The 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

Sounds weird right? But hear me out.

The constitution explicitly states that no state can be denied suffrage in the senate in order to force passage of a constitutional amendment.

Article V:

"...and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

That is exactly what happened in regards to the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. The southern states were denied suffrage in order to force passage.

Now one MIGHT be able to argue that the southern states were no longer states when they were denied suffrage in order to force passage of the 13th. However, NO ENTITY other than a full-fledged state can ratify an amendment.

Which means that even IF they weren't states before the 13th, they HAD to be states during and after the signing of the 13th amendment. Therefore to deny those states suffrage in the senate in order to force passage and ratification of the 14th and 15th amendments is explicitly unconstitutional and means the 14th and 15th are null and void.

Again, one might could argue that they were not states until they finished signing the 15th but if that's the case then you have passage and ratification of the 13th and 14th by entities who were not states and as such their signatures don't count and the 13th and 14th are invalid.

So either one of three things is true. The 13th and 14th are unconstitutional, the 14th and 15th are unconstitutional OR the federal government has legal constitutional precedent which allows them to wholesale deny states suffrage in the house and senate in order to force passage of constitutional amendments.

Which one is it? You can't have it both ways

 

Passage of all the amendments you mentioned met constitutional muster.

 

Such robust argument. Here let me try.

No they didn't.

 

This is such a ridiculous argument!

The Constitution has been amended several times in its history.

The Bill of Rights is an amendment.

So, if a state wasn’t a state before it ratified the US constitution, it doesn’t have to honor any amendments………

So, I guess we only have 13 states!

 

If they did not meet the constitutional requirements for ratification they would not have been adopted.

Questioning the 14th's constitutionality is a novel concept. A backdoor way to cast doubt on the legitimacy of efforts to remove Trump from state's ballots. A way to muddy the waters..........which is always Trump's best defense in the absence of a defense based on the evidence.

 

What??? The amendments were ratified with those states signatures because they were FORCED to give their signature or have no representation in the house or senate. Again this is EXPLICITLY unconstitutional.

 

lol the constitution explicitly states that you cannot deny a state suffrage in order to pass a constitutional amendment. The southern states were denied suffrage in order to pass the 14th amendment.

On what grounds do you assert that passes constitutional muster?

And btw yall seem to be all about novel interpretations of the law. I figured I'd try one but unlike your sides, mine is correct

 

The Constitution is unconstitutional...... interesting argument.

 

Your faith in government isn't proof or evidence.

 

You're welcome to refute my logic

 

Your erroneous interpretation of the Constitution notwithstanding, the fact remains the amendments were ratified and adopted. It's odd, don't you think, the novel concept of their unconstitutionality coincides with the 14th's application to Trump's insurrection?

 

You would be incorrect. I made almost this same thread in 2014

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/is-the-14th-amendment-valid.378697/

But i thought given the spotlight of the 14th amendment today it would be good to revisit.

Furthermore just because an unconstitutional amendment was allowed to unconstitutionally pass, doesn't mean that it should remain.

 

Since we know there were enough states to ratify it, how in the hell is the 14th amendment, which passed all the requirements in the US Constitution to get passed, is unconstitutional?

All States have two Senators. The two senators per state is equal suffrage in the Senate, as described by the term at that time. Furthermore, the 13 states "chose" to leave the Union, and "chose" to fire on Fort Sumpter, which was an act of war. Your argument falls on all fronts here.

 

Interesting. But you have this, the date when each southern state seceded from the union to form the Confederate States of America along with the date each south state was readmitted to the union.


https://www.factmonster.com/us/us-history/confederate-states-america


When these amendments were passed in congress, those southern states weren’t part of the union or that of the United States as they had seceded. Both the 13th and 14th were ratified by the existing states in the union of as the United States existed at the time of ratification.

 

Why did you ignore the conversation to come to this conclusion? As they say in 3rd grade math, show your work.

 

Are you not paying attention? Read it again. You can argue that they weren't states BEFORE they signed the 13th but you CANNOT argue they were not states AFTER they signed the 13th.

Which means if you deny them suffrage in the senate in order to pass the 14th you are explicitly violating the constitution in order to pass the amendment.

 

They didn't have enough votes without the southern states to pass the 13th. So they had to force them to ratify.

And those states whom it says were readmitted AFTER they signed the 14th and 15th amendments also signed the 13th. Which means if you're going to say they weren't states until they ratified the 15th then the 13th and 14th are STILL unconstitutional because they were ratified by entities who were not states. And the ONLY entity who can ratify an amendment is a full-fledged state. Not a territory, not some entity hoping to become a state... ONLY a full fledged state can ratify an amendment.

 

And personally if I were yall I would just say the 13th was ratified constitutionally and the 14th and 15th were not as opposed to the 15th being constitutional and the 13th and 14th not or the federal government having constitutional precedent that they can deny states suffrage in order to force passage of an amendment.

But whatever floats your boat

 

What are you talking about? It takes 2/3rds of the house, 2/3rds of those present. 2/3rds of the senate, 2/3rds of those present and 3/4ths of the states or 3/4ths of the number of states presently in the union. Not territories and not states who are no longer states that needed to be readmitted since they seceded or left the union of what was known as the United States of America to form their own country, the Confederate States of America.


Today we have 435 members in the house, but if only 300 were present, only 200 members voting AYE to pass the amendment is need. Same with the senate, 2/3rds of those present along with 3/4th of the current states at the time of ratification. There were 24 states, thus 18 states need to ratify the amendment. The price of readmission was for the former states of the Confederacy to ratify those amendments. The 13th was ratified by the necessary number of states on 6 Dec 1865.

 

Given they rebelled and tried to form a separate country, clearly there was a time when they were "not part of" the United States. What was the date of their reconciliation though and why? When one is defeated in war, there are typically conditions for surrender, they couldn't just instantly go back to being fully fledged states.

It would be ironic to litigate all of this now. Seems strange if this hasn't been tried before.

 

That's correct... well except for one part.

Not all of the northern states wanted to ratify. California Iowa, nj, Delaware, Kentucky and Oregon (not surprising given they had laws which said if you bring a black person into their territory you're risking penalty of lashings and death but I digress) refused to ratify as well and did not do so until AFTER the southern states were forced to ratify and it became law.

You wanna do the math for ratification again?

The reason they didn't just pass it and ratify it without the southern states is because they didn't have the votes and signatures needed. So in order to pass them they forced the southern states to ratify or be denied suffrage.

Which is fine for the 13th. But not the 14th and 15th.

 

This is true, the reconstruction amendments weren’t properly ratified. Some states were still under military control and weren’t allowed back in the union at the time of ratification.

 

Said nobody.

 

Um....yes. it was argued that "The 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional"

 

The argument is that certain amendments are invalid because they weren't properly ratified. I don't have an in-depth enough knowledge on history to know whether that is bullshit or not... but the timing is suspicious.