14th Amendment are you Pro or Con and why?

part 1

• Here's something I found that explains my position even better than I could; Part 1
  The problem with the 14th Amendment is the premise under it that imply's; "WE ARE ALL U.S. citizens, under the 14th amendment. There are NO STATE Citizens." That, and that alone gives the Federal Government the FALSE and UNENUMERATED authority to do what they want. Given the Language of the Constitution and the meanings that prevailed then, that statement can not be construed as a legally valid statement! 
  Strictly speaking the 14th Amendment was the one that Quietly took away states Rights and was Unconstitutionally passed. 
  The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution should be held ineffective, invalid, and unconstitutional for the following reasons:
  1. The Joint Resolution proposing said amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress per Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U. S. Constitution.
  2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article I, Section 7 of the U. S. Constitution.
  3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one-fourth of all the States then in the Union, and it was never ratified by three-fourths of all the States in the Union as required by Article V of the U. S. Constitution. The federal courts are not ready to give consideration to the subject, because the U. S. Supreme Court and inferior courts have used the the 14th Amendment to enlarge upon their ungranted powers without limit or reserve. To read a complete treatise on this and on the most comprehensive research and documentation of every angle in the unlawful procedures, check out this link;http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html it's a long but informative read.
  
  Consider this about the flawed ratification of the 14th amendment as the most critical points cited in the article;
  A) New Jersey was disenfranchised in the Senate by having its lawfully elected Senator accepted, and then rejected, and without a 2/3rds vote;
  B) Oregon's faulty ratification vote with unlawful state legislators being allowed to cast votes; and the lawfully constituted state legislature then rejecting the Fourteenth, but too late.
  C) Non-republican [Reconstruction] governments of the southern States imposed by military force and fiat, cannot ratify anything. Either the Fourteenth is legal and the anti-slavery amendment is not, or the anti-slavery amendment is legal and the Fourteenth is not. 
  
  Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution provides two things; Every bill which shall have been passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States Congress, AND:
  "Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him shall be re-passed by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill." 
  The Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment (http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html#cite9 ) was never presented to the President of the United States for his approval, as President Andrew Johnson stated in his message on June 22, 1866 (http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html#cite9 ). 
  Therefore, the Joint Resolution did not take effect.
  
  It may be helpful to know that the 14th amendment proclamations of July 20, 1868, (http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html#cite51 ), and July 28, 1868, (http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html#cite53), were issued as Presidential Executive Orders.
  
  Presidential Executive Order No. 6 **, issued July 20, 1868. Ratification of the 14th Amendment certified as valid, provided the consent of Ohio and New Jersey be deemed as remaining in force despite subsequent withdrawal. **Signed by William H. Seward, Secretary of State. Has the form of a proclamation.
  
  Presidential Executive Order No. 7 **, issued July 28, 1868. 14th Amendment certified as in effect and ordered published. **Signed by William H. Seward, Secretary of State.
  
  From Presidential Executive Order Title List -- Presidential Executive Orders, 2 vols. (N.Y.: Books, Inc., 1944 Copyright by Mayor of N.Y. 1944), vol. 1, pp. 1-2.
  
  In this light the 14th (amendment), which has perplexed many, is an Executive Order, not an (Article) of Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America, albeit a statute and so remains an Executive Order.
  ( above information is from barefootsworld.net research pages and reposted here for general information and education on the subject).
  
  Another challenge to the Article V Constitutionality of the Ratification of the 14th Amendment under it's requirements is that it only permits Congress to propose amendments whenever two thirds of both houses deem it necessary. that can and should be considered as two thirds of both houses as they were constituted before the forcible ejections caused by Reconstruction laws. Add to that, Congress violated Constitutional Requirements by depriving the Southern States of their equal suffrage in the Senate (The provision is; " no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." )and there are no exceptions to that in the article one's Constitutional Language, therefore it was forbidden for the then 'fragmentary congress' to do that. In fact the plain language within the Article is incontrovertible and not open to interpretation. It is not in the purview of Courts, or the Legislative bodies of either Federal or State governments to alter the fixed Constitutional methods of proper legal ratification of an Amendment.
  
  Neither you, nor a court, nor a legislative body, can raise an illegally proposed or illegally ratified amendment to the force of legal authority as part and parcel of the constitution if it is not legally ratified by any of the methods required by Article V. There is no such thing as an Amendment by congressional waiver, nor by Laches ( failure to do something at the proper time, especially such delay that will bar a party from bringing a legal proceeding). Congress cannot acquiesce an amendment into being, in fact you cannot give an amendment power by any means but the specific means set down in Article V of the Constitution.
  
  

   

  Part 2;

  When the mandatory provisions of the Constitution are violated, the Constitution itself strikes with nullity the Act that did violence to its provisions. Thus, the Constitution strikes with nullity the purported 14th Amendment.
  The Courts, bound by oath to support the Constitution, should review all of the evidence herein submitted and measure the facts proving violations of the mandatory provisions of the Constitution with Article V, and finally render judgment declaring said purported amendment never to have been adopted as required by the Constitution.
  The Constitution makes it the sworn duty of the judges to uphold the Constitution which strikes with nullity the 14th Amendment.
  And, as Chief Justice Marshall pointed out for a unanimous Court in Marbury v. Madison (1 Cranch 136 at 179):
  "The framers of the constitution contemplated the instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature."
  "Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government?"
  "If such be the real state of things, that is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime."
  "Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
  The federal courts actually refuse to hear argument on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment, even when the issue is presented squarely by the pleadings and the evidence as above.
  Only an aroused public sentiment in favor of preserving the Constitution and our institutions and freedoms under constitutional government, and the future security of our country, will break the political barrier which now prevents judicial consideration of the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment.

  A background on the 14th including the intent as stated by Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th and was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan. 

  ( http://www.14thamendment.us/amendment/14th_amendment.html ) What are your views? Should it be "Repealed", or should "the Supreme Courts added intent of birthright citizenship for a child having "Foreign National Parents illegally in this country", by the highly Liberal Earl Warren Court be removed from it?" 

  
  The Tradesman