"Restoring" the 13th Amendment.

[SirNitram]

Link

[quote]If there is an aspect of the human condition that is unaddressed by the platform of the Republican Party of Iowa, adopted last month at the state convention in Des Moines, you’d have to look awfully hard to find it. Its 387 enumerated planks and principles range widely over politics, culture, and economics, from sweeping statements of belief (“America is goodâ€

[The Minx]

Ha ha, people are so silly.

But I really don't get how this is supposed to "delegitimize virtually every act of the federal government since 1819". How is that supposed to work anyway?

Do they mean that government officials since then weren't real government officials since they should have lost their citizenship? But there's another clause in the Constitution which says that no ex-post facto laws are supposed to be passed, so the "original" 13th Amendment can't be retroactive, it would only be effective from the point at which it is ratified (and they still need 25 more states for that, even if Iowa passes this).

[SirNitram]

Ha ha, people are so silly.

But I really don't get how this is supposed to "delegitimize virtually every act of the federal government since 1819". How is that supposed to work anyway?

Do they mean that government officials since then weren't real government officials since they should have lost their citizenship? But there's another clause in the Constitution which says that no ex-post facto laws are supposed to be passed, so the "original" 13th Amendment can't be retroactive, it would only be effective from the point at which it is ratified (and they still need 25 more states for that, even if Iowa passes this).

I'm not sure the ex-post-facto rule applies to amendments, which are not laws, persay.

[SirNitram]

Ah, I got corrected.

The argument is that since the amendment was passed and mostly ratified, it is active from 1812 onwards.

[Rogue 9]

Ah. I hadn't been aware of that; I was coming in here ready to say something along the lines of "Really? They want to guarantee federal noninterference with slavery?" Because that was the proposed 13th Amendment as it stood in 1861.

[The Minx]

Ah, I got corrected.

The argument is that since the amendment was passed and mostly ratified, it is active from 1812 onwards.

I thought that it doesn't technically pass/become part of the Constitution until fully ratified. "Mostly" ratified doesn't cut it. Besides, if Iowa goes for it, they only have 13/38 states needed, even if they had almost made it back then they're way off the mark now. If it had been ratified back in 1819 (or 1812, whatever) and promptly forgotten about like these people claim that would be different.


Here's the text of the 5th Article:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Note the wording in bold: "...shall be valid... ...when ratified by [the states]", NOT "...shall be valid... ...when originally passed by Congress", and retroactively vis-a-vis ratification.

Constitutional Literalism says these people have no case.

[SirNitram]

Duh. They also want to revoke the 14th amendment's guarantee of citizenship.

[The Minx]

Unfortunately I'm not even shocked or surprised about that.