NC GOP wants a state religion...

[hapapp]

Of course, most of those states did ratify the amendment as a condition on re-entering the Union. Moreover, the Court has recognized the validity of the 14th Amendment for over 150 years, thus making it constitutional despite the process of its ratification. Regardless of what those who want to continue to fight the war argue, the 14th Amendment is constitutional and will continue to be applied as such.

[JCline0429]

First let's stop saying "the GOP" wants to do this and that. 2 representatives introduced this bill and 7 others sponsored it, in response to a silly lawsuit by the ACLU about prayer before local political meetings. This is not the entire party. This should not pass, even in a republican house and senate. If it even makes it out of committee to floor debate will surprise me.

Second, what is so wrong with prayer before a meeting? If you don't believe in what I believe then my prayer shouldn't bother you. Why are so many easily offended these days? If a Muslim was elected to office and opened a session with a Muslim prayer would the ACLU object?

Third, let's also stop posting Op/Ed pieces as news articles.

And Fourth, how about we let these things run their course and go through the entire process in the General Assembly. I think cooler heads will prevail if the media and the much too vocal opposition would just chill out a little bit. Governor McCrory has impressed me for the most part so far. His budget proposal was fairly moderate and decent. He's even already amended it some when he realize part of it may not be feasable.

McRory impressed me until he appointed a Civitas leader (Art Pope) as his Chief of Staff. Civitas is anti-public education, anti-Smart Start, etc. Civitas is extreme right wing to say the least.

I agree that Civitas is extreme right wing but I'm not sure they and the GOP leaders are exactly anti-public education. I think they are very concerned with our state's education status but not convinced that continuing to throw money at it is the solution. It seems they are simply interested in a business model that they are familiar with, competition. I have mixed feelings about the increase in charter schools but it seems that many districts are figuring out ways to apply for charter schools operated by the district. This may be positive in that it is making school districts think outside the box. When it's all said and done isn't it about educating our kids whether it's public, charter or private schools?

And Pope is Budget Director. Thomas Stith is Chief of Staff. Though I'm sure your concerns are the same.

I was mis-informed. The fact that Pope is Budget Director scares me even more. Nowhere did I mention that the Republicans are anti-public education, but I attended one of the Civitas hearings a year and a half ago or so. If the leadership of Civitas is not anti-public education then I don't what organization is. The House member in my area, Justin Burr marches in lock step with the leadership of Civitas. He denies that, but he is either lying or flunks the course in self-examination. Had David Almond kept his penis in his pants, Justin Burr (the bail bondsman) would not have been appointed and re-elected. But that is a whole another story but apropo nevertheless.

[Maddog1956]

It was just a misunderstanding!

http://www.salisburypost.com/article/20 ... arrassment

[skjellyfetti]

Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on Oct. 27, 1866. [Cite 11]
And ratified it on February 18, 1870
Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on Nov. 9, 1866. [Cite 12]
ratified it on July 21, 1868
Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 6, 1866. [Cite 13]
ratified it on June 9, 1868
Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 7, 1866. [Cite 14]
ratified it on July 13, 1868
North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 14, 1866. [Cite 15]
ratified it onJuly 4, 1868
Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 17, 1866. [Cite 16]
ratified it onApril 6, 1868
South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 20, 1866. [Cite 17]
ratified it on July 9, 1868
Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 8, 1867. [Cite 18]
ratified it on May 6, 1976
Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 9, 1867. [Cite 19]
ratified it on October 8, 1869
Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on Feb. 6, 1867. [Cite 20]
ratified it on July 9, 1868
Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on Feb. 7, 1867. [Cite 21]
ratified it on February 12, 1901
Maryland rejected the l4th amendment on Mar. 23, 1867. [Cite 22]
ratified it on April 4, 1959
Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 31, 1867. [Cite 23]
ratified it on January 17, 1870
Ohio rejected the 14th amendment on Jan. 16, 1868. [Cite 24]
ratified it in 2003
New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on Mar. 24, 1868.
ratified it in 2003

Added the dates they ratified it for you.

The amendment was ratified by 3/4 of the states... as mandated in the Constitution... on July 9, 1868....

Other states went back and did it later after seeing the error of their ways.

it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

Derp.

[Kgfish]

Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on Oct. 27, 1866. [Cite 11]
And ratified it on February 18, 1870
Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on Nov. 9, 1866. [Cite 12]
ratified it on July 21, 1868
Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 6, 1866. [Cite 13]
ratified it on June 9, 1868
Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 7, 1866. [Cite 14]
ratified it on July 13, 1868
North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 14, 1866. [Cite 15]
ratified it onJuly 4, 1868
Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 17, 1866. [Cite 16]
ratified it onApril 6, 1868
South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on Dec. 20, 1866. [Cite 17]
ratified it on July 9, 1868
Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 8, 1867. [Cite 18]
ratified it on May 6, 1976
Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 9, 1867. [Cite 19]
ratified it on October 8, 1869
Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on Feb. 6, 1867. [Cite 20]
ratified it on July 9, 1868
Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on Feb. 7, 1867. [Cite 21]
ratified it on February 12, 1901
Maryland rejected the l4th amendment on Mar. 23, 1867. [Cite 22]
ratified it on April 4, 1959
Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on Jan. 31, 1867. [Cite 23]
ratified it on January 17, 1870
Ohio rejected the 14th amendment on Jan. 16, 1868. [Cite 24]
ratified it in 2003
New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on Mar. 24, 1868.
ratified it in 2003

Added the dates they ratified it for you.

The amendment was ratified by 3/4 of the states... as mandated in the Constitution... on July 9, 1868....

Other states went back and did it later after seeing the error of their ways.

it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V of the U. S. Constitution.

Derp.

Excuse me. It was never ratified by the freely elected legislatures of those states at the time the Resolution was illegally passed. It "ratified" only after the states were coerced into doing so for re-admittance to the union and having dissenting legislators forcibly removed by the Federal Government. And what about the part concerning those 28 Senators who were unlawfully excluded from the U. S. Senate in order to get the two-thirds vote for adoption? Nahh... that isn't important. If that doesn't enrage you as an American you you have zero respect for what the Founders worked so diligently to accomplish. In the years leading up to, during and for twelve years after the War Between the States, our Constitution was trampled on more than at any time in our history, until now.

Why people like you can not engage in a discussion without tossing out derogatory and condescending remarks is hard to figure. That is something a 12 year old would do. Any credibility you seek to gain is overshadowed by your obvious lack of maturity. Do you think juvenile expressions like that make you look smart, witty or cute? Grow up little boy this isn't middle school.

[Kgfish]

Of course, most of those states did ratify the amendment as a condition on re-entering the Union. Moreover, the Court has recognized the validity of the 14th Amendment for over 150 years, thus making it constitutional despite the process of its ratification. Regardless of what those who want to continue to fight the war argue, the 14th Amendment is constitutional and will continue to be applied as such.

Nobody is still fighting a war. Regardless of what those who turn a blind eye to the truth think, the 14th Amendment was passed by a Unconstitutional vote in an illegally seated Congress and later "ratified" by coercion and manipulation. You are mistaken saying the courts have upheld it for 150 years. In Coleman v. Miller, 507 U. S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 972, the Supreme Court did not uphold the validity of the 14th Amendment. The Court said: "The legislatures of Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina had rejected the amendment in November and December, 1866. New governments were erected in those States (and in others) under the direction of Congress. The new legislatures ratified the amendment, that of North Carolina on July 4, 1868, that of South Carolina on July 9, 1868, and that of Georgia on July 21, 1868." Congress violated the constitutional requirements of Article V that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. To this day federal courts actually refuse to hear argument on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment, even when the issue is presented squarely by the pleadings and the evidence supporting the argument. Because they know it would not stand up to the overwhelming evidence against it.

Got some more? Bring it on!

[JCline0429]

Of course, most of those states did ratify the amendment as a condition on re-entering the Union. Moreover, the Court has recognized the validity of the 14th Amendment for over 150 years, thus making it constitutional despite the process of its ratification. Regardless of what those who want to continue to fight the war argue, the 14th Amendment is constitutional and will continue to be applied as such.

Get this for a parodox:

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed.

[JCline0429]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04 ... igion?lite


This is completely absurd and will never pass but I have a feeling that it is a distraction to keep people from looking at the real bills they are trying to pass to limit our voting rights in an attempt to eliminate some of the democrat vote. Looks like they are attempting to turn NC in to a GOP political machine.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/0 ... t-the.html

http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/01/ ... limit.html

The real point to this story is there are wack jobs in both parties. Witness: Diane Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, et al.

[hapapp]

Of course, most of those states did ratify the amendment as a condition on re-entering the Union. Moreover, the Court has recognized the validity of the 14th Amendment for over 150 years, thus making it constitutional despite the process of its ratification. Regardless of what those who want to continue to fight the war argue, the 14th Amendment is constitutional and will continue to be applied as such.

Nobody is still fighting a war. Regardless of what those who turn a blind eye to the truth think, the 14th Amendment was passed by a Unconstitutional vote in an illegally seated Congress and later "ratified" by coercion and manipulation. You are mistaken saying the courts have upheld it for 150 years. In Coleman v. Miller, 507 U. S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 972, the Supreme Court did not uphold the validity of the 14th Amendment. The Court said: "The legislatures of Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina had rejected the amendment in November and December, 1866. New governments were erected in those States (and in others) under the direction of Congress. The new legislatures ratified the amendment, that of North Carolina on July 4, 1868, that of South Carolina on July 9, 1868, and that of Georgia on July 21, 1868." Congress violated the constitutional requirements of Article V that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. To this day federal courts actually refuse to hear argument on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment, even when the issue is presented squarely by the pleadings and the evidence supporting the argument. Because they know it would not stand up to the overwhelming evidence against it.

Got some more? Bring it on!

They don't hear challenges to the 14th Amendment because it is settled law. No one but a few folks on the fringe bother to whine about this. Quite frankly, I'm glad they did what was necessary to get it passed in light of the intransigence of the naysayers of the day. You are more than welcome to continue to moan and groan about this but I live comfortably knowing we have a 14th Amendment that guarantees all people equal protection of the law.

[JCline0429]

Except non-tax paying Indians according to that amendment.

[Maddog1956]

Nobody is still fighting a war. Regardless of what those who turn a blind eye to the truth think, the 14th Amendment was passed by a Unconstitutional vote in an illegally seated Congress and later "ratified" by coercion and manipulation. You are mistaken saying the courts have upheld it for 150 years. In Coleman v. Miller, 507 U. S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 972, the Supreme Court did not uphold the validity of the 14th Amendment. To this day federal courts actually refuse to hear argument on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment, even when the issue is presented squarely by the pleadings and the evidence supporting the argument. Because they know it would not stand up to the overwhelming evidence against it.

Got some more? Bring it on!

The only way to win this battle is to re-fight the civil war and have the south win.

Coleman v. Miller - 307 U.S. 433 (1939) and has to due with when the date for ratification expires and had to do with the Child Labor Amendment not the 14th.

#507 was actually Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (1993)

The Coleman vs. Miller you speak of comes from a made up site that looks like it was designed by a kid. http://www.firstfreedom.net/41.htm. The quote you supplied only comes from nutcase websites, with made up information.

The Supreme Court doesn't decided if the constitution is constitutional (it is by definition) it determines if laws, actions, etc follow the constitution (interprets). For example, in the "real" Coleman v Miller it said that if congress doesn't put a deadline on passage of amendment it doesn't expire and that only congress can decide when an amendment is ratified.

Instead it makes decision based on the constitution and for over 150+ years it has made over 100 decisions based on the 14th. (Including Bush v Gore). Now after 150+ years of precedent no court "needs" to take up the invalidity of the 14th.

Only people that don't understand the court system and the constitution would think that you can go to court and ask that they hear a case on the constitution not being constitutional.

I always find it funny when tea partiers say the want to follow the constitution but they just don't think it's valid.

As a victor in the Civil War the Federal government had the right to put any government in place (just like we did in Germany and Japan), but even that's too hard to understand, all 37 states in existence at that time have also ratified it.

Tea Party please get off the 14th and Birther issues. Do something useful with the party.

Did you know the bill of rights are invalid based on the fact that some of the signers use ink from a another states desk voiding the whole thing. Yeah that's right, I read it right there on the internet in big letters with read and everything.

[firemoose]

Nobody is still fighting a war. Regardless of what those who turn a blind eye to the truth think, the 14th Amendment was passed by a Unconstitutional vote in an illegally seated Congress and later "ratified" by coercion and manipulation. You are mistaken saying the courts have upheld it for 150 years. In Coleman v. Miller, 507 U. S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 972, the Supreme Court did not uphold the validity of the 14th Amendment. To this day federal courts actually refuse to hear argument on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment, even when the issue is presented squarely by the pleadings and the evidence supporting the argument. Because they know it would not stand up to the overwhelming evidence against it.

Got some more? Bring it on!

The only way to win this battle is to re-fight the civil war and have the south win.

Coleman v. Miller - 307 U.S. 433 (1939) and has to due with when the date for ratification expires and had to do with the Child Labor Amendment not the 14th.

#507 was actually Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (1993)

The Coleman vs. Miller you speak of comes from a made up site that looks like it was designed by a kid. http://www.firstfreedom.net/41.htm. The quote you supplied only comes from nutcase websites, with made up information.

The Supreme Court doesn't decided if the constitution is constitutional (it is by definition) it determines if laws, actions, etc follow the constitution (interprets). For example, in the "real" Coleman v Miller it said that if congress doesn't put a deadline on passage of amendment it doesn't expire and that only congress can decide when an amendment is ratified.

Instead it makes decision based on the constitution and for over 150+ years it has made over 100 decisions based on the 14th. (Including Bush v Gore). Now after 150+ years of precedent no court "needs" to take up the invalidity of the 14th.

Only people that don't understand the court system and the constitution would think that you can go to court and ask that they hear a case on the constitution not being constitutional.

I always find it funny when tea partiers say the want to follow the constitution but they just don't think it's valid.

As a victor in the Civil War the Federal government had the right to put any government in place (just like we did in Germany and Japan), but even that's too hard to understand, all 37 states in existence at that time have also ratified it.

Tea Party please get off the 14th and Birther issues. Do something useful with the party.

Did you know the bill of rights are invalid based on the fact that some of the signers use ink from a another states desk voiding the whole thing. Yeah that's right, I read it right there on the internet in big letters with read and everything.

I've got my musket cleaned up and ready to go (plus a few more modern weapons). Since most of us mountain folk didn't choose sides but just wanted people to leave us alone all you Yanks and Johnny Rebs better keep out of these here hills.

[Kgfish]

Of course, most of those states did ratify the amendment as a condition on re-entering the Union. Moreover, the Court has recognized the validity of the 14th Amendment for over 150 years, thus making it constitutional despite the process of its ratification. Regardless of what those who want to continue to fight the war argue, the 14th Amendment is constitutional and will continue to be applied as such.

Nobody is still fighting a war. Regardless of what those who turn a blind eye to the truth think, the 14th Amendment was passed by a Unconstitutional vote in an illegally seated Congress and later "ratified" by coercion and manipulation. You are mistaken saying the courts have upheld it for 150 years. In Coleman v. Miller, 507 U. S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 972, the Supreme Court did not uphold the validity of the 14th Amendment. The Court said: "The legislatures of Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina had rejected the amendment in November and December, 1866. New governments were erected in those States (and in others) under the direction of Congress. The new legislatures ratified the amendment, that of North Carolina on July 4, 1868, that of South Carolina on July 9, 1868, and that of Georgia on July 21, 1868." Congress violated the constitutional requirements of Article V that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. To this day federal courts actually refuse to hear argument on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment, even when the issue is presented squarely by the pleadings and the evidence supporting the argument. Because they know it would not stand up to the overwhelming evidence against it.

Got some more? Bring it on!

They don't hear challenges to the 14th Amendment because it is settled law. No one but a few folks on the fringe bother to whine about this. Quite frankly, I'm glad they did what was necessary to get it passed in light of the intransigence of the naysayers of the day. You are more than welcome to continue to moan and groan about this but I live comfortably knowing we have a 14th Amendment that guarantees all people equal protection of the law.

I'm glad you can live comfortably knowing this Federal Government forcibly usurped those duly elected State Legislatures and installed their own puppet representatives. How can anyone respect the laws of the land when overlooking something as blatantly Unconstitutional as this? The ends justifies the means in your eyes as long as it suits what is "necessary". You gloss over the real issues because it is right and just. There is (was) a system in place to settle this within the framework of the Constitution, but the rule of law was not followed. This isn't about the language or the intent of the 14th Amendment it is how it was forced down the throats of Americans in states who saw the union as a voluntary association and not one ruled by an all powerful central government. Were the legislatures of Northern states that did not ratify removed and replaced and forced to comply as a condition to remain in the Union? No. Once Pandora's Box was opened it will never be closed and that is exactly what happened. There is precedent on the books now that you claim no court has ever challenged, what is to prevent the same from happening again? I was always taught government derived its power by the people, not taking power from them.

Time to move on.

[Kgfish]

Nobody is still fighting a war. Regardless of what those who turn a blind eye to the truth think, the 14th Amendment was passed by a Unconstitutional vote in an illegally seated Congress and later "ratified" by coercion and manipulation. You are mistaken saying the courts have upheld it for 150 years. In Coleman v. Miller, 507 U. S. 448, 59 S. Ct. 972, the Supreme Court did not uphold the validity of the 14th Amendment. To this day federal courts actually refuse to hear argument on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment, even when the issue is presented squarely by the pleadings and the evidence supporting the argument. Because they know it would not stand up to the overwhelming evidence against it.

Got some more? Bring it on!

The only way to win this battle is to re-fight the civil war and have the south win.

Coleman v. Miller - 307 U.S. 433 (1939) and has to due with when the date for ratification expires and had to do with the Child Labor Amendment not the 14th.

#507 was actually Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (1993)

The Coleman vs. Miller you speak of comes from a made up site that looks like it was designed by a kid. http://www.firstfreedom.net/41.htm. The quote you supplied only comes from nutcase websites, with made up information.

The Supreme Court doesn't decided if the constitution is constitutional (it is by definition) it determines if laws, actions, etc follow the constitution (interprets). For example, in the "real" Coleman v Miller it said that if congress doesn't put a deadline on passage of amendment it doesn't expire and that only congress can decide when an amendment is ratified.

Instead it makes decision based on the constitution and for over 150+ years it has made over 100 decisions based on the 14th. (Including Bush v Gore). Now after 150+ years of precedent no court "needs" to take up the invalidity of the 14th.

Only people that don't understand the court system and the constitution would think that you can go to court and ask that they hear a case on the constitution not being constitutional.

I always find it funny when tea partiers say the want to follow the constitution but they just don't think it's valid.

As a victor in the Civil War the Federal government had the right to put any government in place (just like we did in Germany and Japan), but even that's too hard to understand, all 37 states in existence at that time have also ratified it.

Tea Party please get off the 14th and Birther issues. Do something useful with the party.

Did you know the bill of rights are invalid based on the fact that some of the signers use ink from a another states desk voiding the whole thing. Yeah that's right, I read it right there on the internet in big letters with read and everything.

Didn't get the info from that site. Fact site I've never seen it. Not a birther either.