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.
I don't know how many times I have to say it, but the States were NOT in Rebellion against anything, and going against the Federation is NOT Rebellion, nor can it be Rebellion, because the States Created the Union, the Union didn't create anything....
I'm sure you won't but Please read this Book, it should help you comprehend that you're suggesting a Forced Union, that's NOT a Republic, it is Despotism, it is Tyranny....
I don't know how many times I have to say it, but the States were NOT in Rebellion against anything,
Keep saying it as much as you want if you think it'll keep you living in your delusion. I realize the truth is sometimes scary because it challenges everything you were ever suckered into believing. But the sooner you allow yourself to wake up, the more enjoyable life will be for you.
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.
I don't know how many times I have to say it, but the States were NOT in Rebellion against anything, and going against the Federation is NOT Rebellion, nor can it be Rebellion, because the States Created the Union, the Union didn't create anything....
I'm sure you won't but Please read this Book, it should help you comprehend that you're suggesting a Forced Union, that's NOT a Republic, it is Despotism, it is Tyranny....
Here's a Link:: https://archive.org/details/republicofrepubl00insage/page/n7/mode/1up
Keep saying it as much as you want if you think it'll keep you living in your delusion. I realize the truth is sometimes scary because it challenges everything you were ever suckered into believing. But the sooner you allow yourself to wake up, the more enjoyable life will be for you.