The Lost 110 words of the 14th Amendment.. We’ve discussed the missing 13th Amendment and now see more disparaging remarks of the 14th, which specifically centers around our long...

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

We’ve discussed the missing 13th Amendment and now see more disparaging remarks of the 14th, which specifically centers around our long standing debates over v****g rights itself yet often fails to discuss penalty of STATES...

The 14th Amendment says states that infringe the v**e must lose representation in Congress. Is it time to make this happen...??? If so, how or is it better to just leave these 110 lost words, lost, simply because it is unknown by our Congress, Judicial Branch and yes, even our SCOTUS on how to enforce and who is responsible for doing do ?? Or how to take away state representations or when and if they get them back in time?? How about the E*******l College???How about felony charges that abridge the right to v**e, should it even be allowed??

These forgotten words form Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which was designed to guard against the infringement of v****g rights. The lost provision is simple: States that deny their citizens the right to v**e will have reduced representation in the House of Representatives...

I bet you’ve never heard of that part of our founding document... That’s because, throughout U.S. history, legal ambiguities and confusion over implementation authorities have kept this provision from realizing its potential. But there are ways to put it to work right now. And there’s no better time. From widespread closure of polling locations and expanding imposition of v**er identification laws to escalating purges of v**er rolls, assaults on the right to v**e nationwide illustrate that we need these lost words back, urgently.

The 14th Amendment is divided into five sections, all aimed at protecting civil rights in the wake of the Civil War and the abolition of s***ery. Section 2 states:

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 v**e at any e******n for the choice of e*****rs 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, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in r*******n, 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.

The first sentence will, at least in its principle, be familiar to many: It ensured that apportionment in the House of Representatives would fully count the recently emancipated b***k A******ns, thus supplanting the provision in the original constitutional text that counted ens***ed persons as three-fifths of a person. But most Americans—indeed, even most American lawyers and judges—have no familiarity with the second sentence of Section 2 that would penalize those states that abridge or deny the right to v**e. It may well be the Constitution’s most important lost provision.

The Amendment’s framers worried, in particular, that recalcitrant states would respond to the formal expansion of the v**e by devising new ways to abridge that v**e. Section 2’s second sentence would be a powerful threat, saying that, should a state dare to try that, it would have to reduce its number of representatives in the House proportional to the v**e infringement carried out by that state. Call it the Constitution’s “reduction clause,” punishing infringement of v****g rights with the stiff penalty of a reduction in representation.

Let’s be clear: The reduction clause fell considerably short of what, today, we’d consider appropriate and just, or even what should have been deemed appropriate and just in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified. First, the reduction clause’s insistence on v**ers being “male inhabitants” perpetuated the Constitution’s original denial of the v**e to women, an inequity partially corrected by the 19th Amendment and more fully addressed by the V****g Rights Act of 1965. Second, the clause’s focus on v**ers “twenty-one years of age” and older became out of step afterpassage of the 26th Amendment, which lowered the v****g age to 18. And, third, the clause’s entrenchment of felon disenfranchisement looks increasingly anachronistic today, especially in light of Florida’s landmark restoration of v****g rights to felons by referendum in 2018... Florida continues to resist v****g rights being reinstated although v**ed on twice now by its citizens~~

<snip> much more to it, keep reading~~

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/magazine/2020/02/23/the-lost-constitutional-tool-to-protect-v****g-rights-116612

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

lindajoy wrote:

We’ve discussed the missing 13th Amendment and now see more disparaging remarks of the 14th, which specifically centers around our long standing debates over v****g rights itself yet often fails to discuss penalty of STATES...

The 14th Amendment says states that infringe the v**e must lose representation in Congress. Is it time to make this happen...??? If so, how or is it better to just leave these 110 lost words, lost, simply because it is unknown by our Congress, Judicial Branch and yes, even our SCOTUS on how to enforce and who is responsible for doing do ?? Or how to take away state representations or when and if they get them back in time?? How about the E*******l College???How about felony charges that abridge the right to v**e, should it even be allowed??

These forgotten words form Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which was designed to guard against the infringement of v****g rights. The lost provision is simple: States that deny their citizens the right to v**e will have reduced representation in the House of Representatives...

I bet you’ve never heard of that part of our founding document... That’s because, throughout U.S. history, legal ambiguities and confusion over implementation authorities have kept this provision from realizing its potential. But there are ways to put it to work right now. And there’s no better time. From widespread closure of polling locations and expanding imposition of v**er identification laws to escalating purges of v**er rolls, assaults on the right to v**e nationwide illustrate that we need these lost words back, urgently.

The 14th Amendment is divided into five sections, all aimed at protecting civil rights in the wake of the Civil War and the abolition of s***ery. Section 2 states:

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 v**e at any e******n for the choice of e*****rs 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, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in r*******n, 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.

The first sentence will, at least in its principle, be familiar to many: It ensured that apportionment in the House of Representatives would fully count the recently emancipated b***k A******ns, thus supplanting the provision in the original constitutional text that counted ens***ed persons as three-fifths of a person. But most Americans—indeed, even most American lawyers and judges—have no familiarity with the second sentence of Section 2 that would penalize those states that abridge or deny the right to v**e. It may well be the Constitution’s most important lost provision.

The Amendment’s framers worried, in particular, that recalcitrant states would respond to the formal expansion of the v**e by devising new ways to abridge that v**e. Section 2’s second sentence would be a powerful threat, saying that, should a state dare to try that, it would have to reduce its number of representatives in the House proportional to the v**e infringement carried out by that state. Call it the Constitution’s “reduction clause,” punishing infringement of v****g rights with the stiff penalty of a reduction in representation.

Let’s be clear: The reduction clause fell considerably short of what, today, we’d consider appropriate and just, or even what should have been deemed appropriate and just in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified. First, the reduction clause’s insistence on v**ers being “male inhabitants” perpetuated the Constitution’s original denial of the v**e to women, an inequity partially corrected by the 19th Amendment and more fully addressed by the V****g Rights Act of 1965. Second, the clause’s focus on v**ers “twenty-one years of age” and older became out of step afterpassage of the 26th Amendment, which lowered the v****g age to 18. And, third, the clause’s entrenchment of felon disenfranchisement looks increasingly anachronistic today, especially in light of Florida’s landmark restoration of v****g rights to felons by referendum in 2018... Florida continues to resist v****g rights being reinstated although v**ed on twice now by its citizens~~

<snip> much more to it, keep reading~~

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/magazine/2020/02/23/the-lost-constitutional-tool-to-protect-v****g-rights-116612

We’ve discussed the missing 13th Amendment and now... (show quote)

moldyoldy

That is a great bit of knowledge for today.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

moldyoldy wrote:

That is a great bit of knowledge for today.

I know, I’m sorry but thought interesting enough to give further consideration and discussion.~~ I did a lot of reading on it as it required me to do so for some understanding of it..

It floors me that because none of our three bodies of government know how to implement it, it goes unaddressed... Although certain aspects could and should go before all three bodies and hash it out!!! A better understanding in lack of enforcement such as v****g and anyone prohibited from v****g period, obviously was not the intent to allow to happen...Qualified by the further definitions of a citizen to this country as stipulated in the Constitution..

bahmer

lindajoy wrote:

We’ve discussed the missing 13th Amendment and now see more disparaging remarks of the 14th, which specifically centers around our long standing debates over v****g rights itself yet often fails to discuss penalty of STATES...

The 14th Amendment says states that infringe the v**e must lose representation in Congress. Is it time to make this happen...??? If so, how or is it better to just leave these 110 lost words, lost, simply because it is unknown by our Congress, Judicial Branch and yes, even our SCOTUS on how to enforce and who is responsible for doing do ?? Or how to take away state representations or when and if they get them back in time?? How about the E*******l College???How about felony charges that abridge the right to v**e, should it even be allowed??

These forgotten words form Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which was designed to guard against the infringement of v****g rights. The lost provision is simple: States that deny their citizens the right to v**e will have reduced representation in the House of Representatives...

I bet you’ve never heard of that part of our founding document... That’s because, throughout U.S. history, legal ambiguities and confusion over implementation authorities have kept this provision from realizing its potential. But there are ways to put it to work right now. And there’s no better time. From widespread closure of polling locations and expanding imposition of v**er identification laws to escalating purges of v**er rolls, assaults on the right to v**e nationwide illustrate that we need these lost words back, urgently.

The 14th Amendment is divided into five sections, all aimed at protecting civil rights in the wake of the Civil War and the abolition of s***ery. Section 2 states:

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 v**e at any e******n for the choice of e*****rs 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, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in r*******n, 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.

The first sentence will, at least in its principle, be familiar to many: It ensured that apportionment in the House of Representatives would fully count the recently emancipated b***k A******ns, thus supplanting the provision in the original constitutional text that counted ens***ed persons as three-fifths of a person. But most Americans—indeed, even most American lawyers and judges—have no familiarity with the second sentence of Section 2 that would penalize those states that abridge or deny the right to v**e. It may well be the Constitution’s most important lost provision.

The Amendment’s framers worried, in particular, that recalcitrant states would respond to the formal expansion of the v**e by devising new ways to abridge that v**e. Section 2’s second sentence would be a powerful threat, saying that, should a state dare to try that, it would have to reduce its number of representatives in the House proportional to the v**e infringement carried out by that state. Call it the Constitution’s “reduction clause,” punishing infringement of v****g rights with the stiff penalty of a reduction in representation.

Let’s be clear: The reduction clause fell considerably short of what, today, we’d consider appropriate and just, or even what should have been deemed appropriate and just in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified. First, the reduction clause’s insistence on v**ers being “male inhabitants” perpetuated the Constitution’s original denial of the v**e to women, an inequity partially corrected by the 19th Amendment and more fully addressed by the V****g Rights Act of 1965. Second, the clause’s focus on v**ers “twenty-one years of age” and older became out of step afterpassage of the 26th Amendment, which lowered the v****g age to 18. And, third, the clause’s entrenchment of felon disenfranchisement looks increasingly anachronistic today, especially in light of Florida’s landmark restoration of v****g rights to felons by referendum in 2018... Florida continues to resist v****g rights being reinstated although v**ed on twice now by its citizens~~

<snip> much more to it, keep reading~~

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/magazine/2020/02/23/the-lost-constitutional-tool-to-protect-v****g-rights-116612

We’ve discussed the missing 13th Amendment and now... (show quote)

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Excellent information. What an argument congress could have over this.

lindajoy wrote:

I know, I’m sorry but thought interesting enough t... (show quote)

Smedley_buzkill

lindajoy wrote:

We’ve discussed the missing 13th Amendment and now see more disparaging remarks of the 14th, which specifically centers around our long standing debates over v****g rights itself yet often fails to discuss penalty of STATES...

The 14th Amendment says states that infringe the v**e must lose representation in Congress. Is it time to make this happen...??? If so, how or is it better to just leave these 110 lost words, lost, simply because it is unknown by our Congress, Judicial Branch and yes, even our SCOTUS on how to enforce and who is responsible for doing do ?? Or how to take away state representations or when and if they get them back in time?? How about the E*******l College???How about felony charges that abridge the right to v**e, should it even be allowed??

These forgotten words form Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which was designed to guard against the infringement of v****g rights. The lost provision is simple: States that deny their citizens the right to v**e will have reduced representation in the House of Representatives...

I bet you’ve never heard of that part of our founding document... That’s because, throughout U.S. history, legal ambiguities and confusion over implementation authorities have kept this provision from realizing its potential. But there are ways to put it to work right now. And there’s no better time. From widespread closure of polling locations and expanding imposition of v**er identification laws to escalating purges of v**er rolls, assaults on the right to v**e nationwide illustrate that we need these lost words back, urgently.

The 14th Amendment is divided into five sections, all aimed at protecting civil rights in the wake of the Civil War and the abolition of s***ery. Section 2 states:

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 v**e at any e******n for the choice of e*****rs 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, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in r*******n, 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.

The first sentence will, at least in its principle, be familiar to many: It ensured that apportionment in the House of Representatives would fully count the recently emancipated b***k A******ns, thus supplanting the provision in the original constitutional text that counted ens***ed persons as three-fifths of a person. But most Americans—indeed, even most American lawyers and judges—have no familiarity with the second sentence of Section 2 that would penalize those states that abridge or deny the right to v**e. It may well be the Constitution’s most important lost provision.

The Amendment’s framers worried, in particular, that recalcitrant states would respond to the formal expansion of the v**e by devising new ways to abridge that v**e. Section 2’s second sentence would be a powerful threat, saying that, should a state dare to try that, it would have to reduce its number of representatives in the House proportional to the v**e infringement carried out by that state. Call it the Constitution’s “reduction clause,” punishing infringement of v****g rights with the stiff penalty of a reduction in representation.

Let’s be clear: The reduction clause fell considerably short of what, today, we’d consider appropriate and just, or even what should have been deemed appropriate and just in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified. First, the reduction clause’s insistence on v**ers being “male inhabitants” perpetuated the Constitution’s original denial of the v**e to women, an inequity partially corrected by the 19th Amendment and more fully addressed by the V****g Rights Act of 1965. Second, the clause’s focus on v**ers “twenty-one years of age” and older became out of step afterpassage of the 26th Amendment, which lowered the v****g age to 18. And, third, the clause’s entrenchment of felon disenfranchisement looks increasingly anachronistic today, especially in light of Florida’s landmark restoration of v****g rights to felons by referendum in 2018... Florida continues to resist v****g rights being reinstated although v**ed on twice now by its citizens~~

<snip> much more to it, keep reading~~

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/magazine/2020/02/23/the-lost-constitutional-tool-to-protect-v****g-rights-116612

We’ve discussed the missing 13th Amendment and now... (show quote)

Liberals will, of course, pounce on this as a means to get rid of v**er ID. People who enter this country illegally have committed a crime, although it is often ignored. People who are in this country illegally for a visa overstay have committed a crime. These 14th Amendment protections do not extend to them. Most of the people Liberals claim are affected receive some sort of government benefit or entitlement which requires them to have ID suitable for v****g purposes. Presenting proof that you are whom you say you are is not an infringement, although Liberals would have us believe so, just as most people believe that being born in this country automatically makes you a citizen. It does not, it is a legal fiction propagated by both parties for different reasons.

Sonny Magoo Loc: Where pot pie is boiled in a kettle

Smedley_buzk**l wrote:

Liberals will, of course, pounce on this as a mean... (show quote)

Finally, reality thinking. 👍

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

bahmer wrote:

Thank You, bahmer, what do you think about portions of our amendments being arbitrarily dropped or forgotten or simply not challenged for the benefit of our v****g rights?

I find we have become a lazy citizen not to know and move on these things instilled for our protection against a government encroachment issue that in fact stops us from v****g, if not violates our Constitutional and its amendments!! Why?? Because it is truly something that enables the rights of the citizens over government as it should be to begin with!!!

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

lindajoy wrote:

Thank You, bahmer, what do you thin about portions... (show quote)

Lazy. Not the word for it. Just look at the number of eligible v**ers who don't bother to v**e anyway. Had a nephew deployed to Afghanistan that said what struck him was how willing the people were to risk their lives; literally willing to walk through gun fire to v**e while we can't get people to cast their v**e because it's too much trouble.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

JFlorio wrote:

Excellent information. What an argument congress could have over this.

We should force it for review and ruling all the way to the Supreme Court and let it fall where it will!!
How do any of us know how many representatives are appointed on wrong numbers??

Lets find out!!!!
Write your representatives, everyone in Congress and Senate along with President Trump...Lets get them working rather than all this superfluous BS we've had the last 3 years!!
Time to rock it!!!

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Smedley_buzk**l wrote:

Liberals will, of course, pounce on this as a mean... (show quote)

Yes, Smedley, they will,which is why I made sure to put citizens as defined by the Constitution..I******s do not qualify period..

Have you seen the new Supreme Court ruling that agreed with Trump on basically requiring i******s entering our country to be self sufficient not collecting social benefits from us and they can not be dependents to the country or they will not be approved..About time..
Occurred January 27th, when the Supreme Court ruled that immigration officials will be able to disqualify individuals from receiving a green card if they are perceived as a “Public Charge” ~ meaning if they will likely spend up to 12 months over a three-year period on forms of public assistance such as food stamps or Section 8 housing, etc....

The next issue to go up will in fact be "border baby" American status..Trump has made it known he does not support that assumption either...

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

JFlorio wrote:

Lazy. Not the word for it. Just look at the number of eligible v**ers who don't bother to v**e anyway. Had a nephew deployed to Afghanistan that said what struck him was how willing the people were to risk their lives; literally willing to walk through gun fire to v**e while we can't get people to cast their v**e because it's too much trouble.

THAT is by far the epitome of dereliction of duty as a citizen in my book and I simply do not understand why people that b***h the most, v**e the least too!!

I wish your nephew a safe haven in his journey and please be sure to extend my love and respect in his service...So very proud of him, Jim...Truly..God Bless he and all while fighting for the rights of our Nation given the lack of concern by our own government and we, its citizens... We must do better, while they risk their lives to protect and defend us...

bahmer

lindajoy wrote:

We should force it for review and ruling all the w... (show quote)

Amen and Amen

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

lindajoy wrote:

THAT is by far the epitome of dereliction of duty ... (show quote)

Thank You LJ. He is back from his fourth deployment and received the Audi Murphy award for sergeants at West Point. So very proud of him.