They could have had a state religion before 1947.
They could have had a state religion before 1947.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
When I was attending UCLB I took a course on the Constitution. The book we were required to purchase was written by a well know Constitutional scholar and it was interesting that he was also our professor. $$$
While thumbing through the book when I came to the Fourteenth Amendment it was only one page with one sentence. The Fourteenth Amendment was unconstitutional.
There are more than a few Constitutional scholars who say the same thing. They have a ligament argument.
There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!
>" A MISTAKEN BELIEF — that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the "Fourteenth Amendment" — is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it failed of ratification.
The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the unanimous writings of historians, establishes these events as occurring in 1867 and 1868:
1.Outside the South, six States — New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland — failed to ratify the proposed amendment.
2.In the South, ten States — Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana — by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.
3.A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the "Fourteenth Amendment."
4.Congress — which had deprived the Southern States of their seats in the Senate — did not lawfully pass the resolution of submission in the first instance.
5.The Southern States which had rejected the amendment were coerced by a federal statute passed in 1867 that took away the right to vote or hold office from all citizens who had served in the Confederate Army. Military governors were appointed and instructed to prepare the roll of voters. All this happened in spite of the presidential proclamation of amnesty previously issued by the President. New legislatures were thereupon chosen and forced to "ratify" under penalty of continued exile from the Union. In Louisiana, a General sent down from the North presided over the State legislature.
6.Abraham Lincoln had declared many times that the Union was "inseparable" and "indivisible." After his death, and when the war was over, the ratification by the Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had been accepted as legal. But Congress in the 1867 law imposed the specific conditions under which the Southern States would be "entitled to representation in Congress."
7.Congress, in passing the 1867 law that declared the Southern States could not have their seats in either the Senate or House in the next session unless they ratified the "Fourteenth Amendment," took an unprecedented step. No such right — to compel a State by an act of Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment — is to be found anywhere in the Constitution. Nor has this procedure ever been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States.
8.President Andrew Johnson publicly denounced this law as unconstitutional. But it was passed over his veto.
9.Secretary of State Seward was on the spot in July 1868 when the various "ratifications" of a spurious nature were placed before him. The legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey had notified him that they rescinded their earlier action of ratification. He said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State "to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification." He added that the amendment was valid "if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States." This was a very big "if." It will be noted that the real issue, therefore, is not only whether the forced "ratification" by the ten Southern States was lawful, but whether the withdrawal by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey — two Northern States — was legal. The right of a State, by action of its legislature, to change its mind at any time before the final proclamation of ratification is issued by the Secretary of State has been confirmed in connection with other constitutional amendments.
10.The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 — three months after the Secretary's proclamation was issued — passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the "Fourteenth Amendment" had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the "ratifications" in the Southern States were "usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void" and that, "until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment." ..."<
continue -> David Lawrence: There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!
The "may issue" law was clearly unconstitutional, a political hack-job by those who would like to see gun ownership by the citizenry completely abolished. I'm surprised that the 9th court overruled the law, but probably because I've been brainwashed that the 9th is the most liberal arm of the democratic party. I've usually agreed with their rulings in the past (although those rulings would have been considered "liberal"), particularly when it refused to allow California to ban gay marriages or overturn the medical marijuana vote, and I certainly agree with their ruling now.
On another subject, will the many feet of snow that your mountains got recently help with your drought conditions eventually, or isn't it enough?
Technically under the Constitution, there is no Fourteenth Amendment. The rules of amending the Constitution were not followed. Even the POTOS vetoed the Fourteenth Amendment because the rules of amending the Constitution weren't followed making it unconstitutional.
The main purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to grant citizenship to former slaves so they could vote the carpetbaggers into office.
As you may know, the Fourteenth Amendment didn't include American Indians (Native Americans.) They were still considered to be members of a foreign sovereign nation. Except for Cherokee Indians (The Civilized Tribe) who were able to become U.S. citizens at will if they chose so. Some did many did not.
The birth right clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was directly taken from Vattel's "The Law of Nations." ("Son follows the condition of his father.")
If the Fourteenth Amendment constitutional or not ??? But it's the most misinterpreted amendment in the Constitution.
unfortunately its a little harder to fight for our rights on this front when sometimes breaking the law in protest or risking pushing the limits could end with one going to jail or a felony charge etc.
IMO every state should be open carry
and i'm fine with licenses/permits etc for conceal carry but it should be accepted in ALL STATES just like my drivers license
just like with banning gay marriages, banning open carry or weapons permits are the state abusing thier powers and overreaching.
Considering if you carried an unloaded firearm in the commission of a crime the law makes no never minds
Considering the NRA teaches everyone a firearm is ALWAYS considered loaded
Considering NO ONE can tell a weapon is unloaded from any distance...
AND the majority of Californians supported the Mulford Act in 1967 barring loaded firearms and the brandishing law makes no difference between loaded and unloaded...
Bemoaning the unloaded carry law is like whining about having to clean the stable after the barn door was left open in 1967...
But whine some shall...