1868 and all that

https://www.weeklystandard.com/allen...8-and-all-that


history of the 14th amendment and its meaning.

Footnote: The Constitution and all of the amendments are interpreted against the social, economic, and/or physical changes in the country, and a good example is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment that applied the first eight of the Amendments to the States after years of SCOTUS opinions that held the first eight ONLY applied to the Federal government.

What post-reconstruction appeasement did is allow the States to create their own Constitutional provisions that set the tone for their governments, and most particularly how they were elected. As a consequence many Southern states provided that their Judges would be elected rather than appointed, which was a "backlash" from carpet bagging Northerners running Southern governments after the War.

LBJ et al had the same issue in getting the Civil Act passed (which JFK was afraid to support for fear the South would turn against him in his second term election), by inserting a provision in the Act that gave concurrent jurisdiction to State courts for the purpose of enforcing "civil rights"!

BTW: The article reads more like an "argument" than a scholarly, legal discussion, and seems to have anecdotal bits and pieces of opinion.

The "interpretation" of the 14th as to citizenship should be based on THE FACTS at the time of passage and the "evil" it was attempting to address at that time. It was focusing on people being kidnapped, forced to come to this country, and compelled to work and live at the whim of people who BOUGHT and OWNED them. It was not passed to apply to those who willingly came to this country and remained illegally and/or snuck into this country illegally.

Footnote: The Constitution and all of the amendments are interpreted against the social, economic, and/or physical changes in the country, and a good example is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment that applied the first eight of the Amendments to the States after years of SCOTUS opinions that held the first eight ONLY applied to the Federal government.

What post-reconstruction appeasement did is allow the States to create their own Constitutional provisions that set the tone for their governments, and most particularly how they were elected. As a consequence many Southern states provided that their Judges would be elected rather than appointed, which was a "backlash" from carpet bagging Northerners running Southern governments after the War.

LBJ et al had the same issue in getting the Civil Act passed (which JFK was afraid to support for fear the South would turn against him in his second term election), by inserting a provision in the Act that gave concurrent jurisdiction to State courts for the purpose of enforcing "civil rights"!

BTW: The article reads more like an "argument" than a scholarly, legal discussion, and seems to have anecdotal bits and pieces of opinion.

The "interpretation" of the 14th as to citizenship should be based on THE FACTS at the time of passage and the "evil" it was attempting to address at that time. It was focusing on people being kidnapped, forced to come to this country, and compelled to work and live at the whim of people who BOUGHT and OWNED them. It was not passed to apply to those who willingly came to this country and remained illegally and/or snuck into this country illegally. Originally Posted by LexusLover

had they had a bit of hindsight, creators should have made 2 separate provisions. one for former slaves to make clear of their status as american citizens; 2nd one to address who is a citizen of america.


oh btw, I think confederate debt should be paid by the former confederate states.

had they had a bit of hindsight, creators should have made 2 separate provisions. one for former slaves to make clear of their status as american citizens; 2nd one to address who is a citizen of america.


oh btw, I think confederate debt should be paid by the former confederate states. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

If one reads the Congressional record as they debated the 14th Amendment, it's very clear they were making allowances for former slaves and not for every Tom, Dick and Harry that decides to head this way.

Furthermore, United States v. Wong Kim Ark shouldn't apply to illegals. Wong's parents were "legal" residents in the U.S.: not "illegals".

All Trump needs to do is sign an Executive Order reestablishing the intent of the 39th Congress. That EO, of course, would be challenged in court leaving it to the Supreme Court to correctly determine the 39th Congress's "intent" to set the record straight for perpetuity.

the politics behind the 14th amendment is interesting.


after the 13th amendment was passed, the radical republicans realized that the former confederates will out number republicans due to the fact that former slaves are no longer counted as 3/5ths persons. so they started refusing to seat southerns to congress unless they had laws to respect civll rights of blacks and later on they had to pass the 14th amendment to get seated in congress.

this ties in to the electoral college thread (the one that favored republicans)
https://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2592051

t...

this ties in to the electoral college thread (the one that favored republicans).... Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Except the "electoral college" was a part of the Constitution and the 14th amendment is not. It's just that an "amendment" that corrects nothing in the constitution!

Before one gets too far into the weeds .....

.... one might desire to investigate the philosophical discussion about the consensus as it related to Congressional Districts. The standards established for the take of the census and the accuracy of the Head Count will impact the Congressional Districts, which will affect the Electoral College membership and therefore can affect the outcome of the election.

One's "bean counting" today is essentially meaningless if the current administration allows the Democrats to regulate who and how many can enter this country with impunity.

As for amendments and their "legislative" history at the time of being crafted and approved, I suspect there was a lack of vision far enough into the future to have many of the circumstances today as a background upon which to adequately word the phrases to resolve some of the current issues in our society.

That is the significance of "strict constructionists" on the SCOTUS and Justices who follow precedence so long as the original decision was based on FACTS that have not been debunked or re-examined under the microscope of recent scientifically confirmed revelations.

Example: I am guessing the men crafting the 4th amendment didn't think about airports and aircraft, nor did they envision cell phones and the internet, or even telephone phones for that matter.

Only recently (since Trump was elected) have the SocialLiberalAntiTrumpers concluded that "open borders" is "good for the country" and that having 100's of 1,000's of illegal aliens invading our country is "good for the economy" and the humanitarian thing to cultivate and protect. Every President and most every politician since Reagan have concluded illegal immigration was bad for the country. They need the votes to replace the minorities and traditional blocks of votes they are losing to Trump and the conservatives by their ridiculous folly in their AntiTrump Hysteria.

Funny how all of the amendments are interpreted , differently by whoevers agenda at the time.

Funny how all of the amendments are interpreted , differently by whoevers agenda at the time. Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Largely the reason for the SCOTUS, and thus the need for Constitutional scholars on it rather than jurist activists.