Winning Freeper Comment of the day

[AllentownJake]

To: atlbelle44
If the left can ignore the parts of the US Constitution they don’t like can we ignore the 14th amendment?



18 posted on Monday, December 08, 2008 2:52:06 PM by stockpirate (Left ignores Constitution except 14th admendment, can we ignore the 14th amendment?)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2145039/posts

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. 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.

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.

Section 3. No one 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.

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.

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


I'm not sure which section they don't like.

[mikelgb]

1. They don't like the fact that the supreme court isn't deciding the election

[BrklynLiberal]

2. I would guess this one....since they enjoy making everyone around them miserable.

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.

[unpossibles]

7. well, they do fight against equal marriage rights

which are against that whole equal protection thing, so maybe you're right.

[BrklynLiberal]

3. Does thismean that if a state denies the vote to a certain percentage of legal voters,

their representation in Congress will be reduced by that percentage? Why wasn't this ever used during the Civil Rights era? Or even during the debates about voter fraud in 2000 and 2004..and in GA in 2002?

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.

[mrcheerful]

4. Yeah right copy and paste without reading the information or having

even the slightest ideal of what they copied and pasted. These are the same nit wits who said GW can spy on my phone calls, I have nothing to hide. Screw them and the horse they rode in on, they don't give a rats ass about any laws unless they can use those laws against those who don't pander to their non-sense.

[BlooInBloo]

5. Presumably they don't care for declaring black folks citizens.

[unpossibles]

6. I assume they don't like Section 3

"No one 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.

They want Palin in the White House and this might disqualify her.

[myrna minx]

8. How on earth do they expect to be taken seriously?

I can't believe they've made this their crusade. It's embarrassing.