[badgerstatevolunteers] Re: 14th Amendment Debate

  • From: "Joe" <virtualadonis@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <badgerstatevolunteers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2011 15:18:24 -0600

We are on the same page here. They are God given rights because that is the 
only kind. However most of the world does not agree. Hence people have to come 
to the US to get it; hell we don’t even have it anymore. All I am saying is if 
you want come here so you can enjoy liberty and freedom, don’t come here and 
subvert and work against what you came to get. That includes being an illegal. 
If they cannot agree to that then change their own country. 

lomax yes all that needs to stop. Government does not have the authority to 
redistribute wealth in any capacity. From each according to his ability to each 
according to his needs is not freedom.

From: kevin Joyner 
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 8:38 AM
To: badgerstatevolunteers@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Cc: lomax 
Subject: [badgerstatevolunteers] Re: 14th Amendment Debate

Spike,  go back and re-read it until you finally get the point.  As many times 
as it may take.  

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 7:18 AM, lomax <chac2ook@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

  I know we've touched on this "benefits" subject before a bit, and yes, they 
give away the store, but I think that first and foremost, before we cut 
domestic spending, what about the billions in foreign aid we dole out to people 
that hate us and have absolutely no desire to become an American? Once we've 
cut that, then let's attack the domestic issue. 

  On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 2:55 AM, Joe <virtualadonis@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    “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 


    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:
    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 
    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.
    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 
    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 
    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.”
    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 
    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 

    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.


  freeman lomax

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: