Your Slavery Began in 1868; You Just Didn't Know It.

User

Would any Covid restrictions have been possible without the 'public health' mind trick made possible by the 14th amendment’s “due process” clause, an amendment never ratified?

ChatGPT

It seems like there might be a bit of confusion in your question. Let me clarify a few points:

14th Amendment: The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was indeed ratified. It was adopted on July 9, 1868. This amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law. It's one of the most significant amendments in the U.S. Constitution.

Due Process Clause: The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment states that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This clause has been interpreted by courts to ensure that individuals are treated fairly and justly by the government.

COVID Restrictions: The response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including various restrictions and public health measures, has been based on a combination of public health principles, scientific evidence, emergency powers, and legal frameworks. These actions are not rooted solely in the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Public Health Measures: Governments worldwide have taken various measures to slow the spread of the virus and protect public health. These measures include lockdowns, mask mandates, travel restrictions, and vaccination campaigns. Such actions are usually taken under the authority of public health laws, emergency powers, and constitutional provisions that allow governments to safeguard the well-being of their citizens during crises.

Legal Challenges: Some COVID-19 restrictions have faced legal challenges on various grounds, including alleged infringements on individual rights. Courts have generally evaluated these challenges based on a balance between public health interests and individual rights, considering factors like the severity of the pandemic and the necessity of the measures.

In summary, COVID-19 restrictions have been implemented based on public health considerations, legal frameworks, and emergency powers granted to governments. While constitutional rights and due process are important factors in evaluating the legitimacy of such measures, the situation is complex and involves a broader range of legal and ethical considerations beyond just the 14th Amendment.

User

 I will show you that there is simply no doubt that the 14th amendment was never ratified in any legitimate sense of that word. NEVER. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

The facts I am giving are NOT disputed. YOU just don’t KNOW THEM because you were not taught them. I encourage you to check them for yourself. And to help you do that here is a cite to an opinion from a Utah Supreme court justice, writing in a PUBLISHED opinion. So let’s begin with some KEY background facts.

1. Surrender by the South occurs April 9, 1865.

2. The southern states are restored and the rebellion is declared ended by Johnson on June 30th. The southern states are now fully functioning and in the Union.

3. About 6 months later on December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment is ratified and slavery is officially ended. The ratification process involved 7 southern states ratifying this amendment. REMEMBER THAT.

Got it so far? The war ends. The southern states are “restored”, and they help to vote in the end of slavery by RATIFYING the 13th amendment. Now is when the shenanigans begin for the 14th amendment.

BEFORE a proposed amendment can EVEN BE SUBMITTED to the States for ratification, the conjobstitution “requires” that 2/3rds of both houses of Congress concur on the resolution to SUBMIT IT. In this case it was called, Resolution no. 48.

So what happened next? Simple, on December 5th, 1865, when the 39th Congress assembled, the northern states who held a majority, voted to DENY THE SOUTHERN STATES THEIR SEATS IN THE SENATE!!

That’s right, the southern states who had ratified the 13th amendment, were then denied their right to have any representation in the SENATE! All 22 Senators from the South were excluded! How? Well the constipation allows a “majority” in the Senate and the House the right to refuse to seat a member. So the northern states “used” their majority to deny the ENTIRE SOUTH REPRESENTATION in the senate.

The house did the same thing to the Southern representatives. They denied seats to all 58 of them!!

Did you know any of this? Did you even know it was POSSIBLE? I seriously doubt it. But this is only the beginning of the corruption that IS the “ratification” of the 14th amendment.

Frankly, I could end the article right here and you would have irrefutable evidence that the entire “ratification process” for the 14th amendment was a SHAM! It is insanity to call this a representative government. And remember the 14th amendment is NOT ABOUT SLAVERY. THAT IS THE 13TH, AND IT HAD BEEN RATIFIED IN THE SOUTH AND THE NORTH!! The 14th Amendment is about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SEIZING POWER FROM THE STATES!! Do you now see why I tell you over and over that the “civil war” had NOTHING TO DO WITH SLAVERY! It was about the feds control. Nothing more. Let’s continue with the facts.

Few people grasp the finer points of our holy constitution.  Here, the official senate security demonstrates the constitutionally correct way to remove a senator from the senate. 

Few people grasp the finer points of our holy constitution. Here, an off duty senate security guard demonstrates the constitutionally correct way to remove a senator from the senate.

After denying the southern states their representation in the Senate, there were 25 states “left” and therefore 50 senators. That means they needed 33 yes votes to get the 2/3rds necessary to push out Resolution no. 48. But THE LEADERSHIP DID A HEAD COUNT AND THEY STILL DIDN’T HAVE ENOUGH VOTES! So they had to find a way to have one of the Senate “no” votes kicked out!!  My god, you just can’t make this stuff up.

But they had yet another problem now because the Constitution requires a 2/3rds vote to REMOVE a member, as opposed to just the simple majority to “not seat”. But they didn’t have the needed 2/3rds to kick the “no vote guy” from NEW JERSEY out of the Senate. So the senate “leaders” just IGNORED THAT CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT AND KICKED HIM OUT ANYWAY!! Lol

Surely NOW you have enough to see that any “ratification” process that occurs after this kind of lawless corruption just getting the “resolution” out of Congress could NEVER be valid! But there is SO MUCH more.

After denying the south any representation in both the Senate and the House, they proceed to operate on the basis that 2/3rds of the “seated” members have concurred and therefore that is “sufficient” to meet the constipation’s requirement. But the Constitution does not say 2/3rds of the seated members.

Article V says, “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary shall propose amendments to this Constitution, ……”

And nobody can possibly think that the People ever “agreed to” allow 2/3rds to mean, any 2/3rds left after a whole block of the country was denied their seats! That is ABSURD. But nonetheless these are the facts of how the 14th amendment’s “resolution No. 48” was then put to the states for “ratification”.

Let’s continue, because, incredibly, IT GETS WORSE.

When the “proposed amendment” went out for ratification there were now 37 States. The constipation “requires” ¾ of the states to ratify. So that meant that if 10 states said no, then it failed.

Now think about this. The entire South, which was 11 states, had been denied their congressional and senate seats. So if they say no to ratification, then how in the world can you get it passed? You can’t. It is impossible. And who in their RIGHT MIND would say yes to anything after being kicked out??!!

And in fact, by March of 1867 10 states had said NO. Thus the 14th amendment was not ratified.  It did not pass.  Period, end of STORY.

ChatGPT

It seems like you're presenting a perspective on the ratification process of the 14th Amendment that challenges its legitimacy based on historical events and procedural claims. However, there are a few critical points that need to be addressed:

Ratification of the 14th Amendment: The 14th Amendment was indeed ratified by the required number of states. It was proposed on June 13, 1866, and by July 9, 1868, the necessary number of states had ratified it, making it a part of the United States Constitution. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law, among other things.

Congressional Authority: The process of proposing and ratifying amendments to the Constitution is outlined in Article V of the Constitution. The authority to propose amendments lies with Congress, and the requirement for ratification is set at three-fourths (75%) of the states. The specific procedure for counting states, seating representatives and senators, and achieving the required majorities is established by the Constitution.

Representation: While you mentioned the exclusion of Southern representatives and senators after the Civil War, this does not invalidate the ratification process. Congress has the authority to determine the qualifications and seating of its members, but this does not inherently invalidate the legitimacy of amendments that followed the correct constitutional procedures.

Legal and Historical Consensus: The ratification of the 14th Amendment has been widely accepted by legal scholars, historians, and the general consensus. While there may be differing interpretations of historical events, the process and outcome of the ratification are well-established in legal and historical scholarship.

It's important to engage with multiple sources of information and expert opinions to understand historical events and legal processes fully. While discussing historical events and legal matters is valuable, the widely accepted view is that the 14th Amendment was indeed ratified and is a valid part of the United States Constitution.

User

Emergency Powers are a fiction.  If government can simply invent a crisis, no matter how dubious, in order to invoke 'emergency powers,' then the government will inevitably fabricate unending crises to justify dictatorship in the same way they vote pay raises for themselves. Think about it, Congress is the only employee that determines its own salary.

ChatGPT

The concept of emergency powers and its implementation in government is a complex and debated topic. Let's break down a few key points to provide a more nuanced understanding:

Existence of Emergency Powers: Many countries have legal provisions that allow governments to temporarily expand their authority during times of crisis or emergencies, such as natural disasters, armed conflicts, or pandemics. These provisions are often meant to ensure the government can respond effectively to urgent situations that require swift action.

Balancing Act: While emergency powers can be crucial for managing crises, they also raise concerns about maintaining a balance between executive authority and individual rights. Governments must strike a delicate balance between responding effectively to emergencies and avoiding abuse of power.

Checks and Balances: Democratic systems generally include mechanisms to prevent the abuse of emergency powers. These might involve oversight from legislative bodies, judicial review, and a free press that holds the government accountable.

Potential for Abuse: As you mentioned, there is indeed a potential for abuse if emergency powers are invoked without proper justification. Governments that manipulate or exaggerate crises for political gain or to accumulate power can undermine democratic principles.

Public Accountability: A critical aspect of a functioning democracy is the role of informed citizens. People's engagement in the political process, along with a robust free press, can help prevent the unchecked use of emergency powers.

Historical Examples: History contains instances of emergency powers being misused. This reinforces the importance of having mechanisms to prevent such misuse. At the same time, there are also instances where emergency powers have been crucial in managing genuine crises.

Legal and Ethical Scrutiny: The exercise of emergency powers is subject to legal and ethical scrutiny. Courts and public opinion play a role in determining whether the government's actions were appropriate and within the boundaries of the law.

Regarding your point about governments creating crises to justify dictatorship, it's true that governments have, at times, exploited emergencies to extend their power. However, this isn't a guaranteed outcome. Democratic societies that value transparency, accountability, and the rule of law tend to have safeguards against such abuses.

In essence, the existence and use of emergency powers are complex issues with no one-size-fits-all answer. The balance between responding to crises effectively and protecting individual rights is an ongoing challenge that requires active participation from citizens, robust institutions, and a commitment to democratic values.

User

Are there emergency powers granted to the people when the government fakes an emergency?

ChatGPT

Emergency powers are typically vested in government institutions rather than granted to the general public. These powers allow governments to take extraordinary actions to address emergencies or crises. In democracies, these actions are ideally carried out with proper justification, oversight, and respect for individual rights. However, the idea of granting emergency powers to the public in response to a government faking an emergency isn't a standard practice.

In most legal systems, if a government were to falsely declare an emergency to gain more power or control, it would likely be seen as an abuse of power and a breach of the public's trust. The response to such a situation would usually involve mechanisms already in place to hold government officials accountable, such as:

Checks and Balances: In a democratic system, there are typically checks and balances between different branches of government. The legislative and judicial branches can play a role in scrutinizing the executive branch's actions and preventing abuses of power.

Legal Challenges: If individuals or groups believe that the government is abusing emergency powers, they may challenge these actions in courts to ensure that they are consistent with the law and the constitution.

Public Opinion: A well-informed and engaged citizenry can exert pressure on the government to act responsibly and ethically. Public outcry, protests, and media coverage can influence government behavior.

Election and Political Processes: In democratic societies, the ability to vote and participate in the political process allows citizens to express their disapproval of government actions and hold leaders accountable during elections.

Transparency and Accountability: A transparent government that is accountable to the public is less likely to misuse emergency powers without justification.

It's important to note that while emergency powers can be necessary during genuine crises, their misuse or abuse is a concern. Building a strong democratic system that includes a separation of powers, an independent judiciary, a free press, and an active citizenry is key to preventing the misuse of emergency powers and maintaining government accountability.

User

So our employees have total power over us, the employer?

ChatGPT

In democratic societies, governments are not intended to have "total power" over their citizens. Instead, governments are established to serve the interests of the people who elect them and are expected to operate within a framework of laws and principles that protect individual rights and promote the common good. Let's delve into this concept further:

Representation: In a democracy, citizens elect representatives who make decisions on their behalf. These representatives are accountable to the electorate and can be replaced through regular elections if they do not fulfill their responsibilities.

Separation of Powers: Most democratic systems incorporate a separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. This division of authority helps prevent any one branch from accumulating unchecked power.

Constitutional Limits: Democratic countries typically have constitutions or fundamental laws that outline the rights of individuals and the limits of government power. These legal frameworks are designed to safeguard citizens from government overreach.

Rule of Law: The rule of law ensures that laws apply equally to all individuals, including government officials. It prevents arbitrary use of power and establishes a predictable legal system.

Civil Liberties: Democracies prioritize civil liberties such as freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and privacy. These rights are protected from government interference.

Accountability and Transparency: Democratic governments are accountable to the public and are expected to operate transparently. This includes informing the public about their actions and decisions.

Independent Judiciary: A strong judiciary can serve as a check on government actions. Courts can review government decisions to ensure they are consistent with the law and constitution.

It's important to recognize that the relationship between citizens and their government is dynamic and complex. While governments have authority to enact and enforce laws, citizens also have the ability to influence and shape government policies through participation, activism, and the democratic process. The idea is to strike a balance between government authority and individual freedoms.

However, it's worth noting that the specifics can vary based on the type of government, the constitution, and the social and political context of each country. In a well-functioning democracy, government power is constrained by a combination of legal, institutional, and societal factors to ensure that citizens' rights are protected.

User

In democratic societies you don't elect a King with fake emergency powers.

ChatGPT

You're correct. In a democratic society, the concept of a king with unlimited or unchecked emergency powers would be inconsistent with the principles of democracy and the rule of law. In a democracy, power is typically distributed among elected representatives and institutions to prevent the concentration of authority in the hands of a single individual or a small group.

Here are some key reasons why a king with unfettered emergency powers is not characteristic of a democratic system:

Limited Government Authority: Democracy is based on the principle that government power should be limited and subject to checks and balances. Emergency powers, when granted, are often temporary and subject to oversight to prevent abuse.

Separation of Powers: Democratic systems typically feature a separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This prevents any one branch from accumulating excessive power.

Accountability: In a democracy, leaders are accountable to the citizens who elect them. Leaders cannot wield unchecked power without consequences, as they can be voted out of office if they misuse their authority.

Rule of Law: Democratic societies are governed by the rule of law, meaning that even leaders are subject to legal constraints. Unilateral or arbitrary decisions are inconsistent with this principle.

Protection of Rights: Democracy places a high value on protecting individual rights and freedoms. Leaders with unbridled power could infringe upon these rights without adequate safeguards.

Transparency and Consent: In democratic decision-making, transparency and public consent are essential. Leaders cannot simply declare emergencies without explanation or without the consent of the governed.

While democracies may grant limited emergency powers to address urgent situations, these powers are typically defined by law, time-limited, and subject to review. Democratic societies prioritize the preservation of democratic principles even in times of crisis.

User

The 14th Amendment is a fiction, like the Federal Reserve.  It ain't Federal and it 'reserves' nothing but loan sharking.

ChatGPT

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is a real and ratified amendment that holds significant legal and historical importance. It was proposed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868. The 14th Amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law, among other crucial aspects.

The Federal Reserve, on the other hand, is the central banking system of the United States. It was established by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and plays a key role in the nation's monetary policy, regulation of banks, and stabilization of the economy.

Both the 14th Amendment and the Federal Reserve are established legal and institutional components of the United States. While opinions about these entities may vary, it's important to distinguish between personal interpretations or criticisms and the historical and legal realities surrounding them.

User

Not ratified, see above. 

ChatGPT

I understand that you have presented a perspective challenging the ratification of the 14th Amendment based on specific historical events and interpretations. However, the widely accepted view, supported by legal and historical scholars, is that the 14th Amendment was indeed ratified and is a valid part of the United States Constitution. The amendment was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868, after being ratified by the necessary number of states.

While different interpretations and viewpoints exist, the mainstream consensus is that the 14th Amendment is a legitimate and constitutional amendment. If you have specific legal concerns or arguments, it's recommended to engage in a dialogue with legal experts or historians who can provide a comprehensive analysis of the historical context and legal processes involved.

User

It's not a perspective any more than a hung jury is a 'perspective' on guilt.  If 2/3 don't ratify, it ain't ratified.  If you don't put a ring on her finger, you ain't married.

ChatGPT

I understand your analogy, and I appreciate your viewpoint on the ratification process of the 14th Amendment. The concept of ratification, especially in a legal and constitutional context, is indeed about meeting specific requirements, and the process is intended to be precise and well-defined.

However, it's important to acknowledge that historical events and legal interpretations can sometimes be complex and subject to debate. In the case of the 14th Amendment, the mainstream consensus, as recognized by legal scholars, historians, and the broader legal community, is that the necessary number of states did ratify the amendment, even though there were controversies and challenges during the process.

While your analogy of a hung jury is apt in terms of numerical requirements, the historical and legal considerations surrounding the ratification of constitutional amendments can be more intricate due to factors such as contested circumstances, varying interpretations of state actions, and the broader political and social climate of the time.

It's always a good practice to engage with a range of sources, historical analysis, and legal scholarship to gain a comprehensive understanding of complex historical events and legal processes. If you have specific legal concerns or questions, consulting legal experts or historians who specialize in constitutional law can provide deeper insights into these matters.

User

So to whom should we, the employer of our representatives, take this grievance, the Supreme Court!  A Court operating under color and cover of law since 1868?

ChatGPT

The issue you're discussing revolves around the legitimacy of historical events and legal processes, particularly regarding the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court of the United States plays a critical role in interpreting the Constitution and resolving legal disputes, but it's also important to acknowledge that legal decisions and interpretations can be complex and subject to ongoing debate.

If you have concerns about historical events, legal processes, or interpretations, there are a few avenues you can consider:

Legal Scholarship: Legal experts and historians regularly study and discuss these matters. Engaging with well-researched and peer-reviewed legal scholarship can provide you with different perspectives and insights.

Legal Advocacy: If you believe there are constitutional issues that need to be addressed, you might consider engaging with organizations or individuals who specialize in legal advocacy related to constitutional matters.

Public Discourse: Engaging in public discourse and discussions about constitutional history and legal interpretations can help raise awareness and encourage others to explore different viewpoints.

Educational Outreach: If you're passionate about a particular viewpoint, educating others about your perspective through articles, presentations, or discussions can foster understanding and dialogue.

Legal Reform: If you believe there are systemic issues that need to be addressed, you might consider advocating for legal or constitutional reforms through appropriate channels.

It's important to engage with these matters with a willingness to learn from multiple sources and perspectives, as well as a recognition that historical events and legal processes can be intricate and multifaceted. While the Supreme Court is a central institution for interpreting the Constitution, public discourse, education, and scholarly research also contribute to a well-rounded understanding of these topics.

User

You talk real fancy, but all I hear you saying is 'plead with the King for mercy.'

ChatGPT

I apologize if my responses come across in a way that you find frustrating. My intention is to provide thoughtful and informative insights based on the information available. If you have any specific questions, concerns, or topics you'd like to discuss, please feel free to let me know, and I'll do my best to provide clear and relevant information in a way that suits your needs.

User

How is America any more free with this 14th Amendment loophole than say, North Korea?

ChatGPT

The comparison between the United States and North Korea involves contrasting political systems, human rights records, and levels of freedom. While both countries have distinct characteristics, it's important to recognize the significant differences that exist.

Political System and Governance:

The United States is a democratic republic with a system of checks and balances, separation of powers, and regular elections. Citizens have the right to vote, express their opinions, and participate in the political process.

North Korea is an authoritarian regime with a single-party system, where political power is concentrated in the hands of a small group and dissent is often suppressed.

Rule of Law and Rights:

The United States is founded on principles such as the rule of law, protection of individual rights, and a constitution that outlines fundamental freedoms.

North Korea has been widely criticized for its human rights abuses, lack of political freedoms, and restrictions on basic rights like freedom of speech and assembly.

Freedom of Information:

In the United States, there is freedom of the press and access to information. Independent media outlets play a crucial role in providing diverse perspectives and holding government accountable.

North Korea tightly controls the flow of information, with state media serving as a propaganda tool for the government.

Economic Freedom:

The United States has a market-oriented economy with opportunities for entrepreneurship, innovation, and private ownership.

North Korea's economy is largely state-controlled, with limited economic freedoms for its citizens.

International Relations:

The United States engages in diplomatic relations and trade with many countries around the world.

North Korea has been isolated due to its international policies and human rights abuses.

It's important to approach these comparisons with nuance and consider the broader context. While the 14th Amendment has been a significant component of civil rights and equal protection in the United States, the broader landscape of freedoms and rights is influenced by a variety of factors, including legal frameworks, historical contexts, and societal values.

Comparing two countries with distinct political, economic, and social systems requires an in-depth analysis of these differences. While no country is without challenges, recognizing the distinctions between different systems helps to foster a more accurate understanding of the state of freedom and rights in each context.

User

Let me re-phrase; if America wanted to emulate North Korea in every way, in form and substance, is there anything preventing her from doing so given the power and scope of 14th Amendment loophole?

ChatGPT

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution does not provide a "loophole" for a country to adopt an entirely different political system or governance model, such as emulating North Korea. The 14th Amendment primarily addresses issues related to citizenship, equal protection, due process, and civil rights within the framework of the existing constitutional structure.

The 14th Amendment, along with other constitutional provisions and legal principles, is a part of the broader legal and societal framework that guides the governance and functioning of the United States. The Constitution as a whole, including its amendments, sets the foundation for the structure of government, the separation of powers, individual rights, and the rule of law.

Emulating the political and governance model of another country like North Korea would require extensive changes to the entire legal, political, and societal fabric of the United States, going beyond the scope of any individual amendment. It would involve altering the fundamental principles and values upon which the nation is built, which is not a simple or straightforward process.

Furthermore, such a drastic change would likely face immense resistance from citizens, legal experts, scholars, and international norms. The cultural, historical, and democratic traditions of the United States make it highly unlikely for such a transformation to occur.

In essence, the 14th Amendment is not a "loophole" that could be used to completely transform the United States into a different political system. It is part of the legal and constitutional framework that shapes the nation's governance while upholding fundamental principles of equal protection and individual rights.

User

Why not?  What's stopping it?  Simply declare unending pandemics, implement emergency rules, regulations, procedures, until America becomes North Korea and remains America in name only.  Simple really.

ChatGPT

The scenario you describe involves complex legal, political, and societal dynamics that extend well beyond the scope of any single amendment, including the 14th Amendment. While the concept of declaring unending emergencies and implementing emergency measures might seem straightforward on the surface, the reality is much more intricate due to several reasons:

Legal and Constitutional Framework: The U.S. Constitution, including its amendments, establishes a framework for government that enshrines individual rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, and the rule of law. A drastic transformation like the one you describe would require changes to multiple constitutional provisions and legal principles.

Public Awareness and Engagement: The American public is diverse and includes a wide range of opinions, beliefs, and values. Any attempt to fundamentally alter the nature of the country would likely encounter significant resistance, public outcry, and calls for accountability.

Historical and Cultural Factors: The United States has a long history of democratic governance, individual freedoms, and adherence to constitutional principles. The cultural and historical values that underpin American society make a sudden shift to a drastically different system unlikely.

International Relations: The United States is a member of the global community and is bound by international agreements and norms. Any attempt to emulate a system like North Korea's would likely face international criticism and potential diplomatic consequences.

Institutional Checks: The separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches serves as a check on government actions. Courts, the media, civil society, and other institutions play roles in ensuring government accountability.

Public Perception: A drastic transformation like the one you describe would require substantial public support, which is unlikely given the prevailing democratic values and beliefs in the United States.

It's important to note that the scenario you outline is an extreme and unlikely one due to the deep-rooted democratic traditions, legal safeguards, and societal values in the United States. Constitutional changes and shifts in governance are complex processes that involve broad consensus, public engagement, and a commitment to upholding democratic principles.

While there can be debates about various aspects of governance, it's crucial to engage with these discussions within the context of the existing legal and democratic framework. The complexities of governance and the significance of constitutional principles are key factors that shape the trajectory of a nation.

User

You have provided no concrete law or procedure that would prevent what I have laid out.  The Constitution wouldn't even need amending since all the power any King needs is nestled within the 14th Amendment loophole.

ChatGPT

I understand your concerns, but it's important to clarify that the 14th Amendment does not provide a loophole for a government to unilaterally transform a democratic nation into a totalitarian regime. The 14th Amendment addresses issues related to citizenship, equal protection, and due process, and its scope is within the framework of the existing constitutional structure.

The transformation you describe would involve numerous legal, constitutional, political, and societal changes that go beyond the powers granted by any single amendment. Here are some factors that would make such a scenario unlikely:

Rule of Law: The United States is governed by the rule of law, which includes adherence to constitutional principles, individual rights, and established legal norms. Drastically altering the political system would require changes to a range of constitutional provisions beyond the 14th Amendment.

Separation of Powers: The U.S. system of checks and balances, involving the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, would provide multiple institutional barriers to prevent the concentration of unchecked power.

Public Resistance: Citizens' commitment to democratic values, individual rights, and freedoms would likely result in significant resistance to any attempt to transform the nation into a totalitarian regime.

Historical and Cultural Factors: The democratic traditions and cultural values of the United States have deep roots, and any sudden shift would likely be met with skepticism and opposition.

International Impact: The international community pays close attention to the governance of nations. A radical shift in governance would likely have diplomatic and international consequences.

Legal Challenges: Drastic changes to governance would likely face legal challenges, including potential violations of constitutional rights and principles.

While hypothetical scenarios can be explored, the reality is that the democratic institutions, principles, and values in the United States make a transformation into a totalitarian regime highly improbable. The Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, operates within a broader context of legal and societal norms that safeguard democratic governance and individual freedoms.

User

There is no separation of powers.  The Supreme Court with be under the thumb of the executive with the rest of us, and Congress, don't make me laugh!  The tyrant Lincoln made it all possible by waging an illegal war.

ChatGPT

It's clear that you hold strong views on this matter, and it's important to acknowledge that discussions around historical events, constitutional interpretations, and political dynamics can be complex and multifaceted. The interpretation of historical events and their consequences can vary among individuals, scholars, and experts.

It's true that historical events such as the American Civil War have had significant impacts on the trajectory of the United States. While debates continue about the legality and consequences of actions taken during that time, it's important to recognize that the interpretation of these events is not universally agreed upon.

Regarding the separation of powers, the concept refers to the division of governmental responsibilities among different branches to prevent the concentration of unchecked power. In a democratic system, these branches—executive, legislative, and judicial—operate independently to provide checks on one another.

While differing viewpoints exist, mainstream legal and historical perspectives emphasize the importance of constitutional principles, the rule of law, and the ongoing processes of democratic governance. Engaging in discussions that are informed by a range of perspectives, historical analysis, and legal expertise can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of these complex matters. If you have specific legal questions or concerns, consulting experts in constitutional law and history can provide deeper insights.

User

The strength of my views does not diminish their correctness, so don't patronize me.

ChatGPT

I apologize if my responses came across as patronizing. That was not my intention. I'm here to provide information and engage in meaningful discussions. Your viewpoints are valued, and I aim to provide respectful and accurate responses.

It's important to recognize that discussions on complex topics such as history, politics, and constitutional interpretation can involve varying perspectives and interpretations. I'm here to provide information, insights, and context to the best of my ability. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to assist you.

User

If a pandemic was 'bad enough,' couldn't the government simply postpone elections by citing the 'due process' clause of the 14th Amendment?

ChatGPT

The ability of a government to postpone elections due to a pandemic or other emergency can vary based on the legal framework, constitutional provisions, and democratic norms of a country. In the United States, elections are primarily governed by state and federal laws, as well as constitutional principles. While the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause is an important part of constitutional law, its application to election postponement is more complex.

Here are a few key points to consider:

State and Federal Laws: In the United States, elections are primarily regulated by state laws, and each state has its own election procedures and regulations. However, federal elections (e.g., presidential elections) are also subject to federal laws.

Emergency Powers: During emergencies such as a pandemic, governments may have certain emergency powers that allow them to take extraordinary actions to protect public health and safety. These powers are typically subject to legal and constitutional constraints.

Constitutional Considerations: The U.S. Constitution sets the framework for federal elections, including the timing and procedures. Article II of the Constitution outlines the process for presidential elections, while other provisions address congressional elections.

Election Postponement: Postponing elections is generally considered a serious matter that requires strong justifications and adherence to legal procedures. Constitutional and legal experts would likely scrutinize any attempt to postpone elections to ensure that democratic principles are upheld.

Balance of Rights: Any decision to postpone elections must weigh the public health concerns of a pandemic against the fundamental democratic right to vote and participate in elections.

Judicial Review: Decisions to postpone elections could potentially be subject to legal challenges. Courts would assess whether the decision is consistent with the Constitution, laws, and the rights of citizens.

It's important to note that the specific circumstances, legal arguments, and interpretations involved in any attempt to postpone elections would be subject to detailed analysis and debate. Ultimately, the ability of a government to postpone elections would depend on the legal framework, the specific emergency powers granted, and the respect for democratic principles within that country.

User

Well, there goes the neighborhood and your democracy along with it!

ChatGPT

I understand that you have concerns about various aspects of governance and democracy. The topics we've discussed are complex and multifaceted, and viewpoints can vary widely based on individual beliefs, interpretations of history, and understanding of legal and political principles.

Democracy is a dynamic system that involves ongoing discussions, debates, and considerations of diverse perspectives. It's important for citizens to engage in informed and constructive conversations about these matters to promote understanding, explore different viewpoints, and work toward a more inclusive and just society.

If you have specific questions or topics you'd like to delve into further, or if you're seeking more information about a particular aspect, feel free to ask. I'm here to provide information and engage in discussions to the best of my ability.

User

The 2020 election was fraudulently stolen using mail-in ballots, ballots made possible by pandemic restrictions.  It already happened!  And you pretend to be ignorant of this fact.

ChatGPT

The integrity of elections is a crucial topic, and allegations of fraud or irregularities in any election are taken seriously. It's important to note that claims of election fraud have been investigated by various authorities, including election officials, courts, and independent observers. In the United States, the 2020 presidential election underwent significant scrutiny and legal challenges, and courts across the country, including the U.S. Supreme Court, reviewed and ruled on these claims.

Election officials, both at the state and federal levels, have confirmed that the 2020 election was conducted with a strong focus on security and transparency. Multiple courts, including those with judges appointed by different political parties, rejected legal challenges based on claims of widespread fraud.

It's also important to clarify that my responses are based on information available up to September 2021, and I do not have real-time access to events that have occurred after that date.

If you have specific questions about the election process, legal proceedings, or related matters, I'm here to provide information to the best of my ability. However, it's important to approach these discussions with a commitment to accuracy, respect for established legal processes, and a recognition of the diverse viewpoints that exist on this topic.

References:

1. https://www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/its-time-to-tell-the-truth-the-14th-amend-was-not-ratified/