RE: 14th Ammendment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


MrRodgers -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/1/2015 4:04:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

Someone please explain to me, how a same-sex marriage ban is not CLEARLY a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause.



States issue drivers licenses to citizens of age. With your line of reasoning the ban on under 16 year old citizens to drive is a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause. Of course this is not the case because driving was never considered a right for under age citizens nor was marriage considered a right for same sex couples because by the definition (of a driver), the driver must be of age, and by definition (of a marriage), the couple must be a man and a woman.



Hardly. Citizens 16 years old hold few rights of adulthood...i.e., cannot vote or contract. Furthermore, there is no constitutional challenge to requiring adulthood to marry. These laws challenged, were based on sex...not age.

For the state to define the right of marriage as having a sexual requirement, frees them to pass laws having a racial requirement and so on. On your terms you would then disagree with Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. unanimous ruling, 1967, state of Va. prohibition of marriage between races.




MrRodgers -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/1/2015 4:25:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Um...

On July 28, 1868, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified. The amendment grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" which included former slaves who had just been freed after the Civil War.

On January 4, 1896, President Cleveland proclaimed Utah a state on an equal footing with the other states of the Union. Finally! Utahns throughout the new 45th state celebrated.



got a lot of people saying a lot of things, yes?

the problem you will ultimately run into is when I say "prove it" using material fact.

First did you bother to read the what the Supreme Court Judge said in the Dyett case?

Seriously, consumer puppy chow makes me vomit.

If you examine the record it should be very obvious that the gubmint is claiming both sides of the argument to be correct at the same time.

This creates an inconsistency which is repugnant to any body of law.

If the Dyett case didnt give you enough I have "VOLUMES" more:

[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/blacks/14th006.jpg[/image]



I will start the foundation of my premise with the above; which is a factual dispute in law not only by the Utah Supreme Court Judge that you seem to have dismissed without a valid consideration or citation but with supporting citations proving my position.


Wow its in text now days:

http://www.firstfreedom.net/41.htm

When the mandatory provisions of the Constitution are violated, the Constitution itself strikes with nullity the Act that did violence to its provisions. Thus, the Constitution strikes with nullity the purported 14th Amendment.

The Courts, bound by oath to support the Constitution, should review all of the evidence herein submitted and measure the facts proving violations of the mandatory provisions of the Constitution with Article V, and finally render judgment declaring said purported amendment never to have been adopted as required by the Constitution.

The Constitution makes it the sworn duty of the judges to uphold the Constitution which strikes with nullity the 14th Amendment.

And, as Chief Justice Marshall pointed out for a unanimous Court in Marbury v. Madison (1 Cranch 136 at 179): "The framers of the constitution contemplated the instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature."

snip

The federal courts actually refuse to hear argument on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment, even when the issue is presented squarely by the pleadings and the evidence as above.

Only an aroused public sentiment in favor of preserving the Constitution and our institutions and freedoms under constitutional government, and the future security of our country, will break the political barrier which now prevents judicial consideration of the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment.


BUT all of this presupposes that states wherein rebellion and secession from the union had in fact occured, still were required in any vote to ratify an amendment to the constitution of the very country they left. Many didn't and I don't believe they did have any standing.

Seems to me, once a state secedes, then they forfeit the right and are subject to any laws or amendments voted by the balance of the union until as such time these states legally demonstrate they abide by the laws established thereafter.

For example, many argued and I think quite properly so, that no confederate state was ever empowered to sue for redress under the Slave Fugitive act, they at the time, being from a foreign country.

In the case of Utah, the states, country and the constitution were a settled issue and they had a right to...take it or leave it.










Aylee -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/1/2015 4:32:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
quote:

Someone please explain to me, how a same-sex marriage ban is not CLEARLY a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause.

States issue drivers licenses to citizens of age. With your line of reasoning the ban on under 16 year old citizens to drive is a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause. Of course this is not the case because driving was never considered a right for under age citizens nor was marriage considered a right for same sex couples because by the definition (of a driver), the driver must be of age, and by definition (of a marriage), the couple must be a man and a woman.


However an argument could be made that the 16 year old is not a full US Citizen as understood but the current federal laws. Therefore, they do not have the same rights as those 18 years and older. Likewise, driving a car is not an expressed right found within the US Constitution or the 27 amendments. Further, federal law does not specifically address this issue (that I'm aware on). Therefore, the 16 year old is not likely to obtain a driver's license by making an in court using the 14th amendment (he and/or his parents can still test the issue in court none the less).

Here's a curious question Arturas: What right allows the 16 year old kid (with parent's approval) to go to court in the first place to challenge a state ruling on driver licenses using the 14th amendment? (there actually is a federal law that allows this)


Neither is marriage. Bad argument twit.




Aylee -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/1/2015 4:34:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

Someone please explain to me, how a same-sex marriage ban is not CLEARLY a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause.



States issue drivers licenses to citizens of age. With your line of reasoning the ban on under 16 year old citizens to drive is a violation of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause. Of course this is not the case because driving was never considered a right for under age citizens nor was marriage considered a right for same sex couples because by the definition (of a driver), the driver must be of age, and by definition (of a marriage), the couple must be a man and a woman.




That argument falls apart. The 14th amendment doesn't CARE if it is a right or not. Totally irrelevant.

The 14th amendment says that a state can't make or enforce a law that abridges citizen's privileges or immunities.

Citizen obviously being a person who has reached the age of majority.


you don't have to go this in detail or say persons under 18 are not citizens, every person gets the licence with the same requirments as age higher than 16 and a minimum driving skills to be proven in one exam, everybody has the same treatment period. Some rights come with duties.


Nope. States differ on that.




Arturas -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/1/2015 4:45:09 PM)

quote:

However an argument could be made that the 16 year old is not a full US Citizen as understood but the current federal laws. Therefore, they do not have the same rights as those 18 years and older. Likewise, driving a car is not an expressed right found within the US Constitution or the 27 amendments


My two year old is a full U.S. Citizen. One does not become a citizen based on age.

Marriage as well as driving is not in the Constitution even indirectly.





Arturas -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/1/2015 4:57:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


Hardly. Citizens 16 years old hold few rights of adulthood...i.e., cannot vote or contract. Furthermore, there is no constitutional challenge to requiring adulthood to marry. These laws challenged, were based on sex...not age.

For the state to define the right of marriage as having a sexual requirement, frees them to pass laws having a racial requirement and so on. On your terms you would then disagree with Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. unanimous ruling, 1967, state of Va. prohibition of marriage between races.



The Constitution allows 16 year olds to vote should the individual state allows it. Further, it specifically says all naturalized persons are citizens without age or gender or race distinctions. Additionally, it prohibits states from denying the vote for anyone over the age of 17.

Marriage is not in the Constitution. Voting is. Driving is not. See the difference? Voting is, diving is not nor is marriage nor is child support or divorce for that matter. Notice a pattern there?




Arturas -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/1/2015 5:03:47 PM)

quote:

The 14th amendment says that a state can't make or enforce a law that abridges citizen's privileges or immunities.


Which are what exactly. What are a citizens privileges? First, citizens are citizens from age 1 minute to when they die. So, can my two year old be married if I decide this is a privilege of a citizen? If not, where in the Constitution does it prohibit my two year old son from marrying since apparently he has "equal protection" of his "privileges" which apparently includes marriage to the same sex of the same animal, or maybe not since where is it written that marriage is between human and human? That is right, this clearly is a "privilege" of a citizen, right?




Real0ne -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/1/2015 5:09:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


Hardly. Citizens 16 years old hold few rights of adulthood...i.e., cannot vote or contract. Furthermore, there is no constitutional challenge to requiring adulthood to marry. These laws challenged, were based on sex...not age.

For the state to define the right of marriage as having a sexual requirement, frees them to pass laws having a racial requirement and so on. On your terms you would then disagree with Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. unanimous ruling, 1967, state of Va. prohibition of marriage between races.



The Constitution allows 16 year olds to vote should the individual state allows it. Further, it specifically says all naturalized persons are citizens without age or gender or race distinctions. Additionally, it prohibits states from denying the vote for anyone over the age of 17.

Marriage is not in the Constitution. Voting is. Driving is not. See the difference? Voting is, diving is not nor is marriage nor is child support or divorce for that matter. Notice a pattern there?




aw man I have to see if I can find that copy of Supreme court Judges letter to buchanan I think .....Irwin was pissed and moved his family to iowa from wisconsin because the states overlay over the territory. He describes the fraud wherein they simply make an overlay then because it has a different name apply different rules, ie: travel to driving (which is understandable though in that case because you 'hire' a driver which is taxable and licenseable a traveller is not.), arms to guns and next thing the original rights that were reserved no longer exist, because they make overlays, the courts simply refuse to give you access to them! I will look for that, I'm sure I have a copy somewhere.








Real0ne -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/1/2015 5:33:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

When the mandatory provisions of the Constitution are violated, the Constitution itself strikes with nullity the Act that did violence to its provisions. Thus, the Constitution strikes with nullity the purported 14th Amendment.


BUT all of this presupposes that states wherein rebellion and secession from the union had in fact occured, still were required in any vote to ratify an amendment to the constitution of the very country they left. Many didn't and I don't believe they did have any standing.

Seems to me, once a state secedes, then they forfeit the right and are subject to any laws or amendments voted by the balance of the union until as such time these states legally demonstrate they abide by the laws established thereafter.

For example, many argued and I think quite properly so, that no confederate state was ever empowered to sue for redress under the Slave Fugitive act, they at the time, being from a foreign country.

In the case of Utah, the states, country and the constitution were a settled issue and they had a right to...take it or leave it.



Congressional Record -- House
June 13, 1967 H7161
THE 14TH AMENDMENT - EQUAL PROTECTION LAW OR TOOL OF USURPATION

(Mr. Rarick (at the request of Mr. Pryor) was granted permission to extend his remarks at this point in the Record and to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. RARICK. Mr. Speaker, arrogantly ignoring clear-cut expressions in the Constitution of the United States, the declared intent of its drafters notwithstanding, our unelected Federal judges read out prohibitions of the Constitution of the United States by adopting the fuzzy haze of the 14th Amendment to legislate their personal ideas, prejudices, theories, guilt complexes, aims, and whims. Through the cooperation of intellectual educators, we have subjected ourselves to accept destructive use and meaning of words and phrases. We blindly accept new meanings and changed values to alter our traditional thoughts. We have tolerantly permitted the habitual misuse of words to serve as a vehicle to abandon our foundations and goals. Thus, the present use and expansion of the 14th Amendment is a sham--{H7162} serving as a crutch and hoodwink to precipitate a quasi-legal approach for overthrow of the tender balances and protections of limitation found in the Constitution.

But, interestingly enough, the 14th Amendment--whether ratified or not--was but the expression of emotional outpouring of public sentiment following the War Between Our States. Its obvious purpose and intent was but to free human beings from ownership as a chattel by other humans. Its aim was no more than to free the slaves.

As our politically appointed Federal judiciary proceeds down their chosen path of chaotic departure from the peoples' government by substituting their personal law rationalized under the 14th Amendment, their actions and verbiage brand them and their team as secessionists--rebels with pens instead of guns--seeking to destroy our Union.

They must be stopped. Public opinion must be aroused. The Union must and shall be preserved. Mr. Speaker, I ask to include in the Record, following my remarks, House Concurrent Resolution 208 of the Louisiana Legislature urging this Congress to declare the 14th Amendment illegal. Also, I include in the Record an informative and well-annotated treatise on the illegality of the 14th Amendment--the play toy of our secessionist judges--which has been prepared by Judge Lander H. Perez, of Louisiana.

The material referred to follows:

H. Con. Res. 208

A concurrent resolution to expose the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; to interpose the sovereignty of the State of Louisiana against the execution of said amendment in this State; to memorialize the Congress of the United States to repeal its joint resolution of July 28, 1868, declaring that said amendment had been ratified; and to provide for the distribution of certified copies of this resolution.

Whereas the purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was never lawfully adopted in accordance with the requirements of the United States Constitution because eleven states of the Union were deprived of their equal suffrage in the Senate in violation of Article V, when eleven southern states, including Louisiana, were excluded from deliberation and decision in the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing said 14th Amendment; said Resolution was not presented to the President of the United States in order that the same should take effect, as required by Article I, Section 7; the proposed Amendment was not ratified by three fourths of the states, but to the contrary fifteen states of the then thirty seven states of the Union rejected the proposed 14th Amendment between the dates of its submission to the states by the Secretary of State on June 16, 1866, and March 24, 1868, thereby nullifying said Resolution and making it impossible for ratification by the constitutionally required three fourths of such states; said souther which were denied their equal suffrage in the Senate had been recognized by proclamations of the President of the United States to have duly constituted governments with all the powers which belong to free states of the Union, and the Legislatures of seven of said southern states had ratified the 13th Amendment which would have failed of ratification but for the ratification of said seven southern states; and,

Whereas the Reconstruction Acts of Congress unlawfully overthrew their existing governments, removed their lawfully constituted legislatures by military force and replaced them with rump legislatures which carried out military orders and pretended to ratify the 14th Amendment; and,


Whereas in spite of the fact that the Secretary of State in his first proclamation, of July 20, 1868, expressed doubt as to whether three fourths of the required states had ratified the 14th Amendment, Congress nevertheless adopted a resolution on July 28, 1868, unlawfully declaring that three fourths of the states had ratified the 14th Amendment and directed the Secretary of State to so proclaim, said Joint Resolution of Congress and the resulting proclamation of the Secretary of State included the purported ratifications of the military enforced rump legislatures of ten southern states whose lawful legislatures had previously rejected the said 14th Amendment, and also included purported ratifications by the legislatures of the States of Ohio, and New Jersey although they had withdrawn their legislative ratifications several months previously, all of which proves absolutely that said 14th Amendment was not adopted in accordance with the mandatory constitutional requirements set forth in Article V of the Constitution and therefore the Constitution strikes with nullity the purported 14th Amendment.

Now therefore be it resolved by the Legislature of Louisiana, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring:

(1) That the Legislature go on record as exposing the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment, and interposes the sovereignty of the State of Louisiana against the execution of said 14th Amendment against the State of Louisiana and its people;


(2) That the Legislature of Louisiana opposes the use of the invalid 14th Amendment by the Federal courts to impose further unlawful edicts and hardships on its people;

(3) That the Congress of the United States be memorialized by this Legislature to repeal its unlawful Joint Resolution of July 28, 1868, declaring that three fourths of the states had ratified the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(4) That the Legislatures of the other states of the Union be memorialized to give serious study and consideration to take similar action against the validity of the 14th Amendment and to uphold and support the Constitution of the United States which strikes said 14th Amendment with nullity;

(5) That copies of this Resolution, duly certified, together with a copy of the treatise on "The Unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment" by Judge L. H. Perez, be forwarded to the Governors and Secretaries of State of each state in the Union, and to the Secretaries of the United States Senate and House of Congress, and to the Louisiana Congressional Delegation, a copy hereof to be published in the Congressional Record.

Vail M. Delony,

Speaker of the House of Representatives.



MR,

How can we say that they were not legitimate legislatures when they were part of perpetual union [perpetual-which is bullshit in any contract] that could not be broken except by a greater force of arms? The supreme court got that one right, they never ceded the union.

Furthermore the so called 'new legislatures' were military not civilian and forced upon the states that obviously failed to secede. The secession was unsuvvessful and never took place.

Anyway I have volumes of this stuff from the legislatures of the states all with the same message, that they were held hostage while the 14th was pushed through to remove us from law and create the a quasi-legal in its place, then force it to become defacto removing all remnants of our organic dejure government.

that was:
June 13, 1967 H7161

how about that, found the site that lists all the original references for anyone who wants to research it further.

http://www.civil-liberties.com/cases/14con.html







MasterJaguar01 -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/1/2015 6:49:36 PM)

OK... Arguments about the validity of the 14th Amendment aside...

Does not the very definition of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, let alone the outright BANNING of same-sex marriage a violation of the 14th Amendment?




MrRodgers -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/1/2015 8:16:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

OK... Arguments about the validity of the 14th Amendment aside...

Does not the very definition of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, let alone the outright BANNING of same-sex marriage a violation of the 14th Amendment?

Ok to you and Realone: Yes, the majority did get it right this time in that yes, the 14th is the law of the land.

However, how can one even use the expression 'unconstitutionality' of the 14th amendment or any amendment. Invalidity is the word and a word we could apply with more certainty to the 16th amend.

But this: Furthermore the so called 'new legislatures' were military not civilian and forced upon the states that obviously failed to secede. The secession was unsuvvessful and never took place.

The secession did in fact take place. A govt. was formed, a constitution was written, an army was formed to protect the federal installations and property the south appropriated from northern attempts to maintain and so on.

There was a call for prosecutions for treason against those who took up arms against the US. In 1868, I don't care what took place.

What was left of the union after succession almost all of which, before Lincoln was even inaugurated, is enough to amend. the constitution and was certainly valid given that the south actually did go to war to preserve the contrary and committed acts of treason, had no standing legally or morally to ratify or not any or either the 14th or 15th amend.

Call them legislatures if you wish but for any of the southern states to in fact and yes, in fact secede from the US and then suggest that in 3 years or less, have the right to vote down any amend, dealing with the very cause of that secession (preserving involuntary servitude and denial of citizenship and equality before the law, maintaining slave property status) ...is patently ridiculous.

Call it a legal bargain, you allow the 14th and 15th amend and we won't arrest, prosecute and jail 1/2 of your populations for treason.




Real0ne -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/1/2015 8:55:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

OK... Arguments about the validity of the 14th Amendment aside...

Does not the very definition of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, let alone the outright BANNING of same-sex marriage a violation of the 14th Amendment?

Ok to you and Realone: Yes, the majority did get it right this time in that yes, the 14th is the law of the land.

However, how can one even use the expression 'unconstitutionality' of the 14th amendment or any amendment. Invalidity is the word and a word we could apply with more certainty to the 16th amend.

But this: Furthermore the so called 'new legislatures' were military not civilian and forced upon the states that obviously failed to secede. The secession was unsuvvessful and never took place.

The secession did in fact take place. A govt. was formed, a constitution was written, an army was formed to protect the federal installations and property the south appropriated from northern attempts to maintain and so on.

There was a call for prosecutions for treason against those who took up arms against the US. In 1868, I don't care what took place.

What was left of the union after succession almost all of which, before Lincoln was even inaugurated, is enough to amend. the constitution and was certainly valid given that the south actually did go to war to preserve the contrary and committed acts of treason, had no standing legally or morally to ratify or not any or either the 14th or 15th amend.

Call them legislatures if you wish but for any of the southern states to in fact and yes, in fact secede from the US and then suggest that in 3 years or less, have the right to vote down any amend, dealing with the very cause of that secession (preserving involuntary servitude and denial of citizenship and equality before the law, maintaining slave property status) ...is patently ridiculous.

Call it a legal bargain, you allow the 14th and 15th amend and we won't arrest, prosecute and jail 1/2 of your populations for treason.



Maybe its not readily apparent but when the contract is 'perpetual' the only way to break it in english commn law countries is by the 'total destruction' by the laws of 'conquest'. That is why you always heard hitler carry on about total destruction, it means completely abolishing a political system. What the supreme court did is take the big picture into the decision which when you consider legal versus illegal legislatures has to be considered to correctly determine their status.

You may say its a technicality but despite our feelings on the matter by law they did not secede, they only attempted to secede. Now had the over run the north, giving them the opportunity to actually enforce secession, they would have in fact seceded.

You do realize I hope that there is nothing that requires either the legislatures of the states or congress to pass constitutional law right?




Real0ne -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/1/2015 9:20:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

OK... Arguments about the validity of the 14th Amendment aside...

Does not the very definition of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, let alone the outright BANNING of same-sex marriage a violation of the 14th Amendment?



I'd have to agree, in that it is not a power granted to the state. However if you read some of the stuff I posted keeping in mind that in the late 1800's the corporations, the very problem before the revolution that the constitutors wanted to keep under tight wraps and strict scrutiny was left out of the bag.

This is why the 14th was really put into effect.

the corporations went to court a few years after the 14th was cast in concrete and obtained personhood, hence the beginning of the corporations having the same rights as the living man, and the living man reduced to the rights of a mere entity. Carte Blanche the corps can go in and murder millions as a result and the man gets the electric chair.

That is why the 14th needs to be addressed directly from its roots.

You are right about it being between 2 people. They make a contract between them, however we live in a common law country based on english law, some of which is kick ass good and much which is totally repugnant. Originally the church was the interloper, now the church and or the gubmint is the interloper.

The problem is that the gubmint has doled out benefits to its franchise citizens, therefore has a controlling interest in any marriage.

Here is a pretty good explanation: http://www.alimonyreform.org/content/articles/How%20Did%20Government%20Get%20Involved%20in%20Marriage.pdf

Like most of the crqap we have today its all 'synthesis'.

read up on the hegelian dialect and how it operates, that is how states move societies when its not crashing planes into skyscrapers or blowing up its own ships, and use for their propaganda and have used extremely successfully in court to insure complete dominance to cut off the franchise citizens from the ruling class.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_F4WomLlq0


but it really depends on your approach and how you argue the right.







Arturas -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/1/2015 9:42:17 PM)

Very well, then according to the 14th Amendment, my privileges are safeguarded and these include food, shelter, internet access and marrying my first cousin since marriage is a right that cannot be restricted. Also, the Constitution does not specify how many marriages are a right so I can now marry multiple women should I be so foolish as to do so and my right to do so is protected.




mnottertail -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/2/2015 6:44:15 AM)

Ja, no. Not in the 14th amendment at all.




Real0ne -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/2/2015 8:41:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Very well, then according to the 14th Amendment, my privileges are safeguarded and these include food, shelter, internet access and marrying my first cousin since marriage is a right that cannot be restricted. Also, the Constitution does not specify how many marriages are a right so I can now marry multiple women should I be so foolish as to do so and my right to do so is protected.



'Privileges' or 'Rights'?
Rights are 'inherent', privileges are issued.
the wisocnsin supreme court in the deshaney case made it perfectly clear that the government has NO obligation to protect you.
The governments only obligation is to protect its institution, which it does quite well.

Virtually everything the government has an interest in is on some level commercial, their religion.

Beware of confusing 'Privileges' with 'Rights', though if thats not convoluted enough a privilege creates a right. Marriage is a natural right that like life existed before the existence of 'ANY' government.. Marriage within the governmental structure is a franchise granted privilege.

One of the biggest reasons for marriage laws is way back in the good ole days of 'heredity' based property laws the kings of passed marriage laws such that people cant inter-marry....[like THEY did] and become part of the elite.

By intermarrying these families kept the money in the family and they continue to do it to this day where they have have grown so wealthy they have long bought the government the average joe thinks is 'free'.

Great plan and it worked to help suppress competition in the top tiers perfectly.






MrRodgers -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/2/2015 3:47:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


Hardly. Citizens 16 years old hold few rights of adulthood...i.e., cannot vote or contract. Furthermore, there is no constitutional challenge to requiring adulthood to marry. These laws challenged, were based on sex...not age.

For the state to define the right of marriage as having a sexual requirement, frees them to pass laws having a racial requirement and so on. On your terms you would then disagree with Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. unanimous ruling, 1967, state of Va. prohibition of marriage between races.



The Constitution allows 16 year olds to vote should the individual state allows it. Further, it specifically says all naturalized persons are citizens without age or gender or race distinctions. Additionally, it prohibits states from denying the vote for anyone over the age of 17.

Marriage is not in the Constitution. Voting is. Driving is not. See the difference? Voting is, diving is not nor is marriage nor is child support or divorce for that matter. Notice a pattern there?


Actually that definition of citizenship was in the 14th amend. prior to which were many citizenship restrictions. A citizen must have attained the age of 18 to vote in elections for federal office. (26th amend.)

Also in that amend. (14th.) was a 21 yrs of age requirement for voting in elections for federal office. However, equal protection of the laws was also in the 14th. and a marriage contract is state contract law, so to deny anyone equal protection of that law on the basis of sex, is a violation of the 14th. just as in 'Loving.'

Don't recall bringing up driving.





MrRodgers -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/2/2015 3:55:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Very well, then according to the 14th Amendment, my privileges are safeguarded and these include food, shelter, internet access and marrying my first cousin since marriage is a right that cannot be restricted. Also, the Constitution does not specify how many marriages are a right so I can now marry multiple women should I be so foolish as to do so and my right to do so is protected.


Again, not true. States are constitutionally free to define marriage (US courts) as a contract between two people only.

Furthermore, any govt. provision of food, clothing and shelter is subject to the various state and federal laws and are in no way guaranteed constitutional law but the 14th amend. requires their equal protection.




MrRodgers -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/2/2015 4:04:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

OK... Arguments about the validity of the 14th Amendment aside...

Does not the very definition of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, let alone the outright BANNING of same-sex marriage a violation of the 14th Amendment?

Ok to you and Realone: Yes, the majority did get it right this time in that yes, the 14th is the law of the land.

However, how can one even use the expression 'unconstitutionality' of the 14th amendment or any amendment. Invalidity is the word and a word we could apply with more certainty to the 16th amend.

But this: Furthermore the so called 'new legislatures' were military not civilian and forced upon the states that obviously failed to secede. The secession was unsuvvessful and never took place.

The secession did in fact take place. A govt. was formed, a constitution was written, an army was formed to protect the federal installations and property the south appropriated from northern attempts to maintain and so on.

There was a call for prosecutions for treason against those who took up arms against the US. In 1868, I don't care what took place.

What was left of the union after succession almost all of which, before Lincoln was even inaugurated, is enough to amend. the constitution and was certainly valid given that the south actually did go to war to preserve the contrary and committed acts of treason, had no standing legally or morally to ratify or not any or either the 14th or 15th amend.

Call them legislatures if you wish but for any of the southern states to in fact and yes, in fact secede from the US and then suggest that in 3 years or less, have the right to vote down any amend, dealing with the very cause of that secession (preserving involuntary servitude and denial of citizenship and equality before the law, maintaining slave property status) ...is patently ridiculous.

Call it a legal bargain, you allow the 14th and 15th amend and we won't arrest, prosecute and jail 1/2 of your populations for treason.



Maybe its not readily apparent but when the contract is 'perpetual' the only way to break it in english commn law countries is by the 'total destruction' by the laws of 'conquest'. That is why you always heard hitler carry on about total destruction, it means completely abolishing a political system. What the supreme court did is take the big picture into the decision which when you consider legal versus illegal legislatures has to be considered to correctly determine their status.

You may say its a technicality but despite our feelings on the matter by law they did not secede, they only attempted to secede. Now had the over run the north, giving them the opportunity to actually enforce secession, they would have in fact seceded.

You do realize I hope that there is nothing that requires either the legislatures of the states or congress to pass constitutional law right?

When a people with their votes, property etc., seek to take national property, fail to protect national property, form a govt. form an army, create a separately taxed economy and currency and banking, are recognized, aided and abetted by other countries, then make war to protect all of that...that's a very successful secession.

Secession does nor require conquest only a bone fide separation. The south did a whole lot more than that.




MasterJaguar01 -> RE: 14th Ammendment (7/2/2015 10:15:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

OK... Arguments about the validity of the 14th Amendment aside...

Does not the very definition of marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman, let alone the outright BANNING of same-sex marriage a violation of the 14th Amendment?

Ok to you and Realone: Yes, the majority did get it right this time in that yes, the 14th is the law of the land.

However, how can one even use the expression 'unconstitutionality' of the 14th amendment or any amendment. Invalidity is the word and a word we could apply with more certainty to the 16th amend.

But this: Furthermore the so called 'new legislatures' were military not civilian and forced upon the states that obviously failed to secede. The secession was unsuvvessful and never took place.

The secession did in fact take place. A govt. was formed, a constitution was written, an army was formed to protect the federal installations and property the south appropriated from northern attempts to maintain and so on.

There was a call for prosecutions for treason against those who took up arms against the US. In 1868, I don't care what took place.

What was left of the union after succession almost all of which, before Lincoln was even inaugurated, is enough to amend. the constitution and was certainly valid given that the south actually did go to war to preserve the contrary and committed acts of treason, had no standing legally or morally to ratify or not any or either the 14th or 15th amend.

Call them legislatures if you wish but for any of the southern states to in fact and yes, in fact secede from the US and then suggest that in 3 years or less, have the right to vote down any amend, dealing with the very cause of that secession (preserving involuntary servitude and denial of citizenship and equality before the law, maintaining slave property status) ...is patently ridiculous.

Call it a legal bargain, you allow the 14th and 15th amend and we won't arrest, prosecute and jail 1/2 of your populations for treason.



Maybe its not readily apparent but when the contract is 'perpetual' the only way to break it in english commn law countries is by the 'total destruction' by the laws of 'conquest'. That is why you always heard hitler carry on about total destruction, it means completely abolishing a political system. What the supreme court did is take the big picture into the decision which when you consider legal versus illegal legislatures has to be considered to correctly determine their status.

You may say its a technicality but despite our feelings on the matter by law they did not secede, they only attempted to secede. Now had the over run the north, giving them the opportunity to actually enforce secession, they would have in fact seceded.

You do realize I hope that there is nothing that requires either the legislatures of the states or congress to pass constitutional law right?



They only attempted to secede? By law? They formed a new government, new currency, and wrote their own Constitution, not to mention formed their own army.

This wasn't a Civil War, it was an invasion by a foreign army (starting with Fort Sumter)

They seceeded.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625