NWO is NOT happening

Article XIV.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

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. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That is what I am talking about. No state making laws abridging the right of citizens of the US. That is how the power centralized and it was an issue that never came up (or maybe it did) until the procession of the Civil War. It certainly wasn't passed until the South decided they wanted to seceede (sp?) from the "voluntary" union.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

And this was used to install military commanders in the place of governors and take out politicians who would have most certainly disagreed with such legislation. Check out the Reconstruction Acts as well.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Yea, I was referring to the fact that an amendment was passed immediately after the Civil War, can't remember which one, maybe 14.

But in that amendment, citizens are redefined as members of the federal government first and their states second. The sympathy behind the amendment was to allow slaves to have equal footing with the rest of american citizens. Not to mention that the southerners who would have opposed the amendment were ousted from the senate and governors replaced with military commandments because of the south's involvement in the civil war.

The Constitution:
Amendment XIV 1868

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This is not saying that federal 'citizenship' suprsedes state citizenship. The use of 'and' indicates that. All it is saying is that the states can't revoke a citizens rights. This is nothing like what you were saying happened. The same federal governement was -restored-.

The Constitution:
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Is this part of the problem? That the people who raised armies agianst the legitimate governement, started a rebellion and war, weren't allowed back into that very same governement that they had fought against? At least not without approval of a super-majority of congressials? That is hardly unreasonable or imperialistic. The southerners still had the right to vote for whatever representatives and senators they wanted. Infact, now more southerns than ever before had that right to vote for their federal and state officials. You are saying this is somehow antidemocratic? Plus, the southern states tended to be the more populous states, so they could definitely get people who wanted to be back in the federal governement (yep that same governement they were willing to kill people to get away from) back in if the public actually wanted them to.

The military governments you are talking about are the Reconstruction governments. How else do you propose that states formerly in rebellion be re-integrated into the union?


here is what the wikipedia says about it:

"Republicans assumed control of all state governments and began to pass numerous civil rights laws legalizing interracial marriage and ensuring black schools, and a variety of other ambitious proposals. In many cases former slaves were given very prominent ranks in the government, usually as state senators or state legislators. There were also numerous black judges, mayors, sheriffs, and deputy governors installed. Louisiana even had a black governor for a brief period. Most political "firsts" for African Americans occurred during this period.

Shock and horror. I guess you are saying that these evil reconstructionist governments were doing, what, bad things?

here is another page on this time period.

It also looks liek the states still had the same governmental offices and apparatti as before, but the Commanders were acting as a sort of military oversight.

Now, I certainly am not saying that this is an admirable system of governement, but its obviously not the tyrannical evil that you are saying it is, and, most importantly, neither Reconstruction nor the Civil War destroyed states rights. It ended up ensuring the Constitutional rights of all the citizens while still leaving the states free and sovereign. If there hadn't been any sort of reconstruction, can you imagine what the South would be like today?

And on the powers of the military commandants:

look here
it shall be the duty of each officer, assigned as aforesaid, to protect all persons in their rights of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder, and violence, and to punish, or cause to be punished, all disturbers of the public peace and criminals, and to this end he may allow local civil tribunals to take jurisdiction of and try offenders, or, when in his judgment it may be necessary for the trial of offenders, he shall have power to organize military commissions or tribunals for that purpose; and all interference, under color of State authority; with the exercise of military authority under this act, shall be null and void."

Now, as a side note, if the evil illuminati masonic reptiloid nwo (with the black UN helicopters) was supposed to be taking over the world, and has been in control for hundreds if not thousands of years, why didn't it do so then? (I am not, Jahmun, saying that you made anysuch claim).

it continues:

all persons put under military arrest by virtue of this act shall be tried without unnecessary delay, and no cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted; and no sentence of any military commission or tribunal hereby authorized, affecting the life or liberty of any person, shall be executed, until it is approved by the officer in command of the district, and the laws and regulations for the government of the army shall not be affected by this act, except in so far as they conflict with its provisions: Provided, That no sentence of death under the provision of this act shall be carried into effect without the approval of the President."

Thats even -more- liberal than the governements of the time, and even more so than some of the governements now. The president himself has to approve executions, and the overall commandant must review and approve all sentences, and I am assuming that that is ontop of the normal civil proceedings.

here is a final word on the relationship between the military and state governments:

"We see clearly enough that this act contemplates two distinct governments in each of these ten States: the one military, the other civil. The civil government is recognized as existing at the date of the act. The military government is created by the act.

Both are provisional, and both are to continue until the new State constitution is framed and the State is admitted to representation in Congress. When that event takes place, both these provisional governments are to cease. In contemplation of this act, this military authority and this civil authority are to be carried on together. The people in these States are made subject to both, and must obey both, in their respective jurisdictions.

There is, then, an imperative necessity to define as clearly as possible the line which separates the two jurisdictions, and the exact scope of the authority of each.

Now, as to the civil authority recognized by the act as the provisional civil government, it covered every department of civil jurisdiction in each of these States.

It had all the characteristics and powers of a State government -- legislative, judicial, and executive -- and was in the full and lawful exercise of all these powers, except only that it was not entitled to representation as a State of the Union.

This existing government is not set aside; it is recognized more than once by the act. It is not in any one of its departments, or as to any one of its functions, repealed or modified by this act, save only in the qualifications of voters, the qualifications of persons eligible to office, the constitution of the State. The act does not in any other respect change the provisional government, nor does the act authorize the military authority to change it."

Most interesting. I haven't been able to find out if this letter is making recomendations as to ammendments to the act or if its possible refering to an unapproved draft of the act, but it looks like it is talking about what is in fact in effect at the time.

quote:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

That is what I am talking about. No state making laws abridging the right of citizens of the US. That is how the power centralized and it was an issue that never came up (or maybe it did) until the procession of the Civil War. It certainly wasn't passed until the South decided they wanted to seceede (sp?) from the "voluntary" union.

Those in power in the Republican Party which controlled the Congress at that time rammed through the Reconstruction Act of 1867. This incredible abuse of Congressional power simply abolished the legal governments of all ten of the southern States which had refused to ratify the 14th Amendment and placed all of them under military dictatorship. The generals placed in command of these dictatorships were required by the Reconstruction Act to prepare the "rolls of voters" for conventions which would formulate governments acceptable to Congress. Anyone who had served in the Confederate Army was denied the right to vote or to hold office - in spite of presidential proclamations by both Lincoln and Johnson granting amnesty to southern veterans who would swear allegiance to the U.S. The Reconstruction Act provided that when these "new" legislatures ratified the 14th Amendment they would be admitted to the union.

www.newswithviews.com...

Actions speak a lot louder than words, why don't you do your research there.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Jamuhn

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

That is what I am talking about. No state making laws abridging the right of citizens of the US. That is how the power centralized and it was an issue that never came up (or maybe it did) until the procession of the Civil War. It certainly wasn't passed until the South decided they wanted to seceede (sp?) from the "voluntary" union.

Perhaps you should look at te first 10 ammendments, you know, the bill of rights. Did you think that they were just in there for the heck of it? Constituional Law, by definition, at inception, provided for rights and such in all states party to it. This ammendment was added because some people, thinking along similar lines as you apparently, didn't think that they were required to obey these laws. This issue certianly came up before the civil war, and it was only afterwards that the constitution was altered to made it astoundingly clear that the constitution provides for certain civil rights for all citizens.

Section 3. No person shall [...] hold any office,[...]who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same,

And this was used to install military commanders in the place of governors

Incorrect. The commanders and military governemtn was in parrallel to the civil government. This setcion of the ammemdment has -nothing- to do with the military governments that were installed anyway! It merely says that people who swore on oath to defend the constitution adn then fought -against it- weren't allowed to once again swear an oath to defend it and serve in the federal governement...unless there was a vote to let them back in. And what is this fantasy about 'taking out' uncoperative politicians? The military and civil governments didn't form death squads to execute people.

Perhaps you should look at te first 10 ammendments, you know, the bill of rights. Did you think that they were just in there for the heck of it? Constituional Law, by definition, at inception, provided for rights and such in all states party to it. This ammendment was added because some people, thinking along similar lines as you apparently, didn't think that they were required to obey these laws. This issue certianly came up before the civil war, and it was only afterwards that the constitution was altered to made it astoundingly clear that the constitution provides for certain civil rights for all citizens.

LOL, do you not understand the concept of state sovereignty? If you look at the history of bills passed in state governments, you will see that all the states except for mississippi I think, banned slavery. Are you new to this or something, because it doesn't seem like you have spent much time researching this.

Slavery was the sympathy point to get the masses behind this amendment and obviously if you were living in that time you would have supported it. Take a look at the fine print.

Those in power in the Republican Party which controlled the Congress at that time rammed through the Reconstruction Act of 1867. This incredible abuse of Congressional power simply abolished the legal governments of all ten of the southern States which had refused to ratify the 14th Amendment and placed all of them under military dictatorship. The generals placed in command of these dictatorships were required by the Reconstruction Act to prepare the "rolls of voters" for conventions which would formulate governments acceptable to Congress. Anyone who had served in the Confederate Army was denied the right to vote or to hold office - in spite of presidential proclamations by both Lincoln and Johnson granting amnesty to southern veterans who would swear allegiance to the U.S. The Reconstruction Act provided that when these "new" legislatures ratified the 14th Amendment they would be admitted to the union.

www.newswithviews.com...

Actions speak a lot louder than words, why don't you do your research there.

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Perhaps you should look at te first 10 ammendments, you know, the bill of rights. Did you think that they were just in there for the heck of it? Constituional Law, by definition, at inception, provided for rights and such in all states party to it. This ammendment was added because some people, thinking along similar lines as you apparently, didn't think that they were required to obey these laws. This issue certianly came up before the civil war, and it was only afterwards that the constitution was altered to made it astoundingly clear that the constitution provides for certain civil rights for all citizens.

LOL, do you not understand the concept of state sovereignty? If you look at the history of bills passed in state governments, you will see that all the states except for mississippi I think, banned slavery. Are you new to this or something, because it doesn't seem like you have spent much time researching this.

Pretending to research something but not really understanding it aren't very good ideas Jahmun. What part of my reasoning was flawed? The ammendment in question re-iterates, in a sense it enumerates, that the states can't deny basic civil constitutional rights, as previously enumerated by the bill of rights and as originally implied in teh main text of the constitution itself. The mere existence of a federal government and civic rights does not nullify state sovereignty.

Slavery was the sympathy point to get the masses behind this amendment and obviously if you were living in that time you would have supported it. Take a look at the fine print.

There is not fine print in the ammendments of the constitution. Instead of implying that something else is there than what is plainly said, why don't you point out this supposed 'fine print'? Also, please present the evidence, the congresisonal records and public debate, that indicate that the portion of the ammendment which stated that the states can't take away the civil rights of the public was addded to pander to some mob.

Those in power in the Republican Party which controlled the Congress at that time rammed through the Reconstruction Act of 1867. This incredible abuse of Congressional power simply abolished the legal governments of all ten of the southern States which had refused to ratify the 14th Amendment and placed all of them under military dictatorship. The generals placed in command of these dictatorships were required by the Reconstruction Act to prepare the "rolls of voters" for conventions which would formulate governments acceptable to Congress. Anyone who had served in the Confederate Army was denied the right to vote or to hold office

If you did not notice, the restriction part of the law does not apply to common soliders, and doesn't prevent -anyone-, even the president of the confederacy, from voting.

- in spite of presidential proclamations by both Lincoln and Johnson granting amnesty to southern veterans who would swear allegiance to the U.S. The Reconstruction Act provided that when these "new" legislatures ratified the 14th Amendment they would be admitted to the union.

Actions speak a lot louder than words, why don't you do your research there.

Apparently you haven't even read the ammendment in question.

And, again, I have not denied the existence of these military govenements, but they were hardly tyrannical monstrosities and were obviously quite necessary to ensure order in the defeated and humiliated formerly rebellious states.

Pretending to research something but not really understanding it aren't very good ideas Jahmun. What part of my reasoning was flawed? The ammendment in question re-iterates, in a sense it enumerates, that the states can't deny basic civil constitutional rights, as previously enumerated by the bill of rights and as originally implied in teh main text of the constitution itself. The mere existence of a federal government and civic rights does not nullify state sovereignty.

Let me give you a good example..Pot in California. Federal agents ransacking medical marijuana establishments despite that California law support it. There are many examples such as this.

That would not have been possible if it weren't for the 14th amendment. Whether at the time they realized this or not, this amendment is being used out of the context of the Bill of Rights.

That is what I was saying when I said slavery was the sympathy reason. Anyone against the 14th amendment is automatically someone who doesn't support the Bill of Rights? Give me a break.

LOL, and it still doesn't seem that you have read that article because you would have realized that the people who swore allegiance to the US which was recognized by the presidents were ousted because they still opposed the 14th amendment. The military commanders took over until a constitution that supported the 14th amendment was formed.

Look, I know you want to win this argument because you seem very filled with pride on your stance. Just let it go man, or at least carry the rest of this conversation on via U2U.

This argument no longer has anything to do with the topic at hand. As I said earlier, my point is that the EU is in a similar position to the USA before the Civil War. If you wish to talk about that, go for it.

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Pretending to research something but not really understanding it aren't very good ideas Jahmun. What part of my reasoning was flawed? The ammendment in question re-iterates, in a sense it enumerates, that the states can't deny basic civil constitutional rights, as previously enumerated by the bill of rights and as originally implied in teh main text of the constitution itself. The mere existence of a federal government and civic rights does not nullify state sovereignty.

Federal agents ransacking medical marijuana establishments despite that California law support it. That would not have been possible if it weren't for the 14th amendment.

Then why did the people of california ratify that ammendment. Every State has ratified the 14th ammendment.

That is what I was saying when I said slavery was the sympathy reason. Anyone against the 14th amendment is automatically someone who doesn't support the Bill of Rights? Give me a break.

We were talking about it in the context of the time. YOu specifically said the the Radical Republicans weren't interested in the fact that blacks were having their constitutional rights abridged.

LOL, and it still doesn't seem that you have read that article because you would have realized that the people who swore allegiance to the US which was recognized by the presidents were ousted because they still opposed the 14th amendment.

The 14th ammendment is the very ammendment that prohibited people who had 'formerly swore an oath to serve and protect the constitution and broke that oath by fighting in rebellion from serving in offices that required them to again make that oath'. Read the ammendment. It had nothign to do with voting, and had nothing to do with merely being a confederate soldier.

The military commanders took over until a constitution that supported the 14th amendment was formed.

The defeated secessionist states had been taken over by the Union. They needed to be re-intergrated into the Union. Lincoln and others wanted a 'soft' version of reconstruction. But then the defeated formerly rebellious states began instituting 'Black Codes' once again restricting and removing the civil rights of black citizens. The Radical Republicans decided that these states needed to agree once and for all to give civil rights ot black citizens, the civil rights that were implied in the constitution and enumerated in the Bill of Rights. These states had -left- the union. The -rejected- the constitution. They probably shouldn't have even been given civil governements or any constitutional protections until they had been reintergrated. They effectively became hostile, warring, foreigners inside the US. The stipulation that they agree to respect the rights of individuals and the authority of the consitution is -hardly- imperial or unreasonable and obviously stricter and harsher methods ended up being required, because nearly a hundred years later the federal government -still- had to call in the national guard to desegregate the schools and there was -still- the necessity of an entire civil rights movement.

Look, I know you want to win this argument because you seem very filled with pride on your stance. Just let it go man, or at least carry the rest of this conversation on via U2U.

Why would I want to carry this conversation on in private? I am not trying to win an arguement; you said some things that were plainly incorrect, and some other things that I disagree with. There is no judge here, no scoring system, or even any rules. There's nothin to 'win'. I am merely discussing the topic.

This argument no longer has anything to do with the topic at hand. As I said earlier, my point is that the EU is in a similar position to the USA before the Civil War. If you wish to talk about that, go for it.

The European Union is not similar to the United States pre-Civil War. The United States had a Constitution, and a Federal Government. The EU is just a politico-economoic union, one that grew out of a purely economic arraingment. They do indeed now have a 'european parliament', however that 'pan european governement' (if it can even really be called that) is most defenitely not Fedeeral, and this is purposely so, they don't want a federal european governement. The States after the revolution did. They tried a non federal goverenment at first and found it unsatisfactory and opted for an actual federal governement. The very existence of a federal government means that federal laws -have to- supersede state laws, especially when it comes to civil rights. These seccesionist states, however, didn't seem to think so.

Then why did the people of california ratify that ammendment. Every State has ratified the 14th ammendment.

You quoted yourself as saying the federal laws do not supercede state sovereignty. Obviously they do, the fact you make this statement shows you concede that all states are subject to federal laws. Why don't you focus on the context of my statement?

We were talking about it in the context of the time. YOu specifically said the the Radical Republicans weren't interested in the fact that blacks were having their constitutional rights abridged.

No, I said that it was the sympathy behind the 14th amendment. An underlying reason was to take away state's rights in favor for federal. And I never used the world radical, you did.

The 14th ammendment is the very ammendment that prohibited people who had 'formerly swore an oath to serve and protect the constitution and broke that oath by fighting in rebellion from serving in offices that required them to again make that oath'. Read the ammendment. It had nothign to do with voting, and had nothing to do with merely being a confederate soldier.

Except lincoln and someone else (I forget who) made a proclamation granting amnesty to those who would make that oath again. Why don't you look beyond the 14th amendment?

The defeated secessionist states had been taken over by the Union. They needed to be re-intergrated into the Union. Lincoln and others wanted a 'soft' version of reconstruction. But then the defeated formerly rebellious states began instituting 'Black Codes' once again restricting and removing the civil rights of black citizens. The Radical Republicans decided that these states needed to agree once and for all to give civil rights ot black citizens, the civil rights that were implied in the constitution and enumerated in the Bill of Rights. These states had -left- the union. The -rejected- the constitution. They probably shouldn't have even been given civil governements or any constitutional protections until they had been reintergrated. They effectively became hostile, warring, foreigners inside the US. The stipulation that they agree to respect the rights of individuals and the authority of the consitution is -hardly- imperial or unreasonable and obviously stricter and harsher methods ended up being required, because nearly a hundred years later the federal government -still- had to call in the national guard to desegregate the schools and there was -still- the necessity of an entire civil rights movement.

Oh and the mighty North was always fair to black people. Give me a break man. Once again you're being blinded by the slavery issue. Why don't you look at children labor laws and women's rights during this period if you are so concerned.

Why would I want to carry this conversation on in private? I am not trying to win an arguement; you said some things that were plainly incorrect, and some other things that I disagree with. There is no judge here, no scoring system, or even any rules. There's nothin to 'win'. I am merely discussing the topic

Because you have effectively brought this thread off course. Congratulations. I think everyone has heard enough of our views and maybe now, this can be carried on in private. But I know, you want the final word. I guess I'll keep checking this thread.

The European Union is not similar to the United States pre-Civil War. The United States had a Constitution, and a Federal Government. The EU is just a politico-economoic union, one that grew out of a purely economic arraingment. They do indeed now have a 'european parliament', however that 'pan european governement' (if it can even really be called that) is most defenitely not Fedeeral, and this is purposely so, they don't want a federal european governement. The States after the revolution did. They tried a non federal goverenment at first and found it unsatisfactory and opted for an actual federal governement. The very existence of a federal government means that federal laws -have to- supersede state laws, especially when it comes to civil rights. These seccesionist states, however, didn't seem to think so.

Once again, why don't you do your research, the EU does in fact have a constitution and does have a military pact to defend Europe as a whole while at the same time practicing the soveriegnty of the countries.

FEDERAL LAWS DID NOT SUPERCEDE STATE LAWS BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR. CHRIST MAN, GET A CLUE!

Originally posted by clearmind
When people talk about NWO..all they can think about is the world under one flag ruled by one group, openly and usually very harshly..or for you utopians, very star trekie. some think that the NWO is and wont happen.

What does NWO stand for...New World Order....

and the balance of the post as well.

The NWO premise as shouted by many is "one world government." I think this is wrong and too simplistic.

Many believe it (NWO) is simply money- well in a way I agree with this but I believe the NWO doctrine is much deeper than simply money.

I believe the NWO doctrine is conrtrol. Money is but one of the pillars of control and surely subservient to resources.

Resource(Taipei Times) control is where rule and power come from.

There is a curious phenomenon that economists call the resource curse -- so named because, on average, countries with large endowments of natural resources perform worse than countries that are less well endowed. . . . .

think the US and Iraq

First, the prospect of riches orients official efforts to seizing a larger share of the pie, rather than creating a larger pie. The result of this wealth grab is often war. . . .
Second, natural resource prices are volatile, and managing this volatility is hard. . . .
Third, oil and other natural resources, while perhaps a source of wealth, do not create jobs. . . an inflow of oil money often leads to currency appreciation -- a phenomenon called the Dutch Disease.

Think Britain, Germany, Japan, France, USA, China-

You may want to re-think what your views on NWO are.

Originally posted by Jamuhn

Then why did the people of california ratify that ammendment. Every State has ratified the 14th ammendment.

You quoted yourself as saying the federal laws do not supercede state sovereignty. Obviously they do, the fact you make this statement shows you concede that all states are subject to federal laws.

Federal Laws superseded State Laws before the 14th ammendment. If they didn't then the Federal Governement wouldn't even be given the power to make laws. Some states, namely the secessionist southern ones, adamantly refused to obey this, even -after- the 14th ammendment. Obviously the Federal Government can make laws that supersede state laws.

YOu specifically said the the Radical Republicans weren't interested in the fact that blacks were having their constitutional rights abridged.

An underlying reason was to take away state's rights in favor for federal.

And I am saying that they did it in order to force these southern states to obey the bill of rights.

I never used the world radical, you did.

They were called the 'Radical Republicans'. They were the 'radical' members of what was then the republican party.

The 14th ammendment is the very ammendment that prohibited people who had 'formerly swore an oath to serve and protect the constitution and broke that oath by fighting in rebellion from serving in offices that required them to again make that oath'.

Except lincoln and someone else (I forget who) made a proclamation granting amnesty to those who would make that oath again. Why don't you look beyond the 14th amendment?

Because in the above we were specifically talking about the 14th. By the time the 14th was being talked about, lincoln was already dead and I would presume that this amnesty was no longer in effect.

Oh and the mighty North was always fair to black people. Give me a break man.

I certainly wouldn't claim that the northern states were perfect.

Once again you're being blinded by the slavery issue. Why don't you look at children labor laws and women's rights during this period if you are so concerned.

We were talking about the 14th ammendment. It was created with the slavery issue specifically in mind.

Why would I want to carry this conversation on in private?

Because you have effectively brought this thread off course. Congratulations.

Excuse me, but you were the one who brought up the 14th ammendment and all of this. If you don't want to talk about something, well, starting a conversation about it is hardly the way to go.

I think everyone has heard enough of our views and maybe now, this can be carried on in private.

Anyone not interested merely need stop reading it.

The European Union is not similar to the United States pre-Civil War. The United States had a Constitution, and a Federal Government. The EU is just a politico-economoic union, one that grew out of a purely economic arraingment. They do indeed now have a 'european parliament', however that 'pan european governement' (if it can even really be called that) is most defenitely not Fedeeral, and this is purposely so, they don't want a federal european governement.

Once again, why don't you do your research, the EU does in fact have a constitution and does have a military pact to defend Europe as a whole while at the same time practicing the soveriegnty of the countries.

The EU is not a federal governement. The federal governement that existed before the civil war was, well, federal. You should really stop talking about other people not doing their 'research' when you most certainly cannot claim to. You weren't even sure what ammendment you were refering to in the begining, you 'thought' it might be the 14th and you seemed to think that it has "fine print" in it and you also thought that it prevented former confederate soldiers from voting.

FEDERAL LAWS DID NOT SUPERCEDE STATE LAWS BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR. CHRIST MAN, GET A CLUE!

It is you who are the one who needs a clue, and you should probably stop whining about being 'off topic' and me wanting to get the last word in.

Federal Laws, by their very nature, supersede state laws. If they didn't, then the constituion wouldn't hold in those states. The states do not need to ratify every law made by congress. I can't imagine what you think congress was doing before the civil war, but to 'clue' you in, they were making, passing, and enforcing laws.

NYGDAN

This whole topic started because someone asked me a question. And then, I said on a side note...etc... And now, look where it's at.

I'm going to keep this short and say it one more time. The Federal Government had limited power before the Civil War. Ultimately, the States were in charge of the laws they passed. The Bill of Rights stood and were enforced by the States because the States passed those laws in their State.

If you want to pass me off as not doing my research than tell me why you have been asking questions from the beginning and trying to use the direction I've Given You against me.

You don't think a NWO will happen, fine, good for you. But the way I see it, the EU has limited power over Europe granted by the countries of Europe. This is amazingly similar to the position of the States before the Civil War. I didn't want to bring this up, but I've had conversations with Poly Sci majors who confirmed my observations of the US, the EU, and the connection between them.

Originally posted by Jamuhn
NYGDAN

This whole topic started because someone asked me a question. And then, I said on a side note...etc... And now, look where it's at.

Why is this such a problem? Discussion can vary about a topic.

The Federal Government had limited power before the Civil War. Ultimately, the States were in charge of the laws they passed. The Bill of Rights stood and were enforced by the States because the States passed those laws in their State.

This is not how it worked. At all. The Federal government was given the power to create and enforce -laws-, not to make recommendations to the states as to what laws that they should pass.

If you want to pass me off as not doing my research than tell me why you have been asking questions from the beginning and trying to use the direction I've Given You against me.

What direction? You haven't given me any 'direction'. That one site about the 14th being unconstitutional was terribly unconvincing. Thats about all you have given.

And, if you will notice, I am not the one who began this ludicrous 'you haven't done your research' bit, and I have also not claimed to have studied the subject in academic detail. You were the one saying and claiming that, when it was patently obvious that you hadn't.

[edited out part of jamuhn's post that i neglected to remove]

[edit on 20-8-2004 by Nygdan]

LOL, you still haven't shown me any documents except for mere words. Tell me where the federal governments forced states to accept amendments in the past, oh yea, it was the 14th amendment that started it. And ever since then, federal courts are overruling state legislation. I guess slavery wasn't a problem for the North until they started thinking economically.

But, I think you are forgetting that states must pass amendments before they become valid. And the states were not admitted to the Union until they ratified the 14th amendment.

As far as your last statement, I agree with you, there are some amazing similarities between the EU and the US before the Civil War.

[edit on 20-8-2004 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by metallion
Maybe this is a diversion or something, but what I was thinking was that if the NWO were taking control now or whenever they make theirselves known, why would we currently have a president who.

a. has very little public speaking ability.

b. did not have the most stellar academic record in college.

c. Does not have a history of being a completely stand-up citizen.
............
Regards all

i think thats exactly what they want .

Originally posted by Jamuhn
LOL, you still haven't shown me any documents except for mere words.

Documents for what exactly?

Tell me where the federal governments forced states to accept amendments in the past,

Ammendments do not need to be ratified by a state in order to go into effect in that state.

But, I think you are forgetting that states must pass amendments before they become valid.

Congress made laws before the 14th ammendment. I am not talking about constitutional ammendments here, I am talking about actual laws.

And the states were not admitted to the Union until they ratified the 14th amendment.

Nor should those rebellious former states have been.

Documents specifying that federal laws trumped state laws without the permission of the states to do so.

We ARE talking about the 14th amendment here. Amendments of which must be passed by the states to become valid. And I'm not saying there weren't some good things in the 14th amendment, I'm saying as a whole it eradicated the whole concept of state sovereignty within the Union. Now we have californians making laws for alabamians, etc.

The EU is very similar in that the top 3 power of Europe - England, France, and Germany - have a great enough population to overturn laws that may benefit smaller countries. Smaller countries are being left out of the loop in the EU and are subject to the wishes and whims of the larger countries. That's at least within the EU and the powers they entail.

The EU is limited like the US government before the Civil War. How long will it be until all the countries in the EU are subject to any law they wish to pass?

[edit on 20-8-2004 by Jamuhn]

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Documents specifying that federal laws trumped state laws without the permission of the states to do so.

Please explain first why the feds would be making laws if the states don't ratify them and people in the states don't have to obey them

I'm saying as a whole it eradicated the whole concept of state sovereignty within the Union.

Do you also think that the existence of laws eliminates a person's sovereignty?

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Documents specifying that federal laws trumped state laws without the permission of the states to do so.

Please explain first why the feds would be making laws if the states don't ratify them and people in the states don't have to obey them

I'm saying as a whole it eradicated the whole concept of state sovereignty within the Union.

Do you also think that the existence of laws eliminates a person's sovereignty?

It wasn't in the power of the federal government to make such laws. The consitution restricted the power of the government and everyone accepted that. The government only dealt with specific aspects of the Union, namely economy and defense. Everything else was left to the States to decide, that was of course, until the Civil War.

Question 2: Of course it does, don't you? Everyone knows the more laws someone makes for us the less freedom we have. The question is, are all the laws just?