Fan Nation
Forums
Forum list
Search forums
Rules & Policies
Podcast
Mobile App
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Shop
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
Ohio State wants to trademark "THE"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Zubaz" data-source="post: 2743621" data-attributes="member: 3528"><p>I mean, that's just not true. It might have, but we have amended the law since then, as is the design of a Constitutional system. That is the nature of our system. You can say "Well I disagree with the SCOTUS" or "I disagree with subsequent Amendments" all you like, but that has zero impact on the force of law and the clear interpretation for 150+ years has been the opposite of what you say here. The Civil War fundamentally shifted the role of the federal government in the US, and the amendments made to the US Constitution as well as the Common Law precedent set on those opinions are pretty clear on that matter.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This was a debate that went back to the founding of the nation. See Madison's comments on New York's requested condition, and Virginia's claim that you mention. From the founding of the nation there was debate as to whether it was a perpetual union or one that where the states had a right to withdraw if they so desired. It was not settled. While those who try to argue the Confederacy didn't secede over slavery are obviously wrong, it's true that if it wasn't slavery we probably would have ended up fighting a war over some other point of contention leading to secession. After 1865 that matter was settled, and the perpetual union side won out clearly both in force and in common law.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Should probably be careful with our language here. The 14th Amendment did not 'specifically' apply to freedmen. The word "freedmen" nor "emancipation" is not found in the text of the Amendment at all, certainly not in Section 1 that is the basis for the legal rulings that you might object to. That may be the <em>context</em> that led to its ratification or the original <em>intention</em> of the Amendment, but there's a reason that language was used, and there's a reason that text was not limited to former slaves.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Zubaz, post: 2743621, member: 3528"] I mean, that's just not true. It might have, but we have amended the law since then, as is the design of a Constitutional system. That is the nature of our system. You can say "Well I disagree with the SCOTUS" or "I disagree with subsequent Amendments" all you like, but that has zero impact on the force of law and the clear interpretation for 150+ years has been the opposite of what you say here. The Civil War fundamentally shifted the role of the federal government in the US, and the amendments made to the US Constitution as well as the Common Law precedent set on those opinions are pretty clear on that matter. This was a debate that went back to the founding of the nation. See Madison's comments on New York's requested condition, and Virginia's claim that you mention. From the founding of the nation there was debate as to whether it was a perpetual union or one that where the states had a right to withdraw if they so desired. It was not settled. While those who try to argue the Confederacy didn't secede over slavery are obviously wrong, it's true that if it wasn't slavery we probably would have ended up fighting a war over some other point of contention leading to secession. After 1865 that matter was settled, and the perpetual union side won out clearly both in force and in common law. Should probably be careful with our language here. The 14th Amendment did not 'specifically' apply to freedmen. The word "freedmen" nor "emancipation" is not found in the text of the Amendment at all, certainly not in Section 1 that is the basis for the legal rulings that you might object to. That may be the [I]context[/I] that led to its ratification or the original [I]intention[/I] of the Amendment, but there's a reason that language was used, and there's a reason that text was not limited to former slaves. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Which team did TCU defeat in the College Football Playoffs?
Post reply
Forums
Horned Frog Athletics
Scott & Wes Frog Fan Forum
Ohio State wants to trademark "THE"
Top