Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
the only FAIL here is that you seem to think you have any level of credibility. You are correct in that the PURPOSE of the court was not to rule on the 14th but that judge (a patriotic american hero) made damn sure he documented FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD the circumstances and fraud of the 14th amendment PROVING IT IS BULLSHIT, and you try to sweep it under the carpet AND you even go one step beyond and CONDEMN THE TULANE CITATION AS A FAIL WHICH JUST HAPPENS TO BE A CITATION THE SUPREME COURT USED. HOW DO YOU SPELL IDJIT?
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.[FN 3]
FN3. 15 Stat. 707 (1868).
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.’
[FN 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.'[FN5] FN4. Resolution set forth in proclamation of Secretary of State, 15 Stat. 709 (1868). See also U.S.C.A., Amends. 1 to 5, Constitution, p. 11. FN5. 15 Stat. 708 (1868).
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 *414 (Cite as: 20 Utah 2d 403, *414, 439 P.2d 266, **273) and has never hesitated in a proper case to declare an act of Congress nconstitutional-except when the act purported to amend the Constitution.[FN 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.
FN6. In the case of Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130, 42 S.Ct. 217, 66 L.Ed. 505, the question was before the Supreme Court as to whether or not the Nineteenth Amendment had been ratified pursuant to the Constitution.
In the last paragraph of the decision the Supreme Court said: ‘* * * As the legislatures of Tennessee and of West Virginia had power to adopt the resolutions of ratification, official notice to the Secretary, duly authenticated, that they had done so, was conclusive upon him, and, being certified to by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts. * * * ’In order to have 27 states ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, it was necessary to count those states which had first rejected and then under the duress of military occupation had ratified, and then also to **274 (Cite as: 20 Utah 2d 403, *414, 439 P.2d 266, **274) 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 [FN 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?
FN7. 65 Stat. 710, s 106b (1951), designates the Administrator of General Services Administration as the one whose duty it is to certify that an amendment has been ratified.
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.[FN8]
FN8. For a more detailed account of how the Fourteenth Amendment was forced upon the Nation, see articles in
11 S.C.L.Q. 484 and 28 Tul.L.Rev. 22.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27797304/Dyett-v-Turner-Utah-Supreme-Court-439-Pacific-Reporter-2d-403-439-P-2d-266-276
So you wanna spend more time in your shithouse and come up with more fails that the supreme court used for their references in reference to their determination.
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 5/13/2011 4:47:07 PM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: BREAKING: Ron Paul to Announce Presidential Candida... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread