No. The several States are administrative subdivisions of the federal government.
Slavery is still slavery. An adjective simply acts to reduce the population. As in 'all men' as opposed to 'all short men'.
Your short sightedness is going to lead you to poor decisions. You admitted yourself that the 14th amendment makes a new class called a 'subject'. Do old rules apply to something newly created?
No. Rather it is an example of the trouble you may find yourself in by relying upon legislation. Here is another one. County attorneys were eliminated in Iowa in 1971 by constitutional amendment. Why does each county still have an attorney on the payroll?
YET BY A STRANGE COINCIDENCE THAT YOU HAVE NEVER BOTHERED TO EXPLAIN ... WHY IS THE ORGANIC NATIONAL DEBT FIXED AT $346,681,016??
If it speaks to you then that is proof you are delusional.
Specifically? Right here:
"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."
Do YOU understand that CIVILIZATION is the process of making a common law crime civil?
I am not TALKING at all!!!
I suppose you are touting this as a BENEFIT?
"MEANS OF DEBATE"? Do we need MEANS to debate?
I am not as nice as you!!!
Is DUE PROCESS under the 14th amendment the same as DUE PROCESS under the 5th amendment?
Thank you for making my point. If DUE PROCESS had applied to 14th amendment 'citizens' (aka freed slaves) there would be no need to repeat the concept would there?
So now you actually come out and admit that the 14th amendment forms a new government with none of the baggage of the organic constitution? SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING ON ABOUT TWITT?
This is a stupid statement that is false. There were many northern states that admitted blacks to citizenship. NONE OF THEM ADDRESSED A SEPARATE CITIZENSHIP CLASS CONSISTING OF FREED SLAVE NEGROES. You were either a citizen or you were not. Your attempt to characterize government acts lacks merit and is ABRASIVE.
Reverting to your religious source again?
Duhhhhh!!!! 1866 ... 1868 ... old government.... new government ... can't even follow this simple topic?
I don't debate the insane. I might be mistaken as one myself.
Keep studying your statutes and you will find that it is you that is in over his head!!!!