I’ve been reading a lot lately on the Civil War. I picked up an old American History book while in Ireland and found something suspicious about the way Congress passed the 14th Amendment. Research led me to this article which explains it best:
THE “INFAMOUS” 14TH AMENDMENT!
Another example of the S.C. not doing their jobs, no?
MFitz
You forgot to wear your tinfoil hat when you posted this.
Just so you know. You need to find a cite which supports your claim and has a more scholarly look. There are many opinions about what this means. Many of these involve the owner of the particular gored ox. But on the whole, I recomend that you find a cite which includes links to the sources of the information (or at least mentions them) so that others could theorectically at least look the information up. You need to stay away from articles which only refernce themselves or other articles from the same author.
You might want to stay away from authors whose reference sounds like this:
Taken form the linked article about its own author
Of course, the Constitutional Convention exceeded its mandate when it actually discarded the Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence was a blatantly illegal act.
Obviously, we should throw ourselves on the mercy of the Queen and beg to be reunited with our former legal authority. (Unless you want to get picky and appeal to the authorities of the Iroquois, Cherokee, Natchez, and similar bodies to grant us leave to actually live here, first.)
MFitz, welcome to SDMB. I hope you enjoy your participation here.
You really need more reliable sources than Albert V. Burns. He presents no academic or legal credentials. You might as well be quoting your next door neighbor.
I am curious about why you would choose to believe someone like this?
This article is a synopsis, but every historical point in it is accurate. You need only do a few minutes of research yourself to verify it.
The simple truth is that an intellectually honest person would respond with rebuttals based on historical fact, rather than insults and outright dismisal.
The left-wingers are incapable of substantive argument, a fact they prove constantly. Perhaps this is not the place for a discussion of real content, but know this: at least a couple of people here will read this, do the research, and appreciate it for its content.
MFitz
Let me give you an example.This cite may in fact be just as full of crap as the one you linked to, but it at least references many online documents that it purports to be reliable. Anyone who questions it authority can do so at their leasure.
Please do not refer to me as a leftist. I am a loony libertarian or an obtuse Objectivist at least.
Also if you recieve constructive criticism it can be helpful to listen to it and post some other links instead of attacking those who were only asking a few questions.
An Amendment cannot be unconstitutional, even if Senators from the various treasonous states are excluded from the process. You may not like the Reconstruction Act, but dem is da breaks when you are on the losing side of a war. And if you call me a ‘left-winger’, I’ll drop-kick your puppy.
On this message board, if you claim something, you’d better be prepared to offer cites to back it up. You cannot demand that your opponents provide cites to prove you wrong until you do th is.
And the rule of thumb is “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary intelligence.”
Lynn
For the Straight Dope
**
Every fact may be “accurate,” but the facts may also be incomplete. For instance, it argues that only 120 Representatives voted “for” the amendment. But it never says how many voted against it. Were there 184 votes or not? If four of those seats abstained or were not filled (death, absence, etc), or were votes cast by proxy, then those 120 Congressmen voting “for” the amendment may well have constituted 2/3 of the body as it stood at that point. Since it is the author, and you, who are making the outrageous claims, it is on you to fastidiously document every assertion from every angle possible.
What you’ve linked to is a propaganda piece. I could drum up some lefty propaganda that claims, based on assertions that are wholly true, if not the whole truth, that George Bush knew that Sept. 11 was going to happen and let it occur for political reasons. Of course, such an accusation is true. But if you’re selective enough with your evidence, you can paint that picture.
Then how come more folks voted for us instead of you in the last presidential election, if we had no substantive positions or arguments? Sheer luck?
You should be careful. You’re coming off as a shrill, propagandist partisan. This board doesn’t need an Ann Coulter.
That article is more revealing, but still so interested in pushing an agenda that it doesn’t present refuting evidence to its own position, a sign of weak scholarship.
Strange that it fails to mention MFritz’s article’s damning 120 votes charge.
There is, of course, the point that it is constitutional and legal now. Sort of like the Lousiana Purchase.
:eek:
You know something we don’t?!
spectrum Yea, my bad. The article I linked to is not much better than MFitz’s. I was taken in by my own brief scanning and what looked like links to cites. they turned out to be simply links to the bibliography. But at least there was a bibliography.
I don’t tend to trust articles which include both sides of an argument. I’ve found that most times the characterization of the opposition is incorrect. I much prefer a short sentence and a link to some proponent of the opposite viewpoint. This may be a result of my propensity towards philosophical or political arguments instead of more direct evidence based arguments.
ARGHHH! I meant to say “which of course is not true.”
Bush is bad, but not happy-go-lucky-let-3000-Americans-needlessly-die bad. The man’s not evil!
(checks to make sure I put “not” in that last sentence)
So if someone is capable of substantive argument, that automatically renders them a non-“left-winger”?
I’ve seen a number of those who at least claim to be “left-wingers” make substantive arguments. Now, I know that they were lying and not really “left-wingers” at all.
Thanks MFitz.
I can’t help but notice, that you didn’t make a substantive argument. You must be a “left-winger”!
Oh, wait a minute. How do I know that you’re telling the truth about “left-wingers” not being able to make substantive arguments?
Could you provide some sort of citation of meaningful evidence that backs up your blanket generalization about millions of people you’ve never met?
It seems an intellectually honest person would respond to “left-wingers” with rebuttals based on historical fact, rather than insults and outright dismissal.
Perhaps you’re currently hamstrung in your ability to initiate “a discussion of real content.”
Hang about, and lurk a bit and see how it’s done. You can always practice in The Pit where the standards of discourse aren’t quite as high.
Also, if you have a specifically legal issue, you can directly ask for the participation of the various lawyerly Dopers that reside here, by including a bit in your OP’s title like, “Legal Dopers: 14th Ammendment Unconstitutional?”
Welcome to the SDMB GD.
New sig for Brutus!
It was a much better cite. Not only was there a comprehensive bibliography, but some of the links were to documents, like a photograph of Lincoln’s signature on a resolution.
Did no one else appreciate the irony of these two statements?
JM
Boy, I did.
What’s the betting on Mfitz showing back up again?