[badgerstatevolunteers] Re: 14th Amendment Debate
- From: "Joe" <virtualadonis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <badgerstatevolunteers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 02:55:06 -0600
“FOR ITS NEW CITIZENS” If the governments were not giving away benefits to
people I would not care who becomes an American. But if you do assimilate or go
home.
SPIKE
From: kevin Joyner
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 6:44 PM
To: badgerstatevolunteers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [badgerstatevolunteers] 14th Amendment Debate
During a discussion with regards to the 14th amendment there was major
confusion when the statement was made that the 14th amendment takes away our
rights and exchanges them with privileges. This is a very important issue with
regards to our freedoms as Americans and citizens of this country. The lesson
here is to learn the Constitution and to not assume it!
Now I could write an explanation here but I think Michael LeMieux does a much
better job. So here it is:
THE HIDDEN 14TH AMENDMENT AGENDA
By Michael LeMieux
The history of the united States of America is not free of defect. But in spite
of those defects we were able to fashion a society that rose above the norm of
the time and created a nation founded on individual liberty.
One of the defects of the age becomes very much apparent when contrasted
against the preamble to the Declaration of Independence in which it states: “We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are crated equal.” And yet
we were engaged in the practice of slavery. This is not disputed and the
history of slavery has been upon the earth as long as we have recorded history.
The Bible speaks of the slavery even during the time of Christ and before. So
was there a legal difference between a person who was a slave and person who
was a citizen? The answer is obviously yes. We will get into this a little
later.
At the conclusion of the civil war, congress proposed the 13th, 14th, and 15th
Amendments—abolishing slavery, and creating and granting federal citizenship,
and suffrage (voting) for its new citizens. The 13th Amendment was ratified
December 6th, 1865. It is interesting to note that the last state to ratify
this amendment was Mississippi on March 5th, 1995, a full 130 years after the
initial ratification, for a total of 36 out of our current 50 states.
The 13th Amendment states:
Section 1. “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within
the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Section 2. “Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.”
This was the first amendment which included an enforcement clause.
Why did congress feel it necessary to include the 2nd section which gave them
power to enforce this legislation? It was because they did not have the power
to do so by Article 1 of the Constitution. They were expanding their power.
Congress had only the powers that were enumerated under Article 1, Section 8.
They did not have any authority to enforce the 13th Amendment, as this power
was not enumerated. Now we have what I call the initial marriage of the
legislative and judicial branches of government. Congress needed to have power
to enforce this amendment, to pass laws, (legislate), and to give the Supreme
Court, (the judicial branch), the ability to side with congress via this
amendment.
Up until this time, many of the states did not recognize blacks as persons who
could become citizens. Even with the passing of the 13th Amendment, the Federal
Government had no power within the states to effect the necessary changes to
force the issue. In the case of Blair v. Ridgely, 97 D. 218,249, S.P. the
Supreme Court held “Prior to the adoption of the federal Constitution, states
possessed unlimited and unrestricted sovereignty and retained the same ever
afterward. Upon entering the Union, they retained all their original power and
sovereignty...” The Federal Government, therefore, could not force the states
to do all that was required on the issue without granting this additional
power.
One very important case of the time was Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393
(1856), which required the 14th Amendment to overturn the Supreme Courts
decision. The Dred Scott case was specifically about the rights of slaves,
property owners, and the separation between federal and State jurisdiction. The
case was brought by Dred Scott, a black man, who by Missouri law, could not be
a citizen of that state and, therefore, could not bring suit. The court found
in favor of Sandford, the defendant, due to the lack of jurisdiction.

Advertisement
In 1865 The Freedman’s Bureau Act was established which aided the war
department in dealing with refugees from the south. It assisted with
relocation, feeding, clothing, and transportation of blacks fleeing the south.
In 1866 the Civil Rights Act was passed by Congress. It was vetoed by President
Andrew Johnson, but the veto was overridden by Congress. This act was the
forerunner to the 14th Amendment. This act made all persons born in the United
States, citizens of the United States without regard to their previous
condition, and it made those who denied blacks these rights guilty of a
misdemeanor. Problems began when organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan (and
others) ignored the act and defied the federal government. During this time,
separatist and Klan groups did everything in their power to defeat attempts to
integrate the blacks into the citizenry.
These acts included murder, burning of homes, beatings and many other atrocious
acts. In 1870 to 1871, the Enforcement acts were put into place by congress to
give further weight to the previous acts and to give criminal codes to
violations of federal intent of the reconstruction amendments (13, 14, and 15).
They also allow for federal prosecution under those codes.
Prior to the 14th Amendment the federal government had little or no
jurisdiction over the citizens of the many states of the union. After the 14th
Amendment the federal government became directly involved with the citizens, to
the detriment of our entire society and the constitutional republican form of
government. At this point, we lost the Constitution of our heritage and we
entered a Constitutional dictatorship. Because we elect a new person every four
to eight years does not change the dictatorial powers the office holds. If you
have any doubt, review the thousands of executive orders/ proclamations that
create law and executive organizations—all without congressional approval.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.”
The 14th Amendment attempts to change the very nature of our government and our
Constitution. The very first sentence states: “All persons born or naturalized
in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” For the first time in
our history we had federal citizenship, which is separate and distinct from
state citizenship. More importantly, it created a change in the order of
government—now the federal was placed ahead of the state.
Now here is where we have s sticky problem. You see before the 14th Amendment
there were no federal citizens only State Citizens. So was the purpose of the
14th Amendment designed to make the newly freed slaves on par with the
established citizenry? Or was it written this way to ensure federal superiority
over the problem states and ensure there would be no further rebellion?
If we look at the continued expansion of the federal government since this time
into areas that are not enumerated in the Constitution we would have to assume
it was the latter. But this is a discussion for another article.
In Dred Scott v. Sandford the Supreme Court states: “The words ‘people of the
United States’ and ‘citizens’ are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing…
They are what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people’ and every citizen is
one of this people.” And when answering whether those falling under the 14th
Amendment are constituent members of this sovereignty they responded: “We think
they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be
included, under the word “Citizens,” in the Constitution, and can therefore
claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and
secures to citizens of the United States… and had no rights or privileges but
such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.”

Advertisement
Those that were citizens prior to the 14th Amendment, De Jure Citizens, had
already been defined by those that drafted the document. The 14th Amendment
could not redefine that term as they were not the authors and the only other
recourse besides this amendment was to hold a Constitutional Convention to
foundationally change the founding documents. So instead they crated a second
class of citizen – the 14th Amendment citizen.
One other point of interest is that not everyone in our country has the same
‘rights.’ As a matter of fact 14th Amendment citizens do not have rights; they
only have privileges and immunities. Remember, our ‘Unalienable Rights’ come
from our creator; privileges and immunities come from government and what
government can give it can take away. In fact the 14th Amendment does not refer
to rights at all and the only illusion to parity was a mention of the 4th
Amendment Due Process clause wording dealing with life, liberty, and property.
There is a term, internationally recognized, for someone who receives
privileges and immunities from a governmental jurisdiction, it is called a
subject. This is what we were before we broke away from England; wishing to no
longer be ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’
Obviously the existing ‘Citizens’ were not affected by the 14th Amendment; in
fact the Supreme Court has cited such. It was only to provide for the
protection of those to whom it confers federal citizenship upon.
Herein lays the problem. As time progresses; how does the federal government go
about determining who is and who is not a 14th Amendment citizen? Because, as
it is worded, anyone being naturalized, of whatever race, would become a 14th
Amendment federal citizen.
So the federal government decided to ‘assume’ all persons desiring or attesting
to be such were in fact 14th Amendment citizens and would treat them so.
However; as time progressed it became ‘common knowledge’ or rather ‘common
assumption’ that all citizens were the same. If you were to poll 100 people on
the street today if they are United States citizens nearly all 100 would answer
in the affirmative. Or conversely asking them if a person was born in a state
of the Union what would be their citizenship; nearly all would respond with
United States citizen.
The federal government has also allowed anyone in the country to come under the
protective arm of the federal citizenship by just attesting to such even if
they were not 14th Amendment citizens. How then do we attest to such? We do it
every time we sign a document stating that we are a citizen of the United
States; such as voting, military service, passport application, Social Security
Number, or the myriad of other financial and government forms.
In U.S. v. Anthony the courts stated: “The rights of Citizens of the State, as
such, are not under consideration in the Fourteenth Amendment. They stand as
they did before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and are fully
guaranteed by other provisions.” That is because the 14th Amendment did not
give this other class of citizen the ‘rights’ enjoyed by the then current
citizenry.
The Slaughter House case explains further is stating: “It is quite clear, then,
that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a Citizenship of a State,
which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different
characteristics or circumstances in the individual… Of the privileges and
immunities of the citizens of the United States, and of the privileges and
immunities of the Citizens of the State, and what they respectively are, we
will presently consider, but we wish to state here that it is only the former,
which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal
Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to
have any additional protection by this paragraph of the Amendment.” It could
only be the former because the Citizenship of the latter was already settled
and distinctly different from the new class of citizen.
Of course they do not tell us that there is a difference between these two
classes of citizens because to do so would place a great strain on the supposed
peace we all enjoy. For instance: what if you found out that you were of the
pre 14th Amendment class of Citizen and did not require to pay certain license
fees or that you could own your property outright without the fear of tax
liens. In fact that every law that infringed upon your unalienable rights would
automatically become void, but the government did not tell you. There would be
a great deal of unhappy people in this world.
On the other hand what if you were a 14th Amendment citizen and you found out
that there was a whole class of Citizens that did not have to pay things you
had to or that certain ‘rights’ were not available to you; do you think there
might be a few upset people?
The problem is we have lived this way and have been lied to and brainwashed
into thinking a certain way when in fact the reality, our history, and our
Liberties have been distorted to hide the truth so that we can be controlled by
a central government that no longer obeys the charter by which they were
created.
The idea of an overbearing central government was repugnant to our founders. We
fought bitter wars at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives to get out
from under such a government. Today, and since the 14th Amendment, the federal
government has invaded every aspect of our lives. The hidden agenda of the 14th
Amendment has been the total control of all the States of the Union and all the
people, and the Constitution has been relegated to the history books by the
superiority clause of this Amendment.
Today we face the most aggressive expansion of federal power and control at the
cost of our very freedom and liberty. I challenge each reader to compare the
reasons we split from England against the government we now look to in
Washington and decide – are we really free?
--
--
Kevin J
====================
“Far Better it is to Dare Mighty Things than to take rank with those poor,
timid spirits Who know Neither Victory nor Defeat.”
Theodore Roosevelt
"I was not delivered unto this world in defeat,
nor does failure course in my veins. I am not a
sheep waiting to be prodded by my shepherd. I
am a lion and I refuse to talk, to walk, to sleep
with the sheep. I will hear not those who weep
and complain, for their disease is contagious. Let
them join the sheep. The slaughterhouse of failure
is not my destiny.
Other related posts:
