Posted On: Tuesday - March 17th 2020 10:32AM MST
In Topics: Immigration Stupidity History Liberty/Libertarianism Legal Stupidity Morning Constitutional
(Continued from Amendment XI, Amendment XII, and Amendment XIII.)
I'll say right from the get-go that this Amendment was for the most part, simple vindictiveness of the post-"War Between the States" northern States against the South, but, in general a big fat fuck-up of an Amendment.
The ratification process for Amendment 14 was completed with its signing by representatives from South Carolina near the end of 1868. "South Carolina?!", you ask. Good question there - no Southern State besides Tennessee ratified this Amendment on the 1st go-around. The "Reconstruction" process was ramped up to take control of all of the governments of the States that were recalcitrant in signing, along with for other reasons. Though the Southern States had been forced back into the Union by the 4 year-long, near 3/4 million casualty war, they would have no representation in Congress until signing of Amendment XIV. So, this Amendment was basically railroaded through by Washington during a military-backed occupation of the South.
Lets look at each section:
Section 1:The point of this section was to specify that former slaves were now citizens of the US. I've got no problem with that. There are a number of other points in this section which are very important and have had big repercussions on American law.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The big thing that this section does is to "incorporate" the US Constitution above the laws of the States. Almost all of the State Constitutions, at least by this point, have the same protections (at least written, though not practiced) for citizens from government as the US Constitution has. Before Amendment XIV, the US Constitution was seen as a limitation on the US Government. State Constitutions specified the rest. The writers of this section were trying to avoid the Southern States' changing of their laws, including their Constitutions themselves, to keep an un-equal system of justice in place for the white man vs. the black man. The effects, however, were a lot more wide-ranging than that.
One might think there should be no qualms by a Constitutionalist against the incorporation of all the ideas therein to State law. However, it still takes away from the power of the States. I guess that was the goal.
Next, all those with any knowledge of the existential immigration-invasion issue facing America should have heard Amendment XIV mentioned in relation to the "birthright citizenship" "clause". Yeah "clause" is quoted too, because there is really no clause per se. It was a big screw up, based on the writers trying to be very general in the language, normally a good thing.
The Amendment was written about the former slaves, not some day-old baby born in a San Francisco hospital by a Chinese lady with no business being in America in the first place. The writers could not have imagined how Section 1 of Amendment XIV could be abused. However, "subject to the jurisdiction of" means something. Is a day-old baby subject to the jurisdiction of ANYBODY? Was that 17 y/o whose parents were not citizens ever "naturalized"? What does "naturalized" mean? I will defer any more argument on this one to the great lawyer/pundit Ann Coulter, who wrote "The True History Of Millstone Babies". Please read that article, as I can't understand it completely enough to explain here at this point.
Section 2:This one is truly getting into the business of the States. There were plenty of other limitations on voting other than race back in the day. Ownership of property, age, and there's that sexist "male" thing (still in there after Amend 14, please note) and anything else the State wanted to specify were fair game. That's how the various States allocated their power to their own citizens. Many of us now understand the point in limiting the vote to those who will likely make the best decisions for the long time good. The way it's going now, with 1/2 the voters being net beneficiaries of US Government handouts, is not working at all.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 2 there put the kibosh on the States' ability to enable only select voters, and it was a huge power grab by the Feds. Nice going, Yankee cucks! Lastly, note that part about men that had participated in a rebellion. That was pure vindictiveness.
Section 3:More vindictiveness is on display in Section 3. Amendment XIV made sure nobody even involved on the Southern side of the war could be in any State or Federal office, IF he had been in an office before and had sworn to uphold the Constitution. I imagine the purported purpose was "we can't have any dishonorable liars who swore an oath and rebelled anyway". Did they forget that President Lincoln had treated the US Constitution like toilet paper? Anyone who worked in any capacity for that President should have been disallowed to hold office too.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
The real question is did these Southern men violate their oath to begin with? Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say a State cannot leave.
Section 4:What a fucking joke! Yes, we ran up this big big debt fighting a war that destroyed the South and killed or maimed near a million young men to KEEP YOU PEOPLE HERE, but you are not to question THAT debt. We're not gonna bail you people out for the destruction we caused either. Amendment XIV, Section 4 was the anti-Marshall Plan! This is more vindictiveness on display by Washington, FS.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5:and then some! Yeah, they've "appropriately" legislated all manner of ills based on this most egregious of Constitutional Amendments Peak Stupidity has blogged about so far. Amendment XIV, in supposedly trying to set one simple thing right, designating freed slaves as US Citizens, was truly one big piece of shit, written out of vindictiveness, and subsequently abused to no end. Two thumbs down!
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Comments:
Adam Smith
Wednesday - May 20th 2020 9:21AM MST
PS: Good Morning Mr. Moderator...
I agree with you whole heartedly that the 14th is a huge pile of shit. I also agree with you that "subject to the jurisdiction of" means something.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
What about "persons" born in the United States and NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof? Are they citizens? Do they exist? Are they enemies of the state?
What about freemen on the land? Or denizens? Or the Amish? Or men? Or women?
What about sovereigns?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/yickwo.html
Yick Wo v. Hopkins. (1886) says...
"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts."
"For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself."
What is this jurisdiction they speak of? How did they gain this jurisdiction? What if they're lying to us about jurisdiction? (They would never...)
What if they have no jurisdiction?
I am of the belief that the 13th did not "free the slaves". I believe the 13th gave the agencies of the state a monopoly on slavery, as punishment for "crime". (You know, like loitering, vagrancy, cannabis possession, failure to obey or whatever.)
I also believe the 14th created the "citizen of the United States" a new type of legal "person", who is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" and who "shall not question the validity of the public debt".
Is this not a master/slave relationship?
If the so called "United States" can confiscate "your" gold and pledge "your" property, assets and labor as collateral for the glorious war debt and draft you into the military and force you to pay 22% of "your" "income" plus other "taxes" while devaluing the purchasing power of "your" savings and leaving you and "your" children and grandchildren on the hook for a mathematically unpayable debt...
Well, you get the idea...
Two thumbs down on the 14th!
Two thumbs up on your article kind sir!
Thanks again. I hope you have a nice day.
I agree with you whole heartedly that the 14th is a huge pile of shit. I also agree with you that "subject to the jurisdiction of" means something.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
What about "persons" born in the United States and NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof? Are they citizens? Do they exist? Are they enemies of the state?
What about freemen on the land? Or denizens? Or the Amish? Or men? Or women?
What about sovereigns?
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/yickwo.html
Yick Wo v. Hopkins. (1886) says...
"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts."
"For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself."
What is this jurisdiction they speak of? How did they gain this jurisdiction? What if they're lying to us about jurisdiction? (They would never...)
What if they have no jurisdiction?
I am of the belief that the 13th did not "free the slaves". I believe the 13th gave the agencies of the state a monopoly on slavery, as punishment for "crime". (You know, like loitering, vagrancy, cannabis possession, failure to obey or whatever.)
I also believe the 14th created the "citizen of the United States" a new type of legal "person", who is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" and who "shall not question the validity of the public debt".
Is this not a master/slave relationship?
If the so called "United States" can confiscate "your" gold and pledge "your" property, assets and labor as collateral for the glorious war debt and draft you into the military and force you to pay 22% of "your" "income" plus other "taxes" while devaluing the purchasing power of "your" savings and leaving you and "your" children and grandchildren on the hook for a mathematically unpayable debt...
Well, you get the idea...
Two thumbs down on the 14th!
Two thumbs up on your article kind sir!
Thanks again. I hope you have a nice day.
Moderator
Wednesday - March 18th 2020 2:42AM MST
PS: I missed out on that era totally. I remember first seeing the Grateful Dead on Saturday Night Live doing "Alabama Getaway", I believe it was.
Ganderson
Tuesday - March 17th 2020 7:42PM MST
PS Not a big Donna fan, but she’s ok on this one. This mini tour was wonderful- the Uptown in Chicago, Dane County Coliseum, the Uni-Dome at the U of Northern Iowa, and Milwaukee Auditorium. A bunch of great shows, all within driving distance of my house, and I didn’t go to any of them. My loss. I did see them at the Uptown in May, however.
Moderator
Tuesday - March 17th 2020 3:06PM MST
PS: Oh, and I've got "The Music Never Stopped" in another tab. It's one of my favorites. I have no problem with Donna on the backing vocals or sharing the vocals as in this one, although some die hards are not real fans of her.
This song would be nothing without Phil at the bottom end though!
This song would be nothing without Phil at the bottom end though!
Moderator
Tuesday - March 17th 2020 3:02PM MST
PS: I did NOT mean "not". I meant "now". This was after one proofreading, dammit! Corrected, and thank you very much, Mr. Ganderson..
Ganderson
Tuesday - March 17th 2020 1:24PM MST
PS The point of this section was to specify that former slaves were not citizens of the US.
Are you sure you mean NOT?
Are you sure you mean NOT?
The children of foreign ambassador and his wife present on a diplomatic assignment are always spoken of being people whose American-born children were obviously not citizens. Under my tentative view, children born in the US of two non-citizen parents are similarly not citizens of the US.
This interpretation would make most so-called "anchor babies" non-citizens.
I'm not sure this is a correct interpretation as my 14th Amendment scholarship is not the stuff of legend but it does have logic on its side. It simply can't have been the intention of the authors and ratifiers of this Amendment to see a foreign woman with a foreign husband giving birth on American soil as a desirable way of granting citizenship to the child. Forcing a child of age born of two foreigners to go through with the formality of naturalization makes more sense for any nation with a vested interest in having loyal citizens.
Art. II, Sect. 1 makes clear that there were citizens as of the adoption of the Constitution. How one became a citizen before adoption I don't know. Was it common knowledge that children born in the US before adoption were citizens? There was naturalization before adoption I understand so at a minimum persons born abroad were not considered citizens and needed to seek naturalization.
Were children born to non-naturalized foreigners citizens? Probably not given what I wrote about citizenship being derived from one's father. Probably this was not a large demographic (foreign-born father) as Howard Zinn himself wrote that almost 100% of people in America in 1800 were born in the US.
IIRC, to complicate this analysis a bit, I believe England considered children born in England as English subjects. Given our break from the mother country I don't know if this doctrine got left on English shores.