Breaking: Court Hands Trump Win in Sanctuary City Grants

If I were you I wouldn’t debate me on the subject either.

 

They weren’t part of the union at the time, they seceded

they were ratified by the states though, GA, and Alabama voted for the 13th

 

If that were the case their votes wouldn’t have been needed to pass the amendment then would they?

 

It wasn’t need to get through Congress. By the time it got through Congress, the war was over and the states were back in the union and it needed to be ratified.

you do know how the amendment process works right?

 

By votes I’m referring to ratification as well. Ratification was necessary by the southern states. Which is proof that they were part of the union. Moreover the president, congress and SCOTUS all declared/ruled they never left in the first place.

Either way. The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments are all unconstitutional because to force passage and ratification they denied suffrage. Which again is expressly prohibited.

 

They were by the time the amendments got through Congress.
And you are right they weren’t allowed to leave...they should have been in Congress to vote...but they didn’t send anyone

They were able to vote after the war when they returned to the union. They were allowed to vote then...required actually

 

It doesn’t matter. You can’t deny suffrage for forced ratification any more than you can do so to force a vote.

It’s unconstitutional. Not that it mattered to the union. Everything they did was unconstitutional.

 

Nobody denied them.
FYI suffrage and vote are the same thing

 

Yes they were. They were not allowed any representation or votes on ANY subject in congress until they ratified and voted for the other amendments. That’s the entire point.

And that’s why it was unconstitutional.

 

WHen it went through Congress the war was still going on...they weren't denied the right...they decided not to come and start shooting......not every southern state ratified the amendments after the war, and were still welcomed back.

 

No they most certainly were not. The reconstruction acts demanded that they vote for and ratify the 14th amendment or else they would have no representation in congress.

That is the epitome of what the constitution declares to be unconstitutional ways to pass amendments.

Furthermore, the south were not the traitors. The north was when they violated the constitution and ignored two direct orders of unconstitutionality from the SCOTUS and refused to cease.

 

You said the 13th amendment....now we are on to the 14th? The 13th,and 14th amendment haven't been ruled unConstitutional....give it a shot in Court...let me know how it comes out

 

I said 13th, 14th and 15th. All of which were passed by denying the southern states suffrage.

And don’t play that copout. The constitution expressly states, and I quote, “NO state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate.” In regards to passage of amendments.

 

They were not denied, they decided to take up arms and not partake in the process.
A number of other states weren't part of the union when the vote took place, however when they later joined, they were subject to the law

 

Patently false. Were the amendments ratified? If not they were not law. And they required the southern states to ratify.

And you can’t force ratification through denial of representation in Congress. It’s not that difficult to grasp unless you’re knee deep in propaganda.

 

They were....after they got through Congress....they got through Congress during the War, where the Southern States decided not to partake.

Certainly you can require a state to adopted the laws of a nation it's joining

 

No it was not law because it was not ratified.

And again if the southern states were not states then their signatures for ratification would not have been needed.

 

Anyway I wasn’t trying to hijack the thread. Just correct some BS propaganda.

 

Thank you Harry Reid!

 

When you take up arms at the cost of millions of Americans dead, it does change things.

 

What other choice did they have Paul? The northern states and their proxy the federal government were violating the constitution at will and with immunity. Even after being taken to the SCOTUS twice and losing both times, being ordered to cease their unconstitutional behavior and simply ignoring the rulings because they knew the federal government would not enforce the decisions.

At that point the northern states and federal government are in breach of contract in regards to the constitution. The only option at that point was secession. Dissolve the partnership which was WHOLLY predicated upon the constitution which the northern states willfully, intentionally and unrelentingly violated.

As Jefferson Davis said, “I would rather leave the union with the constitution than to remain in the union without it.”

The South fought the war in defense of the constitution. The north fought it to consolidate power in the federal government and to have the right to alter the constitution as they saw fit without the consent of the governed.

 

And even then, war didn’t have to come. All they had to do was let us leave. But that was unacceptable to the north. They could not tolerate us leaving peaceably.

So Lincoln embarked on a path which he knew would INEVITABLY end in war when he sent an army into sovereign states. An action which by ANY measure is a declaration of war. Ending in the rape and pillaging of countless innocent civilians and destruction of homes and farms with nearly 1,000,000 American lives lost because the union army engaged in wonton destruction and targeting civilian population centers like terrorists.

And they did so in the name of unity and freedom. All to obfuscate the immense greed and seizure of property and power.

 

It's not a single judge. I heard last night that there have been over 50 such judicial injunctions with nationwide stays against the Trump administration which is already more than the entire terms of Bush43 and Obama combined. And I think Scalia was already writing about it back during those terms.

"The notes of caution sounded by Justice Black, by the MendozaCourt, by Justice Scalia, and by Justice Thomas all point in the same direction: judges should be wary of using equitable remedies in settings where the result inevitably is to expand courts’ reach into decisions more readily situated in the province of executive branch officials.167 Further, despite Judge Scalia’s comparison of declaratory judgments to injunctions, the latter remedy, as noted earlier, plainly holds the prospect of greater restraint on officers subject to it.168 That observation only increases the importance of the caution he, among others, recommended in shaping equitable remedies."
https://www.law.gmu.edu/pubs/papers/ls1822

 

I sort of agree with you that since states had a right to join the union, they should have a right to leave. I'm sure slavery would have ended anyway. I do think you should be able to keep your historical monuments.

 

Wow that means Trump can tell the Colorado state police to start arresting people for marijuana or keep money from the state if they don't. Don't care strongly either way but i wouldn't all it a bad thing.