Ok, look I get the whole ""He kidnapped me"" thing, but you mist Remove EMOTION from the whole equation, because LAW does NOT include how you FEEL....
Emotion, like the random ALL-CAPS usage? You're the one exhibiting quite a lot of emotion in this debate. Indeed, the law doesn't care how you feel. Which is why I keep referring to it.
So I want to look at BOTH SIDES, from a Superior point of view, and have a Look from above, like someone looking at ants, instead of some one looking at it AS an Ant...
Sure, which is why I sympathize with the majority of the rebels, who were duped into stupidly supporting and dying for an unjust cause. Like Lincoln and Grant, I would have urged mercy for the dupes (majority). Only the rebel ringleaders should have been punished with any level of severity... I think that the 14th's prohibition of being allowed to serve in government was fair, although there should have been no opportunity for those rights to ever be restored. Look what happened, after Reconstruction, former rebel Dems stole elections in the former rebel states and legalized themselves back into power. Where I disagree with Lincoln, is that the top ringleaders, including those guilty of treason (violating their constitutional oaths... former federal office holders and military), should have been more harshly punished. Death sentence or at the least, exile for the top rebel leaders. I contend that because the penalties weren't harsh enough, and not enough examples were made, that allowed the former rebels to basically return to a "legalized" system of slavery in the former rebel states for another 100 years.
So you adhere your opinions to Clowns? The Fire Eaters were akin to ANTIFA today, just a bunch of idiots who really had no home, were paid to cause trouble, and had wealthy backers, only looking to foment strife, same as ANTIFA, and BLM....
Actually, the real fireeaters are the ones pulling the strings to sucker average people to join and support terrorists like ANTIFA and BLM. Follow the money. Who funds these groups. Modern fireeaters have vastly improved their ability to hide in the shadows, though with the digital age, it has also become more possible to identify, expose and catch them.
Oh I intend to fully go therough evey part you've written, but since it is New Years, I wish you a very Happy and Prosperous and Healthy and fortunate New Yaer to You and your Family and Friends.... For now, I'ma Watch the last episodes of TDW.... Laters my Fren....
By all means, make every effort you desire. I can dance all day and happy to do it. Iron sharpens iron.
The 14th Amendment was created in order to fully fly against the Article 4, Section 2 State Citizens, which ny all Rights and Laws were "Explicitly untouchable by the Federation in it's claims or dealings, that is Specifically why they didn't bother to force the Issue with General Lee and President Jefferson, there was no possible way to Prosecute them for Treason, because they knew that the Unite States is NOT an actual Nation, bit a Conglomeration of Various Nations....
No southerner ever committed Treason, but any Northerners did.....
The 14th Amendment was created in order to fully fly against the Article 4, Section 2 State Citizens
It was actually enacted because former rebel Demcrat shits were continuing to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens, e.g. the recently freed blacks. The amendment was ratified. It's legally binding as part of the Constitution.
why they didn't bother to force the Issue with General Lee and President Jefferson,
You should do more research on the indictments against both, who were actually very close to being fully prosecuted, had it not been for the political pressure to avoid making them into martyrs which risked encouraging former rebels to reignite open rebellion.
there was no possible way to Prosecute them for Treason, because they knew that the Unite States is NOT an actual Nation, bit a Conglomeration of Various Nations....
The USA is a nation and always has been, originally employing a governance structure a a confederation and then with the transition to a Constitution, a federation. Again, dual sovereignty.
No southerner ever committed Treason, but any Northerners did.....
Every politician and member of the military who took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the USA, and then took up arms, aided or abetted rebellion against the USA, committed treason. The many thousands of rebel traitors should have counted their blessings that Lincoln was as merciful as he was.
It, the 14th Amendment, was only ratified BEcause the U.S. Army went into a State and physically removed their entire Legislature, then grabbed Civilians, unelected people, off the streets, made them take seats in that legislature, and forced them to vote FOR the 14th, at the point of bayonets, that is NOT Proper Ratification, it's Unconstitutional....
I believe it was Virginia, or one of the Carolinas, but i happened, unlike the Original 13th Amendment, that gives Teeth to the Nobility Clause, but cannot be found anywhere as an Amendment, yet it lasted on the Books Officially, until sometime around 1900, when it was last published in like the Wisconsin or Michigan State Statutes....
It, the 14th Amendment, was only ratified BEcause the U.S. Army went into a State and physically removed their entire Legislature,
State officials who had aided and abetted, and some even engaged in unlawful rebellion against the USA. During time of war, including a domestic rebellion, where martial law is effect, the US military was authorized to restore valid republican government enforcing the Constitution.
I believe it was Virginia, or one of the Carolinas, but i happened
If you're going to make claims, best to have evidence readily prepared.
unlike the Original 13th Amendment, that gives Teeth to the Nobility Clause, but cannot be found anywhere as an Amendment,
The proposed Titles of Nobility Amendment was never ratified by the required number of states to be adopted as an amendment. Hence, why it's not listed as an amendment.
yet it lasted on the Books Officially, until sometime around 1900, when it was last published in like the Wisconsin or Michigan State Statutes....
The proposed, but unratified article, appeared on several erroneous publications since the early 1800s. It could still be ratified today, since no time limit was imposed on the proposition. This has happened before, so perhaps like the 27th Amendment, somebody might push to have enough states meet the ratification requirements and make the proposal become the 28th Amendment?
Your implication that somehow the ratification of the 14th was invalid because the US military wasn't as firm to "force" the states to ratify other previously considered amendments, is absurd.
As to the text of that proposed amendment:
If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain, any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution is quite clear that the ban already applies to all US public officials, barring approval from Congress... something I do have a problem with, which I'll address shortly...
I would not vote to ratify the proposed Amendment, and suspect my reasoning to be the same as to why it wasn't ratified immediately back when it was proposed. Unlike the Article I, Section 9 prohibition, this proposed amendment would have expanded the ban to ALL citizens, not just public federal officials, and taken away citizenship from US citizens. Imagine how such power could be abused against political opponents? I can easily see the Jeffersonians objecting on the basis that such law would have been weaponized against those in opposition to the Adams administration. What about the surviving Federalists under the Jefferson and Madison administrations? "So and so took a gift from King such and such." Very, very dangerous can of worms to open...
Furthermore, I have an issue with allowing Congress to grant permission for the acceptance of any such foreign title etc. for anyone. At the very least, I don't think that any public agent of the US government or any state government should be able to accept as much, whether or not Congress ok's it. Frankly, I'd approve a constitutional ban on it altogether, removing any authority from Congress to consent to it. Again, very dangerous power that could be weaponized against political opponents, and reward/leverage political allies or potential allies.
But what private citizens do, is their business and right. If they want to accept gifts or titles from foreign government entities (civil and/or ecclesiastical) then by all means, the federal government shouldn't and doesn't (since the proposed Amendment has yet to be ratified) have any power to say otherwise. Accepting such benefits from a foreign power, does not necessarily lead to subversion, insurrection, rebellion or treason. Sure, it might lead to increased temptation of US citizens, but it wouldn't be an actual crime until such actions are actually committed.
Interesting topic to discuss, but has no relevance to what we were previously debating.
Emotion, like the random ALL-CAPS usage? You're the one exhibiting quite a lot of emotion in this debate. Indeed, the law doesn't care how you feel. Which is why I keep referring to it.
Sure, which is why I sympathize with the majority of the rebels, who were duped into stupidly supporting and dying for an unjust cause. Like Lincoln and Grant, I would have urged mercy for the dupes (majority). Only the rebel ringleaders should have been punished with any level of severity... I think that the 14th's prohibition of being allowed to serve in government was fair, although there should have been no opportunity for those rights to ever be restored. Look what happened, after Reconstruction, former rebel Dems stole elections in the former rebel states and legalized themselves back into power. Where I disagree with Lincoln, is that the top ringleaders, including those guilty of treason (violating their constitutional oaths... former federal office holders and military), should have been more harshly punished. Death sentence or at the least, exile for the top rebel leaders. I contend that because the penalties weren't harsh enough, and not enough examples were made, that allowed the former rebels to basically return to a "legalized" system of slavery in the former rebel states for another 100 years.
Actually, the real fireeaters are the ones pulling the strings to sucker average people to join and support terrorists like ANTIFA and BLM. Follow the money. Who funds these groups. Modern fireeaters have vastly improved their ability to hide in the shadows, though with the digital age, it has also become more possible to identify, expose and catch them.
By all means, make every effort you desire. I can dance all day and happy to do it. Iron sharpens iron.
ELE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0spFY1I2NQ
frens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH0Qda32IKM
The 14th Amendment was created in order to fully fly against the Article 4, Section 2 State Citizens, which ny all Rights and Laws were "Explicitly untouchable by the Federation in it's claims or dealings, that is Specifically why they didn't bother to force the Issue with General Lee and President Jefferson, there was no possible way to Prosecute them for Treason, because they knew that the Unite States is NOT an actual Nation, bit a Conglomeration of Various Nations....
No southerner ever committed Treason, but any Northerners did.....
It was actually enacted because former rebel Demcrat shits were continuing to violate the constitutional rights of American citizens, e.g. the recently freed blacks. The amendment was ratified. It's legally binding as part of the Constitution.
You should do more research on the indictments against both, who were actually very close to being fully prosecuted, had it not been for the political pressure to avoid making them into martyrs which risked encouraging former rebels to reignite open rebellion.
The USA is a nation and always has been, originally employing a governance structure a a confederation and then with the transition to a Constitution, a federation. Again, dual sovereignty.
Every politician and member of the military who took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the USA, and then took up arms, aided or abetted rebellion against the USA, committed treason. The many thousands of rebel traitors should have counted their blessings that Lincoln was as merciful as he was.
It, the 14th Amendment, was only ratified BEcause the U.S. Army went into a State and physically removed their entire Legislature, then grabbed Civilians, unelected people, off the streets, made them take seats in that legislature, and forced them to vote FOR the 14th, at the point of bayonets, that is NOT Proper Ratification, it's Unconstitutional....
I believe it was Virginia, or one of the Carolinas, but i happened, unlike the Original 13th Amendment, that gives Teeth to the Nobility Clause, but cannot be found anywhere as an Amendment, yet it lasted on the Books Officially, until sometime around 1900, when it was last published in like the Wisconsin or Michigan State Statutes....
State officials who had aided and abetted, and some even engaged in unlawful rebellion against the USA. During time of war, including a domestic rebellion, where martial law is effect, the US military was authorized to restore valid republican government enforcing the Constitution.
If you're going to make claims, best to have evidence readily prepared.
The proposed Titles of Nobility Amendment was never ratified by the required number of states to be adopted as an amendment. Hence, why it's not listed as an amendment.
The proposed, but unratified article, appeared on several erroneous publications since the early 1800s. It could still be ratified today, since no time limit was imposed on the proposition. This has happened before, so perhaps like the 27th Amendment, somebody might push to have enough states meet the ratification requirements and make the proposal become the 28th Amendment?
Your implication that somehow the ratification of the 14th was invalid because the US military wasn't as firm to "force" the states to ratify other previously considered amendments, is absurd.
As to the text of that proposed amendment:
Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution is quite clear that the ban already applies to all US public officials, barring approval from Congress... something I do have a problem with, which I'll address shortly...
I would not vote to ratify the proposed Amendment, and suspect my reasoning to be the same as to why it wasn't ratified immediately back when it was proposed. Unlike the Article I, Section 9 prohibition, this proposed amendment would have expanded the ban to ALL citizens, not just public federal officials, and taken away citizenship from US citizens. Imagine how such power could be abused against political opponents? I can easily see the Jeffersonians objecting on the basis that such law would have been weaponized against those in opposition to the Adams administration. What about the surviving Federalists under the Jefferson and Madison administrations? "So and so took a gift from King such and such." Very, very dangerous can of worms to open...
Furthermore, I have an issue with allowing Congress to grant permission for the acceptance of any such foreign title etc. for anyone. At the very least, I don't think that any public agent of the US government or any state government should be able to accept as much, whether or not Congress ok's it. Frankly, I'd approve a constitutional ban on it altogether, removing any authority from Congress to consent to it. Again, very dangerous power that could be weaponized against political opponents, and reward/leverage political allies or potential allies.
But what private citizens do, is their business and right. If they want to accept gifts or titles from foreign government entities (civil and/or ecclesiastical) then by all means, the federal government shouldn't and doesn't (since the proposed Amendment has yet to be ratified) have any power to say otherwise. Accepting such benefits from a foreign power, does not necessarily lead to subversion, insurrection, rebellion or treason. Sure, it might lead to increased temptation of US citizens, but it wouldn't be an actual crime until such actions are actually committed.
Interesting topic to discuss, but has no relevance to what we were previously debating.