• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Do You Like My New T-Shirt?

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
In the clause the term "jurisdiction" was meant as Ties/Allegiances/Loyalties.

I am having trouble finding the website that had some speeches and debates from the men who authored the clause. I am at work now, I think I have it bookmarked at home ill check when I get there.

That may have been what some who debated the issue thought it meant, but the word has a very specific meaning. It literally means "administration of justice." The government has the power to administer justice. Individuals have ties/allegiances/loyalties.

The point of the phrase was to recognize that the government could "administer justice" to former slaves (had jurisdiction over them), even though they were not citizens, and therefore they ought to be.
 

shad0wfax

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,069
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
The shirt looks cool. I like it.

I'm not even going to bother getting involved in an argument about religion, since that argument has been going on for well over a thousand years.

The shirt looks cool. I like it.


P.S.

I'd love it if the entire14th amendment was repealed, so long as 1a through 10a were respected properly.


Unfortunately, repealing the 14a would simply let the Marxists run even more roughshod over the Bill of Rights than they already have. However, if you read the 14a very carefully in the historical context of when the amendment was drafted and ratified, you'll find that the vast majority of the amendment was a Union tool of Reconstruction. Reconstruction was a punishment for the south and a further empowering of the north. The 14a accomplishes this with alarming effectiveness and even includes a redundant clause that has been used as a foothold to infringe upon other rights. Most of the 14a is capricious in nature. The whole notion that the 2a can be trampled on by the states under the guise of the 10a is nuts, and it's the 14a that's empowering this school of thought. In a more perfect union, a better republic, the 2a would still be sacred and the 14a would not exist.


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

OK that part is new, not redundant, and is good.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


This was totally unnecessary. The Bill of Rights was already in place. The due process clause has been used as a tool to abridge rights nation-wide as a result of this shoddy amendment. Declining to incorporate some previously enumerated rights under privileges and immunities has allowed them to be gradually eroded upon or infringed. This amendment has worked against liberty from the moment it was ratified. I argue that because of this clause's redundancy that "experts" (appellate courts) have re-examined previous "rights" under the lens of this clause and have hand-picked certain liberties they wished to protect and ignored those they did not. I suggest that had it not been for this redundant clause that the 2a and the 10a would be much stronger than they are today.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


The purpose of this section may seem good on the surface, but look closely at the second half. It was a punishment to the south, by diminishing their representation in Congress by discounting all "rebels" who fought in the war between states. It also rigged Congress to favor the Union.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


The entire purpose of this section was to prevent anyone who participated as a "rebel" in the war between states from being in any office if they had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the US. What's funny about that is that the "rebels" in the south who wanted to secede weren't violating the Constitution in doing so. The irony is that participating in the war between states because of an attempted secession really isn't breaking the oath to support the Constitution; it was failing to support the President's Union that they're being punished for.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


The entire purpose of this section was to make the Union's debt unquestionable and refuse all payment of the southern debt. This breaks the back of the southern economy.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Standard clause here, but remember who Congress is at this time. Hint: It's not the south. The north, the heavily weighted north by this amendment, is given the power to enforce this through further legislation. I argue that this amendment (as well as Lincoln's war of aggression) was the beginning of the slow deaths of liberty and natural rights in this country.

P.P.S.

Back on topic: The shirt looks cool. I like it.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The shirt looks cool. I like it.

I'm not even going to bother getting involved in an argument about religion, since that argument has been going on for well over a thousand years.

The shirt looks cool. I like it.


P.S.

I'd love it if the entire14th amendment was repealed, so long as 1a through 10a were respected properly.


Unfortunately, repealing the 14a would simply let the Marxists run even more roughshod over the Bill of Rights than they already have. However, if you read the 14a very carefully in the historical context of when the amendment was drafted and ratified, you'll find that the vast majority of the amendment was a Union tool of Reconstruction. Reconstruction was a punishment for the south and a further empowering of the north. The 14a accomplishes this with alarming effectiveness and even includes a redundant clause that has been used as a foothold to infringe upon other rights. Most of the 14a is capricious in nature. The whole notion that the 2a can be trampled on by the states under the guise of the 10a is nuts, and it's the 14a that's empowering this school of thought. In a more perfect union, a better republic, the 2a would still be sacred and the 14a would not exist.


Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

OK that part is new, not redundant, and is good.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


This was totally unnecessary. The Bill of Rights was already in place. The BoR did not restrict State governments. Because their constitutions and laws allowed them to deprive persons of life, liberty, or property, the authors of the 14A sought to protect these rights from the federal Constitution. That is not to say that I feel that this was the right way to correct the situation. The due process clause has been used as a tool to abridge rights nation-wide as a result of this shoddy amendment. Declining to incorporate some previously enumerated rights under privileges and immunities has allowed them to be gradually eroded upon or infringed. This amendment has worked against liberty from the moment it was ratified. I argue that because of this clause's redundancy that "experts" (appellate courts) have re-examined previous "rights" under the lens of this clause and have hand-picked certain liberties they wished to protect and ignored those they did not. I suggest that had it not been for this redundant clause that the 2a and the 10a would be much stronger than they are today.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


The purpose of this section may seem good on the surface, but look closely at the second half. It was a punishment to the south, by diminishing their representation in Congress by discounting all "rebels" who fought in the war between states. It also rigged Congress to favor the Union. The rebels who lost their vote are being excepted from the reduction in the basis. This clause targets removing the right to vote from blacks, reducing the representation if blacks are disenfranchised.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


The entire purpose of this section was to prevent anyone who participated as a "rebel" in the war between states from being in any office if they had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the US. What's funny about that is that the "rebels" in the south who wanted to secede weren't violating the Constitution in doing so. The irony is that participating in the war between states because of an attempted secession really isn't breaking the oath to support the Constitution; it was failing to support the President's Union that they're being punished for.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


The entire purpose of this section was to make the Union's debt unquestionable and refuse all payment of the southern debt. This breaks the back of the southern economy.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Standard clause here, but remember who Congress is at this time. Hint: It's not the south. The north, the heavily weighted north by this amendment, is given the power to enforce this through further legislation. I argue that this amendment (as well as Lincoln's war of aggression) was the beginning of the slow deaths of liberty and natural rights in this country.

P.P.S.

Back on topic: The shirt looks cool. I like it.

My answers are in blue.
 
Top