Lawerence Patton McDonald and the Fickle Fourteenth
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was pivotal in advancing civil rights and equal protection under the law. Congressman Lawerence Patton McDonald (D-GA) wrote about the 14th.
Suppose the Constitution does not mean what it says. In that case, we have no Constitution: We are at the mercy of lawless government, permitted only the fruitless, periodic activity of changing the team of officials who inflict lawless government upon us. If the Constitution does not mean what it says, even our elections become farcical because the rulers of an all-powerful government can focus mighty forces on the job of selecting their successors or assuring their own reelection. … Through the years, I have known many Members of Congress who agreed with me, privately, that at least 80 percent of everything the federal government is doing is illegal under the Constitution which the President and all Members of Congress are sworn to uphold …
Lawerence Patton McDonald
Words: 5,721 ~ Read time: 23 min
Introduction
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was pivotal in advancing civil rights and equal protection under the law in the United States. It has been used in numerous landmark Supreme Court cases and was the legal foundation for critical civil rights legislation in the 20th century. Congressman Lawerence Patton McDonald (D-GA), in 1976, wrote about the issues surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment.
Executive Summary
Larry McDonald Tribute: Lawrence Patton McDonald was a multifaceted figure with a diverse background. He was in the Navy. He went to Emory University School of Medicine to become a doctor. He became a Democratic Congressman. In 1974, McDonald won the Democratic primary for Georgia’s Seventh congressional district. Later, McDonald secured a seat in the 94th United States Congress. He wrote a book called We Hold the Truths: A Reverent Review of the U.S. Constitution. It has a chapter about the Fourteenth Amendment’s issues. McDonald’s life ended on September 1, 1983. He was on Korean Air Lines Flight 007 when Soviet fighters shot it down.
The Fourteenth: During Reconstruction in 1868, the U.S. Constitution added the Fourteenth Amendment. It aimed to end slavery and protect the rights of African Americans. This change made all people born or became citizens in the United States, including those once enslaved, citizens. The law also guaranteed fair treatment for all citizens. Also, this gave the federal government power to punish states that limited voting rights. They could do this by reducing the states’ representation in Congress. The Amendment said people who rebelled against the United States could not hold public positions. They could only if two-thirds of the House and Senate agreed. The decision supported the national debt. It also said that federal and state governments do not have to take on the debts of the Confederate states.
Background: The writing style of the United States Supreme Court Justices has changed over time. They tend to express their opinions in a fancy and long way, focusing on philosophy and giving lots of details. From 1789 to 1847, the Justices’ approach changed. To understand the basis of the Constitution, they looked at Convention records and the Federalist Papers. During significant events such as the Civil War, Chief Justices often reviewed society, economy, and politics. That happened between 1847 and 1899. President Lincoln faced constitutional challenges during the Civil War due to his emergency powers. The war also caused a change in people’s attitudes towards a stronger federal government. The text also discusses the controversial approval of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Historical Reference: The Fourteenth Amendment changed the Constitution and had political goals. The main focus was on the South after the Civil War and voting rights. Adult men who supported the Confederacy could now vote. That included formerly enslaved people, Northern soldiers, and opportunists. The Amendment ended the use of public money for Confederate debts. It also established Congress-appointed officials to govern the Southern states. However, it saw limited legal challenges due to military enforcement until Northern military rule ended in 1877. The Fourteenth Amendment defined U.S. citizenship. It also included clauses for due process and equal protection.
Analysis: The Fourteenth Amendment brought new legal challenges to federal courts. The challenges were about the due process clause. They went beyond African Americans and the South to include business activities. As the U.S. grew, states made rules to manage businesses, control wages and prices, and improve working conditions. These state laws hurt many people. They caused many cases where people said their property or freedom was unfairly taken away. The Fourteenth Amendment made the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause apply to the states.
Back to the Future: Scholars have tried to connect President Trump’s actions to the Fourteenth Amendment. They focus on his alleged role in the Capitol incident (J6) and his potential 2024 presidential run. Experts are still debating the relevance of its specific purpose to current political debates. Legal experts argue that the President can raise the debt limit without Congress using the Fourteenth Amendment. Different interpretations and history have led to varying opinions on this. We have a problem with the gulag-like treatment of J6 participants and the swat team visit at the home of a pro-life activist. Under the bus: equal protection and due process.
Larry McDonald Tribute
Lawrence Patton McDonald (1935-1983) was born and raised in Atlanta, Georgia, in the eastern part of the city in DeKalb County. General George S. Patton was a distant relative. He had a varied background. He served in the Navy, studied medicine, and became a Democratic Congressman.
McDonald graduated from Emory University School of Medicine. He practiced as a urologist. His anti-communist views and pro-life activism made him known.
In 1974, McDonald won a surprise upset in the Democratic primary election for the Seventh congressional district in Georgia. He did not like federal programs that combined schools and criticized John W. Davis for supporting school buses. The voters elected McDonald to the 94th United States Congress.
Throughout his congressional career, McDonald earned a reputation for his staunch conservatism. He always got good ratings from conservative groups like the American Conservative Union and Gun Owners of America. McDonald also got high marks from the National Right to Life Committee and the American Security Council. He liked Senator Joseph McCarthy and hired ex-staff from the House Committee on Un-American Activities. They kept researching left-wing groups.
McDonald supported alternative medical treatments, like using laetrile for cancer patients. He opposed the establishment of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, citing claims of King’s association with communists. Of note, in 1977, King’s former assistant Bernard Lee sued the FBI for damages relating to the bureau’s surveillance of King. The judge refused Lee’s request to destroy surveillance tapes. Instead, the FBI transferred them to the National Archives and sealed them until 2027. I hope that allegation is untrue as King’s famous I Have a Dream speech uplifts. Stay tuned.
In 1979, McDonald started the Western Goals Foundation. The foundation fights against subversion, terrorism, and communism. He became the chairman of the John Birch Society in 1983. McDonald’s life had a tragic ending on September 1, 1983, onboard Korean Air Lines Flight 007. Soviet fighters shot down the plane, along with everyone on board. The flight was heading to South Korea. Once there, McDonald would have celebrated the U.S.-South Korea Mutual Defense Treaty. His death marked the end of his political career, but his conservative and anti-communist legacy continues.
Larry P. McDonald wrote the book We Hold the Truths: A Reverent Review of the U.S. Constitution. The book is as valid now as it was in 1976. Chapter VII, “The Illegal Fourteenth,” reviews the misunderstood and misused Amendment. Studying the Fourteenth using Larry McDonald’s book as the prime source is an honor and privilege. If McDonald were alive now, people would call him “MAGA.” It is surprising (and satisfying) that he is not listed in the Haters Hall of Fame at the sloppy SPLC.
The Fourteenth
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was “ratified” in 1868, as we later see, under debatable circumstances. It is a critical amendment that fundamentally altered American law and society. It has five sections.
Section One
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.
The initial statement of Section One laid out the definition of U.S. citizenship: “Anyone born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen of the United States and the state in which they reside.” This declaration directly contradicted the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, where Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that even an African American man born free could not claim citizenship rights under the Federal Constitution.
The subsequent clause of Section One stated, “No State shall pass or enforce any law that limits the rights and privileges of U.S. citizens.” This extension of civil and legal rights shielded all American citizens from infringement by both state and federal governments.
The third clause of the Fifth Amendment had already broadened the due process principle. It says the federal government can take away a person’s life, liberty, or property without fair legal procedures. The Fourteenth extended these provisions and the rest of the Bill of Rights to the states. Over time, the Supreme Court ruled that this clause protects many rights from state interference. That is known as the incorporation doctrine. The Bill of Rights includes freedom of speech and religious freedom. Other essential rights, like privacy, are not listed in the Constitution.1
Those who otherwise throw the Constitution under the bus seem laser-focused on the words shall any state deprive any person of life. The Supreme Court made three crucial decisions in 1886, 1896, and 1903. The rulings explained the Fourteenth Amendment. They set the stage for the Court’s belief that all legal or illegal aliens have rights in criminal and certain civil cases. While collectivists desire it, these rulings do not grant automatic citizenship to unlawful entrants. Nevertheless, to fix that issue, the ticket is linguistic gymnastics. That is the transformation from illegal aliens to undocumented visitors to migrants. It is all about Planned Pandemonium, Invader Caravans, and Borg Collective.
During the first half of the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court established that corporations were legally considered an entity and enjoyed the law’s protections, which included the same ownership rights as individuals. This historical precedent paved the way for corporate lawyers to seize the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise of equal legal protection. In the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company in 1886, the Supreme Court implied that corporations, much like former enslaved people, were entitled to equal protection. Two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania, the Court made it explicit: “A private corporation is included under the designation of a person in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Section I.”
Supreme Court justices who believe in original intent may dislike “corporate beings.” The Reconstruction Congress wanted to protect corporations. However, many justices have decided not to question this interpretation. As a result, they have kept intact a large body of law based on the idea of “corporate personhood.” That is something collectivists despise even though it is an offspring of their worshiped Leviathan. Meanwhile, the same collectivists claim that the unborn are “not people.” Otherwise, how could unfettered abortion be legal? Businesses get more protection than the unborn. “Equal protection,” indeed. Hypocrisy indeed.
Finally, there is the equal protection clause. That is, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. It prevents state governments from discriminating against African Americans and would, over the years, play a pivotal role in numerous landmark civil rights cases.
Section Two
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 Two abolished the original Constitution's three-fifths clause (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3). That previously counted enslaved individuals as three-fifths of a person to determine congressional representation. With the abolition of slavery through the 13th Amendment, this section clarified that all residents, regardless of race, should be counted as whole persons. Additionally, it ensured that all male citizens aged 21 and older, irrespective of their racial background, had the right to vote.
During the terrible Jim Crow era, Southern states persisted in denying African American men the right to vote by utilizing a variety of state and local regulations. Subsequent amendments to the Constitution granted voting rights to women (Nineteenth) and lowered the legal voting age to 18 (Twenty-Sixth).
Section Three
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 Three gave Congress the authority to disqualify public officials who had previously sworn allegiance to the U.S. Constitution from holding office if they had “participated in insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution. The primary aim was to prevent the President from enabling former Confederacy leaders to reoccupy positions of authority within the U.S. government following a presidential pardon. It stipulates that a two-thirds majority vote in Congress is necessary to reinstate the rights of American citizenship and the eligibility to hold government or military office for such officials who had engaged in rebellion.
Section Four
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.
Congress added this rule to prevent the government from refusing to pay its debts. Some Confederate states caused this worry. Moreover, it forbids any repayment of debts owed to the dissolved Confederate States of America. Former enslavers are not allowed to receive any compensation for the loss of enslaved individuals.
Section Five
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The fifth and last section mirrored a similar enforcement clause in the Thirteenth Amendment. By allowing Congress to create laws that would protect the far-reaching principles outlined in Section One, the Fourteenth Amendment fundamentally reshaped the dynamic of authority between the federal and state governments in the United States.
Nearly a hundred years later, Congress used this power to enact significant civil rights legislation, notably the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Arguably, these are desirable Acts, but the overwhelming power given to Congress and the rest of the government is legion.
Background
The Supreme Court Justices express both the majority and dissenting opinions long-winded. They take pride in their eloquent literary style. They do not expand on their decision and laws but talk about philosophy and explain in detail. Their extensive language fills the historical record, giving future Justices plenty to study and build on.
From 1789 to 1847, the Justices wrote essays that followed the Constitution’s original intent. In citing most legal authorities, the early Justices relied on primary and authentic sources. The sources for this information included:
Comments made by the Framers during the Constitutional Convention when they were writing the Constitution
Writings of the Framers in the Federalist Papers, which explain the Constitution to the public, and
The Constitution itself.
From 1847 to 1899, the Chief Justices rarely talked about the Federalist Papers. They ignored Constitutional Convention records. They limited their mentions of the Constitution itself to passing references. Instead, they often referenced and expanded on outside opinions about society, the economy, and politics. As they reimagined the nation’s foundational document, momentous events were happening.
One such pivotal event was the four-year-long Civil War, also known as the War for Southern Independence, which transpired from 1861 to 1865. President Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) used emergency powers to preserve the Union, sometimes bypassing constitutional limits. He built armies without Congress’s permission and closed critical newspapers during the war. Lincoln also used the military to stop state legislatures from meeting and arresting lawmakers. He also detained civilians without charging them or giving them a fair trial. Lincoln searched and took private property without following the proper legal procedures. These autocratic measures happened in the northern, not the rebellious states. Lincoln saw them as temporary suspensions of some constitutional rules. He believed the Constitution would go back to normal status after the crisis. In theory, this should happen after the war, but it rarely does. Some war measures become permanent laws and stay in effect forever.
The Constitution was not suspended wholly during the US Civil War, but martial law was declared. As described above, the writ of habeas corpus got kicked to the side during the war. Constitutional rights may not be stopped, but extraordinary measures occur where civil law enforcement is impossible. During the Civil War, authorities enforced wartime laws. That caused harm to the Constitution. Another critical development caused damage. This alternative factor was a shift in attitude.
The war gave many people, especially members of Congress, a new way of thinking. The unique perspective focused on using the federal government for help and action. If dissatisfied with their state government’s efforts, a person could appeal to the federal government for a solution. If people feel that the state government does not care or cannot fix bad situations, they can ask the federal government for help. The war created hostility and irrational behavior, later distressing constitutional changes.
Abraham Lincoln did not hold the same bitterness and irrationality as the Civil War era. In his last inaugural speech, he summed up his reconstruction plan with the phrase “with malice toward none.” Lincoln’s primary aim in waging the war was to preserve the Union. He did not ask for a war declaration or treat the South like a separate country, which would imply the Union falling apart. He maintained that the Southern states’ secession was an attempt to destroy the Union, and he fought to nullify that secession. Lincoln’s perspective prevailed with the North’s victory: the Southern states had “never left the Union.” Lincoln thought that after the war, the South should create their state governments. Then, they would have full representation in Congress. They should also have control over their affairs.
After the war, Southern soldiers and civilians became free American citizens again. Both civilian and military leaders of the Confederate rebellion could receive presidential forgiveness. They had to promise loyalty to the Constitution, which now banned slavery. In some cases, the President may choose not to give amnesty. Otherwise, it occurred by default.
Andrew Johnson (1808-1875) made a solid effort to carry out his reconstruction plan after Lincoln, even though he was initially unsure. Yet, Johnson required more influence in the country or with Congress, which the so-called Radical Republicans controlled at the time. These Radical Republicans held strong antipathy toward the South and were keen on punishing it. Additionally, these people wanted power and planned to rule the entire country, the North and the South. If Southerners elected to Congress had joined the current minority, Congress would lose its power.
The Radical Republicans made their reconstruction plans into law. They also added the Fourteenth Amendment to strengthen the reforms. Even though the Radical Republicans did not get enough votes, they still said the resolution passed. They sent it to the states for approval. The Radical Republican-led Congress declared the Amendment ratified on July 28, 1868. The Radical Republicans controlled Congress, the executive, and the judicial branches. Their allies governed many state governments in the North.
In his book, Lawerence P. McDonald claims most states did not approve (ratify) the Fourteenth as required. Congress blackmailed the southern states into passing the Fourteenth Amendment. They did this by prohibiting congressional representation by these states unless they ratified the Amendment. One exceptionally detailed document outlining this claim is the Alabama Law Review. In its treatise Unortohodic and Paradox: Revisiting the Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, it states:
Although most people likely believe the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in a regular fashion, like most other amendments, this is not true. The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted during a time of great uncertainty, and with great irregularity. This Comment seeks to show that the Fourteenth Amendment was not constitutionally proposed or ratified in accordance with Article V of the United States Constitution. This Comment further raises the tough question, if the Fourteenth Amendment was not properly adopted, is it still a part of the Constitution?
Of course, my friends at the sloppy SPLC go to great lengths to place those who ask this question in their Haters Hall of Fame. Unsurprisingly, they link such questioning to the KKK. Nevertheless, even a broken clock is correct twice a day, as demonstrated by the SPLC (well, half correct):
The neo-Confederates raise an interesting point. The process of ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment did involve strong-arm tactics. Southern states were granted re-entry into the Union only on the condition that they ratify the Amendment. None of this is surprising. After all, America had just fought the bloodiest war in her2 history over the issue of slavery, and extending citizenship to newly freed slaves was a vital component of Reconstruction.
The above notwithstanding, with so many Supreme Court case outcomes based on the Fourteenth, such arguments seem moot. However, as we shall see, the historical record shows us how the Fourteenth fuels the Leviathan. Such a monster is outside the intent of the Framers.
Historical Reference
The Fourteenth Amendment changed constitutional law. It conflicted with other parts of the Constitution. In its day, the political goals of the Fourteenth Amendment were clear in their requirements.
Adult men in the South could face the denial of the right to vote if they supported the Confederacy. The Fourteenth Amendment did not mention citizens or qualified voters. It only said male inhabitants. After the Civil War, different groups gained the right to vote in the South. These groups included enslaved people, Northern soldiers, carpetbaggers, and opportunists. Federal occupying forces protected them from local opposition.
If someone promised to support the U.S. Constitution but joined the Confederate cause, they needed help to get a job. This covered government jobs, like federal or state positions, whether civil or military. Congress could only remove this restriction with a two-thirds majority vote.
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibited using public money to pay Confederate debts.
Public resources could not pay former enslavers for the loss of those they enslaved.
The Fourteenth Amendment ensured that Congress’s elected officials governed the Southern states. That would make the majority’s control over Congress stronger. Only “approved persons” would represent Southern states.
The provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment saw minimal legal challenges as the military enforced them without significant disputes. However, they became less relevant when Northern military rule in the South ended in 1877. The latter part of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment was particularly problematic for the constitutional system.
Section One initially defined U.S. citizenship, and its citizenship and privileges elements were redundant since the original Constitution covered these aspects in the Fourth Article.
However, Section One continued with the due process and equal protection clauses, raising questions about their interpretation. While ostensibly meant to ensure equal treatment for African Americans in the South, the Thirteenth Amendment had already established their equal status. If the equal protection clause aims to go beyond that, it leads to unequal treatment.
The interpretation of “equal protection” leaves room for various possibilities, such as legal challenges related to gender-based disparities in the law, tax inequalities, segregation in schools, or issues of inheritance and fairness. While these scenarios may initially seem remote, they theoretically fall under the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. Whether common sense should be sufficient to prevent such theoretical misinterpretations or the Supreme Court’s judgment is necessary.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, borrowed from the Fifth Amendment, had been included in many state constitutions before the Fourteenth Amendment’s creation. This phrase, “due process of law,” has been used globally in various legal documents since its introduction in an English statute in 1355. Incorporating this clause into different documents did not alter its meaning or affect its source.
The writers of the Fourteenth Amendment aimed to ensure freedom for African Americans from Southern states. They recognized that Southern state constitutions already safeguarded the rights of all citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause may allow federal courts to review state court cases. The cases appealed to the Federal Court, resulting in this occurrence. We wanted to ensure that we followed the state's procedural rules. Yet, the Fourteenth Amendment did not make states use federal due process rules in their legal proceedings.
Analysis
Following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, numerous cases were brought to federal courts, invoking the due process clause. These cases were not primarily related to African American individuals or the South. They often pertained to business activities. The era witnessed significant industrial growth, leading some states to enact regulations and special laws. These laws aimed to attract or control businesses, regulate wages and prices, or improve working conditions. Many of these state laws adversely affected certain parties, resulting in a surge of cases brought to federal courts, alleging that state laws violated their property or liberty rights without due process.
The Fourteenth Amendment made federal due process rules apply to the states. It did this by including the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. The Fifth Amendment now applies to the states, along with other amendments. As a result, the Fourteenth Amendment gave the federal government more power by applying the whole Bill of Rights to the states (see incorporation doctrine above). The Framers wanted to limit federal government powers, but the outcome was the opposite.
Due process in the United States has changed. Federal courts can now review cases and judge legislation. This change led to a landmark Supreme Court case in 1873, known as the Slaughter House Cases, involving butchers in New Orleans. The butchers challenged a Louisiana law that gave one company the only right to butcher cows in the city. But most of the Supreme Court agreed with the state law, saying the Fourteenth Amendment only meant to free enslaved people. The Court cautioned against misusing the Amendment to give more power to the federal government. That could weaken the states’ authority in issues that affect their residents.
In 1877, the Supreme Court relied on the Slaughter House dictum when deciding Munn v. Illinois, a case about a state law regulating railroad rates and grain warehousing. The Court said the Illinois rate regulation law is okay. They think people should solve problems through voting, not lawsuits. Big businesses stayed quiet after the 1873 ruling. Nevertheless, they spoke out against the 1877 decision that went against them. The disagreement resulted in the creation of the American Bar Association in 1878. The purpose was to oppose state business rules and back limited federal participation.
Slim majorities made the Supreme Court’s decisions in 1873 and 1877. Yet, after 1878, pressures increased, causing the Court’s stance to change. The Court started hearing arguments. These arguments could give the government more control over cities, counties, states, and people. The Supreme Court would have the last say on what the federal government can do. The case of Lochner v. New York in 1905 marked a significant turning point. The Court agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment changed the meaning of due process. This gave the Court more power by including parts of the Bill of Rights. The Court in Lochner invalidated a New York state law. This law regulated working hours in bakeries. The Court passed judgment on the law and the social and economic conditions it aimed to address. This decision caused disagreements in the Court. Most Justices believed bakeries needed better working conditions for the state’s regulation.
Justice John Marshall Harlan (1833–1911) disagreed with the decision in Lochner. He warned against the judiciary interfering with the legislative branch. Harlan emphasized that laws should be upheld if they followed the Constitution. He stresses the importance of respecting the people’s representatives. He cautioned against courts canceling laws based only on justice, reason, or wisdom.
Back to the Future
Trump Card
Based on the following arguments, some scholars attempt to link President Trump’s actions to the Fourteenth Amendment.
Trump broke his promise to follow the Constitution by encouraging the rioters who attacked the Capitol.
After the Civil War, Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment indicates that people who rebelled cannot hold office unless Congress forgives them.
Unless Congress pardons him with a two-thirds vote, we should not allow Trump to run for President in 2024 under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Advocacy groups and individuals in different states filed lawsuits challenging Trump’s eligibility. They argued his Fourteenth Amendment rights barred him from running for President. The Supreme Court has declined to hear one of these cases, while others are still pending. The legal arguments are not conclusive. The Amendment addressed a specific historical context. Yet, people still debate its application to modern political controversies.
Borrow and Spend Money
In the past, the federal government has used the Fourteenth Amendment to address how it borrows and spends money. Section Four of the Fourteenth Amendment says that the United States’s public debt is valid. That includes debts for pensions and bounties for suppressing insurrection or rebellion. Some legal scholars believe this clause gives the President power to raise the debt ceiling without Congressional action. They do this to prevent a default on the national debt.
Some experts think the Amendment’s wording and history do not support that interpretation. The Constitution only allows Congress to spend money, collect taxes, and borrow money. They believe the Fourteenth Amendment does not upset the power balance. Thus, scholars argue about its importance in current political disagreements. Given the plethora of spending announced by the Executive branch, it seems out of kilter.
Equal Protection and Due Process Trashed
J6 prisoners rotting in solitary confinement tell the story. Of course, like any group, a minority got off the rails. On the other hand, the massive number of collectivist rioters and looters burning cities during the height of the planned Covid event get virtually no punishment. That insults the intelligence of people not under the spell of Tell-u-Vision.
People who are pro-life or make appearances at school board meetings to expose pornographic “education” books get tagged. They find themselves placed on the FBI’s terrorist watch list at best or get a home visit by a tactical team. Meanwhile, virtually none of the collectivists who vandalize churches and pregnancy centers get to account for their actions.
Conclusion
Lawrence Patton McDonald had a varied background in the Navy, medicine, and politics. Sadly, his life ended on September 1, 1983. His legacy includes a book called “We Hold the Truths.” The book talks about constitutional matters, especially the Fourteenth Amendment.
The historical context of the Fourteenth Amendment is crucial to understanding its impact. In 1868, the Reconstruction era started. Its goal was to secure rights for African Americans, end slavery, and change the South’s politics. The analysis helps us understand the legal challenges that came up. These challenges went beyond race and included concerns about due process in business activities. We can see the Amendment’s impact on federal-state dynamics and the growth of federal government power.
Scholars argue how the Fourteenth Amendment affects President Trump’s actions and interpretations. The last mention of J6 treatment and a swat team visit raises questions about equal protection and due process. It shows how constitutional principles when manipulated beyond the original precepts, fuel an unfathomable largess. 📕
Sources
We Hold the Truths: A Reverent Review of the U.S. Constitution ~ Lawerence P. McDonald, 1976
Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights ~ The Hill, 09/29/15
The Fourteenth Amendment: History, Ratification, and Reaction ~ Jack Miller Center
The U.S. Constitution: Explained--Clause by Clause--for Every American Today ~ Ray Raphael
I warmly encourage you to consider becoming a paid subscriber if you have the means. Regardless of your choice, your support is deeply appreciated. From the bottom of my heart, thank you for your invaluable support!
The “right of privacy” is a complex and controversial topic in the United States. The Constitution doesn’t say “privacy” or define it clearly. The Supreme Court has used the Constitution to say there is a right to privacy in some cases.
SLPC needs to get with the inclusion program and revise its text by proclaiming that the U.S. is a “her.” That disses those who claim to have no gender or sex.
Constitutional amendment that would end corporate personhood, minimize money in politics faces steep climb in Wisconsin, nationally
https://thebadgerproject.org/2023/11/27/constitutional-amendment-that-would-end-corporate-personhood-minimize-money-in-politics-faces-steep-climb-in-wisconsin-and-nationally/
Instructive and insightful! Thanks for the post...