after reparation.

Partly sourced from http://www.radford.edu/sbisset/civilwar.htm#North and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

They Were:
From the Confederacy; Alabama, Arkansas. Florida, Georgia,Louisiana ,Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia
The Union; California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Nevada and West Virginia Tennessee and Louisiana were returned to Union military control early in the war.



So in actual fact, only 21 of 33 States ratified it in 1866-1867 which is NOT A 75% VOTE for ratification

Whooosh...... what was that ?:o :o :o Your argument flying out the window at almost the speed of sound perhaps.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson
Copies of all my posts are now kept on file.
AlphaOmega
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:59 am

Postby greeney2 » Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:33 am

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 228 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth ... nstitution

Quote:
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution, along with the Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, was adopted after the Civil War as one of the Reconstruction Amendments on July 9, 1868.


Not the date given as the date of Ratification at that time there were only 26 states in the Union.

Greeney2 Submits the following as evidence NOTE THE highlighted in your post Greeney2.


Quote:
The United States Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment on June 13, 1866 and on July 9, 1868, three-fourths of the states (28 of 37) had ratified the amendment:[47]

Connecticut (June 25, 1866)
New Hampshire (July 6, 1866)
Tennessee (July 19, 1866)
New Jersey (September 11, 1866)*
Oregon (September 19, 1866)
Vermont (October 30, 1866)
Ohio (January 4, 1867)*
New York (January 10, 1867)
Kansas (January 11, 1867)
Illinois (January 15, 1867)
West Virginia (January 16, 1867)
Michigan (January 16, 1867)
Minnesota (January 16, 1867)
Maine (January 19, 1867)
Nevada (January 22, 1867)
Indiana (January 23, 1867)
Missouri (January 25, 1867)
Rhode Island (February 7, 1867)
Wisconsin (February 7, 1867)
Pennsylvania (February 12, 1867)
Massachusetts (March 20, 1867)
Nebraska (June 15, 1867)
Iowa (March 16, 1868)
Arkansas (April 6, 1868)
Florida (June 9, 1868)
North Carolina (July 4, 1868, after having rejected it on December 14, 1866)
Louisiana (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on February 6, 1867)
South Carolina (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)
*Ohio passed a resolution that purported to withdraw its ratification on January 15, 1868. The New Jersey legislature also tried to rescind its ratification on February 20, 1868. The New Jersey governor had vetoed his state's withdrawal on March 5, and the legislature overrode the veto on March 24. Accordingly, on July 20, 1868, Secretary of State William H. Seward certified that the amendment had become part of the Constitution if the rescissions were ineffective. The Congress responded on the following day, declaring that the amendment was part of the Constitution and ordering Seward to promulgate the amendment.

Meanwhile, two additional states had ratified the amendment:

Alabama (July 13, 1868, the date the ratification was "approved" by the governor)
Georgia (July 21, 1868, after having rejected it on November 9, 1866)
Thus, on July 28, Seward was able to certify unconditionally that the Amendment was part of the Constitution without having to endorse the Congress's assertion that the withdrawals were ineffective.There were additional ratifications and rescissions; by 2003, the Amendment had been ratified by every state in the Union as of 1868:[48]Virginia [/color[color=#FF0000]](October 8, 1869, after having rejected it on January 9, 1867)
Mississippi (January 17, 1870)
Texas (February 18, 1870, after having rejected it on October 27, 1866)
Delaware (February 12, 1901, after having rejected it on February 7, 1867)
Maryland (1959)
California (1959)
Oregon (1973, after withdrawing it on October 15, 1868)
Kentucky (1976, after having rejected it on January 8, 1867)
New Jersey (2003, after having rescinded on February 20, 1868)
Ohio (2003, after having rescinded on January 15, 1868)
At the cessation of the Civil War there were only 35 States in the Union after reparation.

Partly sourced from http://www.radford.edu/sbisset/civilwar.htm#North and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War


Quote:
They Were:
From the Confederacy; Alabama, Arkansas. Florida, Georgia,Louisiana ,Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia
The Union; California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, Nevada and West Virginia Tennessee and Louisiana were returned to Union military control early in the war.



So in actual fact, only 25 of 35 States ratified it in 1866-1867 which is NOT A 75% VOTE for ratification

Whooosh...... what was that ?:o Your argument flying out the window at almost the speed of sound perhaps.




Read a little further and count the votes--you are wrong!
greeney2
 
Posts: 9671
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby AlphaOmega » Sun Jan 17, 2010 5:25 am

Read the dates in your highlighted section of your last posting....According to wikipedia the Amendment was ratified in 1867.

Dates of those who ratified which you highlighted was LONG AFTER the year 1867..

Therefore it was not properly ratified or signed off on as required by other parts of the constitution by the president thereby making it law.

IT IS YOU WHO IS WRONG additionally there are other reasons as to why the Amendment is Unconstitutional according to QUALIFIED Legal Opinions and Congressional Records supplied.

These opinions, I have no control over not only explain their reasoning and the history of events of the time and they to show why the Amendment is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in their view...Additionally they also show case law on the issue bu sub-links.

HAD YOU VISITED THE URLS I REFERRED READERS OF THIS THREAD TO IN THE FIRST PLACE WE WOULD NOT BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.

What actually astounds me is that you refute documentation from the Records of Congress on the issue as well as a Judge, Princeton University (the 2nd most sought after college in the United States and which is recognized Globally as one of the best Universities in the world) and News Report on Judge Perez.

Read ALL the information supplied.....you might learn something for a change and as (for your what I believe to be your lapdogs) they can do the same damn thing.

Your inability complete and utter refusal to accept the possibility that Qualified Constitutional Lawyers and the Congress of the time know more than you or I combined is absolutely unfathomable.

It demonstrates to me at the least, that my opinion of you being totally incapable of showing that you are not a complete moron by the very nature of your obstinate and belligerent attitude as you continue what seems to be your uncontrollable psychological needs of self gratification by trying to dominate others on these boards.

I have had enough of this thread because you and your ilk will never read all of the information and until that happens this thread will continue down the toilet is seems like other topics have done (mine or not)whenever the almighty Greeney2 shows up and starts pushing his weight around and draws his mates in to back him up. A Modus-operandi of the school yard bully who when by himself is as weak as water.

I as such, have a very low opinion of you and your so-called honor and morals because it is my belief that you sir, have neither honor nor morals which I find typical of all Masons interestingly enough.

Now here is a thought that strikes me....maybe one has to be a coward to join the Masons or other secret societies..let's face it ...there is safety in numbers...featuring secret meetings...where they can all scurry around in the shadows like ... they are an infestation much like cockroaches.

You have made it abundantly clear that you hate me Greeney2 and that you are on a personal vendetta against me. That is fine by me because it seems I am among the very few that have the gonads to stand up to you and the more I stand up to you the less you seem to like it...Respect is a two-way street when are you going to learn that lesson????? Or are you incapable of that too???
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson
Copies of all my posts are now kept on file.
AlphaOmega
 
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:59 am

Postby greeney2 » Sun Jan 17, 2010 12:30 pm

As poster greeney2, we are done, the facts proove your theory is wrong.


As Moderator, one more statement of abuse to anyone, badmouthing the administrator, or the Blackvault, will not be tolerated, and a formal warning will be issued.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9671
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby jaydeehess » Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:50 pm

Alpha, I have NOT attacked you at all. I have attacked the fact that you started this thread it appears, only to bait greeney2. I have attacked the fact that you ignored my questions about what might be wrong with the 14th ammendment(after all if some ddi not ratify it they must have had some problem with it) and I have asked you for a point by point reasoning why you say it was never properly ratified. Taking into account now that greeney has given a point by point illustration that it was.

Above you make much about it not being ratified by 75% in 1866-67. However it was not declared as such until July 1868 by which time 75% of the existing states(as of July 1868) had indeed done so. Why the arbitrary 1867 date?

I understand that in order to conclude that 75% of the states had not ratified it one has to call into question the ratification process in several of those states.

Sandra attacked the fact that your contribution to this thread consists primarily of long winded complaints against greeney despite my continued attempts to get you to address the topic of the thread YOU began.

Now greeney has posted backing the contention that it was properly ratified. You have yet to rebut this other than to say that if it had been then learned people would not be calling it into question.

I might point out that there are only rare occassions for which there are not dissenting opinions in legal and political matters so your point is truly weak.

I assume that you have read all the voluminous material you posted links to and can come up with better points than an appeal to authority.
Last edited by jaydeehess on Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
Math, science, history unraveling the mystery, that all started with a Big Bang.....BANG!!
jaydeehess
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:02 pm

Postby greeney2 » Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:06 pm

One has to understand the process Jaydees. These are not like a voting ballot measure that on election day, it either passes or fails, and it at that point voted out.

This kind of thing, and Amendment is introduced and has an initial 2/3rds majoriety to adopt it. The important thing is if the Amendment had a expiration date written into it, and if not simply remains in a "pending' Status. We have 4 Amendments that today still are "Pending" status, waiting for full ratiification which required 75% of the states. Until that, the Amendments are still valid, and they are Constitutional becasue the Supreme court ruled on this Pending or Expired situation. The final ratification can take years,decades or even centuries, as this one has. States can still Ratify an Amendment, even if they had not previously and the Amendment passed without them. Thats why you see all these others states had joined in, far exceeding the 75%, and it is now 100%. Notice that the dates of Ratification span a wide time, however this was fully ratified by 1868, and a number of states followed after several years and every state has now ratified it, as of 2003.

Thanks for the nice words Jaydees!
greeney2
 
Posts: 9671
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby jaydeehess » Sun Jan 17, 2010 9:22 pm

In Canada we divide our federation of provinces rather more widely. We have fewer than a dozen provinces (11 at last count) and IIRC , changes to our constitution require only 2/3rds of the provinces to agree to it(with some exceptions that require fewer, and others unanimity)
Math, science, history unraveling the mystery, that all started with a Big Bang.....BANG!!
jaydeehess
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:02 pm

Postby jaydeehess » Thu Jan 21, 2010 11:36 am

AlphaOmega wrote:

"Absolute power corrupts absolutely" I don't know the person this quote is attributed to, but never have truer words been uttered.


a quick google,,,


Origin

This is a quotation from Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

Acton was preceded by William Pitt the Elder, who voiced a similar thought in a House of Lords speech in 1770:

"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it; and this I know, my lords, that where laws end, tyranny begins."



READ THE INFORMATION...The Copies of The CONGRESSIONAL RECORD CAN NOT BE DENIED AND CAN NOT BE CLAIMED TO BE UNRELIABLE OR UNTRUTHFUL as the documentation from the Congress comes from the Government itself unless you are complete moron.


Was it or was it not ratifited as Greeney says, in July 1868? (not 1867 or 1866)

As far as constitutional lawyers weighing in on it, would you or would you not consider the Supreme Court members to be qualified lawyers?
Math, science, history unraveling the mystery, that all started with a Big Bang.....BANG!!
jaydeehess
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:02 pm

Previous

Return to Government and Political Conspiracies

  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests