quote:
Is your question “is the 14th amendment constitutional?”Interesting question. The basis of the CW was inability of states to separate. Yet those same states were (unconstitutionally?) denied votes on Amendments 14-15-16.

the substance of a constitutional amendment is “constitutional“ by definition. But, procedurely, enactment of the Civil War amendments was certainly … irregular.

Do those irregularities mean that they were not validly enacted? There is a strong argument in favor of that position.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by BHTiger

Charleston

Member since Dec 2017

5060 posts

Posted on 1/1/23 at 7:29 am to LaMotta

quote:
Not sure but there are going to be some very tough questions/actions regarding MLK and his legacy in 2027 when this is released. If credible and true Statues must come down schools and streets will have to be renamed etc. We already have precedent for this and even MLK will not be immune to it

Like other things, this information will never be unsealed.....

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by NC_Tigah

Carolinas

Member since Sep 2003

124125 posts

Posted on 1/1/23 at 7:36 am to LaMotta

quote:
The FBI documents say King had a conversation ...

The FBI said similar things about about Trump. It's almost like an FBI pattern.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by squid_hunt

Baton Rouge

Member since Jan 2021

11272 posts

Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:44 am to AggieHank86

quote:
"I think that half a decade of legislation is all unconstitutional. Discuss.".

Settled law, said the liar.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by burger bearcat

Member since Oct 2020

8890 posts

Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:47 am to AggieHank86

quote:
Under our constitutional system, the federal government has only those powers assigned to it by the constitution, and the constitution does not give the federal government power to dictate to individuals with whom they must do business.

Holy shite. Can't believe I found some common ground with Hank on an issue. Completely agree. Key word to me is federal, the federal government should be very weak on most domestic issues. I am ok with local governments having a little more power (example would be if a school district wants prayer in schools).

This post was edited on 1/1/23 at 8:49 am

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by AggieHank86

Texas

Member since Sep 2013

42941 posts

Posted on 1/1/23 at 8:55 am to burger bearcat

quote:
Holy shite. Can't believe I found some common ground with Hank on an issue. Completely agree. Key word to me is federal, the federal government should be very weak on most domestic issues. I am ok with local governments having a little more power (example would be if a school district wants prayer in schools).

Then we have found a second area of agreement.

The incorporation doctrine has absolutely no constitutional basis whatsoever. The Bill of Rights applies to the federal government, not to state governments.

If Mississippi wants to allow school prayer, a CORRECT reading of the Constitution allows it. If Rhode Island wants to ban all firearms, a CORRECT reading of the Constitution allows it.

This post was edited on 1/1/23 at 9:08 am

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by prplhze2000

Parts Unknown

Member since Jan 2007

51464 posts

Posted on 1/1/23 at 10:00 am to burger bearcat

It was justified on the bssis of the commerce clause but blame Wickard v FIlburn. It created the rational basis test for it all .

The Court was going to reach that decision no matter what. It was just a question of how. Yes, you have the right to serve who you want in your business. However, they were disqualifying whole segments of society from being able to buy food, see doctors, and so on. Backed by the full power of local and state government, of course.

Court wasn't going to allow that to last, especially after we discovered the Holocaust and Nuremberg.

Page 1 2 3