Cecil Speaks: Is U.S. income tax invalid because Ohio wasn’t legally a state when the 16th amendment was ratified?
I also would have sworn that there was an old thread on the ratification of the Reconstruction amendments (I recall in particular a Utah or Nevada Supreme Court opinion from the 60s that was bitching about their ratification), but darned if I can find it now. Maybe it was lost during the Winter of Missed Content.
Cecil talks about an objection to the IRS because of its “establishment of religion” in that link.
How does that argument work? What religion is the IRS establishing? I mean, I know it’s crackpot, but I’d love to hear the pseudo-reasoning behind that one.
Beats me. Render unto Ceasar, and all that?
Sorry. Didn’t mean to steal the thunder from your earlier post.
Ftizie’s argument sure had nothing to add to rational debate.
Could it be the tax exempt status of Religious organizations? That might be construed as an indirect subsidy.
More cutting-edge news from engineer and conspiracy theorist Al Burns:
His oh-so-brilliant but belated defence of Joe McCarthy.
How ther Alinsky method and “change agents” are destroying freedom.
Here’s a hoary trope: the old Gold Standard rant. Curse the Know-Nothing Party!
Defending the Constitution, which Men in Black Helicopter wish to destroy.
The Feds are going to end private property- using zoning laws and HUD. I knew it!
“The only thing which can save our nation and our freedom is to, somehow, get enough people away from being mesmerized by the boob tube and aware of the impending juggernaut of world government which is barreling down the road toward us.” You tell 'em, Albert!
Oh, I could go on all day, but it’s sapping my will to live. Suffice it to say that it would be more productive to cite/ debate Rush lyrics than the works of the august Albert V. Burns.
What the heck is it with the gold standard anyway? The Wall Street Journal used to be plauged with collumnists who would work a reference to it into almost any unrelated subject, and whenever I go to NewsMax or some other far-right site, it’s peppered with ads telling me to buy gold! gold! gold!
When the New World Order seizes control of the United States and places it under control of a fascist UN-appointed leader, that American money ain’t gon’ be worth nuttin’. But GOLD, well see thats the STANDARD, and the UN can’t do shizzit about that now can they?!
At least that’s how I understand it, Apos. Could be wrong.
Well, wait a minute. Things are or they aren’t true. My gut feeling is that the link in the OP is garbage but it contains assertions which should be easily disprovable or explained why they are without merit.
I am the first one to believe something illegal would have been questioned and settled by the SCOTUS but there must be a better answer than calling the OP a loonie which he may or may not be but that does not answer the question.
Is this true or not? Is it relevant or not?
Is this true or not? Relevant or not? Why so? Why not?
This is all from memory, sailor, so some of it might be wrong but I do know the 14th Amendment was passed during the Reconstruction period after the Civil War. This meant that the former CSA were not yet again full-fledged states. Their rights were curbed during the period, probably including the right to ratify amendments. Basically it means that whether or not the southern states liked it, their opinions meant jack. It also probably readjusted the number of states actually needed to ratify the amendment as well as the seats in Congress since I doubt those “duly-elected” representatives were allowed to sit in on any Congressional votes until several years later. In short, the 14th Amendment exists because we trashed the Confederacy and winners make the rules.
Regardless, if put to a vote today the Amendment would almost certainly stay in which makes it, in effect, legal under any modern standard.
It’s quite true that Congress did not permit the formerly Confederate states to send representatives and senators to Congress in 1865. They had, after all, seceded from the Union at the start of the Civil War, and they were not readmitted to the Union for several more years. And it’s also quite correct that Congress sent the 14th Amendment to the Southern states for ratification. Indeed, ratification by them was a condition of their readmission to the Union.
None of that makes the ratification of the post-war amendments unconstitutional, of course. The Constitution is silent on who counts for what when states secede, and it’s silent on counting states towards the 3/4ths rule for ratification, and it’s silent on whether states can withdraw their ratification, and it’s silent on just about every other objection raised in the OP. In light of that silence, the government just muddles on through and finds its own answers, which is exactly what happened in the case of the 14th Amendment. Then, 100 years later, people who don’t like it claim they should have reached some other answer.
[stands up and gives Sailor a round of applause]
Well said, dude. Scrolling through this thread, I was feeling increasingly disappointed in the Great Debaters–ridicule? References to tinfoil hats? Off-topic comments? That’s the best you guys can do? C’mon, this is the Straight Dope, guys, we slay 'em with facts. Sic 'em! 
[looking forward to seeing folks who know way more about this than me take up the cudgels with a point-by-point refutation of Mr. Burns’ thesis]
Which parts of it aren’t true, exactly?
Ohio ratified in 2003(!). So a sufficient number of states did ratify the amendment, no matter how you slice it. And certainly, after secession, the South had no right to start bitching about having their rights trampled. They didn’t even recognize the Constitution at the time, etc.
I can’t seem to find a record of the number of votes the 14th did or did not receive. So there may be some meat to that claim. But, as Lynn pointed out, it is up to MFitz to find a reliable source to show that there were insufficient votes. And I agree w/ minty that it is regarded as a valid amendment now, and arguments against it should consider that the U.S. was in the throws of its greatest Constitutional crisis.
Hey, sorry if I was overly critical of the dude, but I did attempt to do some googling to refute his claims directly, but just kept getting things like “Jerry’s Aryan Battle Page,” rather than any serious legal thought.
There is one page with various quotes re: the legality of XIV. I don’t see how this relates to the author’s hypothesis that the U.S. is still a British colony, but I guess that’s why I’m not a lawyer.
Gosh, I mislinked the 14th amendment discussion from Jerry’s Aryan Battle Page. Now we can all bask in his racist wisdom. Enjoy.
From United States Code Annotated (not available free online) on the XIV Amendment:
Make of that what you will.
However, in any event, since 1868 the XIV Amendment has been considered a proper (and indeed integral) part of the Constitution, so any questions about its past history would be condidered merely academic.
Monthly DSL internet access…$35.00
Membership in the SDMB…$0.00
Seeing pervert and Brutus called leftists…Priceless.
Allright sailor and Duck Duck Goose, I’ll give it a shot. Please excuse any errors, I am writing this with nothing but memory, the article cited in the OP, and my handy copy of the Constitution.
Article V states, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution.” Are Burns’ numbers accurate? Unfortunately, I do not have this information. Not only would the 120 votes have to be verified, but the 184 members number. The amendment seems to state that two thirds of each house must vote in the affirmative, rather than two-thirds of the votes cast. Of course, this is open to interpretation, but I prefer a plain-English style of reading documents.
Contrary to Burns’ claim, there was nothing illegal or unconstitutional about Congress demanding a form of government that met with their approval prior to readmitting the Southern states. By seceding from the Union, these states rejected their attachment to the Constitution and the government formed under it. Article IV, section 3 provides that Congress has the power to admit states to the union and that the Congress can make all laws or regulations regarding the territories that they feel necessary. Section 4 of the same article actually requires the central government to protect the states from domestic violence (a possible justification for certain acts - like disenfranchising certain confederate officers/soldiers).
The only question left is whether or not a state can rescind ratification of an amendment. Clearly, this is not addressed in the Constitution, but the Constitution is an instrument of creation and power for national, rather than state, government. However, the ability of a state to unilaterally rescind a previous act ratifying an amendment does not make sense in the scheme of government envisioned by the Founders. They very clearly differentiated between a Constitution and an act of legislation by way of permanence and by means of creation and approval. The Constitution is meant to be a permanent fixture, created by a specially called body* and ratified directly by the states. They carry this differntiation further by requiring similar steps (in terms of the method of amendment) to alter the Constitution. This would seem to indicate to me that Burns’ article and the claims made there in are complete and total bunk.
*Yes, I realize that the Constitution was written in a meeting that clearly exceeded their authorized bounds. However, they were called and selected to modify the Articles of Confederation, a task on par with the creation of a constitution. Similarly these men, and those (Jefferson, for example) who would form the opposition to the Federalists under the Constituion, required similar lengths in the creation of state constitutions. The calling of a select body for the purpose of creating the document and the ratification directly by the interested parties (states in the case of the national government, and the people in the case of state governments) were the hallmarks of permanent constitutions.
Nitpick: legally speaking, the Supreme Court held in Texas v. White that the vote to secede was null and void:
According to the Supreme Court, the confederate states never ceased to be states during the Civil War. You can’t cite to Texas v. White (as you have in the past) to prove that secession was illegal and then turn around and ignore it on questions of amendment ratification.
Having said that, the 14th amendment is clearly valid for the reasons cogently laid out by akennett. The Congress can determine what members it will seat, and time has long since cured any defects in the original ratification process.
What’s the betting on Mfitz showing back up again? SimonX
Probably about the same as finding someone here who will concede this is a valid argument.
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. Pervert
What I can’t understand is how someone would reject the premise as ridiculous, and then ask me to provide links rather than studying the subject yourself. Why would you trust MY links?
Anyway, the basic problem with the Constitutionality of the 14th Amendment lies in the fact that Congress recognized their members (including those duly elected in the South) as legitimate in order to pass the 13th Amendment. Then, in direct opposition to both Lincoln’s and Johnson’s Proclamations of Amnesty, they refused to seat the members who would not ratify the 14th Amendment. They redefined Congress specifically for its passing, which Johnson vetoed. Then they overrode the veto and then moved to impeach Johnson.
Akennet,
Your argument (which was the that of the Congress at the time) that Article I section 5 allows Congress to reconstruct itself when it feels like it implies the very construction of Congress is up to them to decide, which would nullify everything else the Constitution says about Congress. Can Congress therefore legitimately refuse to seat certain States today because they don’t sign the next Patriot Act-type law?
No, this principle exceeds the powers granted to it by the Constituion.
OK, the links:
Lincoln’s Proclamation of Amnesty
http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/colony37.html
May 1865: Andrew Johnson’s Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon for the Confederate States
http://search.eb.com/elections/pri/Q00076.html
December 1865: Congress Ratifies the 13th Amendment
http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/amend13.htm
December 1865: Congress refuses admission of duly elected Southern Representatives and passes the 14th Amendment
Congress considered them legitimate when they passed the 13th Amendment
Andrew Johnson Vetoes it saying,
“I submit to Congress whether this measure is not in its whole character, scope and object without precedent and without authority, in palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution, and utterly destructive of those great principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood and expended so much treasure.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39ff18e04b5f.htm
Congress overrides his veto:
Additional Synopsis (Similar to original article)
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/March2002/032002Fallon.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39ff18e04b5f.htm
That should give you enough to do some reading.
MFitz
Thanks, guys, for humoring me.
Now it looks more like a “debate”…