Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #21
    thedude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by judyweller
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone_Patriot
    Quote Originally Posted by tencz57
    Question . Do ya'll really think "Now" is a good time for review ? With an Ex-ACLU leader sitting on the Court ?

    who is that?
    Ruth Bader Ginzburg
    As per Wikipedia...

    Prior to her appointment with the Supreme Court, Ginsburg served as a federal judge for 13 years on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In practice, she spent a considerable portion of her career as an advocate for the equal citizenship status of women and men as a constitutional principle. She engaged in advocacy as a volunteer lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, and in the 1970s, was a member of the ACLU's Board and one of its General Counsel. She served as a professor at Rutgers University School of Law and Columbia Law School.
    ...
    As the chief litigator of the ACLU's women's rights project, she argued several cases in front of the Supreme Court and attained a reputation as a skilled oral advocate.
    ...
    Ginsburg is part of the "liberal wing" in the current court and has a Segal-Cover score of 0.680 placing her as the most liberal (by that measure, which takes no account of judicial actions post-confirmation) of current justices, although more moderate than those of many other post-War justices. In a 2003 statistical analysis of Supreme Court voting patterns, Ginsburg emerged the second most liberal member of the Court (behind Justice Stevens

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
    [/b]

  2. #22
    5
    5 is offline
    5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    355
    The time to re-litigate was during operation H2O-back in the 1950's

    It's too late now

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    142
    Well, it's surprising to me that no one has mentioned the fact that an amendment to the Constitution must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. The 14th Amendment does not actually exist because:

    1. The Joint Resolution proposing said amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress per Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

    2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution.

    3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

    The 16th Amendment, which provides that we pay all income taxes to the private bank called the Federal Reserve to pay interest on the money they print, was also NOT ratified.

  4. #24
    Senior Member judyweller's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Maryland, Alleghany County
    Posts
    688
    Quote Originally Posted by stillfree
    Well, it's surprising to me that no one has mentioned the fact that an amendment to the Constitution must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. The 14th Amendment does not actually exist because:

    1. The Joint Resolution proposing said amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress per Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

    2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution.

    3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

    .
    The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress on June 13, 1866, when it passed the House, Cong. Globe (39th Cong., 1st Sess.) 3148, 3149, having previously passed the Senate on June 8. Id., 3042. It appears officially in 14 Stat. 358 under date of June 16, 1866. Ratification was probably completed on July 9, 1868, when the legislature of the twenty-eighth State (South Carolina or Louisiana) approved the amendment, there being then 37 States in the Union. However, Ohio and New Jersey had prior to that date ''withdrawn'' their earlier assent to this amendment. Accordingly, Secretary of State Seward on July 20, 1868, certified that the amendment had become a part of the Constitution if the said withdrawals were ineffective. 15 Stat. 706-707. Congress on July 21, 1868, passed a joint resolution declaring the amendment a part of the Constitution and directing the Secretary to promulgate it as such. On July 28, 1868, Secretary Seward certified without reservation that the amendment was a part of the Constitution. In the interim, two other States, Alabama on July 13 and Georgia on July 21, 1868, had added their ratifications.

    The several state legislatures ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on the following dates: Connecticut, June 30, 1866; New Hampshire, July 7, 1866; Tennessee, July 19, 1866; New Jersey, September 11, 1866 (the New Jersey Legislature on February 20, 1868 ''withdrew'' its consent to the ratification; the Governor vetoed that bill on March 5, 1868; and it was repassed over his veto on March 24, 186; Oregon, September 19, 1866 (Oregon ''withdrew'' its consent on October 15, 186; Vermont, October 30, 1866; New York, January 10, 1867; Ohio, January 11, 1867 (Ohio ''withdrew'' its consent on January 15, 186; Illinois, January 15, 1867; West Virginia, January 16, 1867; Michigan, January 16, 1867; Kansas, January 17, 1867; Minnesota, January 17, 1867; Maine, January 19, 1867; Nevada, January 22, 1867; Indiana, January 23, 1867; Missouri, January 26, 1867 (date on which it was certified by the Missouri secretary of state); Rhode Island, February 7, 1867; Pennsylvania, February 12, 1867; Wisconsin, February 13, 1867 (actually passed February 7, but not signed by legislative officers until February 13); Massachusetts, March 20, 1867; Nebraska, June 15, 1867; Iowa, March 9, 1868; Arkansas, April 6, 1868; Florida, June 9, 1868; North Carolina, July 2, 1868 (after having rejected the amendment on December 13, 1866); Louisiana, July 9, 1868 (after having rejected the amendment on February 6, 1867); South Carolina, July 8, 1868 (after having rejected the amendment on December 20, 1866); Alabama, July 13, 1868 (date on which it was ''approved'' by the Governor); Georgia, July 21, 1868 (after having rejected the amendment on November 9, 1866--Georgia ratified again on February 2, 1870); Virginia, October 8, 1869 (after having rejected the amendment on January 9, 1867); Mississippi, January 17, 1870; Texas, February 18, 1870 (after having rejected the amendment on October 27, 1866); Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected the amendment on February 7, 1867). The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Kentucky on January 8, 1867. Maryland and California ratified this amendment in 1959.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    142
    The UnLawful Fourteenth Ammendment

    Lance E. Knudson, Sui Juris
    Citizen of Nebraska state
    c/o General Delivery
    Hastings [zip code exempt]
    NEBRASKA STATE

    In Propria Persona

    All Rights Reserved without prejudice



    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA


    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [sic], ) Case No. 4:CV96-3275
    )
    Plaintiff [sic], ) NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR
    ) MANDATORY JUDICIAL NOTICE:
    v. )
    ) Rule 201(d),
    VANCE E. KNUDSON [sic], ) Federal Rules of Evidence;
    ) Full Faith and Credit Clause
    Defendant [sic]. )
    ________________________________)


    COMES NOW Vance E. Knudson, Sui Juris, Citizen of Nebraska state, expressly not a citizen of the United States ("federal citizen"), and Defendant in the above entitled matter (hereinafter "Defendant"), to provide formal Notice to all interested parties, and to demand mandatory judicial notice by this honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 201(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and to the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the Constitution for the United States of America, as lawfully amended, of an excerpt from the opinion of the Utah Supreme Court in the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (196, reciting irrefutable historical details proving that the so-called 14th amendment was never lawfully ratified. Said excerpt is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth fully herein, to wit:

    Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 1 of 8

    General Lee had surrendered his army on April 9, 1865, and General Johnston surrendered his 17 days later. Within a period of less than six weeks thereafter, not one Confederate soldier was bearing arms. By June 30, 1865, the Confederate states were all restored by presidential proclamation to their proper positions as states in an indissoluble union,(1) and practically all citizens thereof(2) had been granted amnesty. Immediately thereafter each of the seceding states functioned as regular states in the Union with both state and federal courts in full operation.

    President Lincoln had declared the freedom of the slaves as a war measure, but when the war ended, the effect of the proclamation was ended, and so it was necessary to propose and to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment in order to insure the freedom of the slaves.

    The 11 southern states having taken their rightful and necessary place in the indestructible Union proceeded to determine whether to ratify or reject the proposed Thirteenth Amendment. In order to become a part of the Constitution, it was necessary that the proposed amendment be ratified by 27 of the 36 states. Among those 27 states ratifying the Thirteenth Amendment were 10 from the South, to wit, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, and Texas.

    When the 39th Congress assembled on December 5, 1865, the senators and representatives from the 25 northern states voted to deny seats in both houses of Congress to anyone elected from the 11 southern states. The full complement of senators from the 36 states of the Union was 72, and the full membership in the House was 240. Since it requires only a majority vote (Article I, Section 5, Constitution of the United States) to refuse a seat in Congress, only the 50 senators and 182 congressmen from the North were seated. All of the 22 senators and 58 representatives from the southern states were denied seats.

    Joint Resolution No. 48 proposing the Fourteenth Amendment was a matter of great concern to the Congress and to the people of the Nation. In order to have this proposed amendment submitted to the 36 states for ratification, it was necessary that two thirds of each house concur. A count of noses showed that only 33 senators were favorable to the measure, and 33 was a far cry from two thirds of 72 and lacked one of being two thirds of the 50 seated senators.

    While it requires only a majority of votes to refuse a seat to a senator, it requires a two thirds majority to unseat a member once he is seated. (Article 1, Section 5, Constitution of the United States) One John P. Stockton was seated on December 5, 1865, as one of the senators from New Jersey. He was outspoken in his opposition to Joint Resolution No. 48 proposing the Fourteenth Amendment. The leadership in the Senate not having control of two thirds of the seated senators voted to refuse to seat Mr. Stockton upon the ground that he had received only a plurality and not a majority of the votes of the New Jersey

    Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 2 of 8

    legislature. It was the law of New Jersey and several other states that a plurality vote was sufficient for election. Besides, the Senator had already been seated. Nevertheless, his seat was refused, and the 33 favorable votes thus became the required two thirds of the 49 members of the Senate.

    In the House of Representatives it would require 122 votes to be two thirds of the 182 members seated. Only 120 voted for the proposed amendment, but because there were 30 abstentions it was declared to have been passed by a two thirds vote of the House.

    Whether it requires two thirds of the full membership of both houses to propose an amendment to the Constitution or only two thirds of those seated or two thirds of those voting is a question which it would seem could only be determined by the United States Supreme Court. However, it is perhaps not so important for the reason that the amendment is only proposed by Congress. It must be ratified by three fourths of the states in the Union before it becomes a part of the Constitution. The method of securing the passage through Congress is set out above, as it throws some light on the means used to obtain ratification by the states thereafter.

    Nebraska had been admitted to the Union, and so the Secretary of State in transmitting the proposed amendment announced that ratification by 28 states would be needed before the amendment would become part of the Constitution, since there were at the time 37 states in the Union. A rejection by 10 states would thus defeat the proposal.

    By March 17, 1867, the proposed amendment had been ratified by 17 states and rejected by 10, with California voting to take no action thereon, which was equivalent to rejection. Thus the proposal was defeated.

    One of the ratifying states, Oregon, had ratified by a membership wherein two legislators were subsequently held not to be duly elected, and after the contest the duly elected members of the legislature of Oregon rejected the proposed amendment.
    However, this rejection came after the amendment was declared passed.

    Despite the fact that the southern states had been functioning peacefully for two years and had been counted to secure ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, Congress passed the Reconstruction Act, which provided for the military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern states. It excluded Tennessee from military occupation, and one must suspect it was because Tennessee had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment on July 7, 1866.
    The Act further disfranchised practically all white voters and provided that no senator or congressman from the occupied states could be seated in Congress until a new constitution was adopted by each state which would be approved by Congress, and further provided that each of the 10 states must ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment must become a part of the Constitution of the United States before the military occupancy would cease and the states be allowed to have seats in Congress.

    Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 3 of 8

    By the time the Reconstruction Act had been declared to be the law, three more states had ratified the proposed Fourteenth Amendment, and two -- Louisiana and Delaware -- had rejected it.
    Then Maryland withdrew its prior ratification and rejected the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. Ohio followed suit and withdrew its prior ratification, as also did New Jersey. California, which earlier had voted not to pass upon the proposal, now voted to reject the amendment. Thus 16 of the 37 states had rejected the proposed amendment.

    By spurious, nonrepresentative governments seven of the southern states which had theretofore rejected the proposed amendment under the duress of military occupation and of being denied representation in Congress did attempt to ratify the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The Secretary of State on July 20, 1868, issued his proclamation wherein he stated that it was his duty under the law to cause amendments to be published and certified as a part of the Constitution when he received official notice that they had been adopted pursuant to the Constitution.
    Thereafter his certificate contained the following language:

    And whereas neither the act just quoted from, nor any other law, expressly or by conclusive implication, authorizes the Secretary of State to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures, or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification of any amendment proposed to the Constitution;

    And whereas it appears from official documents on file in this Department that the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed as aforesaid, has been ratified by the legislatures of the States of [naming 23, including New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon];

    And whereas it further appears from documents on file in this Department that the amendment to the Constitution of the United States, proposed as aforesaid, has also been ratified by newly constituted and newly established bodies avowing themselves to be and acting as the legislatures, respectively, of the States of Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama;

    And whereas it further appears from official documents on file in this Department that the legislatures of two of the States first above enumerated, to wit, Ohio and New Jersey, have since passed resolutions respectively withdrawing the consent of each of said States to the aforesaid amendment; and whereas it is deemed a matter of doubt and uncertainty whether such resolutions are not irregular, invalid, and therefore ineffectual for withdrawing the consent of the said two States, or of either of them, to the aforesaid amendment;

    Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 4 of 8

    And whereas the whole number of States in the United States is thirty-seven, to wit: [naming them];

    And whereas the twenty-three States first hereinbefore named, whose legislatures have ratified the said proposed amendment, and the six States next thereafter named, as having ratified the said proposed amendment by newly constituted and established legislative bodies, together constitute three fourths of the whole number of States in the United States;

    Now, therefore, be it known that I, WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State of the United States, by virtue and in pursuant of the second section of the act of Congress, approved the twentieth of April, eighteen hundred and eighteen, hereinbefore cited, do hereby certify that if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey ratifying the aforesaid amendment are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of those States, which purport to withdraw the consent of said States from such ratification, then the aforesaid amendment has been ratified in the manner hereinbefore mentioned, and so has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.(3)

    Congress was not satisfied with the proclamation as issued and on the next day passed a concurrent resolution wherein it was resolved "That said fourteenth article is hereby declared to be a part of the Constitution of the United States, and it shall be duly promulgated as such by the Secretary of State."(4) Thereupon, William H. Seward, the Secretary of State, after setting forth the concurrent resolution of both houses of Congress, then certified that the amendment "has become valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the United States."(5)

    The Constitution of the United States is silent as to who should decide whether a proposed amendment has or has not been passed according to formal provisions of Article V of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States is the ultimate authority on the meaning of the Constitution and has never hesitated in a proper case to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional -- except when the act purported to amend the Constitution.(6) The duty of the Secretary of State was ministerial, to wit, to count and determine when three fourths of the states had ratified the proposed amendment. He could not determine that a state once having rejected a proposed amendment could thereafter approve it, nor could he determine that a state once having ratified that proposal could thereafter reject it.
    The court and not Congress should determine such matters.
    Consistency would seem to require that a vote once cast would be final or would not be final, whether the first vote was for ratification or rejection.

    In order to have 27 states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, it was necessary to count those states which had first rejected

    Ninth Notice and Demand for Mandatory Judicial Notice: Page 5 of 8

    and then under the duress of military occupation had ratified, and then also to count those states which initially ratified but subsequently rejected the proposal.

    To leave such dishonest counting to a fractional part of Congress is dangerous in the extreme. What is to prevent any political party having control of both houses of Congress from refusing to seat the opposition and then without more passing a joint resolution to the effect that the Constitution is amended and that it is the duty of the Administrator of the General Services Administration(7) to proclaim the adoption? Would the Supreme Court of the United States still say the problem was political and refuse to determine whether constitutional standards had been met?

    How can it be conceived in the minds of anyone that a combination of powerful states can by force of arms deny another state a right to have representation in Congress until it has ratified an amendment which its people oppose? The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by means almost as bad as that suggested above.(

  6. #26
    Senior Member Oldglory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    837
    What the pro-illegals try to claim is that if the 14th is re-interpreted that it will strip children already born here from illegal alien parents of their citizenship. That simply isn't true! The bills that have been introduced and still pending in congress do not say that nor are they intended that way. It is only for future children born on our soil after the 14th is changed.

    The bill currently pending would make it mandatory for one parent to be a citizen. That is the way it works in most countries and only makes sense but of course the pro-illegals don't want it because it would put a crimp in their reconquista agenda.

  7. #27
    Senior Member judyweller's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Maryland, Alleghany County
    Posts
    688
    I think they should make it go back at least 5 years. Also they should make that those children born of illegal parents - may not sponsor relatives for citizenship.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •