Freethought & Rationalism Archive

D.H. Cross · 01-11-2003, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
D.H. - the websites you cut and pasted that material from (which is generally a no-no) would qualify as nutcase jobs. The first one has a libertarian orientation, and actually has some interesting stuff. The second one is decorated with confederate flags and is on a campaign to repeal the 17th amendment.

If you tried any of these arguments in a court of law, you would be laughed out of court.

(But it is true that states had established churches until quite late. The 14th amendment was not passed until after the civil war, so a state church in 1830 would have been legal.)

Sorry about the cut & paste...I thought that was bad only if I claimed ownership with intent to benefit personally, as in selling the information or something. These opinions and facts are not common enough to be considered "common knowledge"?

Thank you for the feedback, it helps a great deal.

Toto · 01-12-2003, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by D.H. Cross
. . . . These opinions and facts are not common enough to be considered "common knowledge"?

. . .

I don't know what this means. It is common knowledge that the 14th amendment is part of the constitution, and is part of the settled law of this land. It is also common knowledge that there are some fringe neo-confederate groups and other groups opposed to having a strong federal government in this country who think that the 14th amendment is illegitimate, and have constructed cases against it. But if you argue in court that the 14th amendment was not passed, you will lose.

RufusAtticus · 01-12-2003, 05:16 AM

I've heard this argument before and seen it refuted. It might be in the archives of this forum. Although it could have been on BaptistBoard or ChristianFroums.

D.H. Cross · 01-12-2003, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
I don't know what this means. It is common knowledge that the 14th amendment is part of the constitution, and is part of the settled law of this land. It is also common knowledge that there are some fringe neo-confederate groups and other groups opposed to having a strong federal government in this country who think that the 14th amendment is illegitimate, and have constructed cases against it. But if you argue in court that the 14th amendment was not passed, you will lose.

Do you know of a link I can go to which treats that particular debate?

Toto · 01-12-2003, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by D.H. Cross
Do you know of a link I can go to which treats that particular debate?

This is not a hot issue with me, so I am not going to put a lot of time into it. (I think some other forum regulars might have the information more readily available?)

But a casual Google search turns this up:

Souterhn Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report

Quote:

. . .

The fact that the United States Supreme Court has soundly rejected attacks on the Fourteenth Amendment for more than a century adds to the Amendment�s legitimacy. See Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922). Courts adhere to the concept of stare decisis, a doctrine designed to create a secure and certain legal system by requiring courts to "abide by, or adhere to, decided cases." Black�s Law Dictionary (6th ed.). If this doctrine means anything, it means that, after more than a century of Supreme Court acceptance, the validity of the Fourteenth Amendment and its ratification process is no longer subject to challenge. . . .

Edited to add - it appears that you cannot access that link directly. To see the source:

Go to http://www.splcenter.org

Click on Intelligence Project, then Archives, then summer 2000, then scroll down to "Attacking the 14th Amendment"

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-12-2003, 05:16 AM	#13
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	I've heard this argument before and seen it refuted. It might be in the archives of this forum. Although it could have been on BaptistBoard or ChristianFroums.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.