The 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

This argument was made well before me and made by THE pre-eminent scholar on the subject (and much better and more thorough than I ever could):

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/160249595.pdf

He actually concludes that the institution of the 14th and 15th means that there is constitutional precedent that the government can "use novel methods" of passing laws and constitutional amendments (which is his way of saying deny states suffrage). He was making his argument within the context of the democrats passing the New Deal but that's neither here nor there.

I disagree. I assert it simply means the 14th and 15th amendments are unconstitutional. Not that it created some new right of the federal government to deny states suffrage. But the point remains, you have to pick one of the three options presented because there is no other option.

Either the 13th is constitutional and the 14th and 15th are not or the 15th is constitutional and the 13th and 14th are not OR all three of them are constitutional and the federal government has legal constitutional precedent to deny states suffrage in the senate in order to pass a constitutional amendment. But it has to be one of the three.

 

I read it. It does not make sense whatsoever. You have made this claim before, and you are more than welcome to bring this before the federal judicial system. Oh hell, take it to the district court in Texas to see if that judge agrees, not to mention the 5th court of appeals and the US Supreme Court. But none what you wrote makes sense and ignores certain facts of the amendments therein.

 

It isn't.

 

It wasn't before a court. What law reviews do, such as the one you listed, is to present a legal argument to consider. More controversial, the better since it gets the law review noticed. But it does not mean that every article in the law review is true, accurate, and complete. That has to be brought before the federal judicial system, much like the argument that Trump is disqualified to run from office by two conservative lawyers from the Federalist Society. Thus, until it is brought up in court, it is by definition, and at most, a legal theory. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Right. How can the something in the Constitution be unconstitutional. I guess that makes sense to some people, but common sense suggests otherwise.

 

The amendments are constitutional. Suggest we move on.

 

They left, losing their Statehood. Lost the war they started, got conquered, and ratification was a condition for resuming Statehood.

 

Then when they ratified the 13th they were states. In which case denying them suffrage to pass the 14th and 15th is unconstitutional.

 

So you believe the federal government can deny states suffrage in the senate at will in order to force passage of constitutional amendments?

Trump is gonna love that

 

The 14th amendment got the approval of the 28th State, which was enough to have it added to the constitution, on July 9, 1868.

If you can get 38 States to support rescinding it, let us know.

 

It doesn't need to be rescinded. It needs to be declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

And your comment is tantamount to holding a gun to someone's head to force them to sign over their house and then saying "well it's signed, dated and notarized so too bad."

Just because they slipped some unconstitutional bullshit into the constitution doesn't mean it should remain.

 

Lincoln got away with things no President would get away with today.

 

Won't happen. They'll find a way to ignore the concern.

 

In normal times I think you would be right. They would allow the unconstitutional 14th and 15th to stand and essentially just ignore any challenge based upon its constitutionality.

However, if Trump brought it up as part of his defense as to why he's not subject to the insurrection clause in the 14th because it's unconstitutional, they would be FORCED to address it.

They would either have to state that the 14th and 15th are unconstitutional or that the federal government enjoys constitutional precedent to deny states suffrage at will in order to pass an amendment. But they would be forced to make a decision one way or another. Saying "oh well, it snuck in there unconstitutionally, that's just too bad and a one time thing" is not an option for the SCOTUS especially when confronted with the insurrection clause in the unconstitutional 14th

 

Governments pass dubious laws all of the time(see: New Deal as the more recent example) and if the laws are brought to a court they review them(that's the reason for the SCOTUS in the first place.) and as Immortal said, this particular theory hasn't been brought before and if it were, SCOTUS would have to decide on it.

I'd love for them to look at the 14th Amendment as a whole, for it is an amendment of hatred. It's not a law that grants rights or liberties or secures them(other than the equal rights clause). Indeed, in a modern US Society, you could keep the equal rights clause, and just abolish the rest. And pre-Trump, we pretty much did that. Because despite their attempts to twist words, the other clauses in the 14th is both a disqualifer and a punishment.

The argument back then was 'well, it could be worse'. Had I been alive at the time, I would have argued a punishment, big or small is STILL a punishment and the fact that there's a penal code, shows that yes, obviously it was and is a punishment.

We don't want to be North Korea basically, and penalizing citizens as though they were subjects puts us in that category. No to political punishments in the US.

 

United States Congress can, in people's opinion, pass dubious laws, but that is why we have the judicial system. Sometimes the law is struck down, in part or as a whole, and sometimes, it is upheld by the Supreme Court. Take for instance the 1994 Assault Rifle Ban, which was challenged. It was upheld. Take the Obamacare law, which has been upheld. Take the 1933 Firearms Act, which has been upheld, generally. Take any law from any administration in the past 50 years, and you will find them generally upheld. But that is the beauty of our US Constitution, and the separation of powers doctrine, among other things.

there are political punishments. It is called elections. Democrats have controlled the House or Senate and have lost control of the House and Senate. Same with the Republican Party in the last 150 years who have won and lost control of the House and Senate from time to time. In addition, the rules of the House and Senate can censure US Representatives or Senators based on their rules, or they can expel US Representatives and Senators, based on their rules. Again, the beauty of the US Constitution at its best. If a politician violates legal laws, such as Senator Menendez or DJT, then they face legal consequences in our judicial system. So, yes, there are punishments for politicians, political and judicial.

The US Supreme Court has looked at the 14th Amendment, notably the equal protection clause, US Citizenship, and other clauses, quite a bit. It is the most used amendment in the entire US Constitution that has been cited by the Supreme Court.

 

Making "almost the same thread" in 2014 does not lend your specious assertion any more credibility than it currently has.......none.

 

If they were states, and had two US Senators, then how was suffrage denied?

The article does not lay that out specifically. It was spacious at best.

 

The timing isn't just suspicious, it aligns perfectly with the manner in which bedrock principles of the country are routinely attacked when they pose a threat to the Trumpian narrative.

 

I think you object to the content of the Amendments in question. Is it your desire to restore slavery and other race based forms of state discrimination??

 

They DIDNT have two us senators allowed to vote. Thats the ENTIRE point.

 

Have I said anything about the contents of the amendments?

 

Weird how I made the same thread in 2014 then

 

They can address it by simply rejecting a Trump appeal.

Declaring a constitutional amendment unconstitutional is opening a pandora's box. You (?) might like seeing Trump "get away with it" (they way it will be portrayed by anti-Trump types), but Trump avoiding accountability this way--particularly on tossing out both the 14th Amendment and 15th Amendment--would damage faith in the Supreme Court.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
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.

Section 2.
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 3.
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.

Section 4.
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.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment XV
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.​

I think SCOTUS will tread carefully on tossing out an amendment.

 

Yes, and as mentioned in my post, the due rights/equal protection clause is the only part of the 14th Amendment that actually follows the rest of the constitution in terms of laws bettering things for people/the society or the government. The rest of the 14th Amendment, might as well have been the Confederates Treaty of Versallies moment. Both the North and the South felt this way, and BTW by arguing about punishments, you also inadvertently concede that yes, it is a punishment.

But an election is NOT an inherent punishment. Defeat is a consequence for losing. You don't lose life, liberty or property. But you didn't win the opportunity to be seated in public office.

A punishment, by nature is to be punitive, not coincidental. The 14th is deliberate, there's no accidental part of its wording and the attempt to use it against Trump demonstrates its punitive nature.

Which is all fine BTW if its punitive. But since it is punitive, and backed by a penal code, only the Government via the DOJ has the right to use it.