​Proposal for the XIV Amendment Repeal and Replacement to Restore the Republic and Reinstitute the Original Checks and Balances to the US Constitution

​Proposal for the XIV Amendment Repeal and Replacement to Restore the Republic and Reinstitute the Original Checks and Balances to the US Constitution

Alternative Proposal for the XIV Amendment Repeal and Replacement to Restore the Republic and Reinstitute the Original Checks and Balances to the US Constitution
Original author unknown;


All proposed modifications/clarifications in ( ) in bold italicised printAmendment XIVSection 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 1. modified/clarified version; All persons born of United States Citizens or of Legal Immigrant Parents including Naturalized Parent or Parents, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,are citizens of the United States and the State where they reside. Neither the Federal Government nor State Governments shall make or enforce any law which abridges the protections of the Bill of Rights, or of the main body of the Constitution. Nor shall the Federal Government or the State Governments deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law. Furthermore the Federal Government and the State Governments shall provide EQUAL PROTECTION and EQUAL JUSTICE under the law. The Federal Government shall not deprive the States of the protections granted the citizens of the United States.)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, 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 2. Simplified; Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States counting the number of persons of the age of majority, that age being currently 18 years old. This may not be abridged except for participation in open armed or unarmed rebellion against the United States.) 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 3 simplified; No person having engaged in open armed rebellion, or armed terrorist acts involving deadly infernal machines, electronic devices, or arms of any nature, against the United States, and those convicted of a Felony, shall not be allowed to hold any Governmental office unless the disability is removed by two thirds of both houses of Congress.)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 4 simplified; No public debts shall be paid stemming from debts incurred by rebellious States or Persons engaged in open armed rebellion or acts of  terrorism as previously defined, against the United States) Section 5.The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
(Section 5. clarified; The Congress shall have the power to enforce the provisions of this article, by appropriate Legislation Which does not abridge any portion of the Constitution ,Bill of Rights, or Amendments to that Constitution)Section 6.
( New Section 6. All previous rulings under the prior 14th amendment are now held to be null and void from the ratification of this replacement amendment forward..)
THIS COULD BE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO TOTALLY REPEALING THE 14TH AND INSTEAD MODIFYING IT TO CONFORM TO THE FOUNDERS CONSTITUTIONAL INTENT.


THIS COULD BE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO TOTALLY REPEALING THE 14TH AND INSTEAD MODIFYING IT TO CONFORM TO THE FOUNDERS CONSTITUTIONAL INTENT.

Views: 46

Reply to This

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by AF BrancoPolitical Cartoons by AF Branco

ALERT ALERT

OMG!!! Ruth Bader Ginsburg Voted Best Real-Life Hero At MTV Awards

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday was crowned the best real-life hero at the MTV Movie & TV Awards.

The 86-year old judge — whose 2015 biopic The Notorious RBG help cement her as a cultural icon among Liberals — beat out tennis star Serena Williams, WWE wrestler Roman Reigns, and comedian Hannah Gadsby to take him the award.

Though it wasn’t a clean sweep for Ginsburg last night.

The RGB documentary lost the “Best Fight” category for “Ruth Bader Ginsburg vs. Inequality” to “Captain Marvel vs. Minn-Erva.”

The justice was absent from the ceremony in Santa Monica, California.

Last December, Ginsburg had surgery to remove cancerous growths on her left lung. She was released from the hospital in New York four days later and recuperated at home.

Earlier this year, Ginsburg missed three days of arguments, the first time that’s happened since she joined the court in 1993. Still, she was allowed to participate using court briefs and transcripts.

Ginsburg has had two previous bouts with cancer, in 1999 and 10 years later.

Flashback: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Pregnant Woman Is Not A ‘Mother’

Celebrated liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued in an opinion released Tuesday that a pregnant woman is not a “mother.”

“[A] woman who exercises her constitutionally protected right to terminate a pregnancy is not a ‘mother’,” Ginsburg wrote in a footnote, which in turn responded to another footnote in the 20-page concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in the Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. case.

As Breitbart News’ legal editor Ken Klukowski reported, the case concerned a law signed by then-Governor (now Vice President) Mike Pence of Indiana in 2016, which required that the remains of an aborted fetus (or baby) be disposed of by cremation or burial. The law also prohibited abortion on the basis of sex, race, or disability alone.

The Court upheld the first part of the law, but declined to consider the selective-abortion ban until more appellate courts had ruled on it.

In his lengthy opinion — which delighted pro-life advocates, and distressed pro-choice activists — Thomas wrote that “this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.” He traced the racist and eugenicist beliefs of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, and warned that the Court would one day need to wrestle with abortion as form of racial discrimination.

In a footnote, Thomas attacked Ginsberg’s dissenting opinion, which argued the Court should not have deferred to the legal standard used by the litigants in the lower courts, but should have subjected the Indiana law to a more difficult standard instead, since it impacted “the right of [a] woman” to an abortion.

Ginsburg cited no legal authority for her claim that a pregnant woman is not a “mother.” The claim that a fetus is not a child is central to pro-choice arguments.

SPECIAL VIDEOS

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service