you're reading...
'everything that's old is new again', American, analysis, Constitution, errors-in-judgement, evidence, fascism, Fourteenth Amendment, history, legal stuff, magazine, monumental-waste-of-time, news, politically incorrect, tactics, The Republic, tyranny, United States

There Is No Fourteenth Amendment!

I ran across this posting on Free North Carolina.  I don’t know if I’m smart enough to do the requisite research needed to confirm or deny the premise.  But, it IS interesting!

I seem to remember a similar postulate made regarding the Sixteenth Amendment (Income Tax).

Wouldn’t it be interesting to find these premises to be true?

David Lawrence, editor of the US News and World Report, argued in late September 1957 that the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution was never ratified by the requisite number of States, and is therefore null and void. This amendment-by-duress has been used since 1865 as the basis for federal intervention into the constitutionally-specified authority of the individual States, both North and South.Bernhard Thuersam,   The Great American Political Divide

The Fourteenth Amendment a Disgrace to Free Government

“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 that 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 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”. (…)


And, as a side note, U.S. News and World Report used to be a middle-of-the-road, well-reasoned magazine, when David Lawrence was at the helm.

He passed in 1973.

About guffaw1952

I'm a child of the 50's. libertarian, now medically-retired. I've been a certified firearms trainer, a private investigator, and worked for a major credit card company for almost 22 years. I am a proud NRA Life Member. I am a limited-government, free-market capitalist, who believes in the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law.


8 thoughts on “There Is No Fourteenth Amendment!

  1. Interesting… VERY interesting…

    Posted by Old NFO | October 5, 2016, 2:02 pm
  2. “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens . . . ” The plain language of his own law belies that. Any person who is physically in the United States is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, i.e., answerable to U.S. law and to being tried in U.S. courts. The only exceptions are, as he said, families of foreign diplomats, and their children, if born in the U.S., are not U.S. citizens under U.S. law, since they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. (They have diplomatic immunity.)
    This is a canard. If you don’t have diplomatic immunity, you’re subject to U.S. jurisdiction as long as you’re physically in the U.S. So if you have a child while you’re in the U.S., the child is a U.S. citizen.

    Posted by Old 1811 | October 5, 2016, 2:43 pm
  3. The man’s statement does seem at least a bit self-contradictory. This will require further consideration.

    Posted by Rev. Paul | October 5, 2016, 8:36 pm
  4. Another point: The “No Fourteenth Amendment” is a favorite of people who are worried about present-day anchor babies, but consider this:
    Great-great,etc., Gram and Gramps come here in the 1800s from Ireland or Germany. They’re not yet citizens yet when Great-great, etc. (minus one) Gramps is born. He thinks he’s a citizen, but he’s really not, so he never naturalizes. He marries a nice lass from his native country, who also thinks she’s a citizen but isn’t. Their kid, then, thinks he’s a citizen but isn’t, and so on. Follow the chain down, and 80% of the people in the U.S., including you and me, aren’t really citizens.
    Like I said, it’s total bullshit.
    There’s also a point of law regarding common usage, that says if something is commonly thought to be legal, it’s legal. The best example is, if you and your wife find out after twenty years of marriage that the guy who married you wasn’t legally authorized to do so, you’re still married, because you thought you were, and made decisions based on that good-faith belief. A more relevant example: It was discovered in 2003 that Ohio had never been formally admitted as a state, because in 1803 someone forgot to forward the admitting petition to Congress. But Ohio has been thought to be a state, and decisions were made in that good-faith belief, for 200 years, so as a practical matter, Ohio has been a state since 1803. (This one’s a favorite of “No Sixteenth (income tax) Amendment” crowd, since President Taft was born in Ohio. Of course, a native of a U.S. territory is a natural-born citizen, just as a native of a U.S. state is.)
    Bottom line: There is a Fourteenth Amendment.

    Posted by Old 1811 | October 7, 2016, 7:50 am
    • You make some very salient points. Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment intelligently!
      I guess we should focus on legally changing the income tax and legal definition regarding how one is ‘natural born’.
      It’s always something!

      Posted by guffaw1952 | October 7, 2016, 7:55 am
    • There is absolutely no comparison between Ohio completing the requirements for statehood, believing itself to be a state, and being allowed to participate as a state, despite not being a state because of a clerical error, and a blatant violation, or even violations, of the Constitution with the implementation of the 14th Amendment.

      In addition, your example of the Irish and German immigrants is a poor example, as the 1802 naturalization law would be the most recent constitutional naturalization law in the U.S. if the 14th Amendment is, indeed, as it appears to have been, implemented in an unconstitutional manner. Those Irish and German immigrants were white, as prescribed by the revised 1792 law in 1802.

      Posted by brianwesley28 | May 28, 2020, 2:24 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

"Round up the usual suspects."

In Loving Memory…

%d bloggers like this: