The Fourteenth Amendment: Pure Evil?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Here are some good links discussing the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php
http://www.parascope.com/articles/0397/tax_01.htm
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personho...ammerstrom.pdf
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=282
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/healy1.html
http://www.etherzone.com/2002/burn110802.shtml
http://www.usa-the-republic.com/reve...ory/Chap6.html

In short, it seems clear that the 14th Amendment is in fact the means by which our Constitutional Republic has been undermined and replaced with an all-powerful Federal Government, and the means by which the "unalienable rights" claimed by the Declaration of Independence have been thrown away.

[Morgan_Freeman]

These are of particular interest:

Quote by: Original Intent Treatise Errant Position #8: The 14th Amendment prevents the states of the Union from infringing upon various rights held by all Americans. Truth: This argument is flawed on a number of self-evident levels. As has been earlier noted, the 14th Amendment did not vest white citizens with any rights, and only vested the recently freed slaves (i.e. "citizens of the United States") with very limited rights. The only rights that can be protected by the federal government under the authority of the Amendment are those rights given by the Amendment. As has been previously covered in this treatise, true American citizens have "inalienable rights", which come from God, not government. Is it then supposed that somehow, 78 years after our nation was founded, the 14th Amendment suddenly gave us our rights? Some would say that the 14th Amendment simply prevented the states from infringing on the privileges and immunities clause [Article IV, Section 2], and the due process provision of the 5th Amendment. This silly theory is also easily debunked. The federal Constitution is a contract between all the states of Union. In Article IV, Section 2 of the main body of the Constitution, we find the privileges and immunities clause: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. This was one of the pivotal sections of the Constitution under review in Dred. There was/is no question that no state was at liberty to infringe on this provision, and if a state did so, there was no question that such a violation would raise a "federal Constitutional question" which would be heard by a federal court. In other words, the revisionist history claim that the 14th Amendment was needed to protect white state citizens from state abridgment of the privileges and immunities clause, is baseless and without a shred of merit. The issue was not that an amendment was needed to protect white state citizens of the day from state abridgement of the privileges and immunities clause; the issue was that the recently freed black slaves needed to be granted some form of citizenship so that they too could enjoy some level of protection from state action. The due process argument is just as vapid and meritless. Every state of the Union had/has a due process clause in their constitutions. Under the federal privileges and immunities clause [main body, not 14th Amendment], the right of due process would be secured to every American citizen traveling throughout the country. That was indeed the purpose of the privileges and immunities clause. Once again, the problem was not that white citizens were without "due process" as they traveled from state to state, or that the federal government was not Constitutionally authorized to rectify state abridgements of due process rights. It was that the recently freed black slaves were not considered citizens - and therefore the protections of the privileges and immunities clause and due process did not apply to them. As you can clearly see, white citizens did not need the 14th Amendment. Their protections were quite secure. The 14th Amendment was a grant of a special form of citizenship to the recently freed slaves (and their posterity), and also contained the framework of rights and protections that would be a part of this new type of citizenship.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: U.S.A. -- The Republic -- How You Lost It Before the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, Americans were called Citizens (with a capitlal "C") of the united States of America. (American Citizen, or American, for short) If you were born in America, you were born a sovereign with inalienable rights. It was a common understanding among the people. Up until then, slavery was still accepted in America. Slaves were not Citizens, state or national, but were merely considered the personal 'property' of the slave holders. The 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865, just 3 years before the 14th. The 13th amendment abolished slavery. But that created a new problem. The newly freed slaves were not citizens of any state or country, because they were just property, and property did not have citizenship. To solve the problem, the 14th amendment was passed. This amendment created a new class of citizenship. This new class was legally called: 'United States citizen', (with a small "c"). NOT 'United States of America Citizen', but just 'United States citizen'. Notice that the U.S. citizen is spelled with a lower case 'c'. This is to show a lower class of citizenship. This class of citizen (U.S. citizen) is a privilege granted by the federal government, and not a sovereign inalienable right. From Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition: Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states; ... The first part of this amendment says that '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. We just learned that jurisdiction implies superiority of power, so is a United States citizen superior to the government? NO! The roles are reversed. Notice this does not say they are citizens of the United States 'of America'. Just the 'United States'. Is there a difference? Let's check it out. First, what is a 'person'? There are legally two kinds of 'persons'. First there is the 'natural person' with inalienable rights. This is a flesh and blood human being, the sovereign individual. Second, there is just the term 'person'. When just the term 'person' is used, and not 'natural person', it means an artificial person, such as a corporation, trust, government, etc. A human being can be both a natural person and an artificial person at the same time. How do you tell the difference? It is as simple as whether you spell your name in all capital letters or not. More on this in a bit. The important thing to remember at this point is that artificial persons are property. Property in Latin is res. Property located in a certain territory, would be its place of residence. So property (res) belonging to and located in the State of Colorado, would be 'resident' of the state. Are you a resident of a state or of the United States? ... IRC 7701(10) State. The term "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title. When definition statutes are issued with the word "includes" it means that only the items or categories listed in the definition are included, everything else is excluded. The District of Columbia is a political state of the United States. It is property of the federal government, just like the U.S. possessions like Guam and the Virgin Islands are. Since the 50 states are not mentioned in the definition of state, they are not included.Why? Because the jurisdiction of the United States government, for income tax purposes, includes only areas under its jurisdiction, as stated in the Constitution. The 50 states are separate sovereign states, according to the state constitutions, and therefore would not come under the geographical jurisdiction of the United States federal government, a corporation. As you saw above, the 14th amendment created citizens who WERE under the jurisdiction of the federal government! ... Legal scholars have argued that the Constitution only limited the powers of the federal government, not the state governments, so this was added in the 14th amendment to restrict the power of the states. Sounds good, doesn't it? But don't the constitutions of the 50 states already protect the inalienable rights of the state Citizens? They sure do! Do they need a national constitutional amendment to make them uphold their own state constitutions? Only if the state constitutions were no longer valid. Is your state constitution still valid? Yes. But, the truth is, state constitutions do NOT apply to federal 'property' (U.S. citizens). ... The United States 'government' has jurisdiction only over areas delegated to it by the states and over property acquired by conquest. The state governments also, only have jurisdiction over the areas delegated to them by the state Citizens. Do the people control the government or does the government control the people? Can the government exercise powers not delegated to them? No. The problem is that you DID give them the power, when you waived your inalienable rights and claimed to be a U.S. citizen, subject to their jurisdiction. They just dangled a few carrots (federal benefits, ie: Social Security) over your nose and you grabbed them and asked to be a subject, so you could get MORE benefits. The states did the same thing, so they could get subsidies also. ... The states each had their own constitutions. But the jurisdictional powers delegated in these state constitutions also only applied to 'government' property in the states, not to the sovereign 'territory' of the states. So the 'United States citizens' were also citizens of the corporate state governments, (not of the sovereign states themselves) and were not protected by the state constitutions. They technically became dual 'property'. They were property (persons - residents) of the state government and of the federal government. Today, all state governments are corporations, not sovereign states. They are just sub-corporations of the federal government, and therefore are under the jurisdiction of the federal government. They have traded their sovereignty for federal subsidies, just like you have traded your sovereignty for the privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship under the 14th Amendment! ... On the other hand, if you are a United States citizen, then you have no constitution to protect you, only your civil rights. And those civil rights do not prevent the federal government from taxing your income directly, without apportionment. This is possible because states CAN directly tax their citizens property. So if you are a U.S. citizen, you are in effect the citizen of the state of Washington D.C. And that state can tax its citizen's property directly. Remember the definition of "State" above, from the Internal Revenue Code? A state is the District of Columbia. The IRC applies to this state and not to the 50 states.

...

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: The Great American Tax $windle I knew there had to be an explanation for how the IRS could make their income tax stick. While reviewing my research material, I remembered the definition of "internal" and "external" tax. After remembering that "internal" taxes originate from within the States and that "external" taxes originate from the Federal government, it dawned on me that there was a problem with the Federal "internal" income tax. I had to dig through the Constitution to find the answer. It took several months of digging and reading, but over time I found several Supreme Court cases that hinted that something was going on which enabled the Federal government to bypass the Constitution, to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court. But how could this legally be done? The door finally opened when I read Downes v. Bidwell, in which Justice Harlan explained the existence of two national governments. A quick rereading of the Constitution allowed me to locate the loophole. I now realized that the Federal income tax was, in essence, a tax on the incomes of citizens of the District government -- that is, Washington D.C. and its Territories, such as Guam, Puerto Rico and Wake Island. But how could Citizens of the States be classified as Federal citizens, and when did this happen? The answer is rooted in the 14th Amendment, which apparently was never ratified, but nevertheless holds full force and effect of law. The 14th Amendment, which was drafted and "ratified" specifically for the purpose of granting 2nd class federal citizenship for the freed slaves, has been deliberately misconstrued to assume that all Americans become Federal citizens. This Amendment gave Federal District citizenship to those persons, namely those of African blood who were slaves, but who did not qualify for State citizenship under existing law. Since the Federal Congress has Absolute Legislative power over Federal (District) citizens, it can rule over them the same way each State can rule within their borders. But Congress has one additional advantageous power that the States do not have. The Bill of Rights does not apply to 14th Amendment district citizens. (This prompted the creation of Civil Rights for Federal citizens, but still does not guarantee even the most basic Constitutional protections.)

...

[Milton Bradley]

Since good men would not them enslave the Black man, they decided to enslave all men.


Since these laws are unconstitutional, (this is what the Federal government was supposed to protect us from) and carried out by people sworn to public oaths, where is our recourse as Citizens?


It is probably important to note that all guilty parties involved in this, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, are all Republican, Democrat, Progressive, and Socialist party members. There are no trerasonous Libertarians in that mix. Virtually all of the Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Democrats, and Republicans.

[Dan_77]

Morgan, the sites you have quoted are anti-tax and anti-government conspiracy theorists.

You seem to not realize that anyone can post anything on the internet regardless of whether it is true or not. Why don't you try reading an actual authority on the law to find out what the Constitution really says? Some suggestions... try reading some law reviews on topics like the 14th amendment. My school (University at Buffalo Law School) has some excellent ones. Internet sources are worth about as much as the paper they're printed on (get it?).

Hierarchy of Legal Authority:

1) Primary Authority (the LAW itself - written in law recorders like United States Code Annotated, McKinney's Laws of New York, United States Reports, etc) - The only authority accepted as fact in a court of law.

2) Secondary Authority (what someone who is a peer-reviewed expert SAYS is the law - law reviews, legal encyclopedias) - good for research, building court arguments, not accepted in court as the law.

3) Tertiary Authority (everything else - internet, word of mouth, lay opinions) - basically worthless for any legal discussion or court.

[Chalk]

EVERY damn source is biased. What is with everyone going crazy over 'invalid' sources lately..

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Morgan, the sites you have quoted are anti-tax and anti-government conspiracy theorists.

Guess what, you're speaking to an anti-tax and anti-government conspiracy theorist.

Quote by: tivodan1116 You seem to not realize that anyone can post anything on the internet regardless of whether it is true or not.

If you have a specific claim to debunk, go ahead and do so.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Why don't you try reading an actual authority on the law to find out what the Constitution really says?

I have a copy of the Constitution at hand, I can see very clearly what it says.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Internet sources are worth about as much as the paper they're printed on (get it?).

On the contrary. The most honest, in-depth, critical sources I know of can only be found online.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Hierarchy of Legal Authority: etc,etc

All right then. Why don't you present me with the legal authority that the Federal Government has to levy an income tax?

[Osborn F Enready]

As much as I would like to debate this issue, I don't think anyone in Volconvo has the education or the intrest needed to step up to the plate on this issue.

Hard for me to offer counter debate Morgan, since I agree completely.

[belverron]

I'm bookmarking this page so I can read all of your links when I make time. Thanks, Morgan!

[belverron]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman If you have a specific claim to debunk, go ahead and do so.

Absolutely agreed. If you can't find something wrong with the source's content, by no means should you simnply dismiss the source. It's annoying. If you don't want to debate it, dont'.

[belverron]

Quote by: Constitutions You will note that in Bouvier's definition, nothing appears about regulating Citizens. That is because, at least in a free nation, it is The People, in agreement with each other, who create the Constitution for the sole purpose of establishing, defining, and limiting the scope of government.

Quote by: Constitutions When all is said and done, the underlying purpose of a Constitution is to keep the ways of men in check.

The first website you posted said I should read "Citizenship" and "Constitutions" first. So I did. It seems a little inconsistent, wouldn't you say?

Quote by: Citizenship The meaning of the phrase "Citizen of the United States" is well understood. That phrase is shorthand for the sentence, "All the Citizens of the 13 independent nations [called "states"] that are a party to this Constitution".

This is a lot to swallow in an afternoon.

Quote by: 14th Amendment Clarified This is a statement that requires a little deeper digging to understand.

By which they mean to say, "We're gong to have to work really hard to make these facts seem to support us."

[RickSp]

I remain unconvinced regarding the "evil" of the 14th Amendment. The "Original Intent" site is one where I find myself either disagreeing every third paragraph or at least questioning his rambling discussions of citizenship and so on. It reads like Badnarik.

The Hammerstrom article argues not that the 14th Amendment is bad, but merely ineffective, a very different point from the "Original-intent" rambler. The DiLorenzo link strikes me as typically DiLorenzo, incomplete and badly argued. I find the Healy argument better and interesting but somehow missing the basic point. The USA-the-Republic link seems to be written buy the same person who wrote the "Original Intent" rambles, or if not they seem to be smoking the same substance.

I agree that the 14th Amendment has been used to eggregiously expand the power of government, which is obviously not a good thing. On the other hand, I doubt that the 13th Amendment would necessarily mean much without the 14th. I also find that extending the Bill of Rights to the states to be not a terrible thing. Personally I generally agree with Cato's Roger Pilon's views on the 14th.

Under any circumstances I do find the description - Pure Evil to apply more to a slasher movie than to the 14th Amendment.

[twoanickel]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Since good men would not them enslave the Black man, they decided to enslave all men. Since these laws are unconstitutional, (this is what the Federal government was supposed to protect us from) and carried out by people sworn to public oaths, where is our recourse as Citizens? It is probably important to note that all guilty parties involved in this, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial, are all Republican, Democrat, Progressive, and Socialist party members. There are no trerasonous Libertarians in that mix. Virtually all of the Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Democrats, and Republicans.

Since the war for Southern Independence, the federal government has kept us under the war powers act which superceded the constitution. The legislators inside the beltway are now openly saying that we do not have a constitution. Even Henry Hyde, normally very conservative, has openly ridiculed the idea that we ae under constitutional law. During the conflict of the 1860s, the federal government enjoyed the greater powers they granted themselves on the basis of the war and they have since then ruled the USA according to the war powers act. Ocassionally they mention the constitution with only the intent of keeping us ALL on their plantation. Rather than extending real freedom to the enslaved, they extended enslavement to everyone. Before anyone ridicules this post, they should first read the war powers act. Until recently, the War Powers Act was kept alive by the annual signing to extend it; but the last time, Bush announced that by executive order he was dispensing with the necessity of signing it to keep it in effect. Now it is extended to be in effect without remission. I know that a lot of people who read this are lazy and will much prefer to ridiculte rather than investigate. That spirit of laziness is necessary if we are to be obedient and faithful to our slavemasters.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: twoanickel Before anyone ridicules this post, they should first read the war powers act. Until recently, the War Powers Act was kept alive by the annual signing to extend it; but the last time, Bush announced that by executive order he was dispensing with the necessity of signing it to keep it in effect. Now it is extended to be in effect without remission.

I have a feeling we are on the same page, twoanickel. But do you have a reference to support this allegation?

Are you familiar with this resource: http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep.html

[twoanickel]

[QUOTE=PatrickHenry]

Quote by: twoanickel Before anyone ridicules this post, they should first read the war powers act. Until recently, the War Powers Act was kept alive by the annual signing to extend it; but the last time, Bush announced that by executive order he was dispensing with the necessity of signing it to keep it in effect. Now it is extended to be in effect without remission.

I have a feeling we are on the same page, twoanickel. But do you have a reference to support this allegation? Are you familiar with this resource: http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep.html [quote]

Do a google search for War Powers Act

[twoanickel]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Quote by: twoanickel Before anyone ridicules this post, they should first read the war powers act. Until recently, the War Powers Act was kept alive by the annual signing to extend it; but the last time, Bush announced that by executive order he was dispensing with the necessity of signing it to keep it in effect. Now it is extended to be in effect without remission. I have a feeling we are on the same page, twoanickel. But do you have a reference to support this allegation? Are you familiar with this resource: http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep.html

No, I had not read barefootsworld, but after checking, I find that my reference to our loss of constitutional law was not by the war powers act. That was in 1973. What I was referring rto was really Admiralty Law of which barefootsworld (dot com.) speaks. I apologize for misleading anyone. Also--I understand that the intent of people in government from even earlier than the civil war were making preparations to foist Admiralty Law upon this country. The aim of the Lewis and Clark expedition was to legally establish maritime law, which they accomplished by moving that large boat across the continent. An interesting note is that courts of law today have notice of "high water mark" at court locations. I remember seeing that notice on the court house grounds in Lamesa, Texas when I was a kid, and I thought, "strange that a high water mark would be found on the plains of Texas." The signifigance of the high water mark, of course, is to establish that court as a point where boats could be docked and those on board could be tried under admiralty law. I still haven't read barefootsworld website, so I may be repeating what he has said, butr I understand that American citizens on the terms of admiralty law have no more rights than the rights sea captains are pleased to grant to a ship's occupants and crew. Enough jabbering from me. I encourage everyone to check out the website, barefootsworld recommended by Patrick Henry. Another name that is interesting and is available on the internet is Ralph Winterroad.