It’s True, The Miracle 14th Amendment Was Never Legally Ratified

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – I’m well aware of what that pocket constitution says.  I’m well aware of the ahistorical argument and the ahistorical facts, meaning they’re not historical, that says it was ratified.  How can an entity that is said to not be a part of the federal union and must ratify said document you have in your hand, how can it ratify and be counted as a ratifying state when the Congress and president say it’s not a state.  Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

 

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Curtis, you’re first up.  How you doing?

Caller Curtis:  I’m doing fine, Mike.  How about yourself?

Mike:  I’m well, sir.

Caller Curtis:  I have a question.  Have you ever said that the 14^th Amendment was never ratified?

Mike:  I have.

Caller Curtis:  I was just wondering because I have a Constitution copy here.  It says the 14^th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868.

Mike:  I’m well aware of what that pocket constitution says.  I’m well aware of the ahistorical argument and the ahistorical facts, meaning they’re not historical, that says it was ratified.  How can an entity that is said to not be a part of the federal union and must ratify said document you have in your hand, how can it ratify and be counted as a ratifying state when the Congress and president say it’s not a state.  You can’t ratify as a condition of being readmitted into the union, can you?

Caller Curtis:  No, I don’t think you can ratify as a condition to be readmitted as a state.  Was this right after the Civil War?

Mike:  Yes.

Caller Curtis:  And was that part of the agreement, more or less, the verbal agreement that the Southern states could not be part of the Union again unless they said —

Mike:  Unless they ratified the 14^th Amendment.  Even then, there were states that didn’t ratify it.  Congress, as part of the radical Republican Congress’s readmission to the Union process [mocking] “Give ‘em the check box anyway.”  The 14^th Amendment was never ratified legally under the method that is prescribed for an amendment to be ratified.  It couldn’t have been ratified by a state that was not a member of the Union.  You might as well say if France ratified it, it’s law.

For the rest of today’s transcript please sign up for a Founders Pass or if you’re already a member, make sure you are logged in!
[private FP-Yearly-So76|FP-Yearly|FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly-WLK]

To the last caller’s question, I can’t tell whether the caller was being snickety and smarmy, or whether he was being genuine and asking a genuine question, or whether or not he was [mocking] “You call yourself a scholar.  I listen to the rest of the talk radio mafia and they adore the 14^th Amendment, you idiot.  That’s the problem with you Southern hick hayseeds.  You refuse to give in, you and your precious little Confederacy, you and your devotion to the stupid South.”  So I couldn’t tell if he was being sincere or not.  Operating under the premise that this was a trip-up moment — what he asked me, if you missed it [mocking] “Did you ever, ever say that the 14^th Amendment wasn’t ratified?” to which I calmly replied: Yes, as a matter of fact I did.  [mocking] “Well, can you, can you, why?”  As I tried to explain, you can’t have as a condition of admission into a union that you ratify an amendment when the constitution that binds the union says that only states that are already in it can ratify an amendment.  You can’t have it both ways.

In any event, Forrest McDonald, viewed by many as one of the greatest historians of the last half of the last century, this was one of his fields of study.  He has done some of the best scholarship on this.  One of his students, a Douglas Bryant, was asked to write a summary of whether or not the 14^th Amendment was ratified for the 2002 version of the Alabama Law Review.  I have it right here in front of me.  I will read you the last two paragraphs of Bryant’s essay.  I will also post this PDF file in today’s Pile of Prep.  I’ll make it its own content item so it’s easy to find.  Here’s what Bryant concluded based on McDonald’s work.  I’m still working for McDonald because McDonald has an entire pamphlet about this.  As a matter of fact, if you go to YouTube and type in “Tom Woods, 14^th Amendment,” you’ll find a series of three lectures that Dr. Woods gave at the Mises Institute in 2010, 2011 on this very subject.  I don’t want to put words in Tom’s mouth because I haven’t seen the video in a couple years, but his conclusion is going to be similar to the one I’m about to share with you.

[reading]

Still the ratification process of the 14^th Amendment has never been reviewed by the Supreme Court and, in light of Bush v. Gore, the political question doctrine may have lost favor with the court. While a federal court would likely be unreceptive to an argument claiming the 14^th Amendment invalid, it would make for an interesting affirmative defense. The 14^th Amendment will undoubtedly remain a part of the Constitution, but, as one commentator has stated, no one ever became rich by predicting what the Supreme Court would do from one generation to another. We should at least be aware of its irregular adoption and guard against such constitutional disrespect in the future. Congress should also seriously consider re-proposing the amendment if it is concerned with preserving equal protection and due process for future generations. The ratification story of the 14^th Amendment, which shows the irregular and likely unconstitutional process by which it has been declared part of our constitution demonstrates that a major cornerstone of constitutional law is placed on a shaky and uneasy foundation. Unfortunately, although one may wish to remedy the constitutional wrongs committed during its ratification, it is apparent that this cornerstone amendment should be left in place, less the entire house of higher laws as we know it should come toppling down. It is not too late, however, to shore up the foundation of constitutional jurisprudence. Congress and the states should re-propose and ratify the 14^th Amendment and thereby ensure the principles of equal protection and due process which the amendment guarantees.

[end reading]

Mike:  If you were being smarmy and snickety, there’s your answer.  If you were being sincere, there’s your answer.  The amendment was never ratified in a constitutional manner.  This is a very well-documented part of our history.  I’m not telling you it’s not part of the Constitution, because obviously it is.  As I often say, the 14^th Amendment is the miracle amendment.  There is nothing the 14^th Amendment can’t fix.

Got a wart?  You need Congress to pass a wart act to get rid of your wart?  Fourteenth Amendment.  Got someone that you want to participate in the Special Olympics and has been denied access?  Fourteenth Amendment.  It doesn’t matter what it is, the 14^th Amendment covers it.  Hangnails, covered.  Divorces, covered by the 14^th Amendment.  Homosexual marriage, if there is such a thing, covered by the 14^th Amendment.  Every possible issue to come before an American legislative body or court, covered by the 14^th Amendment.  Ice fishing in Minnesota this year, I want to fish from 5-8 p.m.  You said we have to pick our traps up at sundown.  Fourteenth Amendment has it.  It doesn’t matter what it is, the 14^th Amendment has it.  The miracle amendment covers it.  Government paid-for and sponsored Cialis and Viagra, 14^th Amendment.  Circus acts that only have two rings instead of three, 14^th Amendment covers it.  Tim Tebow playing arena football, 14^th Amendment.  Mark Sanchez forced to leave the New York Jets, 14^th Amendment.

End Mike Church Show Transcript

[/private]