- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
14th Amendment... Is it Constitutional?
Posted on 9/28/20 at 9:50 am
Posted on 9/28/20 at 9:50 am
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States... yadda yadda yadda..."
i'm not really talking about the content, but moreso the existence. i posted someone's comments from r/politics that ACB believes it's unconstitutional because it lacked the representation in congress from the southern states when it was passed.
now, i don't know if it's true if she believes this or if it lacked the south's reps, but if both items are true, how do you guys feel about it?
i'm not really talking about the content, but moreso the existence. i posted someone's comments from r/politics that ACB believes it's unconstitutional because it lacked the representation in congress from the southern states when it was passed.
now, i don't know if it's true if she believes this or if it lacked the south's reps, but if both items are true, how do you guys feel about it?
This post was edited on 9/28/20 at 9:51 am
12
Posted on 9/28/20 at 9:51 am to finchmeister08
quote:
Is it Constitutional?
Really? Surely that is not a serious question.
Posted on 9/28/20 at 9:54 am to finchmeister08
quote:
14th Amendment... Is it Constitutional?
Are you asking if the 14th Amendment of the Constitution is in fact.......Constitutional?
Posted on 9/28/20 at 9:55 am to ljhog
quote:I think he is trying to ask whether its enactment and ratification were done in accord with the Constitution, given that the Republicans in the North took the position that the South had NOT seceded (because secession was not allowed under the Constitution) and were ALWAYS part of the Union.
Really? Surely that is not a serious question.
If the Southern States WERE still part of the Union when the Civil War Amendments were approved for submission to the States, then the later ratification would NOT be valid, because the previous step was not done properly.
In particular, there would have been 31 TOTAL States and the proposed Amendments would have been approved and set into the ratification process by a Congress representing only 20 of them (less than 2/3).
As an academic exercise, it is a valid (and interesting) question.
Actual Ratification is a different question, because postbellum ratification by a Southern State was a de facto precondition for ending Reconstruction in that State.
Interesting fact: Kentucky did not ratify the 14th Amendment until 1976, and Mississippi did not do so until 1995.
EDIT: KingBob addresses below the SECOND prong of the argument, regarding the TIMING of ratification ... also interesting.
This post was edited on 9/28/20 at 10:25 am
Posted on 9/28/20 at 9:57 am to finchmeister08
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/11/21 at 9:35 am
Posted on 9/28/20 at 9:57 am to AggieHank86
Ok understand now.
Posted on 9/28/20 at 9:59 am to ljhog
quote:
Really? Surely that is not a serious question.
did you read the OP?
Posted on 9/28/20 at 10:00 am to finchmeister08
FYI, the civil war amendments aren’t the only ones that failed to meet the ratification burden...
Posted on 9/28/20 at 10:02 am to finchmeister08
The only way the 14th would not be Constitution would be in the form of another constitutional amendment either terminating it or modifying it...like the Prohibition on Alcohol.
Posted on 9/28/20 at 10:03 am to CU_Tigers4life
He is arguing that the amendment didn't meet the legal criteria for being ratified. As such is it not legally binding (or so one claims on reddit anyway).
Posted on 9/28/20 at 10:10 am to AggieHank86
quote:
the Republicans in the North always took the position that the South had NOT seceded (because secession was not allowed under the Constitution) and were ALWAYS part of the Union.
Yet they had to be re-admitted to the Union.
That never made sense.
Posted on 9/28/20 at 10:11 am to NYNolaguy1
quote:
He is arguing that the amendment didn't meet the legal criteria for being ratified. As such is it not legally binding (or so one claims on reddit anyway).
I could have better answered that...I would answer that for a time, the South was not part of the Union and until the reconstruction amendments passed was when they were allowed full participation..
Bottom line it was a mess..
Posted on 9/28/20 at 10:12 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I think he is trying to ask whether its enactment and ratification were done in accord with the Constitution, given that the Republicans in the North always took the position that the South had NOT seceded (because secession was not allowed under the Constitution) and were ALWAYS part of the Union.
If the Southern States WERE still part of the Union when the Civil War Amendments were approved for submission to the States, then the later ratification would NOT be valid, because the previous step was not done properly.
In particular, there would have been 31 TOTAL States and the proposed Amendments would have been approved and set into the ratification process by a Congress representing only 20 of them (less than 2/3).
As an academic exercise, it is a valid (and interesting) question.
Actual Ratification is a different question, because postbellum ratification by a Southern State was a de facto precondition for ending Reconstruction in that State.
Interesting fact: Kentucky did not ratify the 14th Amendment until 1976, and Mississippi did not do so until 1995.
duress
Posted on 9/28/20 at 10:16 am to Godfather1
quote:Agreed.quote:Yet they had to be re-admitted to the Union. That never made sense.
the Republicans in the North always took the position that the South had NOT seceded (because secession was not allowed under the Constitution) and were ALWAYS part of the Union.
You must remember, however, that the makeup of Congress changed significantly during the course of the War and then of Reconstruction. You are trying to compare the policies of two VERY different groups of people who may have sat in the same chamber(s), but did so several years apart from one another.
Posted on 9/28/20 at 10:18 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Really? Surely that is not a serious question.
I think he is trying to ask whether its enactment and ratification were done in accord with the Constitution, given that the Republicans in the North always took the position that the South had NOT seceded (because secession was not allowed under the Constitution) and were ALWAYS part of the Union.
If the Southern States WERE still part of the Union when the Civil War Amendments were approved for submission to the States, then the later ratification would NOT be valid, because the previous step was not done properly.
In particular, there would have been 31 TOTAL States and the proposed Amendments would have been approved and set into the ratification process by a Congress representing only 20 of them (less than 2/3).
As an academic exercise, it is a valid (and interesting) question.
Actual Ratification is a different question, because postbellum ratification by a Southern State was a de facto precondition for ending Reconstruction in that State.
Interesting fact: Kentucky did not ratify the 14th Amendment until 1976, and Mississippi did not do so until 1995.
The over reaching argument is did the South have the legal right to leave. The war was fought supposedly that the South did not have this right. Yet the 13 original colonies left the British Empire and Texas succeed from Mexico.
The bigger debate is that the South even though they "did not have the right to leave" yet they had to reapply to be readmitted into the Union. Wrap your head around that argument.
Posted on 9/28/20 at 10:21 am to NewbombII
If you want to go further down the rabbit hole look into the the Constitutionality of the admission of the State of West Virginia.
Posted on 9/28/20 at 10:21 am to finchmeister08
quote:
14th Amendment... Is it Constitutional?
Well it is part of the constitution
Posted on 9/28/20 at 10:22 am to CU_Tigers4life
The argument is that the burden for ratification was not met. In order for a proposed constitutional amendment to go into effect, it must get a 2/3 vote from both houses of Congress and be ratified by an affirmative vote by 3/4 of state legislatures.
The Southern States were not permitted to seat representatives in Congress when the amendment was voted on by Congress, so the 2/3s threshold was not met. In fact, ratifying the 13th Amendment was a condition for those states to send representatives back to Congress.
This debate rages over whether those states are presumed a part of the United States during the war or not a part of the United States. The decisions of Congress and the Courts provide no definitive answers, as both positions were used to justify whatever actions by the Federal Government were being argued for at the time.
At the time, the United States had 38 states, meaning 29 were needed to ratify. Pre-certification, only 20 states ratified it right off the bat. 7 more states ratified it pre-certification after at first rejecting it. Meaning, the amendment was made effective with only 27 states, not 29. New jersey and Ohio voted to ratify, then rescinded before the due date, so their votes shouldn’t have counted. Oregon voted in favor, but rescended after the deadline, so they were counted as state 28. If a proposed amendment fails to achieve ratification within its 2 year deadline, it’s supposed to be null, but the United States courts have behaved as though it was ratified since 1868.
Basically, the argument is that they were 1 vote short in 1868, so the amendment never should have been considered ratified.
The 13th Amendment also only had 27 states ratify it before certification.
To even get that close requires the presumption that West Virginia was legally established as a state independent from Virginia, which is also somewhat dubious. There’s a lot of arguments that West Virginia’s process to being admitted as a state carved out of Virginia was also not done so constitutionally, meaning West Virginia’s votes on Constitutional Amendments would be void, meaning none of the reconstruction amendments were ratified within the certification period and should be null and void.
The Southern States were not permitted to seat representatives in Congress when the amendment was voted on by Congress, so the 2/3s threshold was not met. In fact, ratifying the 13th Amendment was a condition for those states to send representatives back to Congress.
This debate rages over whether those states are presumed a part of the United States during the war or not a part of the United States. The decisions of Congress and the Courts provide no definitive answers, as both positions were used to justify whatever actions by the Federal Government were being argued for at the time.
At the time, the United States had 38 states, meaning 29 were needed to ratify. Pre-certification, only 20 states ratified it right off the bat. 7 more states ratified it pre-certification after at first rejecting it. Meaning, the amendment was made effective with only 27 states, not 29. New jersey and Ohio voted to ratify, then rescinded before the due date, so their votes shouldn’t have counted. Oregon voted in favor, but rescended after the deadline, so they were counted as state 28. If a proposed amendment fails to achieve ratification within its 2 year deadline, it’s supposed to be null, but the United States courts have behaved as though it was ratified since 1868.
Basically, the argument is that they were 1 vote short in 1868, so the amendment never should have been considered ratified.
The 13th Amendment also only had 27 states ratify it before certification.
To even get that close requires the presumption that West Virginia was legally established as a state independent from Virginia, which is also somewhat dubious. There’s a lot of arguments that West Virginia’s process to being admitted as a state carved out of Virginia was also not done so constitutionally, meaning West Virginia’s votes on Constitutional Amendments would be void, meaning none of the reconstruction amendments were ratified within the certification period and should be null and void.
This post was edited on 9/28/20 at 10:45 am
Posted on 9/28/20 at 10:24 am to AggieHank86
It’s an interesting argument but definitely not a hill to die on. Nobody today has an issue with the 14th.
Let’s talk more about repealing the 19th and 17th
Let’s talk more about repealing the 19th and 17th
Posted on 9/28/20 at 10:26 am to finchmeister08
quote:
14th Amendment... Is it Constitutional?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News