Readers:  It is very important that you scroll through the next few pages and read about the amendments to which we are referring as they are explained in detail from various sources!

The 14th Amendment

Source Heritage Organization:
​
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/9-things-know-about-birthright-citizenship?mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWkdaalpXWTJPV1l4WmpRMSIsInQiOiJmWGhUTDRmbnlJTHVcL0E1M245d0FHRGgxZXd4XC9rbE1qSVcxa2l4YmpcL2JCd0VuRDBDOEo1dWZ3NUFpcVJyenZBdlVmZnZrd1BjWHJ4Y1JSdmxmaTBWcjJzTDFTM0J3bnlLUTlBS2lQNk1JZ1JuZFBwSVwvSGQ4Y2k2Uko0dlZNcDQifQ%3D%3D 


9 Things to Know About Birthright Citizenship
President Donald Trump’s announcement that he’s considering an executive order on birthright citizenship has raised questions and much interest in the 14th Amendment. Here are some the basic things you should know about birthright citizenship.

1. 1. Universal birthright citizenship is a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment (“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.”) and is inconsistent with the intent of the amendment’s framers.
2. 2. Based on the legislative history at the time, the 14th Amendment’s framers intended to give citizenship only to those who owed their allegiance to the United States and were subject to its complete jurisdiction, primarily the newly freed slaves, who were lawful permanent residents. 
3. 3. Owing allegiance to the United States and being subject to its complete jurisdiction means being “not subject to any foreign power” and excludes those only temporarily present in the country. 
4. 4. Most legal arguments for universal birthright citizenship point to the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which challenged the government’s decision to deny re-entry to a U.S.-born child of foreign nationals who were legally present and permanently residing in the United States. 
5. 5. Wong Kim Ark stands only for the narrow proposition that the U.S.-born children of lawful permanent resident aliens are U.S. citizens. It says nothing with respect to the U.S.-born children of illegal or non-permanent resident aliens.
6. 6. In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
7. 7. American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.
8. 8. Neither the Supreme Court nor Congress has clarified that the U.S.-born children of illegal or non-permanent resident aliens are U.S. citizens; federal law (8 U.S.C. §1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment. 
9. 9. The president has the constitutional authority to direct executive agencies to act in accordance with the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause, and to direct agencies to issue passports, Social Security numbers, etc., only to those whose status as citizens is clear under the current law. 

Learn more about this issue:
Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment
The Case Against Birthright Citizenship
Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution
From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship
Should the Children of Illegal Aliens Be U.S. Citizens?
The Costs of Birthright Citizenship  

More studied opinions on Birthright Citizenship;
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/the-originalist-case-against-birthright-citizenship/?fbclid=IwAR2P5bbH57X6mVvofwboOwW-f9FTxo5RJ6FO7MnQpkVxLxPakhWawtlpYJk 

The 14th amendment is back doing harm!

Why should states that protect illegal immigrants be rewarded with more political power?
By Hans A. von Spakovsky | Fox News  June 4, 2018

Alabama has filed an unprecedented but little-noticed lawsuit against the U.S. Census Bureau. If the state wins, it could have major political ramifications and restore fundamental fairness in political representation in Congress.

Alabama is arguing that by including illegal immigrants in its count of the population, the Census Bureau deprives the state – and other states with low numbers of illegal immigrants – of representation in the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as votes in the Electoral College that determine who is elected president.

Conversely, the lawsuit argues, the practice of counting illegal immigrants in the census gives states that protect them (California, for example) seats and votes they are not entitled to have.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution provides that representatives in the House “shall be apportioned among the several States … according to their respective Numbers,” with the “Numbers” determined by “counting the whole number of persons in each State.”

After every census, House seats are reapportioned according to the population of each state. Electoral College votes are reapportioned according to the number of each state’s congressional representatives.

Alabama is right about the unfairness of the current system. Illegal immigrants, by definition, have no right to be in this country. It is unjust to allow states to gain a political advantage over other states by flouting federal immigration law.

The number of representatives in the House – 435 – has been fixed by law since 1910. So as Alabama says in its complaint, apportionment is “a zero sum proposition: Each state’s gain is another state’s loss.”

Alabama argues that by including illegal immigrants in apportionment, congressional seats and Electoral College votes are unfairly distributed.
Based on the 2010 Census, Louisiana, Missouri, and Ohio each lost a seat in the House and a vote in the Electoral College, while Montana failed to gain a seat and an electoral vote. By contrast, California gained two House seats and two Electoral College votes. And Florida and Texas each gained one seat and one vote.

As a result, says Alabama in its lawsuit: “four House seats and four Electoral College votes were redistributed by the inclusion of illegal aliens in the apportionment base in the 2000 Census.”

Alabama claims that including illegal immigrants in the 2020 Census will likely cause it to lose a congressional seat and an Electoral College vote. It says this “will rob the State of Alabama and its legal residents of their rightful share of representation.”

This also violates the “one person, one vote” equal representation standard of the 14th Amendment. According to Alabama, “the gains from including illegal aliens in the apportionment base flow to citizens who live in state with large numbers of illegal aliens.”

Why? Because it means that “in a state in which a large share of the population cannot vote, those who do vote count more than those who live in states where a larger share of the population is made up of American citizens.”

This results in “representational inequality” by devaluing the vote of Alabama’s legal residents. This redistribution of political power “disincentivizes states with large illegal alien populations from cooperating with federal immigration authorities (lest they lose political power that comes with additional representatives and votes in the Electoral College),” Alabama argues.

Moreover, including illegal immigrants in the census “punishes states who (sic) do cooperate with federal immigration authorities in the identification and removal” of illegal aliens, Alabama’s lawsuit states.

Alabama’s final complaint is monetary. Including illegal immigrants in the census, it says, will likely cause it to lose its fair share of the almost $700 billion distributed annually by the federal government in grants and other funds.

The key to Alabama’s case is the definition of “persons” who should be counted and thus used in apportionment. Alabama argues that the term “persons” was understood at the “time of the founding and when the 14th Amendment was ratified” to mean the inhabitants” of a state.

Furthermore, “in the public law of the founding era, the term ‘inhabitant’ did not encompass unlawful residents because inhabitance was a legal status that depended upon permission to settle granted by the sovereign nation in which an alien wished to reside,” Alabama argues.

In other words, “persons” does not include individuals who are in the U.S. illegally, without the permission of the federal government.
The “Residence” rule adopted by the Census Bureau for the 2020 census stipulates that foreign nationals will be counted and allocated to the state where their “usual residence” is located, regardless of whether they are legally present.

Alabama argues that the rule is unconstitutional. Moreover, it claims, the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is “arbitrary and capricious” and exceeds the Census Bureau’s statutory authority.

The last time the Supreme Court had a significant case involving the census was in 1999 in Department of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives. The justices concluded that the Census Bureau had to do an actual count of the population – it could not use statistical sampling.
In 2015 the Supreme Court held that states could use total population numbers – which includes illegal immigrants – in drawing the boundaries of legislative districts. But that case was about redistricting, not apportionment.

Does Alabama have a case? That will largely depend on whether it can convince the Supreme Court that its understanding of the historical definition of “persons” in the apportionment clause of the Constitution is correct. This is not an issue the Court has addressed before.
But regardless of the ultimate resolution of this novel legal argument, Alabama is right about the unfairness of the current system. Illegal immigrants, by definition, have no right to be in this country. It is unjust to allow states to gain a political advantage over other states by flouting federal immigration law, as California has done with its sanctuary policies and obstruction of federal enforcement.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.  He is the coauthor of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk” and “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department.”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/06/04/why-should-states-that-protect-illegal-immigrants-be-rewarded-with-more-political-power.html?cmpid=NL_opinion

THE 14th Amendment

The link to this website serves to explain the original intent of the Fourteenth (14th) Amendment to the US Constitution,
and how it is currently misinterpreted to give citizenship to children born in the United States of illegal alien
parents. These children, via their birthright citizenship, act as anchor babies and can, upon reaching the age of
majority, facilitate bringing their extended family into the US in order to obtain citizenship. Although some experts
believe that a Constitutional amendment would be necessary to remedy the misinterpretation, many believe that
Congressional action would be sufficient and is urgently warranted.

Original intent of the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of
the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration
Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent
U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by
definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was
nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent
and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

Free! Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to
protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written
in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in
1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration
explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural
law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States
who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government
of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and
removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum
in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary
acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship
whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States,
their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United
States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

Supreme Court decisions

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her
native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the
so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the
phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign
states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen
because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United
States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children
for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S.
and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even
through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCS?1401,
provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded
that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of
the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining
citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be
between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal
aliens and other criminals.

Misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution

Quite simply, the Fourteenth Amendment currently is being interpreted to grant automatic birthright citizenship to
children born in the United States of illegal alien parents (called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration
Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent
U.S. residency). This clearly is contrary to the original intent of Congress and the States in ratifying the Fourteenth
Amendment.

While it has been the practice to bestow citizenship to children of illegal aliens, this has never been ruled on by the
Supreme Court.

Professors Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith have noted1 that:

"The present guarantee under American law of automatic birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens can
operate...as one more incentive to illegal migration and violation by nonimmigrant aliens already here [.] When this
attraction is combined with the powerful lure of the expanded entitlements conferred upon citizen children and their
families by the modern welfare state, the total incentive effect of birthright citizenship may well become significant."

Indeed, the consequences of this practice are significant. Read more about the consequences.

What can be done? - The 14th Amendment

Millions of Americans have served in defense of the United States of America. Many have died to preserve the freedoms
that we take for granted - freedoms granted to United States citizens by the US Constitution. Granting birthright
citizenship to the children of illegal aliens whose first act in coming here is to break our laws, cheapens the meaning
of our Constitution and denigrates the principle of the rule of law upon which our country was founded.

Although some experts believe that a Constitutional amendment would be necessary to remedy the misinterpretation, many
believe that Congressional action would be sufficient and is urgently warranted. The 14th Amendment itself stipulates
that Congress has the power to enforce its provisions by enactment of legislation. The power to enforce a law is
necessarily accompanied by the authority to interpret that law. Therefore, an act of Congress stating its interpretation
of the 14th Amendment - as not including the offspring of illegal aliens - is long overdue.

It should be noted that the Supreme Court stated in a footnote of the 1982 Plyler v. Doe case that "[e]very citizen or
subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject
to the jurisdiction, of the United States", and that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment
'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens
whose entry was unlawful." Yet this note specifically addressed children who were born outside of the United States,
and not those born to illegal alien parents within the United States. Thus, it indeed remains within the purview of
Congress to act to interpret the 14th Amendment in accordance with Article I of the Constitution.

Congress has recognized the problem. Rep. Howard Stump (AZ) introduced H.R 190 in 2001 to deny citizenship to children
of illegal alien mothers. In 2003, the Citizenship Reform Act of 2003 (H.R. 1567), introduced by Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA),
was introduced to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the
United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens.

The Citizenship Reform Amendment (H.J. Res. 44), introduced by Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), would have amended the U.S.
Constitution to provide that no one born in the U.S. will be granted automatic U.S. citizenship unless a parent is a
U.S. citizen or has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence at the time of the birth. Unfortunately, none of
these bills survived.

In 2009, Representative Nathan Deal (R-GA) has introduced H.R. 1868, The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009.

Birthright citizenship is an outdated, antiquated practice that has been abandoned by all other Westernized nations
as well as most developing nations. It remains to be seen whether our elected public servants will do more than just
pay lip service to halting this practice.

More information.....http://www.14thamendment.us/index.html
​
Additional Information sites that contain information:
​http://www.encyclopediavirgini a.org/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_ the_U_S_Constitution

http://www.14thamendment.us/am endment/14th_amendment.html  
​
This one is suspect; Information produced by the Congressional Research Service in 2012.
See: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/ misc/R42592.pdf for a full and official PDF of a congressional research dissertation on an Article V Convention ...
 ED. NOTE: They do not use the actual language of the Article V - they try to bring in Congressional unauthorized powers, Judicial Review, Rules of Convention, Definition of a Convention, Speeches, Federalist Papers, Legal Cases, all IMHO to confuse and complicate the process as they do not like the States have that much power. It is placed here for  information purposes, you decide it's overall validity since the Constitution vests all the governmental power in the people themselves.

​.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution January 19, 2014 
by david j. shestokas
filed under: constitution educational series tagged with: amendment, bill of rights, citizenship, congress, constitution, due process, equal protection, natural law, supreme court
While the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, it did nothing regarding the legal status of the former slaves. The 14th Amendment gave them citizenship and did much more.At the end of the American Civil War Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 granting US citizenship to former slaves. The constitutional authority off Congress to pass such a law was unclear, and a future Congress could by statute, potential deny citizenship status to former slaves. The only way to be certain of congressional authority on this subject and assure permanent citizenship was to amend the Constitution.

Another area of questionable congressional authority was the ability to address the Black Codes enacted by many Southern States that diminished the benefits of citizenship for former slaves. The status of former slaves was not the only issue facing the country after the war.  There were also questions of congressional representation, former rebels, and debts incurred by the rebellion.

To address these concerns Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment and sent it to the States for ratification on June 13, 1866. With the ratification of the twenty-eighth State, South Carolina, on July 20, 1868, then Secretary of State William Seward declared it to be part of the US Constitution.[1]

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Section 1The Fourteenth Amendment redefined the relationship between the federal government and the States. The phrase: “No state shall make or enforce any law…”   and the final section:  “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”  provided Congress the power to enact laws directly affecting state policies regarding constitutional rights and guarantees. The Fourteenth Amendment implicitly granted power to federal courts to review state laws for compliance with constitutional rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s first section consists of four clauses:

• The Citizenship Clause
• The Privileges and Immunities Clause
• The Due Process Clause
• The Equal Protection Clause

The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 reads as follows:

Section 1. 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 Citizenship ClausePrior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Constitution did not define a US citizen.  Section 1 settled the legal status of former slaves born in the United States.  Section 1 defined citizenship of the United States and for an individual’s State of residence. All persons born on US soil are US citizens, with the exception persons subject to another nation’s jurisdiction. This clearly exempts the children of representatives of foreign governments, and at the time exempted Native Americans, whose tribes had limited sovereignty. This also had the effect of overruling the infamous Dred Scott Decision.

The Citizenship Clause is a source of controversy today. There have been movements to limit “birthright citizenship” that is acquired by children born on US soil to non-citizens who are not legally in the country.[2] While there have been proposals to change the status of such children with a law passed by congress, it appears, based upon the Supreme Court case, Wong Kim Ark, that a constitutional amendment would be required to alter citizenship acquired by “all persons born…in the United States.”

There is an opposing view that Congress CAN limit “birthright citizenship” based upon the Fourteenth Amendment’s close connection to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and its more clear limitation on birthright citizenship:  “not subject to any foreign power”.  A strong argument exists that Congress does have such power based upon two factors: the evident intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment, and thatWong Kim Ark addressed the question of a child born to parents who were legally in the United States.

The Privileges Or Immunities ClauseThe unamended Constitution’s Article IV, Section 2 has a “privileges and immunities” clause.[3] That clause orders a State to treat citizens of another State in the same way as it treats its own citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges OR Immunities Clause was intended to do much more, but was gutted by the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases.

The intent of the clause was to impose upon States the obligation to respect the rights of US citizens recognized or granted[4] by the first eight amendments.[5] This is the doctrine of Incorporation, by which most of the Bill of Rights protections became applicable to the States, but not in the way the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment expected.

The Due Process ClauseThe Due Process Clause[6] has become separated into two concepts:  Procedural Due Process and Substantive Due Process.  Procedural Due Process requires a State to provide defined procedures before it can take away someone’s life, liberty or property. Substantive Due Process prohibits the government from infringing on fundamental constitutional liberties.

After the Supreme Court killed the Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughterhouse Cases, over time, the Court has used the concept of Substantive Due Process to extend most protections of the Bill of Rights as limitations upon state governments.

The Equal Protection ClauseThe Equal Protection Clause applies to the actions of State governments. State government may not either by legislation or the actions of its agents deprive any person of its protection. “Equal protection of the laws ” to the Framers of the 14th Amendment related to a state obligation to protect the life, liberty and property of people within state boundaries.  In the context of the times, states were not free to ignore violence inflicted by the likes of the Ku Klux Klan.  Concerns existed not only for violence upon freed slaves, but upon Union loyalists in the former Confederate States.

In that context, the state’s obligation became one to provide “equal protection of the laws” to all persons in a state’s jurisdiction in terms of equal remedial and law-enforcement services.  The mention of any person thus includes non-citizens as well as citizens as constitutionally protected.

The Equal Protection Clause does not provide for “equality” among individuals or classes but rather requires the States to apply their laws equally.  A law may not discriminate in its application between similarly situated persons. The equal protection clause of the Constitution has been an important element in the protection of civil rights.[7]

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Section 2This section changed Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution which counted slaves as only 3/5 of a person for congressional representation. It also provided that if states improperly denied the right to vote to newly freed slaves that their representation in Congress would be lessened.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Section 3Participants in the rebellion against the United States were barred from holding federal offices. This limitation could be removed by Congress with a 2/3 majority of both houses.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Section 4Section 4 makes clear that any debts incurred by the Confederate government or by States in support of the rebellion would not be paid by the United States or by any State.

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Section 5“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” This was an affirmative grant of power to Congress to directly exercise authority over the states in regards to the subject matter of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourteenth Amendment realigned the relationships between the states and the federal government. It strengthened the federal government’s power over the States, particularly regarding State treatment of citizens. It provided the legal framework for the civil rights movement relating to racial discrimination.  That movement in turn gave momentum to other movements involving gender, age and physical handicaps.

Conversation About the 14th Amendment

The archived podcast of the 1-25-14 Edition of Constitutionally Speaking with Libertarian Candidate for Florida Attorney General discussing the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.


Sound Cloud Link to Podcast; https://soundcloud.com/david-shestokas/constitutionally-speaking-14th 


[1]The ratification process of the 14th Amendment was, to say the least, unusual.  In the aftermath of the war, there were other issues of states being readmitted to the Union, congressional insistence on acceptance of the 13th, 14th, & 15th Amendment by the former Confederate states and more.  Many question the Amendment’s legal status as a result of alleged irregularities in the proposal and ratification process.  An interesting look at this controversy is UNORTHODOX AND PARADOX: REVISITING THE RATIFICATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.


[2]Such children are sometimes referred to as “anchor babies”, in that their birth on US soil giving them citizenship, creates an anchor for their parents in the United States.


[3]“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the Several States.”


[4]Certain of the rights addressed by the Bill of Rights are Natural Rights (e.g. religion, speech, assembly) which exist independent of government. These rights are recognized in the Constitution, but not granted by government. Other rights are procedural protections from the power of government that are created by government in furtherance of the goals of limited government and liberty (e.g. rights to counsel, speedy trial, to remain silent).


[5]Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the protections of the Bill of Rights acted as limitations upon the FEDERAL government.  The opening phrase of the First Amendment makes this clear:  “Congress shall pass no law…” 


[6]The Fifth Amendment has its own “due process” clause, which acts as a limit on the federal government, while the Fourteenth Amendment applies to state governments.


[7]The clause was the crucial element in the school desegregation case of Brown v. Board of Education, which reversed a stain on America’s Supreme Court, Plessy v. Ferguson.  Plessy stood for the proposition that state law requirements of racial segregation were permissible as long as equal facilities were provided, hence the phrase:  “separate, but equal…” Brown replaced that with “separate is inherently unequal.”   Supreme Court decisions about constitutional questions can be overturned by constitutional amendment.  The Fourteenth Amendment overturned another national disgrace of the Supreme Court, Dred Scott v. Sandford, which had ruled that blacks were property and could not be citizens.


- See more at: http://www.shestokas.com/constitution-educational-series/the-us-constitutions-fourteenth-amendment/#sthash.D2PDGYHl.dpuf - See more at: http://www.shestokas.com/constitution-educational-series/the-us-constitutions-fourteenth-amendment/#sthash.D2PDGYHl.dpuf - See more at: http://www.shestokas.com/constitution-educational-series/the-us-constitutions-fourteenth-amendment/#sthash.D2PDGYHl.dpuf - See more at: http://www.shestokas.com/constitution-educational-series/the-us-constitutions-fourteenth-amendment/#sthash.D2PDGYHl.dpuf - See more at: http://www.shestokas.com/constitution-educational-series/the-us-constitutions-fourteenth-amendment/#sthash.D2PDGYHl.dpuf - See more at: http://www.shestokas.com/constitution-educational-series/the-us-constitutions-fourteenth-amendment/#sthash.D2PDGYHl.dpuf - See more at: http://www.shestokas.com/constitution-educational-series/the-us-constitutions-fourteenth-amendment/#sthash.D2PDGYHl.dpuf - See more at: http://www.shestokas.com/constitution-educational-series/the-us-constitutions-fourteenth-amendment/#sthash.D2PDGYHl.dpuf - See more at: http://www.shestokas.com/constitution-educational-series/the-us-constitutions-fourteenth-amendment/#sthash.D2PDGYHl.dpuf - See more at: http://www.shestokas.com/constitution-educational-series/the-us-constitutions-fourteenth-amendment/#sthash.D2PDGYHl.dpuf

Article Source; http://www.shestokas.com/constitution-educational-series/the-us-constitutions-fourteenth-amendment/

Sound Cloud Link; https://soundcloud.com/david-shestokas/constitutionally-speaking-14th

The Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges OR Immunities Clause http://linkis.com/www.shestokas.com/co/hWYZy

---

The 14th Amendment Clarified
Notice: This item is intended to read after you read both the Citizenship and Constitution treatises on this site.]

In the time since Original Intent's website went on-line, a small minority of people have attempted to argue against the proper meaning and application of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the Unites States of America, as stated on this site. If you have not yet read the Original Intent treatises on these subjects, you should stop now and read the treatises before proceeding further.

Some of the arguments raised against the facts and conclusions provided in the Citizenship treatise are merely mistaken, others are inane; all are misleading. The casual student may at times be swayed away from the truth by the specious arguments of people who may be seen as some form of "authority". These "authorities" may be people such as judges, attorneys, or law school graduates. Make no mistake - such people are not above misrepresenting the facts and conclusions. You should be the final arbiter as to the true meaning and application of the 14th Amendment. It is the purpose of this piece to clarify the issues so that the casual student will not be led astray by errant facts, specious arguments, or the flowery prose of legal refinement.



HistoryMost of the significant history of the 14th Amendment appears in the text of Original Intent's citizenship treatise. However, one historical fact is not included because it was presumed during the construction of the treatise that every American knows that the 14th Amendment was created to nullify the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 404 (1856).

Oddly, while the nullification of the Dred Scott decision is universally acknowledged as the reason the 14th Amendment was thought necessary, some ill-informed and/or illogical expositors attempt to use the Dred case as their rationale to turn the true meaning of the Amendment on its head. Fortunately, the words of Chief Justice Taney (author of the Dred decision) are unmistakably clear.

As is so often the case when one is dissembling, those who pervert the meaning and application of the Amendment refuse to even discuss quite a number of relevant facts while twisting and misrepresenting the few quotes upon which they rest their errant and flawed position. Amazingly, some even quote from various court decisions with the intention of destroying their opponent's position, while failing to realize or understand that the quotes actually eviscerate their own position. But such is the consequence for those who oppose the truth.

Let's be clear about one thing - there are many people - with differing motives - who will tell you that the 14th Amendment applies to everyone. Even some decisions of the US Supreme Court, written long after the Court's early 14th Amendment decisions were rendered, attempt to paint a picture that the Supreme Court justices who lived during the Amendment's ratification were somehow confused about its meaning, but that they [the later justices] know better the true meaning of the Amendment. Such representations are legal poppycock intended to support a court's political agenda. All judges know that one of the primary "rules of construction" (both constitutional and statutory) is that early decisions, made closer to the time of the event, are to be given far greater weight than the views of jurists who may have ruled on the subject many decades after the fact.

We will not quote from the Dred Scott decision in this piece, instead preferring that you read the decision for yourself and then apply the facts, logic, and reason contained below in the sections labeled, "Truth".



The ArgumentsErrant Position #1: The term "citizen of the United States" as used in the 14th Amendment, means the same thing in the opening verse of the U.S. Constitution.

Truth: The phrase "Citizen of the United States", as used in the opening of the U.S. Constitution, does not have the same meaning as the term "citizen of the United States", as used in the 14th Amendment.

The phrase "Citizen of the United States", as used in the opening of the U.S. Constitution, is shorthand for "All the Citizens of the 13 independent nations [called "states"] that are a party to this Constitution". This meaning is made unmistakably clear when one reads the words of Chief Justice Taney in the Dred decision. To our knowledge, no rational person has ever contended otherwise.

Chief Justice Taney makes it crystal clear that the phrase "people of the United States", and its pre-Civil Warsynonym, "Citizen of the United States" (as used in the opening of the U.S. Constitution), have a meaning that is forever fixed. It is forever fixed (according to Taney) because those phrases mean only what the men who wrote them, and voted on them, meant them to mean. That is the preeminent rule of constitutional interpretation.

In other words, neither you, nor I, nor the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court can indulge in revisionist history in order to pretend that the words now mean something new and different than they did the day the author wrote them. Whether we like it or not, those words mean (forever) only the white citizens of the 13 independent states (and all states admitted to the Union thereafter).

That is not a racist statement; that is a historical legal reality. Sometimes a historical legal reality may bruise our modern conscience and sensibilities, but the fact that we may feel bruised and angry does not change what the men who wrote the document meant when they wrote the words.

Because the phrase "Citizen of the United States", as used in the opening of the US Constitution, has a fixed meaning for all time, it obviously can never be used to mean people of African decent brought here for the purpose of slavery, or their posterity; so says the US Supreme Court. [see Dred].

A constitutional amendment may change a mechanism or methodology of a constitution, but it can never change the meaning the framers had in mind when they wrote the document. Those who wish to dishonestly apply the 14th Amendment to people concerning whom it was never intended, will try to persuade you that even though the phrase "Citizen of the United States", as used in the opening of the US Constitution, has a fixed and permanent meaning for all time, the 14th Amendment somehow changed what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote that phrase. That proposition is obviously absurd and can only be promoted by people who are either ill-informed or dishonest.

Since the term "citizen of the United States", as used in the 14th Amendment, quite clearly does embrace people of African decent, brought here for the purpose of slavery, and their posterity, this "citizen of the United States" must be a new and different term, separate and distinct from that used in the opening stanza of the US Constitution. And it is!

• Citizen of the United States (as used in opening of the US Constitution):
  
  Any free white male who was a citizen of any of the original 13 states, and any free white male who is a citizen of any state thereafter admitted to the Union.
  
  
• citizen of the United States (as used in the Amendment):
  
  Any person born in any state of the Union who was held in the bondage of slavery or involuntary servitude, and under the provisions of the Constitution of such state (at that time), not a citizen thereof.

In short, the 14th Amendment created another [new] class of citizen. This new type of citizen was not created by the well-settled and long existing rules and tradition of international law as relating to citizenship, such as is the case for men who gained their state citizenship by birth upon the land. This new class of citizen gained his citizenship by the citizens of the "original class of citizenship" agreeing to establish a new class of citizenship and gifting that new class of citizenship (by the Amendment) to a certain designated "class of persons" who, at that time, were without any form of citizenship.

Errant Position #2: Sections 1983, 1985, and 1986 of Title 42 of the United States Code prove that the 14th Amendment applies to all Americans.

Truth: People who make this argument are not only wrong, but none too bright. Their pet theory can only pretend validity if §1983, 1985, and 1986 exist in a vacuum, which of course, they don't.

Sections 1983, 1985, and 1986 are within Chapter 21, which is succinctly entitled "Civil Rights". As the California Supreme Court plainly stated:



"A 'civil right' is considered a right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment thereof is regulated entirely by the law that creates it."
82 CA 369, 373, 255, P 760.As all Americans should know, our "inalienable rights" are not "given by law", but according to the organic law of the United States, i.e. the Declaration of Independence, are given by God and are not subject to interference by the government.

Since Americans claiming the original class of citizenship have "inalienable rights", what rights have 14th Amendment citizens? The answer is as clear as it is unfortunate: mere civil rights.

Proponents of this erroneous argument begin at §1983. They conveniently forget that chapter 21 begins with §1981. Isn't it odd that the proponents of this erroneous argument happen to skip the first three sections [1981, 1981a & 1982] of the Civil Rights chapter? Not really, because if they directed your attention to the beginning sections of the chapter, their argument would immediately collapse.



42 USC 1981(a): All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.Clearly "persons" are being distinguished from "white citizens". That is because the term "person" as used in §1981 is the same "person" as in the 14th Amendment, who is the same "person" as in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Enforcement Act, and the Freedman's Bureau Act, all of which deal exclusively with one "class of person", which is - Any person born in any state of the Union who was held in the bondage of slavery or involuntary servitude, and under the provisions of the Constitution of such state is not a citizen thereof.

It is also crystal clear that §1981 gives "persons" that which "white citizens" already had/have. Certainly Congress didn't write §1981 to give "white citizens" what they already had before §1981 was ever conceived!

So how does §1981 affect §1983, 1985 & 1986? Let's start by looking at §1983.



42 USC §1983 - Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution...All federal civil rights laws since 1867 have been enacted solely on the constitutional authority of the 14th Amendment. [The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was applicable only to the Southern states that were being held by the Union Army as a defeated foe and therefore no constitutional question existed as to its applicability.]

We have already explained who the 14th Amendment citizen really is, so we will not cover that again. However, who is it that is "within the jurisdiction thereof" as stated in §1983?

The phrase "within the jurisdiction thereof" is taken from the language of section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which states:



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...Put simply, "jurisdiction" is merely the lawful authority to act. Jurisdiction may arise from geography or subject matter. [See Federal Jurisdiction within this site.] In the case of the 14th Amendment, the jurisdiction is based on subject matter, not geography.

The issue being addressed in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is plainly "citizenship". So where does citizenship come from? [See Citizenship within this site.] Prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment, citizenship couldonly be obtained at the state level. Any rights, privileges and immunities [main body of the Constitution] obtained under the federal Constitution were based exclusively on one's status as a citizen of a state of the Union. It is still that way today for Americans who are within that original class of citizenship.

With the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the citizens of the states of the Union agreed to give Congress a hitherto unpossessed power; the power to grant a form of federal citizenship to those "persons" who had been born in any state of the Union, who'd been held in slavery, and under the Constitution of that state could not become a citizen thereof. The states also agreed to consider this new form of citizen as a citizen of a state if the person were to reside within a state.

In other words, §1983 offers its protection to the very same "class of person" as does §1981. In fact, §1981 provides the underlying legal basis, i.e. "... [to] enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens", upon which all other sections of chapter 21 are built. Or phrased another way, every section that comes after §1981 is merely a mechanism to enforce one or more elements of §1981.

Errant Position #3: The 14th Amendment changed the constitutional landscape so that the US Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford was no longer operative in America.

Truth: Yes, but not in the way the purveyors of this argument would have you believe - and the distinction is significant.

The US Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts had no jurisdiction to even hear the Dred Scott matter because there was no issue cognizable under the federal Constitution. The Court ruled that there was no issue cognizable under the federal Constitution because Dred Scott and his family were not "Citizens of the United States", as such phrase was used in the Constitution, and as it was meant by the men who constructed the Constitution.

As previously discussed, no amendment can change what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote "Citizen of the United States" in the opening of the US Constitution. Therefore, the Amendment could not overturn the underlying Constitutional premise the Court used to reach its determination, which was that black folks (and their posterity) who were brought here for the purpose of slavery could never be citizens in the sense in which that term is used in the main body of the US Constitution. In other words, the Amendment could not revise history.

What the Amendment did was to "add to" the Constitution by establishing a second "class of citizen" over whom the federal courts would have jurisdiction. However, underlying this seemingly favorable course of action was a pervasive and insidious problem in the making.

Prior to the ratification of the Amendment, for people in the original class of citizenship, their state courts dealt with virtually every matter that was appropriate to be brought before a court, and the federal courts could only hear matters that dealt exclusively with issues in the U.S. Constitution, or federal action in connection with the first 13 amendments. In other words, the line between state and federal authority in the lives of citizens was crystal clear.

Although the 14th Amendment was intended to serve a laudable purpose, the unintended consequence was to radically shift the balance of federalism and blur the lines almost beyond distinction. How did that happen?

For people in the original class of citizenship, the courts of the United States had almost no jurisdiction in their affairs. Opportunity for federal intervention in the lives of the average American was virtually nil. [Ah, the good old days!] By contrast, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the United States government became the preeminent protector of every "right" of the persons granted citizenship by the Amendment. This meant that the federal government could tell the states how they could and could not deal with "its" citizens. In other words, a state legislature could vote to control this or that within it borders relating the proper view of life in that state, but the federal government had the right to say, "That's fine for your citizens [original class], but we won't permit you to apply that law to our citizens [14th Amendment] who may be living in your state". This meant that for the first time in history, the United States government could haul a state official into federal court for enforcing a law duly passed by the elected officials of the state for which he worked! While this was a positive tool for protecting the recently freed black slaves from egregious state legislation such as the Black Codes, it flung the door open to federal intervention in the states in a way the Founding Fathers had never intended, nor would have permitted.

Errant Position #4: The US Supreme Court has said that the 14th Amendment was intended to protect all Americans.

Truth: This is a statement that requires a little deeper digging to understand.

One of the cases frequently cited in support of that contention is Bartemeyer v. Iowa (1873). The Bartemeyerquote offered for that argument is:



"By that portion of the fourteenth amendment by which no State may make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or take life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it has now become the fundamental law of this country that life, liberty, and property (which include 'the pursuit of happiness') are sacred rights, which the Constitution of the United States guarantees to its humblest citizen against oppressive legislation, whether national or local, so that he cannot be deprived of them without due process of law."This statement hardly supports the point of view it is offered to support. Let's look at the court's statement in two parts by breaking the sentence in half.

The first part of the statement is, "By that portion of the fourteenth amendment by which no State may make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or take life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." We can't imagine why anyone would disagree with that statement - it certainly states exactly what the 14th Amendment was intended to provide for the "persons" to whom it applied.

The second half of the sentence reads, "it has now become the fundamental law of this country that life, liberty, and property (which include 'the pursuit of happiness') are sacred rights, which the Constitution of the United States guarantees to its humblest citizen against oppressive legislation, whether national or local, so that he cannot be deprived of them without due process of law."

We've emphasized the critical words within that sentence. While the Court (and others) might like the general population to presume that the 14th Amendment embraced everyone, the need for legal accuracy compelled the Court to delineate to which citizen it was referring, by referring to 14th Amendment citizens as the nation's "humblest citizens". In Dred Scott, the Court referred to recently freed black slaves as:

"the unfortunate race"; "the subject race" [as in "subjugated"]; "inferior class of beings"; "the unhappy race"; "the unhappy black race".

The Court classified the recently freed black slaves by saying, "The Negro race is a separate class of persons" and "The deepest degradation was fixed upon the whole race".

In distinction to these less-than-flattering comments, the Court referred to the white race as "the dominant race", but more importantly held that only white citizens of the states of the Union could be considered "Citizens of the United States" (as such phrase is used in the opening paragraph of the US Constitution).

It should also be noted that the Bartemeyer decision was rendered in 1873, when language was used differently than it is today. When the Court used the phrase, "its humblest citizen" it is referring to "the unfortunate race", "the subject race", "inferior class of beings", "the unhappy black race". Because the 14th Amendment had provided the recently freed black slaves with a form of citizenship, the Court could no longer refer to that "separate class of persons" as it had in Dred, but needed to find a gentle manner of referring to the new class of citizens. Keeping somewhat in line with the outlook of the Court in Dred, which was the dominant perspective of the day, the Court referred to the new black citizens as America's "humblest citizens".

While it is hard to believe today, the most vocal abolitionists of the day did not seek "equality" for freed blacks. In fact, they had no intentions of making black citizens equal to white citizens. The very idea was considered ridiculous in that day. [It would be ninety years until the now defunct doctrine of "separate but equal" would be uttered.] The new black citizens were expected to be, and remain, "humble" in the face of white citizens. Even though black men and women (and certain other minorities) were no longer slaves, the vast majority of white Americans at that time expected the new black citizens to humble themselves at all time before whites. No one in that day seriously considered that ending slavery had anything to do with equality of the races.

Today, we tend to think of "humble" as being akin to "meek". That is but one definition of "humble". When theBartemeyer Court used that word, it was applying the meaning more in line with the Court's dicta in Dredconcerning the condition of the black race.

According to the 1994 Webster's II dictionary, humble also means: Exhibiting deferential or submissive respect. The word "humbled" is defined as: To make lower in condition or status. Given the history of blacks in America, considering the words of the Court in Dred, and considering the historical reality that even the most ardent abolitionists of the day did not see blacks as being equal to whites, which definition of "humble" do you believe the Court was applying?

In fact, at that time it was the well-recognized purpose of the 14th Amendment to vest the black citizens with only a short list of rudimentary rights. Those rights were:

1. To make and enforce contracts
2. To sue, be parties, give evidence
3. To the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property.

The harsh historical reality is that if the 14th Amendment had been touted in that day as a means of promoting or establishing equality between the races, it would never have been ratified.

The rights granted by the 14th Amendment are still codified to this very day in Title 42 of the United States Code, at §1981:



All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.You will see from the emphasized phrase that §1981 (which codifies the intention and limits of the 14th Amendment) makes it clear that "persons" ["a separate class of person" - Dred] are to be treated the same as "white citizens". The meaning is so clear that it is amazing anyone would contend otherwise.

Errant Position #5: The Due Process of Law commandment in the Fourteenth Amendment is a codification of the "One Law" rule prescribed in Deuteronomy

Truth: There is no historical support for this argument. There is not one single utterance along these lines from the men who drafted or sponsored the 14th Amendment, or from any political commentary during the ratification period.

Errant Position #6: If one does not believe that the 14th Amendment applies to everyone, then such a person is saying that white citizens are left in the same position as was Dred Scott before the adoption of the 14th Amendment.

Truth: This ridiculous argument is a pathetic last-ditch effort by those who are desperate to somehow manipulate people into accepting a false proposition. The position is so clearly errant that it deserves no comment. However, for the sake of thoroughness...

In Dred, the Court held that Scott was not a Citizen of the United States (as such phrase is used in the opening of the US Constitution) because he was a member of the black race, whose ancestors had been brought to America for the purpose of being slaves, and no such person, or such person's offspring, could be considered Citizens of the United States. The 14th Amendment was drafted to create a form of citizenship for such persons, and thus [allegedly] rectify their plight. Nothing about Dred, or the 14th Amendment, has anything to do with white citizens of a state of the Union.

Errant Position #7: The concurring opinion of Justice Field in Bartemeyer should be considered as spelling out the true meaning of the 14th Amendment.

Truth: Justice Field was an activist justice. In other words, he cared little for what the law really said or really meant, but gave great weight to how the law might be bent to serve any social agenda he thought laudable.

It should be noted that Justice Field's opinion is just that - his opinion. It is not the decision of the Court inBartemeyer.

Further, Field is rebelling against the Court's prior decision in The Slaughter-House Cases. In the Slaughter-House Cases, the Court held that the 14th Amendment applied only to those persons who had previously been held in slavery, and did not apply to white state Citizens. Field did not like the Court's decision in Slaughter-House, so in his concurring opinion in Bartemeyer he states his alternative view.

Field even goes so far in his concurring opinion as to reveal that his view [that the Amendment should be perverted to cover everyone] does not comport itself with the true meaning of the Amendment. After stating his opinion that everyone should be covered by the Amendment, Field writes, "[The Amendment] clothes its possessor, or would do so if not shorn of its efficiency by construction, with the right..."



Construction - The process, or the art, of determining the sense, real meaning, or proper explanations of obscure or ambiguous terms or provisionsby reasoning in the light derived from extraneous connected circumstances or laws or writings bearing upon the same or connected matter, or by seeking and applying the probable aim and purpose of the provision. Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed.Clearly, Field is saying is that his opinion (which he touts as "efficiency") would clothe everyone with the protections of the 14th Amendment unless one actually practices the art of construction. If one practices the art of construction (i.e. seeking out the true intended meaning), then Field's view of the Amendment is shorn. In short, Field admits that his view is only credible unless or until you look for the true application and meaning of the Amendment, at which time you find that his view isn't factual, but fanciful.

It is further evidenced that the concurring opinion of Field is merely wishful thinking because the actual holding of the Court in Bartemeyer is that the 14th Amendment had no bearing on the case. Despite the fact that the Amendment was irrelevant to the case, three justices, Bradley, Swayne, and Field, wrote concurring opinions that expressed their views on the 14th Amendment. Not surprisingly, all three justices disagreed with the Court's decision in Slaughter-House.

Considering the fact that the Court's actual opinion in Bartemeyer held that the Amendment had no bearing on the case, it becomes plainly obvious that these justices were pursuing a political and/or social agenda that had nothing to do with the case before them. Accordingly, legal researchers should be aware that these justices were voicing personal political views outside the scope of the case. Their remarks are clearly dicta. Interestingly, the people who tell you that your opinion should be based on this kind of social agenda-dicta will not tell you that dicta has no precedent effect upon future cases.



Dicta - Opinions of judges which do not embody the resolution or determination of the case before the court. Expressions in court's opinion which go beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of author of opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.Why would someone direct you to irrelevant dicta from a case where the Amendment was not an issue, when the Court had already decided the proper application of the Amendment in Slaughter-House? The word "deceit" leaps to mind.

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.

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

---

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights in the Fourteenth Amendment by Raoul Berger

EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is an excerpt of the book Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Foreword by Forrest McDonald (2nd ed.) (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1997).

Invocation of the Bill of Rights against the States is of fairly recent origin whether it be regarded within the older framework of “adoption” or the more recent theory of “incorporation.” From the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law” may be gathered that it was to apply exclusively to Congress, and it was held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights had no application to the States, as in fact the First Congress, which drafted the Bill, had earlier made clear. Justice[156] Harlan spoke truly in stating that “every member of the Court for at least the last 135 years has agreed that our Founders did not consider the requirements of the Bill of Rights so fundamental that they should operate directly against the States.”  And for a long time the Supreme Court found that the Fourteenth Amendment had made no change in this respect. By means of “selective” incorporation or adoption the Court has worked “a revolutionary change in the criminal process” of the States. Some consider that the Court was “trying to legislate a detailed criminal code for a continental country.”

Historically the citizenry have relied upon the States for protection, and such protection was afforded before the Constitutional Convention by a Bill of Rights in virtually every state Constitution. It was not fear of State misgovernment but distrust of the remote federal newcomer that fueled the demand for a federal Bill of Rights which would supply the same protection against the federal government that State Constitutions already provided against the States. This was understood by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, and their own attachment to State sovereignty led them to refrain from intruding beyond the ban on discrimination against blacks with respect to certain rights. All else, including suffrage, was left to the States. In particular, Chairman Wilson[157] emphasized during the debates on the Civil Rights Bill, “We are not making a general criminal code for the States.” Since the Amendment indisputably was designed to “incorporate” the guarantees of the Civil Rights Act, evidence is required to show that the framers had moved beyond the limited purposes of the Act.

The architect of the “incorporation” theory, Justice Black, invoked some fragmentary history—utterances in connection with an explanation of “privileges or immunities” by two leading Republican spokesmen, Bingham, author of §1, and Senator Jacob M. Howard, who purported to express the views of the Joint Committee. Such statements are not lightly dismissed, after the manner of Justice Frankfurter, because “Remarks of a particular proponent of the Amendment, no matter how influential, are not to be deemed part of the Amendment.”  Accepted canons of construction are to the contrary; the paramount consideration is to ascertain the intention of the legislature. That intention may be evidenced by statements of leading proponents, and, if found, is to be regarded as good as written into the enactment: “the intention of the lawmaker is the law.”  But Black’s history falls far short of the “conclusive demonstration” he thought it to be in his famous Adamsondissent. The contrary, it may fairly be said, was demonstrated in Charles Fairman’s painstaking and scrupulous impeachment of Black’s history, buttressed by Stanley Morrison’s telling companion article.

Absorption of one or another portion of the Bill of Rights—free speech, for example—antedatedAdamson, but this was on a selective basis, under cover of due process. To Black this was an abhorrent claim to “boundless power under ‘natural law’ periodically to expand and contract constitutional standards to conform to the court’s conception of what at a particular time constitutes ‘civilized decency’ and ‘fundamental liberty and justice.’ ” Why, he asked, should the Bill of Rights “be ‘absorbed’ in part but not in full?” The cure, he maintained, was “incorporation” en bloc. His condemnation was not, however, wholehearted, for he was ready to accept “selective” adoption if he could not obtain wholesale incorporation, suggesting that sacrifice of a desired result was more painful than “boundless power to expand or contract constitutional standards.”  The words “privileges or immunities” seemed “an eminently reasonable way of expressing the idea that henceforth the Bill of Rights shall apply to the States.” The two concepts, however, are of entirely different provenance and deal with quite different matters. “Privileges or immunities” has its roots in Article IV, §2, which requires States to accord certain privileges to citizens of a sister State; the Bill of Rights, on the other hand, was designed to protect certain rights against the federal government. The debates in the First Congress contain not the faintest intimation that the “privileges and immunities” of Article IV were being enlarged or, indeed, that the Bill of Rights was in any way related to “privileges and immunities.” And, when Justice Bushrod Washington later enumerated those “privileges and immunities,” he too made no reference to the Bill of Rights. To read the Bill of Rights into “privileges or immunities” is therefore no more “reasonable” than to read a “bill of attainder” into “habeas corpus.”

In Adamson, Black appealed to “the original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment.”  as disclosed by the Bingham-Howard statements. These statements had reference to the “privileges or immunities” clause, but that clause had been emasculated in the Slaughter-House Cases.  Hence Black relied on “the provisions of the Amendment’s first section, separately, and as a whole” for incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The “privileges or immunities” clause gains no fresh vitality as a component of the “whole” of §1. Reliance on the due process clause runs afoul of Black’s statement in the Adamson case that in Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minnesota (1890) the Court “gave a new and hitherto undisclosed scope for the Court’s use of the due process clause to protect property rights under natural law concepts.”  Substantive due process was fashioned in Wynehamer v. The People (1856) to bar abolitionist natural law[160] claims and confine protection to property; and libertarian due process came long after economic substantive due process. No one in the 39th Congress intimated that the due process clause would incorporate the Bill of Rights; Bingham looked to the judicial decisions for the scope of due process, then purely procedural. Speaking to the Bingham amendment, Chairman Wilson indicated that the due process clause was considered to furnish a “remedy” to secure the “fundamental rights” enumerated in the Civil Rights Act. To transform it into a “source” of other unspecified rights is to set at naught the careful enumeration of rights in the Act, “constitutionalized” by the Amendment, which is incompatible with Black’s invocation of the original purpose. In truth, expansion of due process to libertarian claims is largely a product of the post-1937 era; and “substantive equal protection” is a very recent concept indeed. Black’s reliance on §1 “as a whole” can therefore be met with the adage “when nothing is added to nothing, the sum is and remains the same—nothing.”

Bingham’s remarks were addressed to H. R. No. 63, the antecedent Bingham amendment: “The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to citizens of each State all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States (Art. IV, §2); and to all persons in the several States equal protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property (5th amendment).” This proposal, said Bingham, “stands in the very words of the Constitution . . . Every word . . . is today in the Constitution.”  It is a mark of Bingham’s sloppiness that “every word” was not “in the Constitution”: “equal protection” was missing altogether. “ [T]hese great provisions of the Constitution,” he continued, “this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the[161] States.”  As Fairman pointed out, the antecedent of his remark was Article IV, §2, and the Fifth Amendment due process clause which Bingham equated with “equal protection.”  There is no reason to believe that his subsequent references to the Bill of Rights had broader compass. Certainly his fellow Republicans did not so read his proposed amendment. The radical William Higby of California thought that the Article IV, §2, clause and the Fifth Amendment due process clause constituted “precisely what will be provided” by the Bingham amendment. Another radical, Frederick E. Woodbridge of Vermont, stated: “It is intended to enable Congress by its enactments when necessary to give a citizen of the United States in whatever State he may be, those privileges and immunities which are guarantied to him under the Constitution [Article IV] . . . that protection to his property which is extended to other citizens of the State [due process clause].” Bingham’s reference to “the enforcement of the bill of rights, touching the life, liberty, and property . . . within every organized State . . .”  would convey to his fellows the technical meaning that had been attached to “life, liberty, and property” in the Civil Rights Bill debate.

Bingham, it will be recalled, had proposed his amendment to avoid doubts as to the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Bill. Wilson, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, joined issue: “in relation to the great fundamental rights embraced in the bill of rights, the citizen . . . is entitled to a remedy. The citizen is entitled to the right of life, liberty and property. Now if a State intervenes, and deprives him, without due[162] process of law, of those rights . . .” And he said, “I find in the bill of rights which the gentleman desires to have enforced by an amendment . . . that ‘No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law.’ I understand that these constitute the civil rights . . . to which this bill relates.”  Implicit in Wilson’s formulation is the assumption that no more is needed; and that is likewise the implication of the Higby and Woodbridge remarks about the Bingham amendment.

Far from accepting every word that fell from Bingham as gospel, the framers gave his proposal a chilly reception. According to Kendrick, he “stood almost alone . . . a great many Republicans, including particularly the entire New York delegation, were opposed to the amendment.”  He tried to soften the opposition by arguing that to oppose his amendment was “to oppose the grant of power to enforce the bill of rights,” to perpetuate statutes of confiscation, of banishment, of murder. Bickel considers that Bingham “was suggesting to those members who were alarmed that he had some definite evils in mind, limited and distinct in nature.” When we add: (1) the fact that Bingham’s amendment was shelved argues against adoption of his views; (2) the fact that the Joint Committee’s subsequent rejection of Bingham’s motion to add to Owen’s proposed amendment the phrase “nor take private property for public use without just compensation” is incompatible with blanket adoption of the first eight Amendments; (3) the fact that Bingham made no reference to inclusion of the Bill of Rights during debate on the final proposal which became §1 of the Amendment; (4) Wilson’s emphasis during debate that the Civil Rights Bill embodied the very civil rights embraced by due process protection of life, liberty, and property; and (5) Wilson’s assurances during that debate that “we are not making a general criminal code for the States” (suggesting that what was unpalatable in the Bill would be no more acceptable in the Amendment)—it becomes apparent that beyond due process the framers had no intention to adopt the Bill of Rights.

Bingham was in fact utterly at sea as to the role of the Bill of Rights. At first he considered it to be binding upon the States. Thus, after reading the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment as the source of his own proposed amendment, he stated: “this proposed amendment does not impose upon any State . . . an obligation which is not now enjoined upon them by the very letter of the Constitution.”  For this he appealed to the “supremacy clause” of Article VI, which makes the Constitution binding, hurdling the preliminary question whether the Constitution made the Fifth Amendment binding on the States. Although he noted that Barron v. Baltimore held that the Bill of Rights is “not applicable to and do[es] not bind the States,” he stated on February 28: “A State has not the right to deny equal protection . . . in the rights of life, liberty, and property.” On March 9 he stated:

the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen . . . is in the States, and not in the Federal Government. I have sought to effect no change in that respect . . . I have advocated here an amendment which would arm Congress with the power to punish all violations by State officers of the bill of rights . . . I have always believed that protection . . . within the States of all the rights of person and citizen, was of the powers reserved to the States.

Reservation of “protection” to the States runs counter to rejection of a State’s denial of an existing “right to equal protection”; it is incompatible with State “violations” of the Bill of Rights. Apparently unaware that Article IV, §2, protected nonresident migrants, not residents, Bingham said: “No State ever has the right . . . to abridge . . . the privileges and immunities of any citizen of the Republic.” Shifting again, he stated: “we all agree . . . that the exercise of the elective franchise, though it be one of the privileges of a citizen of the Republic, is exclusively under the control of the States.”  “Exclusive control” authorizes a State to “abridge” the privilege. In truth, as Morrison, concurring with Fairman, stated, Bingham’s “many statements . . . are so confused and conflicting as to be of little weight.”  This goes beyond the issue of credibility, which courts test by inconsistent statements. It poses the question: upon which of his conflicting explanations did the framers rely? How can “conclusive” legislative history rest on shifting sands?

In the eyes of Justice Black, “Bingham may, without extravagance be called the Madison of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.”  Shades of Madison! Bingham was a muddled thinker, given to the florid, windy rhetoric of a stump orator, liberally interspersed with invocations to the Deity, not to the careful articulation of a lawyer who addresses himself to great issues. Recall his location of the words “equal protection” in the Constitution from which they were notably absent. Hale attributed to Bingham the view that “there had been from first to last, a violation of the provisions of this bill of rights by the very existence of slavery itself,”  thereby, as Judge Hale doubtless was aware, converting the Bill into a repealer of several existing provisions that sanctioned slavery—and this in the teeth of the First Congress’ express intention to exclude the States from the ambit of the Bill of Rights.

Presumably the framers who listened to Bingham found his frequent shifts of position no less perplexing than they seem to us; consequently, they had an added incentive to cling to the vastly preponderant view that they were merely incorporating the limited provisions of the Civil Rights Act in the Amendment. Whatever be the weight that attaches to Bingham’s utterances, it needs to be noted that even his admirers read them restrictively. So, Kelly states that his speech of February 29 “makes it clear that by ‘bill of rights’ Bingham meant both the guarantees of the comity clause and the guarantee of due process in the Fifth Amendment.”  And tenBroek asks, “What Bill of Rights? Certainly not the first eight amendments to the Constitution. The answer is not left open[166] to conjecture: the Bill of Rights that contain (1) the comity clause . . . which guarantees the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; (2) the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment; and (3) the requirement that all shall be protected alike in life, liberty, and property, not explicitly mentioned in either body or amendments . . . this was the ‘immortal Bill of Rights’ of John A. Bingham.” Among the abolitionists themselves there was general agreement only about the due process clause and the First and Fourth Amendments; the “rights in the other amendments,” tenBroek says, “received only casual, incidental, and infrequent reference.” Justice Black, therefore, would impute to Bingham views which far outran the abolitionist program that allegedly was the source of his inspiration. Before we marshall the evidence which further undermines attribution of Bingham’s views to the framers, let us consider the companion remarks of Senator Jacob M. Howard.

By a caprice of fortune—the sudden illness of Chairman Fessenden—it fell to Senator Howard to act as spokesman for the Joint Committee in explaining the Amendment. Up to this point his participation in the debates on the Civil Rights Bill and the several aspects of the Amendment had been negligible. Poles removed from Chairman Fessenden, who “abhorred” extreme radicals, Howard, according to Kendrick, was “one of the most . . . reckless of the radicals,” who had “served consistently in the vanguard of the extreme Negrophiles.” He had expended “fruitless efforts” to include the right to vote; he and Elihu B. Washburne of Illinois “had been the only Republicans to hold out for black suffrage to the end, all the others proved willing to abandon it.”  That such a man should speak “for” a Committee in which the “non-radicals clearly outnumbered the radicals,” in which, by the testimony of the co-chairmen Fessenden and Stevens, there “was very considerable difference of opinion,”  needs to be taken, in the words of the “immortal” Samuel Goldwyn, with “a bushel of salts.”

On May 23 Senator Howard rose in the Senate, alluded to Fessenden’s illness, and stated that he would present “the views and the motives which influenced the committee, so far as I understand [them].” After reading the privileges and immunities listed in Corfield v. Coryell, he said, “to these privileges and immunities . . . should be added the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments.”  That is the sum and substance of Howard’s contribution to the “incorporation” issue. Justice Black assumed without more ado that Howard “emphatically stated the understanding of the framers.” No one, to be sure, rose to challenge Howard’s remark, casually tucked away in a long speech. “The argument from silence,” as Alfred Kelly observed, “is always more than a little dangerous.”  But was there really silence? Consider Senator Poland’s subsequent statement: “Great differences have existed among ourselves; many opinions have had to yield to enable us to agree upon a plan.” A similar statement had been made by Fessenden and repeated by the radical leader Senator Benjamin Wade. Now, after the compromise of such differences about known objectives, we are asked to infer that there was unquestioning acceptance of a sweeping, brand-new element, which had received no consideration whatever! Then too, others who spoke after Howard, repeated that the goal was legitimation of the Civil Rights Act. So, Senator Poland observed, “The clause . . . that ‘no State shall . . . abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States’ rsecures nothing beyond what was intended by the original [Article IV, §2] provision in the Constitution.”  If this be not regarded as a delicately phrased repudiation of Howard’s addition, at the very least it exhibits a more limited view than that of Howard by a respected Republican. Senator Doolittle stated that the Civil Rights Bill “was the forerunner of this constitutional amendment, and to give validity to which this constitutional amendment is brought forward.” Such reminders of known and limited objectives were designed to reassure those whose consent had thus far been won; and they rob Howard’s remark of uncontroverted standing.

Account must also be taken of expressions in the House after Howard’s speech, for even if his words be taken to express the sentiment of the Senate, it must not be facilely assumed that it was shared by the House. Nothing was said about the Bill of Rights upon return of the measure to the House —surely a remarkable silence about an extraordinary expansion of jointly accepted goals! Instead, George R. Latham, a West Virginia Republican, remarked, “The ‘civil rights bill’ which is now a law . . . covers exactly the same ground as this amendment.” Henry Van Aernam of New York said that the Amendment gives “constitutional sanctions and protection to the substantial guarantees of the civil-rights bill.” The Latham–Van Aernam remarks, parenthetically, afford additional proof that the earlier Bingham remarks did not represent the thinking of the House. Also significant are Stevens’ final remarks lamenting his failure to abolish “all” “inequality” and “distinctions” and explaining that he was constrained to accept so “imperfect a proposition” because he lived “among men and not among angels . . . who . . . do not choose to yield their opinions to mine.” It strains credulity to attribute to “men” who had rejected abolition of “all” distinctions readiness to swallow whole-hog reconstruction of their Northern institutions which had not even been discussed. Instead, the specific incorporation of one portion of the Bill of Rights—the due process clause—and the rejection of another—the just compensation clause—gave the framers ample reason to conclude that “due process” alone was to be “incorporated.”

Flack’s canvass of “speeches concerning the popular discussion of the Fourteenth Amendment” led him to conclude:

the general opinion held in the North . . . was that the Amendment embodied the Civil Rights Act . . . There does not seem to have been any statement at all as to whether the first eight amendments were to be made applicable to the States or not, whether the privileges guaranteed by those amendments were to be considered as privileges secured by the amendment.

Senator Sherman, for example, told Cincinnati during the campaign for adoption that “the first section was an embodiment of the [Civil Rights] Act.”  Fairman has collected remarks by five Senators and five Representatives, not one of whom “said that the privileges and immunities clause would impose Articles I to VIII upon the States.” We must assume that they knew of no such purpose; men of Sherman’s stature may not be charged with a conspiracy to conceal the proposed imposition from the people—certainly not without substantial proof.[171] There is no need to retrace Fairman’s examination of the State ratification proceedings; let it suffice that there is no intimation therein that ratification would produce radical changes in the States’ judicial machinery, for example, the replacement of an information by a grand jury indictment, of a six-man jury by a jury of twelve. If this was in fact the purpose of the framers, honesty required disclosure. None was made, and the reason, I suggest, is that no such purpose was entertained.

Then there is the remarkable fact that the cases which followed on the heels of the Fourteenth Amendment continued to hold the Bill of Rights inapplicable to State action, without mentioning the Amendment. Oversight will not account for the omission; the Amendment had been widely discussed; bench and bar are alert to every new and relevant enactment; they would not be oblivious to the revolution worked by the alleged incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

In sum, the framers were motivated by discriminatory denials of “fundamental rights” to the blacks. No trace of a purpose to reconstruct Northern institutions for the protection of white inhabitants against the State will be found in the debates; the frequent expressions of jealous regard for State sovereignty repel such a purpose. When Judge Robert Hale insisted that “the American people have not yet found their State governments are insufficient to protect the rights and liberties of the citizen,” Bingham translated this as “the citizens must rely upon the State for their protection,” and added, “I admit that such is the rule under the Constitution as it now stands.” It cannot be presumed that the States which, in Stevens’ words, would not “allow Congress to come within their jurisdiction to fix the qualifications of their voters,” would tolerate a federal overhaul of their judicial processes that went beyond making them available to Negroes. Such a presumption runs counter to Senator Trumbull’s assurance that the “provisions of the [Freedmen’s Bureau] bill in regard to holding courts . . . are confined entirely to the rebellious States.” “Certainly nobody has ever complained,” Senator Cowan said, “that a full and exact measure of justice has not been meted out to him in all our courts . . . I do object to extending it to the loyal States of the North.” Subsequently, Trumbull twice stated that the Civil Rights Bill had no application[173] to a State that did not discriminate between its citizens. The constant reiteration that the purpose of the Amendment was to constitutionalize the Civil Rights Act, the frequent tributes to State sovereignty, and recognition of powers reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment, in which Bingham joined, unite to repel an inference that the framers intended to interfere with State conduct of its own affairs otherwise than is described in that Act. The pervasive attachment to federalism—State control of local institutions—Phillip Paludan repeatedly emphasizes, was “the most potent institutional obstacle to the Negroes’ hope for protected liberty”  —and even more of an obstacle to federal encroachment on Northern States’ control of their own white citizens. If there was a concealed intention to go beyond the Civil Rights Act, it was not ratified because, first, ratification requires disclosure of material facts, whereas there was no disclosure that the Amendment was meant to uproot, for example, traditional State judicial procedures and practices; and, second, a surrender of recognized rights may not be presumed but must be proved. In truth, the Fourteenth Amendment “was presented to the people as leaving control of suffrage in state hands, as representing no change in previous constitutional conditions so far as protection of rights was concerned [beyond banning discrimination], as stripped of radical character.”

Let Justice Black himself, the unremitting champion of “incorporation,” sum up, substituting for his word “corporations” the words “judicial processes”:

The states did not adopt the Amendment with knowledge of its sweeping meaning under its present construction. No section of the Amendment gave notice to the people that, if adopted, it would subject every state law . . . affecting [judicial processes] . . . to censorship of the United States courts. No word in all this Amendment gave any hint that its adoption would deprive the states of their long recognized power to regulate [judicial processes].

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/07/27/incorporation-of-the-bill-of-rights-in-the-fourteenth-amendment/

---

Mark Levin: Congress can end birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution

Mark Levin explained birthright citizenship in the opening of his show tonight and why Congress can end it without having to amend the Constitution.

Please listen to Mark at the link below:
Read more: http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-congress-can-end-birthright-citizenship-without-amending-the-constitution/#ixzz3jN4hjWsz

The US Constitution and Local Government

January 7, 2014 by David J. Shestokas

[Copied from the link.  That darn 14th A....we cannot escape it. It is at the heart of every expansive federal over-reach and Constitutional usurpation as we know, if everyone else would just realize it....3 words 'no state shall' work as a CANCER to destroy the rest...]

Discussions of the US Constitution tend to focus upon the actions of the president, congress and the Supreme Court.  While these are consequential, often overlooked is the impact of the Constitution on the actions of local government.

Most Americans are aware of the required presidential oath of office required of a new president before he begins his service, from Article II, Section I, clause 8:

“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— ‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”

Constitutional Oath Requirement for State and Local Officials
Less known is the requirement of Article VI, clause 3 that: “…  all executive and judicial Officers  … of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

This constitutional requirement is binding upon every government official in the United States from state governors and judges to members of city councils, police officers or board members of mosquito abatement districts and library boards.

State Recognition of Constitutional Oath Requirement
All the states have passed laws or have state constitutional provision recognizing the US Constitution’s oath requirement for their local officials.  Florida’s statutory oath requirement is an example:
“I,____ a citizen of the State of Florida and of the United States of America, and being employed by or an officer of _____and a recipient of public funds as such employee or officer, do hereby solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida.”
Florida’s oath for elected officials varies a bit and is found in the State’s Constitution Art. II, Section 5 as:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect, and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the State of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of _________”

States Organize Local Governments Under the Tenth Amendment
While the Constitution requires that states have a “Republican Form of Government”[1] the organization of local governments was not delegated to the federal government.  Absent that delegation the Tenth Amendment leaves establishing local government to state authority:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Free to organize themselves locally, the states have created various municipal sub-divisions such as counties, cities, townships, library boards, and special taxing districts.  The relationship of these sub-divisions between each other and the state, and the authority each sub-division possesses are subjects of state constitutions and statutes.[2]

Bill of Rights Applies to State & Local Governments through 14th Amendment
Though Created by States, Local Governments are Subject to US Constitution

The Constitution’s Bill of Rights and other limitations on the conduct of government were originally directed to the power of the federal government.  For example, the First Amendment’s opening phrase:  “Congress shall pass no law ….” clearly was directed at actions by the central government.  After the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment changed that, with the following language directly placing limits upon the conduct of the states:

“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.”[3] (emphasis added)

Local governments exist solely because of state constitutions and laws.  As a result, for purposes of the US Constitution, actions by local governments have to comply with the Constitution in the same manner as actions by a state government.

Constitutional Impact on Local Government
While the states have given many local governmental bodies great authority over varying subject areas, these governments remain impacted by constitutional considerations in their conduct.

Here are a few constitutional considerations for local government conduct:
•    Zoning Laws:  Local governments often have authority to define different areas of their community for varying types of uses such as residential, commercial or industrial.  In the course of these definitions, there are constitutional requirements to consider citizens’ rights to free speech, assembly and religion.  Zoning regulations cannot operate to ban the exercise of such rights.  An example of zoning that impairs constitutional rights: On January 7, 2014, US District Court Judge Edmond Chang ruled Chicago’s ordinance banning gun shops an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment.
•    Eminent Domain:  Authority may exist for a local government to acquire property for public uses, and that authority may include “taking” private property for a public purpose.  A local government is bound by the Fifth Amendment‘s “takings clause” which commands: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”[4]
•    Law Enforcement:  Most law enforcement is conducted by units of local government such as county sheriff’s departments or city police forces.  The conduct of these activities are governed by provisions in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments.  In some instances the Fourth and Fifth Amendments impact the conduct of “code enforcement”.
•    Election Law:  Many local governments have the authority to draw their own election districts or decide if they are to be organized with single member districts or “at large” elections.[5]   Such decisions must comply with the requirements of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection and due process clauses, and the 15th Amendment prohibition against racial discrimination in voting.
•    Permits:  Local governments are typically the source of permits for activities like parades, demonstrations or picnics.  The issuance of permits may also have constitutional consideration arising from the First Amendment’s guarantees regarding speech, religion and assembly.
•    Taxation:  Many local governments are given significant taxing authority.  There may be property taxes, sales taxes, use taxes, employment taxes and more.  These taxes are subject to constitutional constraints as well.  Taxes improperly imposed may burden religion, speech, assembly or equal protection, or violate the “takings clause”.

Constitutionally Limited Government Applies to Local Government
The federal government was created to organize a society and protect the natural rights of its citizens. To achieve those goals limits were placed upon the central government.

The US Constitution originally delegated authority to the central government and imposed limitations on the exercise of that authority.  Under the American principles of federalism, the original Constitution placed few limits on the exercise of state power.  Through amendment many of the Constitution’s limitations on government authority have been expanded to include limitations on the states. Local governments, as creations of the states are subject to the same limits.

The Constitution’s oath of office for local officials has grown in meaning, and it is a critical for they and their constituents to understand the constitutional principles that apply just as clearly to the holder of a city council seat as to the president of the United States.  This understanding is critical to the ability to properly fulfill the oath the Constitution requires of them.

The Discussion on Constitutionally Speaking about the Constitution and Local Government
More issues and thoughts regarding the Constitution and Local Government were addressed on this edition of Constitutionally Speaking.
- See more at: http://www.shestokas.com/constitution-educational-series/the-us-constitution-and-local-government/#sthash.PsDyzsBC.dpuf

________________________________________
[1]US Constitution, Article IV, Section 4.
[2]State statutes are laws passed by the state legislatures. When a sub-division has been given authority to pass a law, these laws are known as ordinances.  For more on the hierarchy of laws, see: The Web of Law…
[3]Over time, the United States Supreme Court has, through its doctrine of “incorporation” applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states, pursuant to the 14th Amendment’s command:  “No state shall…”
[4]“Taking” by a government may be actions other than acquiring ownership of the property.  For example it may take place through a zoning change as well, such as changing an area from commercial to residential, thus “taking” away the commercial character of land that an existing owner relied upon.
[5]“At large” elections select a representative from the municipality as a whole as opposed to from smaller sub-divisions of the county, city, town or district area.

http://www.shestokas.com/constitution-educational-series/the-us-constitution-and-local-government/

A Supreme Court, Not Supreme Wisdom

By Alan Caruba

I am not a lawyer, but I have read the Constitution and I cannot find any indication that the Founding Fathers intended the guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” in the 14thAmendment to include same-sex marriage.

The idea would have been regarded as an abomination to the men who created the Constitution. To many who regard the institution of marriage a sacred bond between a man and a woman, the decisions of lower courts that have facilitated same-sex marriage are deeply offensive.
 
When the Supreme Court decided not to decide upon appeals from seven states regarding lower court rulings that their bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, they essentially endorsed same-sex marriage. It is now legal in 25 states, paving the way for a total of 30 states that recognize it, but only by popular vote in three of them; the rest had it imposed through the courts.

The same can be said of the Supreme Court’s decision in 1973 that permitted abortion as a legal right. Here again, the 14th Amendment was cited. As one source noted, “The Court summarily announced that the ‘Fourteen Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action” includes “a right to personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy and that “this right of privacy…is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

As this is being written, there have been more than 57,245,810 fetuses aborted since 1973 and, this year, there have been 840,045. Thus, decisions that the Supreme Court makes can literally result in life or death.

One of the most dramatic decisions of an earlier Supreme Court was the 1857 Dred Scott case that ruled that African Americans, whether slave or free, could not be American citizens and thus had no standing to sue in federal court, nor that the federal government had any power to regulate slavery in the territories acquired after the creation of the nation. The Civil War would follow in 1861 and last until 1865, resulting in more than 600,000 casualties, but finally ending slavery in America. Even some of the Founding Fathers had predicted that conflict.

When the Supreme Court has wandered into the area of social policy and culture, it has made decisions that were contrary to the majority of the population. The decision about slavery was about property—the slave--but many regarded slavery as an institution that must be ended.

The Supreme Court, of course, is not one long list of bad decisions. It has done much good and one man is credited with setting it on its course as a co-equal brand of the federal government. That man was John Marshall. I doubt that his name and deeds are  even taught in the schools of America.

As a brilliant and very entertaining biography by Harlow Giles Unger, “John Marshall: The Chief Justice Who Save the Nation”, reveals, “Marshall’s pronouncements would ensure the integrity and eminence of the Constitution and the federal government and catapult him into the pantheon of American Founding Fathers as the father of the American federal justice system.”

“He would become the longest serving Chief Justice in U.S. history, signing 1,180 decisions and writing 549 of them, or nearly half, himself.”  America was fortunate to have a legal scholar, utterly devoted to the Constitution, in its early, formative years. “Case by case he defined, asserted, and when necessary, invented the authority he and the Court needed to render justice, stabilize the federal government, and preserve the Union and the Constitution.”

Chief among Marshall’s achievements was to assert that the Supreme Court had the right and duty to declare federal and state laws to be either constitutional or unconstitutional. With that it became the third equal but separate branch of government.

Marshall had fought in the American Revolution and had had a distinguished career as a lawyer. As Unger says, “Clouds of doom shrouded the nation in 1800. George Washington was dead. For the first time in their twenty-five year struggle to govern themselves, Americans faced a future without the father of their country to lead them. And they lost their way.”

“Absent their commander-in-chief, the men who helped him lead the nation to independence went mad. Chaos engulfed the land as surviving Founding Fathers—Adams, Burr, Hamilton, Jefferson, Monroe, and others—turned on each other as they clawed at Washington’s fallen mantle.” Jefferson as the third President wanted to rule as a virtual tyrant, but Adams’ appointment of Marshall put a brake those ambitions.

The United States is passing thought a period of governance in which the Congress is so locked in partisanship and so divided that it is barely able to function in the national interest. The current President is losing the popularity he enjoyed when first elected and, now into his second term, he is losing the support and confidence of a majority of Americans. Barack Obama has repeatedly expressed his displeasure with a Constitution that places limits on his power as President.

As Unger notes “Nothing in the Constitution gives a President power to issue proclamations or executive orders with the force of law. Only Congress can legislate, yet presidents have issued more than 13,500 proclamations and executive orders since the founding of the Republic, while the Congress has enacted only about 20,000 laws.”

The Constitution remains supreme above the office of President and, in great measure, we can thank the work of Chief Justice John Marshall.

© Alan Caruba, 2014
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/66675

---

Was Lochner Right? Natural Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment

A very informative video:

Hoping to inspire, with the flavor of a little bit of History

Obama's posturing on Russia, declaring war on the Ukraine inspired this rant against Obama's ideology. I wish to show the difference between what I believe America should be, and what 'progressives' right up to Obama, have made it into over the last hundred and one years.

This opinion of mine was inspired by an Editorial, penned By Nelson Hultberg:

Consider this: For little over half of the total years of American History up until around 1913, the Politics were primarily Libertarian in the way that was based on the ideal that American Citizens were meant by God to be free.

Concurrently the Cultural value system that the overwhelming majority of citizens ascribed to was Conservative Values within the American culture. The Founders being the highly educated, and dare I say the renaissance oriented men they were, set up the system of governance that strictly limited the government with the Constitution as the gatekeeper of Law. Laws were not to be determined by the whim of the Elite ruling class or in the case of Democracy by the passions and self-serving desires of the masses.

The Founders thoroughly understood the concept of the government adhering to the practice or doctrine of non-interference or the smallest possible interference in the affairs of the citizenry, especially with strong reference to curtailing individual conduct or freedom of action as long as it brought no harm to other citizens.   

In short, it was a system of checks and balances that was ruled by Constitutional Law rather than by the edicts of a Monarch or Dictator. They also realized that the economy although it would be subject to periods of boom and bust needed to be a free marketplace to give every American an equal chance to make their fortunes with little or no government regulations. Basically, it was a Capitalist form of government that was allowed to act with as little government intervention as possible in economic affairs.

On the other subject of Conservative Values, the Founders realized: The Conservative values of Society in general, subscribed to an underlying moral order in the universe. That basic moral code was the general rule of conduct for a workable society, and was generally embraced by the population.

In explanation: If the Ten Commandments were taken out of the religious context and looked at as underlying guidelines for a peaceful workable society in the secular sense, they would also be the underlying guidelines for the enacting of laws and codes of conduct for the citizens to voluntarily follow.

In fact the "Commonwealth States" only enacted laws that did not conflict with those principles codified in the Ten Commandments. Don't mistake the Separation of Church and State here because that stricture applies only to the Federal Government to prevent it from setting up a mandatory State Religion like Henry the VIII did in England, as did others in other countries. The culture in those beginning years however was guided by the intent of these moral objectives and it instilled them into the youth of the successive generations that followed at an early age.

This is no longer happening with the Neo-Pseudo Liberals and Socialists who now want society to subscribe to Hedonistic Principles, and turn everything upside down where it comes to the once accepted morals of our society. Knowing well in advance, those are the principles that collapse a society and allow the Oligarchs/Monarchs/Dictators to step in to restore their kind of order and strict codes of conduct.

For the citizens to complain or even act too slowly to conform, or even innocently question, the retribution is swift and deadly. I can cite examples from the Roman Empire, to Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, or more graphically Pol Pot’s Mass Murders by the Khmer Rouge who executed the majority of the adult population so they could indoctrinate the youth with their principles. This current hedonistic philosophy was recognized by the Founders as the destroyer of freedom, and would make America degenerate into license and anarchy.

The reason then, as it is now is because "A society cannot promote different opinions on or definitions of morality within itself and remain a cohesive unit. To put it in Modern Terms We cannot subscribe to the current "Doing your own thing and it's ok" moral philosophy without rending the American Society to shreds.

Let’s look at this from a little different viewpoint. Even the most Progressive of the Socialist Liberals would agree that a child of fourteen or fifteen years would not be capable of directing a Political Party, nor would that child be good at governing a Political Subdivision. Neither would they consider that Poison was no more harmful than water when ingested.

I used those over-the-top statements to showcase the common sense that people generally have about some known and learned truths. So using that basic definition of Common sense I ask why we should as a society, and why would our Political leaders consider or tolerate differences of opinion on what is and had been known through generations immemorial as right and wrong actions or immoral actions?

So, why do so many otherwise rational people accept the false premise inflicted on them by self-serving and agenda ridden and usually self-proclaimed authorities? Can the basic principles that have guided humankind for thousands of years can be thrown away and the Neo-Philosophy of Hedonism be employed without the result being utter Chaos? Would it not create a culture of Chaos and Decadence leading to the ultimate degradation and eventual dissolution of Society as a whole?

Being the men they were, the Founders deliberately inserted checks and balances into our system of governance that were set in place to prevent the Politicians who have now become the Elite Political Self-Styled Ruling Class, to become the moral guardians, and who in turn decide what the morals are going to be.

They have stolen the power over the last hundred years+ to force and beat those in society they consider sinners for disagreeing with their edicts or executive orders into either obedience or the grave. No less a figure than James Madison observed the essence of human nature to be less than angelic and in fact severely flawed, when it comes to the wielding of extreme power among other things.

The Libertarians of the Founders time, as with our time, believe that virtue must be freely chosen and not mandated. Remember the key word/concept being VIRTUE. The philosophy of the Founding Fathers held that linking the Politicians with their legislative power and to their enforcement power to moral guardians would precipitate conditions such as existed in the Theocracies of the previous ages replete with their penchant for harsh, cruel, and often deadly administration of their powers.

The crux of the matter is legislating against certain actions is in fact legislating morality, and without laws all we would have is anarchy. Therefore Legislating against harmful acts like Theft, Injury, Lying to Defame, Willful destruction of property, Murder, etc. is legislating morality and curtailing certain Individual actions, and at the same time it's legislating against violation of individual rights to protect individual actions and rights.

Any rational human should be able to see that the there is an imperative for the State to legislate against immoral behavior that injures someone or curtails their individual rights, but not against actions that are not harmful to others and do not curtail their individual rights. Sounds simple, but in practice it's very complicated.

Let’s start by agreeing the State was given the power by the people to legislate certain kinds of morality and forbidden the power to legislate against other types. That can be simply described as: Anything that is not specifically forbidden by law, is allowed. This is just the opposite of what the prevailing legal philosophy of Europe at the time of the Founding Fathers was.

To state that simply the European ideology was: Anything that is not specifically allowed by Law is Forbidden. The Founders wanted to create an open society and curtail government overreach by the Central Government/Federal Government, so they specifically set up the original Constitution to be an ironclad barrier against infringement of individual rights. They did this because the safest way to insure that we remained a Republic that respected individual rights was by strictly defining the parameters of governmental power. The states adopted similar Constitutions for the same reasons.

This fit into the Founder’s dilemma of the basic conflict between the Libertarian views and the Conservative morality questions. Which faction would be reign supreme, or would the factions be able to reach a workable compromise?

It was found that Libertarian politics and Conservative values could work together to from a free and viable society provided a method could be found to affect a realistic compromise. The Founders could not leave people alone to their own devices, nor could they be an overbearing dictatorial power keeping people in line with the rules by force.

The Founders solution to this dilemma and conflict between values was a duality of Federalism. The principle legislating bodies were the Localities and States with the Locals being the primary decision makers of what was and what wasn't appropriate legal behavior. If the problems and actions were more spread out beyond the Localities then the states would create Legislation to cover the actions.

If the local and State governments could not cover the problem then and only then the governing issue would be decided by the Federal Government but only in specified areas. This solution allowed the population to vote with their feet for or against the extent of government regulation. Example the Wet and Dry Counties that decide to allow or not allow alcoholic beverages to be sold and consumed, or more recently the legalization of Marijuana in certain States or Communities. In using this system it was thought that the governments would be held constrained through competition between them and would keep them honest.

Granted, it sounds like that system would tear itself apart in short order being basically a pseudo Democracy. However you must remember the Constitution set the parameters of law, not the politicians or the people. Certain morality laws like vice i.e. gambling, drinking alcoholic beverages, prostitution, etc. would be handled by each locality, and the vice laws in turn would be decided by the citizens of that locality.

If they thought there should be no laws against gambling you get Las Vegas and Atlantic City, and recently a plethora of States where gambling is allowed. The only requisite was that each State would structure itself as a "Government in the form of a Republic" State; therefore, America became the first and best place where the most amount of Freedom and Liberty prevailed. This happens with the majority of power decentralized To the states, and the States responsive to the people America grew and prospered.

It must be remembered that from the very beginning, the Founders were split into two groups better known as Federalists who wanted strong central government with them and their peers holding the reins of power and the Anti-Federalists who believed America should be the Republic it became even if that Republic was a compromise between Liberal and conservative viewpoints as to how the self-rule was going to be instituted. The compromise worked until, the civil war where the Strong Centralist supporters backed by the international bankers, gained the upper hand.

We have been on a downward spiral ever since with ever more restrictions on personal liberties being imposed over the years since the original 13th amendment was banished from the Constitution by Fiat of the Federalist winners of the war of the states, and they forced the 14th Amendment into the Constitution that in actual fact relegated the States into a position of inferiority with the Central Government thus reversing the original intent of the Founders of the American Republic.

The downward spiral since then has had the liberal faction taken over by the Strong Central Government factions that fly the false flags of Liberty, Integrity, and Honorable Conduct to help the downtrodden but in actuality they are ever increasing the downtrodden's servitude to their burgeoning elitist political class.

We who believe we advocate a free political order, need to challenge all the aspects of these self-acclaimed protectors of the downtrodden class by challenging them with their own rules of conduct imposed on everyone else, and hold them to account of why they say they are helping people to become self-sufficient on their welfare programs without requiring self-discipline from the recipients, and providing the training and education that will be hard but will prepare the students to tackle the problems of the real world and be able to compete in the jobs and marketplace.

If we showed them up for their insufferable tyrannical ways that keep those they "Help to Survive" in positions similar to the bonded servitude of yesteryear. Our only hope is to engage these usurpers of American Exceptionalism at every turn and show them up to the world for the miscreants they are.

Get Up And Fight Back Properly And Effectively!

The Tradesman

Court Rules Marriage Must Be Redefined Under 14th Amendment. Why That’s Wrong.

Ryan T. Anderson / June 25, 2014

 Today the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important ruling on Utah’s marriage amendment. This is the first time a circuit court has ruled on marriage since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) this time last year. In a 2-1 split decision, the 10th circuit ruled that Utah’s marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The majority held that “the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry” and that “a state may not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union.” The decision will almost certainly be appealed.

Of course the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry—but the Supreme Court decisions that established a fundamental right to marry understood marriage as the union of a man and a woman. In issuing today’s ruling, the court implicitly supplied its own, new answer to the central question in this debate: what is marriage?

The only way the 10th Circuit could reach its decision today was to smuggle in a view of marriage that sees it as an essentially genderless institution and then declare that the Constitution requires that the States (re)define marriage in such a way.

But our Constitution is silent on what marriage is. And there are good arguments on both sides of this debate. Judges should not insert their own policy preferences about marriage and declare them to be required by the Constitution.

Indeed, this is the message that Judge Paul Kelly delivered in his dissenting opinion in today’s case. Quoting Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, Judge Kelly explains: “‘Same-sex marriage presents a highly emotional and important question of public policy—but not a difficult question of constitutional law,’ at least when it comes to the States’ right to enact laws preserving or altering the traditional composition of marriage.”

Kelly continued:

    The Constitution is silent on the regulation of marriage; accordingly, that power is reserved to the States, albeit consistent with federal constitutional guarantees. And while the Court has recognized a fundamental right to marriage, every decision vindicating that right has involved two persons of the opposite gender.

Kelly explained that we need not seek from the courts a single 50-state answer: “If the States are the laboratories of democracy, requiring every state to recognize same-gender unions—contrary to the views of its electorate and representatives—turns the notion of a limited national government on its head.”

In citing Justice Alito, Judge Kelly hit on an important point—that there are competing policy arguments on the definition of marriage and that in a system of limited constitutional self-government, the people and their elected representatives should be making these decisions.

Justice Alito’s opinion on DOMA cited my book, What Is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, as an example of one view of marriage: a “comprehensive, exclusive, permanent union that is intrinsically ordered to producing new life.” And he cited Jonathan Rauch as a proponent of the idea that marriage is a commitment marked by emotional union.

Alito explained that the Constitution is silent on which of these substantive visions of marriage is correct. The Court, he explained, should defer to democratic debate.

Indeed, whatever any individual American thinks about marriage, the courts shouldn’t redefine it. Marriage policy should be worked out through the democratic process, not dictated by unelected judges. The courts should uphold the freedom of the American people and their elected representatives to make marriage policy.

Last summer, when the Supreme Court struck down DOMA, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized the limits of the majority’s opinion. He made clear that neither the holding nor its logic required redefining state marriage laws. The states remain free to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

If marriage ends up back at the Supreme Court again next year, the Court will be less likely to usurp the authority of citizens if it is obvious that citizens are engaged in this democratic debate and care about the future of marriage.

We must rally in support of our constitutional authority to pass laws defining marriage. We must make clear that court-imposed same-sex marriage via aRoe v. Wade-style decision will not settle the marriage debate any better than it has settled the abortion debate.

We must insist, with Judge Kelly, that judges “should resist the temptation to become philosopher-kings, imposing [their] views under the guise of constitutional interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

http://dailysignal.com/author/randerson/ 

14th amendment information . .

NAACP series.

 www.youtube.com/embed/ANXe6LXca1U?list=PLDF745B643E55B814

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

https://www.youtube.com/embed/KWG8AcCty_I 

https://www.youtube.com/embed/P56ZeBotFeA  Excellent Video!

Is the 14th Amendment Constitutional?

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 from barefootsworld.net research pages reposted for general information on the subject).

Another challenge to the Article V Constitutionality of the Ratification of the 14th Amendment under its 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: "that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”) and there are no exceptions to that in 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 ratification.

You, nor a court nor a legislative body can bring 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.

The Tradesman

The 14th Amendment - 2+2=4, or Does it?  Part 1

I've always been fairly good at counting change without the use of modern day auto-change cash registers. It is simple, just the application of subtraction, or addition if you wish to do it backwards. When I was in elementary school, I learned math on an abacus, a base ten principle used by the Chinese for thousands of years. Basic math is; Addition, Subtraction, Division and Multiplication, and sometimes fractions or decimals are thrown in.  Whole Numbers are; 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and includes 0, no fractions or decimals go with Whole Numbers. Computer language is on a base 2 system, which can only be a 0 (zero) or a 1 (one). With the Arabic addition of 0 (zero) to our number system we are a base Ten (10) system.  Most things in our lives have numbers, driver’s license, social security, bank accounts; even Little Johnny in pre-school has a number. Some scientists will advocate that life itself is a number system, pointing to DNA as a math based structure. So the fact is that numbers and how they are used will always be factual, i.e.. 2 + 2 will always equal 4.  So God, who created man, is based on math, which would lead me to believe that the Laws of God are also based on math. Simply put, God invented math, revealed it to man to make life simple. Math the very simplest of systems, 2 + (the little do-hickey in the middle is a plus symbol) 2 will factually always be 4, always with no exceptions. 2 plus 2 equals 4, or 2+2=4, see, always 4, no exceptions.

We all know from watching television and movies that the number one purpose of Law Enforcement is the protection of human life. (If in doubt read the sign on side of patrol vehicle) The next major obligation is to serve the public, and this usually means arresting the bad guy from further victimization of the public.  In many ways deductive reasoning is a mathematical equation and will eventually have a conclusion.  Investigating crimes and criminals is simply a verification of evidence and matching that evidence to a suspect(s).  The theory is that every single person leaves something in all the places they have been.  Hair, dandruff, cigarette butts or anything else that is proof that person had been there.  Another form an investigative tool is Behavioral Science, most often confused with Profiling, which is at opposite ends of the spectrum and not a science. As an example, every person behaves in a certain way, conscience or sub-conscience, we all have auto behavioral patterns. Criminals are no exception, and again an example:  A 15 year old female old High School student is murdered in her home. It is 100% factual that the murderer knew her, lives within a six block radius and went to school with her...This is determined by many years of study by Behavioral Scientist of criminals that actually committed these types of crime.  The level of intelligence of criminals is also known, most never complete High School. The higher the intelligence level the more sophisticated the mode of operation. These types are called "organized" criminals. Bank Robbers will always have a higher level of intelligence then a burglar, and considered as organized and burglars are "unorganized" criminals. The one basic connection with all serial killers is cannibalism. The killer will always eat part of the victim, always.  Criminals will always have a "Modus Operandi"; Latin for "method of operation".  This crime scene can vary but the basic method of how the crime was committed will always be there, and criminal will go to great lengths to cover it up. So far this is what we have; humans are math based, laws are math based, verification of evidence to suspect is a math based, and criminals have math based behavior and have Whole Numbers assigned to each.   2+2+2+2......

Okay Lawman, you're boring the hell out of me, get on with it.

So the next step is the making of Laws. I know, I got the horse before the cart but I think you'll enjoy this part of the article.  Before we get started though I must say that what I done so far is assign a "value” or a worth to a structure or process of our daily lives.  This value will continue into the next portion of the article, 2+2+2+2....

Laws start as proposals to restrict or prevent acts or to allow certain acts to be legal. There are two types of law, civil law and criminal law.  Personally, I firmly believe that the Constitution deals in only criminal law because the Declaration of Independence is an indictment of crimes, not corporate contract violations.  A bill is introduced into the law making segment of a government body, called legislators while in a legislative session usually always at the State level. The bill is debated, amended, debated and if it is a good law for the health, safety and welfare of the citizen is passed by usually a 2/3 majority vote. The law has a certain time until it is put into effect or is enforceable, and this time frame varies with each State. Amendments on the other hand are not laws per say, they are acts of Congress and the States in conjunction with each other to enhance citizens’ rights or reinforce citizen rights.  These Amendments were never intended to give or enhance Federal authority or enforcement ability over the citizens or to violate State Sovereignty or States Rights to Self-Government.  However, there is a second way to make Amendments and it really very simple.

Article V.
     The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislators of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislators of the three fourths of several States, or by Convention in three fourths thereof, as the one or other Mode or Ratification may proposed by the Congress........' (Bold and italics mine) State Convention ratification of Amendments by-pass the Congressional process and is Constitutional in its application and authority.  This means only 38 States need to have a Convention, pass an Amendment, and Congress, the Executive Branch and the U.S. Supreme Court can do nothing about it. The People and only the People have final authority of how they are governed. So let's pick an Amendment and go through the process...and I pick the, (drum roll) XIV Amendment of the Bill of Rights.  I know, you're not surprised at all...

The XIV Amendment (aren't Roman Numerals kinda cool) was ratified on July 9, 1868 by 28 of the 37 States... or was it. According to my notes three States; Oregon, Ohio and New Jersey had reaccessioned, but wait, no Congress rejected their recessions as too late, but no, two States did not ratify until July 21, 1868, yet Congress ordered it ratified on the 20th of July, so why is the date July 9th 1868 the date of ratification...if my math is correct they would still be one State shy of Ratification even on 21 July. 

Recession means to unmake as in a contract or withdraw as in these States cases, perfectly Legal move even after Ratification.
A little side note of interest; Oregon did not ratify the 14th until 1973, Ohio and New Jersey did not ratify until....2003.

How did this all come about, well in 1867 Congress passed the Reconstruction Act which forced the Rebel Southern States to ratify the 14th Amendment before they could have Representation in Congress.  Yes, you read that right, forced to ratify. Ok, so let’s go back a little further to the Ohio Territory era. William B. Harrison is the Governor, and guess what, no representation is sent to Congress and it was occupied by the U.S. Army because Ohio is a Territory and not a State. Washington D.C. is a Territory and NOT entitled to Representation in Congress.  However the XXIII Amendment changed Representation to Congress for Electoral purposes only and holds no vote in Congress but can vote as private citizens of that district.

Also it should be noted that under this Act the U.S. Army was ordered to occupy each and every Rebel State to help in reforming a "civilian" government. Each and every elected official as well as Sheriffs or Chiefs of Police had to swear an oath to hold office. Those that did not could never hold office unless pardoned by Congress.  What I have described to this point is the occupation of a Territory by the U.S. Army under Federal Jurisdiction and NOT entitled to a vote for ratification of any Amendment. No other Territories, such as the Wyoming Territory, were forced to ratify the amendment. You getting the impression that 2+2 does not equal 4 any longer....

So let’s see what we have so far leading up to Ratification of the XIV Amendment:
March 2, 1866. Civil Rights Act protected African Americans after Civil War but does not protect Indians on Reservations or women.
December 13th, 1866, Joint Committee on Reconstruction. 15 members, 9 from House, 6 from Senate drafted the 14th Amendment which included the language that Southern States must ratify the amendment before they could send representation to Congress. Not reactivated in next Congress.

March 2, 1867, Reconstruction Act: Actual Title; "An Act to provide for more effective government of the Rebel States."

1. Establishes 5 Military Districts. Tennessee is exempt as they had already ratified the 14th Amendment.
2. Each State must draft a new Constitution
3. Constitution must be approved by Congress
4. Grant voting rights to all blacks.  
5. Must ratify 14th Amendment before representation in Congress
6. Establishes Military Governors.

President A. Johnson first vetoed the Act but Congress overrode veto, and then immediately repealed Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 fearing a Supreme Court ruling that Act would be unconstitutional. 

A short History of the Habeas Corpus Act:
Habeas Corpus is Latin meaning; “may you have the body".
In legal terms insures the release of a prisoner from unlawful custody.

Immediately after the Civil War started President Lincoln in an attempt to secure the defense of Washington D.C. suspended Habeas Corpus and ordered the Military to secure the rail systems in the area. The Military detained hundreds of citizens and tired many in a Military tribunal. The U.S. Circuit Court ruled such detentions as unconstitutional so on Feb. 2, 1863 Congress passed the Habeas Corpus Act allowing the President and his subordinates (especially the hate monger Secy. of War Stoddard) to act on their own good judgment to detain civilians and try them in a Military Tribunal. Habeas Corpus prior to this was a Congressional Power. This Act also amended the Judiciary Act of 1789. However, a little known part of this Habeas Corpus Act also took prosecution of Elected Officials for Abuse of Power out of the State’s Legal System into Federal Jurisdiction. 

With all my investigative skills and mathematical knowledge this still does not add up.

If I was to add this all up I should have a Bo Derek perfect "10", or for you ladies a "The Rock" Johnson perfect 10, but no matter how I manipulate it still falls short.  2+2+2+2+?=$$$$$

Anyone that has ever watched "Gone with the Wind" will conclude that "Carpet bagging" started immediately after the Civil War ended. This is a false, Carpet bagging started after this amendment was passed. I refer to this era as "The Rape of the South" because many of those carpetbaggers were financed by elected officials or had an understanding with the Military Governors. Nowhere else in American History was the blessing ever so obvious to the vengeance of Congress and a President then at this time.  All one has to do is see the manipulation of a Republican stacked Congress to see what the 14th Amendment is all about. The question of legality is in the ratification.  That blacks are only mentioned ONE time in the Amendment as a right to vote, all the rest is how the occupied territories will be governed, redistricted, by whom and FORCED into voting for an Amendment that strips almost every single right of sovereignty and Independence from the Southern Territorial Military Districts. Decades later, members of Congress and Presidents will see this Amendment as a vessel to total control over States and Citizens.  This single most famous of Reconstruction Amendments did just that; reconstructed the intent and purpose of the Constitution and is affectively destroying a Constitutional Republic.

This is not the end of my writing articles on the 14th Amendment. There will probably be 3 or 4 more so I would like to introduce you all to a person that will participate in those articles. This person is a great researcher and writer although she will deny it.  I'll call her my sidekick even though seemingly an unequal terminology it is with affection that I refer to her as that. Her name is Boots and this is all a big surprise for her but from now on, these articles on the 14th Amendments, Boots will be a co-author. Surprise Boots....:)

To be continued…..
Good bye, so long and close the gate please
Lawman

14th Amendment  2+2=4, or Does it?  Part 2

Before we further discuss the 14th Amendment, I'm going to give a short history of the 8th Amendment and its significance.

The 8th was the first Amendment proposed by Congress in 61 years. The Amendment is simple in content and outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crimes when duly convicted. On April 8, 1864, with a vote of 28-6 the Amendment passed the Senate but failed in the House 93-65 on June 15.  After much debate and non-supported accusations about President Lincoln's tainted interference, the House finally passed the amendment on Jan. 31, 1865 with a vote of 119-56, just barely making the 2/3 vote requirement. President Lincoln immediately signed the amendment, the only President to have ever done so. 

On April 14, 1865 President Lincoln was assassinated and the Vice President Andrew Johnson was sworn in as President the next day. Johnson was asked by Lincoln in his campaign of 1864 to run with him as the Vice President. Johnson was a 2-time Tennessee Representative and State Senator until Lincoln appointed him as Military governor of Tennessee in March 1862.  When the Civil War broke out Johnson was the only Senator from a Southern State that retained his seat in Congress. He was a land owner/slave owner and when he was appointed Governor, the Confederate States confiscated his land and slaves, but allowed his wife and children free passage to the North. Johnson as Military Governor also ratified Tennessee's new Constitution on Feb 22, 1865.

President Johnson recognized and advocated publicly as Vice President and President that the Rebel Southern States were still legitimate and recognized Sovereign States. He opposed this amendment as well as the 14th amendment as a State Right to legislate Laws dealing with these issues. However, on December 6, 1865 the 13th Amendment was ratified by 27 of the 36 States.  Seven Southern States, including 4 of the original 13 States (North and South Carolina, Virginia and Georgia) voted for ratification. At this point we must remember that Southern States voted on ratification of an Amendment as it plays an important part in ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Prelude to the 14th Amendment and Impeachment:
Many historians consider Andrew Johnson the worst president ever. Many consider him a bigot, obstructionist and an inept administrator of Re-Unification of the Republic. Johnson considered himself as a Jeffersonian and did not believe that the Southern States ever left the Union; they did after all lose the war, so how could they have successfully seceded. Johnson also believed in the States as able to make their own laws dealing with former slaves voting rights as well as anti-slavery laws. However, Congress in response to "Black Code" laws preventing former slaves from voting in some Southern States passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which Johnson immediately vetoed.  Congress eventually over-rode the veto and became the laws of the land.  Some historians believe this is the one single act that was the downfall of the *Johnsons presidency, effectively splitting the political party.  This law eventually led to the 15th Amendment because of the "Black Code" laws, well after Johnson's impeachment.

Even though the Civil Rights Act of 1866 did not play a role in the introduction of the 14th Amendment, it did effectively start a political war between Johnson and the Radical Republicans in Congress.  The next step for Congress was passing the Reconstruction Act, which Johnson immediately vetoed, and Congress immediately over-turned making it law on March 2, 1867.  Just prior to this on February 2, 1867, Congress repealed the Habeas Corpus Act of 1863.  This act gave President Lincoln the authority to arrest civilians and prosecute through a Military tribunal, and this law had to be repealed before the Reconstruction Act could be passed.  One thing Congress did not want Johnson to have was the authority of Habeas Corpus, they all may have ended up before a Military Tribunal.  This Law had also already been heard before the Supreme Court and was about to render its opinion which most Congressmen felt it would not be a decision in their favor, so they repealed it. Also by this time Johnson had publicly proclaimed that all the Rebel States had bonafide civil governments, the exception was Texas, and that is probably because C.S.A. Cavalry **Brig, Gen. Joseph O. Shelby and his Iron Brigade had not surrendered.

By the passing of the Reconstruction Act, Congress had effectively but not completely pulled the Presidential Powers from beneath President Johnson. The following is a list of what that Law entailed:

1. Established 5 Military Districts from the Southern Rebel States with the exception of Tennessee.
2. Each Rebel State had to rewrite their State Constitution and grant voting rights to former slaves. (It should be noted here that this did not include women or Indians.)
3. Constitution had to be approved by Congress before re-admittance to the Union.
4. Ratify the 14th Amendment.
5. Stripped President Johnson as Commander in Chief over Military Districts and Military Governors.
6. Declared Martial Law in Southern States.
7. Required oath of allegiance from all elected or appointed officials.
8. Allowed Military Governors to appoint officials to elected positions to form new State Government.

Even though this is not in Braille, a blind person can see that there is really something wrong with this law. Stripping any President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is way beyond Congressional Authority.  Establishing Military Districts in Sovereign States and appointments of people into elected positions to ratify an amendment is also beyond Congressional Powers.  Allowing Military Governors appointed officials or the Military Governors themselves assured ratification of the 14th Amendment.  And the most obvious of all is that the Southern States had helped ratify the 13th Amendment were now not able to ratify the 14th amendment except under duress.  After the passage of the Reconstruction Act the Northern Congress refused to allow the ELECTED Representatives and Senators to be seated in Congress.  This will be discussed further in another article.

Final downfall of President Johnson

On March 2, 1867 Congress passed a little known law, called the Tenure of Office Act.  This seemingly innocent law prevented Johnson from firing any of his cabinet members without their approval and eventually led to his impeachment.  President Johnson had inherited Lincoln’s cabinet and contrary to some historians beliefs, did get along with them.  Johnson, when asked by Lincoln to be his Vice President expected to carry Lincoln’s reconstruction plans to fruition even after Lincoln was assassinated. Part of that plan was to keep Lincoln's cabinet as they would play a role in the reconstruction process.  Prior to the Reconstruction Act being passed, Johnson had asked his Attorney General Henry Stanbery to render an opinion on Congress taking away his Commander in Chief authority over the Military Districts.  Stanbery's opinion was that Congress DID NOT have that authority.  Congress after passing the Act waited for Johnsons veto and on the same day over rode the veto and went into recess.  On August 5th 1867 Johnson asked for Secretary of War Edwin Stanton's resignation and relieved Gen Sheridan as Military Governor of Texas and appointed Gen. Grant to temporarily replace Sheridan and Lorenzo Thomas to replace Stanton.  Stanton however refused to leave office and when Congress reconvened, they filed 11 counts of impeachment against Johnson citing violations of the Tenure to Office Act. On Feb 28th, 1868 the House voted 128 to 49 to impeach Johnson, passing the impeachment to the Senate for a conviction.

On March 5th the Senate proceeded with trial, Chief Justice Chase presiding, and Attorney General Stanbery as lead defense attorney. Johnson did not appear at the trial and was instead bargaining with Congressional members for an acquittal. On March 15th the Senate with a vote of 35 guilty and 19 not guilty acquitted Johnson on the 11th count of violation of the Tenure of Office Act, one vote short of conviction.  The opposition dismissed any further actions. The defense attorney Stanbery was re-appointed by Johnson as Attorney General but Congress refused to confirm the appointment.

Foot Notes:
* Johnson was elected the Congressional Senator from Tennessee on Jan 25th 1875, the only President to have ever been re-elected as a Senator. Johnson died several months later from a stroke while visiting his daughter in Elizabethtown, Tenn.

**C.S.A. Brig. Gen. Joseph O. Shelby, Dec 12, 1830-Feb 13, 1879) Wealthy landowner from Missouri. At the outbreak of the War, Shelby formed his own cavalry company being elected Captain. After participating in several battles with particular valor shown, Shelby was promoted to a very young Brig. General. Shelby became famous for the longest Cavalry raid at the time, covering a distance of over 1500 miles.  His cavalry became known as the Iron Brigade and Shelby was considered by both sides the best cavalry commander of the war. After the surrender of Lee's Army, Shelby with 1000 men headed south through Texas into Mexico where Emperor Maximillion granted them asylum and gave them a tract of land by Veracruz to settle. While on this trek and Shelby's refusal to surrender to the Northern Army they became known as the "undefeated" and much later in time a show with John Wayne and Rock Hudson was made depicting Shelby's adventure. In 1867 Shelby returned to Missouri and in 1893 appointed U.S. Marshall of Western Missouri. Shelby died in 1897, still a U.S. Marshall and had yet to surrender to the U.S. Federal Government or its Army.

To be continued....

Good bye, so long and close the gate please
Lawman

14th Amendment  2+2=4, Or Does It? Part 3

Oderint dum metuarnt:
"I scorn their hatred if they do not fear me". ~ Roman Emperor Caligula.

So what were the North’s intentions with the 14th Amendment?  Was it simply a matter of citizenship and voting rights for former slaves? Or was it much more sinister than that?  At this time in history we can look back and make a good case on both issues.  However, the issues of that time and place are much different than our perspective of today having to live with the repercussions of this infamous Amendment.  Every Classic Liberal that I know considers this single amendment completely derailed the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  There are even some right-wing Conservatives that feel the same way but for different reasons, and not necessarily the derailing Congressional Authority. Every single left wing progressive liberal socialist thinks that this amendment is the best thing since the discovery of Penicillin, the main cure for Sexually Transmitted Diseases, as a comparison (giggle).  I might add that most left wing liberal progressive socialist probably have not even read the Constitution or more less have any idea of what those intentions are meant for.

What I am about to present are conclusions of circumstantial evidence gleaned from records of that time, before, during and after the Civil War.  I am not providing a list of my sources but I will say that most are found within the Article V project web site.  Also be reminded from past articles that everyone has behavioral patterns, and I believe that Congress also as a group has those same behavioral patterns, even to this day.  Included in this reminder is the Modus Operando or method of operation to achieve a certain goal, and it is always the same method on each and every goal.

Industrial Progress:
1793-Eli Whitman invents cotton gin                                             
1807-Robert Fulton invents steam engine                                  
1823-Lowell Mill open-textile production                                  
1828-First Railroad                                                                                 
1834-Cyrus McCormick invents mechanical mower-reaper  
1835-Samual Morse invents telegraph
1837-First National Road completed
1838-John Deere invents Steele plow
1842-Massachuesetts legislates first Union-Commonwealth V Hunt
1847-Elias Howe invents sewing machine
1848-Invention of Binding Books
1858-First Trans-Atlantic Cable unites Europe and America.

Even though every single item on the above list is a common and even expected commodity today, had a major impact on everyday lives way back then. Each of these inventions changed the social, economic, religious and political structure of this country. As an example; Charles Darwin and his Evolutionary Theory or Carl Marx and the Communist Manifesto would never have had the world wide effect without the mass production of Bound Books. By simply attaching Deere's Steele plow behind McCormick’s mechanical mower opened vast amounts of land for agricultural use.  When all these inventions begin to come together and used for the benefit of each stage of production or the reaping of crops, the economy takes a 100 fold jump to prosperity.  Owners of Industry and Land owners become wealthy and influential in State governance and have an impact on the legislation of laws, and to some degree impact internal social structure of private citizens.  How these inventions were used in each States also determined a wide difference in view and direction of their own destiny. This also greatly impacted the Federal Governments perceived influences in revenue and Congressional cooperation from a political party platform.  These differences had what I believe five areas of major impact upon both States and Federal Government in determining that destiny. Some of these five areas have a greater impact than others but they all played a role that would eventually lead to a civil war and a shift in Constitutional Intent. I will list them in order from least to most influential, in my opinion of course, and discuss each one in turn.

Western Expansion:  
The great migration west began in the middle 1830's with pioneering of the Oregon Trail. Early Fur trappers did a lot of exploring in the quest for the beaver pelt and had discovered an easy route through the South Pass of the Rocky Mountains to the western frontier.  These individualist adventurers/settlers were somewhat similar to the settlers of the Original Colonial America. They were independent, imaginative, self-reliant, and to some degree anti-government.  Land was virtually free for the taking and with hard work and tenacity could be very lucrative, providing the Indians in the area let you live that long.  These pilgrims eventually became the middle-class citizens of society. With this western movement along came the movement to makes States out of Territories.  Horace Greeley with his "Manifest Destiny" unwittingly split Congressional thinking on the issue of representation from each new State becoming an imbalance. The Northern States concern was that the issue of labor and slavery, and the growing of cotton in the expanding numbers of States would eventually sway the legislation from the Southern States as the dominating political power in making laws. Eventually the Missouri Compromise was reached in which for every Southern State admitted into the Union a Northern State had to also be admitted, thus keeping the balance of power. Cause of war; 5%
Slavery:

The scourge of mankind is known to have been in every culture, society, religion and class structure since the beginning of man.
There is not one single group of people ever to have existed on this planet that did not practice slavery of one form or another.  Sadly true but even this Great Nation at its inception could not rid itself of this blight.  However, contrary to the modern educational system, Slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. It was a part of the cause but only a small part of the cause. Up until the mid-1960s that war was referred to as The War of the State Right of Secession.  So let's look at a few facts about slavery in the South (even though Northern states also had slaves); Estimated population was around 6 million, of which only 6% of the population actually owned slaves. Not all slaves were "field slaves" many worked in mines, factories, transportation and many other types of industry, with some estimates of around 3 million as used as actual slave labor in the cotton fields.  And, yes there are accounts of abuse and even the murder of slaves, however the numbers of occurrence are not as generous as modern historians or movie makers would want you to believe.  It happened, but rarely. Slave owners considered the slaves as an investment and knew that mistreating them would only lesson the production and reaping of the crops. Slaves were provided housing, food, medical treatment and even developed their own "religion" during those times, and believe it or not had Sundays off, all at the owner’s cost.  I'm going to quote what my College Professor said at the beginning of class; "Anyone here think that 600,000 white men died to free the slaves, please, raise your hand."  A thought very few will ever speak today, but facts-are-facts in the greatest blood-letting in American History was not about slavery.   Cause of war; 15%.

Northern Labor:
This may sound rather strange to some but I view Northern Labor the same way many view Southern Slavery.  Picture yourself as a 12 year old girl that is from a very poor family with 4 older siblings, a father that kills rats in the New York Sewer System for 10 cents a day, a mother that sews for extra money, living in a one room shanty with no running water or toilet facilities, the roof leaks, the rats run wild, the food is rancid, what little there is of it, and the rent is most of what the father makes in a month, and no chances of any education for the children.  This little girl’s options are very few, so the father "sells" her to a textile mill in Concord, Massachusetts.  There the girl will be boarded in an dormitory, at a cost deductible from her wages, fed, also deducted from wages, and if she is lucky will not be raped the first day at work, at no extra cost of course.  This little girl will work 12-16 hours every day for the rest of her un-natural life, maybe 30. Oh, if she needs medical attention, she pays if she can get it.....and forget about going to church, all for about a nickel a day...

This is typical of Northern Industrialists treatment of their labor force, Oh, and one last thing, if this little girl runs away from her job, the owner hires men to track her down, beat her, probably rape her, and return her to her job....and the time loss will be deducted from her wages;  Cause of war; 15%.

But as most things then and now it is about the profit and labor be damned. In the Northern States it was about a simple item of little known importance now days; which will lead us to the next title.

Tariffs:
What was the only way for Government to constitutionally support itself was by import-export Tariffs on foreign and domestic goods.  However, the application of how those tariffs are applied and at what percentage would cause an immediate and permanent division between the Northern and Southern States. The Protective Tariff of 1828 and 1832 raised the tariff rates to an industrial Northern States favor, and immediately depressed the price of cotton and other raw materials in the Southern States.

The south realizing that the industrial North had a distinct advantage from influential industries and political representatives, and realizing that their economy was in desperate straits, U.S. Senator John C. Calhoun from South Carolina called for a State Convention in November of 1832.  The representative quickly responded by nullifying the Protective Tariff of 1828 and 1832.  Nullification is where a State simply not recognizing Federal Law or by not acting on Federal Law, these folks become "nullifiers", and was and is considered Constitutional for a State to do so.  President Jackson’s response to the nullification was three fold First he sent a message to all the citizens of South Carolina calling the nullification "impractical absurdity" and issued orders through the Department of War for the Forts in Charleston Harbor to prepare to defend themselves.  Jackson then convinced Congress to pass a Force Bill so he could use military force to collect the tariff in the Port of Charleston.

In the meantime Senator Calhoun and Daniel Webster are debating nullification and States rights before Congress, and in between the mean times President Jackson had employed Kentucky Senator Henry Clay to negotiate an agreement with South Carolina on fair tariff rates, which resulted in Compromise Tariff of 1833 thus suspended the issue of Federal Powers Versus State Rights. Eventually these issues will once again rise with the secession of South Caroline in December of 1860 and settling the real issues once and for all: cause of war; 30%

State Rights:
In 1828 the State of Georgia through the act of State Legislation took most of the land owned by the Cherokee Indian Nation. The Cherokee had assimilated very well into the white man’s world and owned some of the best agricultural land in the state that along with the discovery of gold in 1827 on Cherokee land motivated Georgia to seize the land.  Georgia was willing to relocate the Cherokee to lands west of the Mississippi River in the Oklahoma Indian Territory. President Andrew Jackson did not oppose the Georgia Law because he had similar designs for the Cherokee. However, the U.S.S.C Chief Justice John Marshall over turned the Georgia Law and ordered Georgia to return the lands. President Jackson’s refused to intervene and responded "(Chief Justice) John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."  Eventually Jackson refusal to enforce John Marshall's opinion led to the infamous Cherokee "Trail of Tears" where thousands of Cherokees died during a winters march to Oklahoma Territory.  This is a sad result of State Rights which includes nullification, but a State Right none the less.  I'm not going to go into a long dissertation of State Rights, and will simply state this.

X Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

What I love about our Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitution are they were short.  Direct and what they say is in a common understandable language.  So whatever each and every Article in the Constitution says what each and every branch of government can or cannot do is all they can do, no more.  Everything else is for the States or the citizens of that state. Cause of war: 35%.

I'm going to be honest with your readers; this has been a most complicated article to write. I will thank Boots for her research, input and ideas. She, ever so humble chooses to remain in the back ground and doing "what she does best".  I have tried to keep it simple yet make the issues as clear and understandable as possible.

The years leading up to the “Civil War” were an age of industrial growth and westward expansion, bringing new issues before and within the political arena. New concepts or meanings to a "form" of Government arose. The issue of slavery even though skirted by the delegates 80 years earlier was not so much an issue with bondage but the effect of monetary gain resulting from either slave labor or waged labor.  President Jackson was the first President to publicly proclaim that Federal Rights superseded States’ Rights yet participated in one nullification and screamed bloody murder calling South Carolina Treasonous because they nullified Federal Law.  President Jackson was the first and last president to have a balanced Federal budget, and he did so by refusing to franchise a Federal Bank, strictly against the wishes of Congress, and interestingly enough he is the only President to have a vote of no confidence by Congress. But sure as the sun will rise tomorrow Jackson was an affirmed Federalist. All other Presidents who follow his footsteps will be called Jacksonians, and eventually to "progressives" as termed today.  Jackson was the last of the Revolutionary War "veterans" even though he was only 13 when he was captured (his story, not confirmed) and held prisoner by the British Army. Madison and Jefferson were still around during the Nullification Crisis but never responded publicly to the issue. I have read enough of both to make the statement that I believe they would support State Rights before all else.  What we must remember is that the 10th Amendment was still recognized as the sole and final say as to whom had what authority, yes even the question of Slavery was a State Right to determine. When I started this article it was not to write about a civil war, although the events I have described previously have led to that civil war but what I am really leading to is the only logical conclusion as a result of that civil war and those events leading up to it.

That conclusion funnels down to one thing only; Absolute Federal Authority over State and Citizen Rights, the adoption of the XIV Amendment, our next topic for discussion.

To be continued...

Good bye, so long and close the gate please.
Lawman

14th Amendment  2+2=4, Or Does It? Part 4

The Adoption or Ratification of the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment is the second of three Reconstruction Amendments ratified after the American Civil War.  There have been hours of research put into this article, and first credit goes to Boots with me trailing a far distance second. The research is factual and I would challenge anyone reading this article that may be in doubt, research these events and find out for themselves, exactly what did occur.  

I offer a caveat, for those that are doing historical research, keep in mind that history is most often written by the victors and rarely by the defeated. Personal bias, self-interest and political views will often effect the conclusion and opinion of the researcher.  Advise: Keep an open mind on what may, or may not find, multiple sources are the key to a complete research effort. You may find 'gaps' in the story-lines or openings to articles that should cause you to question, discover and find for yourself an informed opinion,  only after a rational thought process brings you to a rational conclusion. Be fair and balanced in mind and heart, we owe that to ourselves and our future generations.

My approach in this article will not be typical of my past articles.  Our research material will support what I am about to do. Tell you a story, a story of 37 brothers.  In this story there will be a king, many slaves, a House and some rules and law, some conflict, some re-building, some new rules and new law...perhaps even slaves and a king again.

The first king lasts in this story no more than a sentence: once, many years ago there was a king. The slaves of this king fought and won their independence - they self-determined they would be slaves no more. They numbered 13.

These Free Men joined together as brothers and built themselves a new house in a new land. The house they built had 13 rooms, one each, for these first 13 brothers to live in. As time passed the house was expanded as additional brothers would join the residence. Of course, as in any residence there are house rules; which all must agree upon, to live fairly and peacefully together.

In time, all the FIRST brothers passed on, they became to be known as the Fathers. What was supposed to be remembered and continued to be agreed upon-were the same rules they had established.  The number of brothers increased to thirty-seven, and they were all still living together under one roof, but...the 'living by -the same rules standard' was becoming a strained affair. An extreme difference of opinion developed between the brothers. In fact, a critical division resulted, they divided into two 'camps' to compete with one another, yet try to maintain the balance of equal-yet opposing philosophical and economical ground. Each new brother added -was chosen and assigned to one or the other team, yet each had their own 'room' to maintain.

We shall now call these two groups of brothers "The Greys and the Blues".

Even though the original 13 had once been slaves themselves -their sons - the descended Grey brothers took for themselves -slaves of their own. They brought them into the home - had them working their rooms - and over these servants they held authority and claimed ownership. In fact, the entire society of their substance and maintenance of their rooms depended on that ownership and the acts of servitude of these persons.

The "Blues" felt that their 'Grey' brothers treated their servants poorly.  In fact, they objected to the idea of slavery completely.  They also resented that their brothers had servants who maintained their rooms-while they, by choice, did not. And as they conducted their fellowship within the House, Individual brothers - from within each division felt, in varying degrees, that there were brothers that had too much authority, some felt that money would solve all the issues, and finally a portion believed that as quarrels or disagreements broke out - they could/in fact should, run their particular room as they felt was fit.

Eventually, as in most cases amongst brothers, who live under the same roof-the issues became so segregated that a conflict would inevitably occur. And sure enough a great fist fight erupted at the boiling point.  Greys vs. Blues. The brawl was a bloody one; wounds that would scar - were inflicted. As in every historic brotherly conflict, the one that is better armed, financed with the most resources available...The Stronger... will always win, and indeed in this story- that very thing happened.

If we were discussing just any old brawl and the telling of it - if this were just a run-of-the-mill fist fight between brothers - the end result would be very simple. Each brother - after it was all over, would pick themselves up, set the broken bones that would need mending, wipe the blood off and bandage the wounds in hope they might heal correctly. They would then return to the common dinner table for a good laugh and a good dinner, right?   

You may know where this story is heading - you may think that you have it all figured out as you rush ahead to its ending, but as often is the case with me, I will finish it with two possible outcomes, for you to consider... here's the first.

Rather than the victorious brothers welcoming the losing and humiliated brothers warmly upon returning to the house. Instead of forgiving the hurts - giving tender consideration and offering salve toward mending the wounds; after all, the battle had been injurious to both sides - deep gashes and low blows had been served and met by each; they instead - imposed their victors will powerfully - upon the defeated losers.

First they demanded, and rightfully so, that the defeated 'Greys' release their servants. The losers willingly agreed, in fact, to the terms of their defeat - they had voted to do so.

The power play did not end there, however; and now the list of demands begins:

**the newly freed were all now to be considered brothers of the household and given a vote. Their subsistence undetermined - their place undecided - they had no rooms of their own, but were now free to wander the house, their role undefined.
**The winners next insisted that in order to be allowed back into the house, which incidentally, they had been promised they would be allowed to do- after the surrender and vote to free the servants.
**they must surrender most of their room rights.
**have their room occupied by enforcement persons.
**swear an oath of allegiance to the re-united house and the victorious brothers.
**and for those that did not, they would be replaced, by an appointed person, to represent their interest until such time as they might come to their senses and agree to the un-negotiable terms.
**Their own rooms were divided into areas with an overseer
-that could detain them, if they did not comport themselves as the victors decreed.
-prosecute them, according to the victors designed justice.
-and execute them outside, what had been previously known as the established
  judicial system established by The Fathers.  
**The losers had to agree to a new set of rules for their rooms. Rules they had no voice in deciding.
**Agree to the new laws the winners would draft-before they would be allowed back into the house.
 **They could not/would not be considered a brother, until they voted     for this law. Their vote was mandatory, they could not refuse, failure to ratify, barred them from ever returning to the house or the brotherhood.
 **Lastly, each new future brother, who might ever be admitted into the House, would be bound to conform to their new room rules - to this law, without question, giving up all rights to decide how their room would operate. The New Law and its rules would supersede any room rules, that any brother for himself, might make.  

So, as the story goes - the new law was passed. The United House and the reconciled brothers knew it was in Every and All best interests - to put their divided House back together again.  There are after all, in every story, the enemy from 'Without' that threatens the security and the existence of the House and the land.

But as most brothers do, as most people do,... they did not realize at that time, the far reaching impact of the growth and potential of this New Law.  It would expand - and with each new largess that it gained - would be legitimized - because it was rooted in origin to this all-powerful New Law.

Inside the House the politics would become...The Stronger would always dictate to the less powerful living there.  They would decide what each and every right was to be. They would define what the freedoms for all fellow brothers would be written.

The Stronger would be allowed the power to decide and levy unlimited taxes and unchecked budgets to operate a large household staff.

But Importantly the Victors did not realize that their New Law -and all the laws created beneath it-would make the House the strongest component in the new equation. Each new rule created under the Law became a new board on the walls, a new layer on the window panes, and the Law began to grow and sustain itself.

The Law became more Law and more and more and more.  As The Law grew the House grew and eventually the House and the Law became ONE.  The boards turned into stone and then there appeared bars on every window.

The design and the deliberate nurturing of this new Law - by the first Victors - once rooted - then established - flourished far beyond its original intent. The brothers over time then numbered 50. Those who had been Victors or Losers had long been forgotten, and they had too passed.   

Yet the Law they created did not.  It had morphed and multiplied many times over...ever growing - ever encompassing - ever self-fulfilling. It now applied to - and affected everyone -who lived in the House. Looking around, not a single brother could see anymore where the Law ended and The House began.

Unwittingly, the winning brothers, of so long ago had also included and committed themselves -along with all future generations of brothers-to the House and the Law that had now become One.  

Ironically, and most regrettably - the moral of this version of the tale is:

The Law and The House would become, in the end, the exact opposite of the first rules and the first house that the original brothers had agreed to and built.

The End, of the first story, reads as it began.  There are slaves - who became brothers - who made slaves of others - they quarreled and fought - they freed all and became brothers and united their House again - then created Laws for the House - and the Law was so powerful it took on a life of its own - The Law entwined with the House, and they united as One...and the One became King....and the brothers were all slaves once again.

Here is the alternate and edited version:

After the fist fight, and the broken bones, and bloody the noses, and the open cuts - each and every brother, winner and loser helped each other to bind the wounds and bandage the cuts, shook hands and forgave - agreed to start new - separate - and equal, accepting no slave in their home - all were free to sit down together at the dinner table each night. All with a respected and independent voice in the House, all brothers with the same rights and responsibilities.

They looked upon this Reunion with eyes that would not define winners or losers, would not accept the condition of slave or king.  They willingly and freely agreed and wrote a binding rule to such benevolence, that would keep all future peace and lend to only to the prosper of each within the House. All brothers were free to rule their own rooms without influence or interference from the other brothers, but faithful to the benevolent rule and respect of the first Law their Fathers had established and intended the Life in their House to be lived.  The brothers now number 50, with the foundations of more being built.

Even as both stories are being told, a new chapter or ending of each can be written.

Which house would you prefer to live in I ask?  Which version of this story do you wish to tell to your children and grandchildren?  What is the chapter or ending you wish to write?

May God, grant us the wisdom to be brothers, without strife or malice, bias or hate or division of purpose.

Good bye, so long and close the gate please.
Lawman

A Classroom Discussion on the 14th Amendment

Please watch this video:  http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/pages.aspx?name=conversation-14th-amendment&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Historical Analysis of the Meaning of the 14th Amendment's First Section

Highlights
•    “[I]f the rebel States would make no denial of right to emancipated citizens no [fourteenth] amendment would be needed. But they will make denial,” said Rep. John A. Bingham.
•    Rep. Bingham points out that no State may deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection “not of its laws, but of the laws,” i.e., law of the land.
•    Bingham says the Fourteenth Amendment secures the power to enforce the same identical condition that had been placed upon the State of Missouri in 1821.
•    Bingham said both Due Process and Equal Protection of the Laws were the words of Chapters 39 and 40 of the Magna Charta.
•    The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States refer only to those privileges and immunities embraced in the original text of the Constitution, Article IV, Section II.
•    Bingham said, “citizens of the United States, and citizens of the States, as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment, did not change or modify the relations of citizens of the State and the Nation as they existed under the original Constitution.”
 
To understand the goal and function of the Fourteenth Amendment's first section one needs to understand that its entire purpose was to give legal validity to the Civil Rights Bill of 1866. The goal of both of these acts were to put an end to criminal black codes established under former rebel States that at the time were being administered under policies of President Andrew Johnson.

Because former slaves were considered emancipated citizens of the United States by Lincoln's emancipation, Congress felt it was vital to protect their fundamental rights as United States citizens under Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution wherever they traveled within the Union (especially in the South and Oregon). These fundamental rights of United States citizens (not citizens residing within their own State) were universally understood to include due process in criminal proceedings and for the equal administration of due process that included equal pains and penalties of law. This is why black codes were found objectionable; they placed the black man on unequal footing before the courts of justice with the white man.

Under the original Constitution, citizens of the United States were required to be first a citizen of some State - something newly emancipated citizens could not claim. This is why it was imperative for the first section to begin with a definition of citizenship so that no State could refuse recognition of newly freed slaves as U.S. citizens and thereby leaving them with less protection and remedies under the laws of justice than compared with a white citizen.

It should be pointed out that after the south surrendered there was no longer any organized Southern States belonging to the Union, only federally administered former States that became divided into military districts whose inhabitants were treated primarily as citizens of the United States rather than citizens of a State. The problem with the initial administration of these former rebel States was with President Andrew Johnson's lack of consultation with Congress on his administration plans. Senator Jacob Howard called the temporary former rebel State governments set up by President Johnson “bogus governments” and “unconstitutional,” resting “upon military edicts of the president of the United States, so far as they have any foundation and operation.”1

http://www.federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm

Below are older posts on the 14th Amendment.

OVERVIEW Part 1

In order to fully comprehend the 14th Amendment, it is prudent to provide some historical background that led up to its creation. Therefore, some explanation of the 13thAmendment is provided. The ratification of the 13th Amendment was a major victory for the North, and it was hoped that with the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment, the effects of slavery in the United States would quickly diminish. The original plan to re-admit states after acceptance of the 13th was supported by President Andrew Johnson, but the Radical Republicans, as they became known, wanted more than just a return to normalcy. They wanted to keep the power they had attained during the war years. The South did not make it easy for Johnson, however, and the so-called Black Codes started to be passed in Southern states. Congressional inquiries into the Black Codes found them to be a new way of controlling ex-slaves, fraught with violence and cruelty.

A series of legislative acts called the Reconstruction Acts were passed by Congress during the years of 1866-1875. The 14th Amendment was ratified during this period as well. The Congress placed the former CSA states under military rule (divided into five districts), and prohibited their territories - as States, any re-admittance to the Union until after several steps had been taken, including the ratification of the 14th Amendment.  No ex-Confederates were allowed to participate in the adoption processes of new state constitutions or to serve as delegates at their state conventions.

The Civil War gave us the 14th Amendment and it was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen. The amendment passed Congress on June 13, 1866, and was ratified on July 9, 1868 (757 days). It was a “compelled” action of ratification placed upon the CSA states and their citizens to ratify the 14th before they could re-join the Union of the United States.  It also served to become the punishment upon the states - leveled by the Congress - that would ensure that “No State Shall…” make sovereign laws within their own borders in the future; therefore establishing supremacy of the federal branch.

The United States of the historical time was, in a general sense, divided into 3 economic regions:

• The North was moving toward the cities and industrialization; people were increasingly leaving their farms and small rural communities to move to the city.
• The west was still expanding….the trans-continental railroad was being built, the Treaty of Fort Laramie would also be signed this year; which sent the Great Sioux Nation to the reservation - but Sitting Bull does not surrender until 1881 and Wounded Knee will not happen until 1890.
• In the South, the life-style was one of cotton and tobacco plantations, plantation owner wealth and aristocracy, low rural economic wealth, and the practice of black slavery. The economy of the South depended on and flourished because of it.
  

Of course we all know the story of Abraham Lincoln, his presidency and achievements, his trials and his leadership through the most divisive time in our Nation’s history.
There is history that you can research and sources to explore for yourself. Those will be readdressed only briefly and not specifically to person or politician in this discussion in the interest of length and focus. You are encouraged to do this for there is much to learn for yourself.

The war had raged for 2 years prior to Lincoln’s famous Emancipation Proclamation speech - from that point history emphasizes that the Civil War began over the slavery issue – yes, slavery was the issue that drove the politics….but the Civil War began as…and this is very important to remember…a states’ rights issue.

The Southern States: (South Carolina 1860, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee all 1861) with the election of A. Lincoln -would no longer be dictated to by the Northern ones.  They chose to secede from the Union and form their own government (The Confederate States - President Jefferson Davis).  The history of the war - the stories of young men dying - brother fighting brother - a nation divided, the battles and the victories and losses most profoundly in human life and injury….and finally, the surrender of the South at Appomattox, are valuable and help us all to understand the lessons of people not respecting or following the laws on which they were founded.  Lincoln would be assassinated 5 days after the treaty of surrender.

The politics and the political moves after the war ends are where the 14th Amendment (hereinafter referred to as “the 14th”) is born. There is much debate about bringing the states back into the Union, reparations for the high cost of war, how to repatriate the ex-confederates.

The non-compliance attitude and movement of the southern states at the end of the civil war, the fault of small minds and the prejudice of the times, and most importantly the institution of slavery created the fact that people of color had never been defined before as a “person”- they were known as “property”.  The 13th Amendment had (1865) abolished that fact.

The South moved to reaffirm their life-style immediately after the surrender, they reinstate their political power with many of the same leaders; they pass “black code laws” that refuse to obey the concept won by the war just fought - of black “freemen”.  The Congress steps in to settle the growing conflict. They divide the South into 5 military districts, governed by military leaders, to rule until the states can be re-admitted to the Union.

Research references:
(Reconstruction Acts 1867-1868, Civil Rights Acts 1866-1875)
(Army Appropriations Act, Tenure 1867, Omnibus 1868, Enforcement Acts 1870-1871) amnesty 1872…you will note that many of these laws implemented past the ratification in 1868.)
Freedman’s bureau
Dred Scott Decision of 1857
State conventions and the first black participation in government

Persons to note:
Then President Andrew Johnson (nearly impeached)
Lyman Trumball (Illinois worked to revoke “black codes”)
Thaddeus Stevens (land grants to black men and the selling of plantation lands to re-pay war debt)
U.S. Grant (war general and soon to be president)

It is also important to note that as we discuss voting rights - the woman’s vote does not come until the 19th Amendment Equal Suffrage 1920.

POLITICAL DEBATE / SOCIETAL REALITY THAT CREATED THE 14TH

At the time the Congress was considering all the requirements that would allow the Southern States to be re-admitted to the Union these, were some of the proposals:  Land grants - the “freemen” were now free but they had nothing, no home, no education (it had been illegal to teach a colored person to read or write in the South), no property or money, their only skill what they had done as a slave…rather than turn them loose to their own designs some wanted to divide up the plantation lands and give every “freeman” a 40 acre parcel of land…then the argument split - the Northern States (the Republicans by the way) said, to also allow them full rights to vote…the Southerners(the Democrats) proposed having them become “farmers or producers for the Union - with the land grants - but not full citizens with voting rights.

This issue was not defeated on the grounds of the "freemen" owning land issue;  the defeat came about because land ownership was considered very sacred.  If the precedent to allow confiscation of another man’s property by the government were allowed to create these land grants - then how might it be applied in the future?

The Congress also wanted to punish the states for their rebellion and for bringing war upon the land. There was great debate about what should be just punishment.  Did the ex-confederates in fact commit treason by seceding?  Another question arose as to how to address the cost of reparations because many parts of the South were in ruins. The Congress moved to create supremacy over any such action in the future.

Thus is born the 14th. Read the language below. The first clause changes (from the day of ratification) the dynamic and the intent of American government moving forward.

States' rights were stolen, and those of the people, first established in the 10th Amendment;
in the language "No State Shall...." in the first clause of the 14th amendment. The Congress made sure in this one piece of legislation, that NO STATE would ever be able to rise up on issues of sovereignty over the federal branch again - no matter the justice or worthiness of the cause.  What has resulted hence is the most aggressive power grab from one branch of American government toward the loss of another in the history of the Nation.

* It should be noted: (In modern times - only the first 2 clauses of the 14th have any pertinence…the last three deal with reparations and the status of ex-confederates as participants in government and are considered to be irrelevant today as they dealt with reparations after the war).

To further illustrate their power and control they required this measure that…”the 11 southern states (except Tennessee which had already complied) would not be able to be re-admitted to the Union until they established state constitutions that recognized the 13th Amendment (abolished slavery) and made provisions to implement it - allow “freemen” to vote (an appropriate and rightful measure - no argument)…but also…they HAD TO ratify the14th as a condition to re-admission. The ratification of the 14th was a compelling (coercive) action - leveled upon the states by the federal government and the new amendment in question gave them the power to do so.  They further did not provide for a process for the new “freemen” to assimilate into citizenship -they instead created a whole new class of second-class persons who started out with nothing - had to fight for everything they would get in the future, and fight for it against what was known as great prejudice at the time - and would become to be known as absolute discrimination.

The Southerners resented them with the same prejudiced attitudes from before the war. Now all these new “freemen” were wandering about with nothing. The southerners were in no mood to help them; the blacks were in desperate circumstances…many wished for slavery back in order to have a home, a means to provide for their families, and protection from all the people around them that no longer wanted them there.  Where were they to go - many had never left the plantation property where they had grown up, they had no idea of where to go, what to do or how to do it….just imagine yourself and your family in a similar circumstance.

The 1868 Congress should have simply required the recognition that the new “freemen” were persons and citizens; and insist on that compliance from the states to grant all rights already defined in the Constitution as it stood. They should have addressed the poverty, lack of education, lack of property-home-employment of the innocent new citizen turned out into society to fend for themselves.
Civil rights violations and the crimes committed in all the decades since, against persons of color, would have been unlawful in every state, territory, or jurisdiction - and all rights to which they were entitled-granted from the very beginning.  In addition, the conditions may not have been created where any prejudice was allowed or permitted to grow.

Civil Rights struggles and that stain need never to have been upon our national conscience if persons of color had never have had to insist on the recognition of rights they were already “guaranteed”.

CONCLUSION

The 15th Amendment - ratified 1869, would guarantee the right to vote, without discrimination against race, color or servitude.

When we first began our historical research, we doubted that we could argue effectively for revocation of the 14th, on the slave and civil rights issue alone.  All of the prejudice, civil rights crimes, struggles, and violations that have occurred cannot be argued against. They could not be apologized any more stridently for; glossed over or ignored, or failed to be rightfully recognized…these are the facts.

History is filled with the sin of slavery. In every great civilization slavery has existed. Never rightfully so, or morally correct - but as a matter of fact it has existed. That slavery ever was practiced in America is a dark page in our history. We cannot go back and erase or correct all the wrongs that have been done…but we can learn and forgive and let history never see that page written in America again.
Slavery is a crime of man and a failing of law, or a government or society with no such law. There are many side-bar discussions that deal with the political advantage gained by inequality of persons’ conflicts.

Historical recording, public information policy and media reporting through the decades have made Americans think that all of the civil rights (especially those given to minorities) came from the 14th. That is an absolute untruth. The Bill Of Rights - Amendments 1-10, as well as the original language contained in the Articles of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, grants those rights to every person/citizen equally.

To say that there is any person/citizen of this Nation who is not protected by the original Constitution is the ultimate prejudice.

The 13th Amendment allowed for no more slavery of the black man in this country…
The 14th Amendment made slaves of us all…slaves to the higher power of the centralized government.

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
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.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. 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.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.
From the 14th Amendment forward, an increasingly more invasive and powerful centralized government has grown.  July 9, 1868 was also the birthday of “Big Brother”.  The Supreme Court up until the 14th had their proper function and lesser influence in American government.  After the 14th.- through their own power gain - they began to define and interpret new legislation and legal actions very strongly based in the 14thAmendment.  In principle, the majority of controversial cases have been decided based on the definitions in the 14th, and the rest of the Constitution as a secondary, unless the issue involved directly another specific amendment or clause.  (It is worthy to note at this time that Justices to the Supreme Court are appointed by the executive branch (the president nominates - senate confirms) of the federal government – can you see the partnership and the balance shifting even more?).

The 14th has given us:

Roe vs. Wade
The 10 Commandments’ Argument
School Prayer and the use of “God” Removed from public discourse

The 14th is also the watershed legislation upon which President Franklin D. Roosevelt would ground and design the “New Deal” and the birth of public works programs that were implemented to get us through the Great Depression - but never disappeared - instead they have morphed and blossomed into the entitlement programs* we cannot afford today.

*Notably; to put it into present day context - OBAMACARE.  Ironically the 14th was the basis of the government’s argument for the mandate - finding that it would lose the argument in the Supreme Court on those grounds, Justice Roberts “provided” the government with the argument it could win….”the power to tax” which leads us very nicely into the 16th amendment.

ALSO Click the Button to read about Barron v. Baltimore and the 14th!

Barron v Baltimore & the 14th

THE  COMPREHENSIVE LEGAL / HISTORICAL INFORMATION AND LEGAL CASE LIST
PART 2

In preparation for the repeal of the 14th Amendment argument, we found it informative to offer this information of the legal implications that have resulted since ratification of the amendment.We first offered a historical overview of the history of the Supreme Court.  We now offer the legal case history of the growth of the federal judicial branch of centralized government-and note for you to study-the implication of the resulting court actions as "legislation from the bench". Court imposed laws/ becoming laws -originating in judicial review or decision/enforced-mandated-regulated/through judgement decree. At the Supreme Court level -the result of  9 people (The Supremes) interpreting through their own experience-political opinion-interpretation of law (the meaning they find/do not find) and therefore; need to source "imply" beyond the "expressed" language in the Constitution.
It is further important to remember-judges and justices at the federal/circuit level are political appointees, not publicly elected.  Supreme Court appointments are for life (unless they chose to retire, resign, or are removed)-seated to the Court from Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation.

COMPREHENSIVE LEGAL /HISTORICAL INFORMATION AND LEGAL CASE LIST

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution/Legal History Resulting From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 

The Fourteenth Amendment Amendment XIV to the "United States Constitution" was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the"Reconstruction Amendments".

OVERVIEW
The 14th -

 "Citizenship Clause"  provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the"Supreme Court of the United States" ruling in "Dred Scott v. Sandford" (1857) that had held that "Black people" could not be citizens of the United States.

"Due Process Clause"  prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the "United States Bill of Rights" applicable to the states, as well as to recognize "Substantive due process"="Equal Protection Clause" requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its "Jurisdiction" .This clause was the basis for "Brown v. Board of Education"  (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of "Racial segregation in United States education. In "Reed v. Reed" (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause.

The amendment also includes a number of clauses dealing with the"Confederate States of America"  and its officials concerning their Citizenship and Civil Rights. The Southern re-incorporation into the Union and Apportionment of Representation.  The participants of southern citizens in the succession/rebellion, as well as the reparation and validity of public debt now needing to be addressed. The power of enforcement granted to the Congress-the proposal/and ratification of the 14th amendment, as the requirement for Southern states before re-admittance are also contained in the 14th Amendment.

Fourteenth Amendment Supreme Court Cases-8
8.1 Citizenship-Corporate
8.2 Corporate personhood
8.3 Privileges or immunities
8.4 Procedural due process/Incorporation
8.5 Substantive due process
8.6 Equal protection
8.7 Apportionment of Representatives
8.8 Power of enforcement

UNDER THE 8 CATEGORIES THE COURTS HAVE GAINED POWER AND INFLUENCE
8.1/8.2 CITIZENSHIP-PERSONHOOD.

Citizenship and Civil Rights

Section 1. 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.*

*Section 1-formally defines citizenship and protects a person's title="Civil and political rights" from being abridged or denied by any state. This represented the overruling of the "Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling that"Black people" were not, and could not become, citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The "Civil Rights Act of 1866"  had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866, "Constitutionality"  for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.

This section was also in response to the "Black Codes (United States)" that Southern United States" had passed in the wake of the"Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution".

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution" abolished Slavery in the United States.  The Black Codes attempted to return former slaves to something like their former condition by, among other things, restricting their movement, forcing them to enter into year-long labor contracts, prohibiting them from owning firearms, and by preventing them from right to"Lawsuit" (suing) or to "Testify" in court.

Finally, this section was in response to violence against black people within the southern states. A "United States Congress Joint Committee on Reconstruction"  found that only a Constitutional amendment could protect black people's rights and welfare within those states.

Citizenship Clause
There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.

During the original debate over the amendment Senator "Jacob M. Howard"  of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier "Civil Rights Act of 1866", namely, that it excludes "Native Americans in the United States" who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

According to historian Glenn W. LaFantasie of "Western Kentucky University", "A good number of his fellow senators supported his view of the citizenship clause." Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded. However, concerning children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three Senators, including the"United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary" -Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman"Lyman Trumbull", the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as the "President of the United States""Andrew Johnson", asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no Senator offered a contrary opinion.

Senator "James Rood Doolittle" of Wisconsin asserted that all Native Americans were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so that the phrase "Indians not taxed" would be preferable, but Trumbull and Howard disputed this, arguing that the U.S. government did not have full jurisdiction over Native American tribes, which govern themselves and make treaties with the United States.

"Elk v. Wilkins", 112/94case "United States Reports" (1884), the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether birth in the United States automatically extended national citizenship. The Supreme Court held that Native Americans who voluntarily quit their tribes did not automatically gain national citizenship.The clause's meaning was tested again in the case of "United States v. Wong Kim Ark" 169/649case"United States Reports"  (1898). The Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment a man born within the United States to Chinese citizens who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States—and whose parents were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power—was a citizen of the United States. Subsequent decisions have applied the principle to the children of foreign nationals of non-Chinese descent.

note-Rodriguez2009-19#cite.  Loss of citizenship, Loss of national citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances: Fraud in the "Naturalization" process. Technically, this is not loss of citizenship but rather a voiding of the purported naturalization and a declaration that the immigrant never was a United States citizen.

Voluntary relinquishment of citizenship. This may be accomplished either through renunciation procedures specially established by the State Department or through other actions that demonstrate desire to give up national citizenship.

For much of the country's history, voluntary acquisition or exercise of a foreign citizenship was considered sufficient cause for revocation of national citizenship. This concept was enshrined in a series of treaties between the United States and other countries (the"Bancroft Treaties"). However, the Supreme Court repudiated this concept in "Afroyim v. Rusk", 387/253 case "United States Reports" (1967), as well as "Vance v. Terrazas "444/252case, "United States Reports" (1980), holding that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment barred the Congress from revoking citizenship.

Due Process Clause-Case History Under the 14th
8.4/8.5

"Allgeyer v. Louisiana" (1897), the Court interpreted "Due process" as providing "Substantive due process" aprotection to private contracts and thus prohibiting a variety of social and economic regulation, under what was referred to as ""Freedom of contract". Thus, the Court struck down a law decreeing maximum hours for workers in a bakery, also

"Lochner v. New York" (1905) and struck down a minimum wage law, "Adkins v. Children's Hospital" (1923).

In "Meyer v. Nebraska"(1923), the Court stated that the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause "[w]ithout doubt...denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

However, the Court did uphold some economic regulation such as state prohibition laws/us/123/623/case.

Mugler v. Kansas, laws declaring maximum hours for mine workers,"Holden v. Hardy" (1898), laws declaring maximum hours for female workers."Muller v. Oregon" (1908), President Wilson's intervention in a railroad strike, (1917), as well as federal laws regulating narcotics -United States v. Doremus (1919).

The Court repudiated the "freedom of contract" line of cases in"West Coast Hotel v. Parrish"  (1937).

By the 1960s, the Court had extended its interpretation of substantive due process to include rights and freedoms that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution but that, according to the Court, extend or derive from existing rights. The Court has also significantly expanded the reach of procedural due process, requiring some sort of hearing before the government may terminate civil service employees, expel a student from public school, or cut off a welfare recipient's benefits.

The Court has ruled that, in certain circumstances, the Due Process Clause requires a judge "Judicial disqualification" to disqualify/recuse him/herself on account of concern of there being a "Conflict of interest". For example, in "Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co." (2009), the Court ruled that a justice of the "Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia" had to recuse himself from a case involving a major contributor to his campaign for election to that court.

The Due Process Clause has been used to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states through Incorporation of the Equal Protection Claus  in the "United States courts of appeals", some notably under U.S. circuit judges "Robert Katzmann", "Damon Keith" and"Sonia Sotomayor"  and "Thurgood Marshall", in "Brown v. Board of Education".

In the decades following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court overturned laws barring blacks from "Juries","Strauder v. West Virginia" 1880, or discriminating against "Chinese American" in the regulation of laundry businesses "Yick Wo v. Hopkins", 1886, as violations  under the"Equal Protection Clause". However, in "Plessy v. Ferguson" 1896, the Supreme Court held that the states could impose"Racial segregation"  so long as they provided similar facilities—this became the formation of the “"Separate but Equal" doctrine.

Equal Protection
8.6

The Court went even further in restricting the Equal Protection Clause in "Berea College v. Kentucky" (1908), holding that the states could force private actors to discriminate by prohibiting colleges from having both "Black people"  and "White people"  students. By the early 20th century, the Equal Protection Clause had been eclipsed to the point that Justice"Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr."  dismissed it as "the usual last resort of constitutional arguments.

The Court held to the "separate but equal" doctrine for more than fifty years, despite numerous cases in which the Court itself had found that the segregated facilities provided by the states were almost never equal, until "Brown v. Board of Education" (1954) reached the Court. In Brown- the Court ruled that even if segregated black and white schools were of equal quality in facilities and teachers, segregation by itself was harmful to black students and so was unconstitutional. Brown met with a campaign of resistance from white Southerners, and for decades the federal courts attempted to enforce Brown's mandate against repeated attempts at circumvention. This resulted in the controversial"Desegregation busing in the United States" -decrees handed down by federal courts in various parts of the nation-"Milliken v. Bradley" (1974).

In "Hernandez v. Texas"  (1954) the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects those beyond the racial classes of white or ""Negro" and extends to other racial and ethnic groups, such as "Mexican American"  in this case. In the half century since Brown, the Court has extended the reach of the Equal Protection Clause to other historically disadvantaged groups, such as women and illegitimate children, although it has applied a somewhat less stringent standard than it has applied to governmental discrimination on the basis of race "United States v. Virginia", (1996); "Levy v. Louisiana", (1968).

Since "Wesberry v. Sanders" (1964) and "Reynolds v. Sims" (1964), the Supreme Court has interpreted the Equal Protection Clause as requiring the states to apportion their congressional districts and state legislative seats according to ""One man, one vote". The Court has also struck down redistricting plans in which race was a key consideration. In "Shaw v. Reno"(1993), the Court prohibited a North Carolina plan aimed at creating majority-black districts to balance historic underrepresentation in the state's congressional delegations. In "League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry" (2006), the Court ruled that "Tom Delay of Texas redistricting plan intentionally diluted the votes of "Latinos" and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause.

"Privileges or Immunities Clause"
8.3

In "Barron v. Baltimore" (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. While many "State constitutions (United States)" are modeled after the United States Constitution and federal laws, those state constitutions did not necessarily include provisions comparable to the Bill of Rights. According to"Akhil Reed Amar" , the framers and early supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment believed that it would ensure that the states would be required to recognize the individual rights the federal government was already required to respect in the Bill of Rights and in other constitutional provisions; all of these rights were likely understood as falling within the "privileges or immunities" safeguarded by the amendment.

However, in the "Slaughter-House Cases" (1873), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment's "Privileges or Immunities Clause" was limited to "privileges or immunities" granted to citizens by the federal government by virtue of national citizenship. The Court further held in the "Civil Rights Cases"  (1883) that the amendment was limited to "state action" and, therefore, did not authorize the Congress to outlaw "Racism" racial discrimination on the part of private individuals or organizations. Neither of these decisions has been overturned and have been specifically reaffirmed several times. However, by the latter half of the 20th century, nearly all of the rights in the Bill of Rights had been applied to the states, under what is known as the "Incorporation of the Bill of Rights" doctrine.

The Supreme Court has held that the amendment's Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the "First Amendment, Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, (Grand Jury Clause) and the"Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution". The "Eighth Amendment under the-Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause; while the "Third Amendment has not been applied to the states by the Supreme Court, the"United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit" ruled that it did apply to the states within that circuit's jurisdiction in "Engblom v. Carey". The "Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution" has been held not to be applicable to the states.

8.2 REPRESENTATION

Section 2.Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Apportionment of Representatives
Section 2.  Altered the way how much representation each state receives in the "United States House of Representatives Apportionment. "It counts all residents for apportionment, overriding "Article One of the United States Constitution-Clause 3: Apportionment of Representatives and taxes.  Article I, Section 2, Clause 3, which counted only "Three-fifths compromise"  of each state's slave population. Slavery abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment.

Section 2. also reduces a state's apportionment if it wrongfully denies any adult male's right to vote, while explicitly permitting "Felony disenfranchisement" However, this provision was never enforced while the southern states continued to use various pretexts to prevent many blacks from voting right up until the passage of the "Voting Rights Act"  in (1965). Because it protects the right to vote only of adult males, not adult females, this clause is the only provision of the  US Constitution to discriminate explicitly on the basis of sex.

Some have argued that Section 2 was implicitly repealed by the "Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution"  but the Supreme Court has acknowledged the provisions of Section 2 in recent times. For example, in "Richardson v. Ramirez","United States Reports" 418/24/ (1974) the Court cited Section 2 as justification for the states disenfranchising felons. In his dissent, "Justice Thurgood Marshall" explained the history of the Section 2 in relation to the Post-Civil War Reconstruction era:

The historical purpose for section 2 itself is, however, relatively clear and, in my view, dispositive of this case. The "Radical Republicans" who controlled the 39th Congress were concerned that the additional congressional representation of the Southern States which would result from the abolition of slavery might weaken their own political dominance. There were two alternatives available—either to limit southern representation, which was unacceptable long-term, or to ensure that southern Negroes, sympathetic to the Republican cause, would be enfranchised; but an explicit grant of "Suffrage"  to Negroes was thought politically unpalatable at the time. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment was the resultant compromise. It put Southern States to a choice—enfranchise Negro voters or lose congressional representation. [...] Section 2 provides a special remedy—reduced representation—to cure a particular form of electoral abuse—the disenfranchisement of Negroes.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Participants in rebellion.
Section 3 prohibits the election or appointment to any federal or state office of any person who had held any of certain offices and then engaged in insurrection, rebellion or "Treason". However, a two-thirds vote by each House of the Congress can override this limitation. In (1898), the Congress enacted a general removal of Section 3's limitation. In (1975), "Robert E. Lee's"  citizenship was restored by a joint congressional resolution, retroactive to (June 13, 1865).  In (1978), pursuant to Section 3, the Congress posthumously removed the service ban from "Jefferson Davis".

Section 4.The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. 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.

Validity of public debt.
Section 4., confirmed the legitimacy of all "United States public debt" appropriated by the Congress. It also confirmed that neither the United States nor any state would pay for the loss of slaves or debts that had been incurred by the "Confederate States of America". For example, during the "American Civil War" several British and French banks had lent large sums of money to the Confederacy to support its war against the "Union (American Civil War)". In "Gold Clause Cases" Perry v. United States (1935), the "Supreme Court of the United States"  ruled that under Section 4 voiding a United States government bond "went beyond the congressional power." The "United States debt-ceiling crisis"  in 2011 raised the question of what powers Section 4 gives to the President. Legal analyst "Jeffrey Rosen"  has argued that Section 4 gives the President unilateral authority to raise or ignore the "United States public debt", and that if challenged the Supreme Court would likely rule in favor of expanded executive power or dismiss the case altogether for lack of "Standing (law)".  "Erwin Chemerinsky", "University of California, Irvine School of Law", has argued that not even in a "dire financial emergency" could the President raise the debt ceiling as "there is no reasonable way to interpret the Constitution that [allows him to do so]". The issue of what effect Section 4 has regarding the debt ceiling remains unsettled.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Power of enforcement
Congressional power of enforcement

Section 5, the last section, was construed broadly by the "Supreme Court of the United States" In "Katzenbach v. Morgan" (1966). However, the Court, in "City of Boerne v. Flores" (1997), said: Any suggestion that Congress has a substantive, non-remedial power under the Fourteenth Amendment is not supported by our case law.

Proposal and ratification.
The "39th United States Congress" proposed the Fourteenth Amendment on (June 13, 1866).

Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment was bitterly contested: all the Southern state legislatures, with the exception of Tennessee, refused to ratify the amendment. This refusal led to the passage of the "Reconstruction Acts". Ignoring the existing state governments, military government was imposed until new civil governments were established and the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.

WHAT FOLLOWS IS CENTRAL TO OUR ARGUMENT THAT THE RATIFICATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS A "COMPELLED" ACTION PLACED UPON STATES AND CITIZENS BY THE CONGRESS, IT WAS BITTERLY CONTESTED, CITIZENS WERE BARRED FROM PARTICIPATION IN THEIR STATE CONSITUTIONAL DRAFTING AND WERE DENIED THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE.

THE FOLLOWING STATES WERE NOT ALLOWED REUNIFICATION "UNTIL RATIFICATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT".

By July 9, 1868, three-fourths of the states (28 of 37) ratified the amendment:

"Connecticut" (June 25, 1866)
"New Hampshire" (July 6, 1866)
"Tennessee"  (July 19, 1866)
"New Jersey"  (September 11, 1866)
"Oregon"  (September 19, 1866)
"Vermont" (October 30, 1866)
"Ohio" (January 4, 1867)
"New York"  (January 10, 1867)
"Kansas" (January 11, 1867)
"Illinois"(January 15, 1867)
"West Virginia" (January 16, 1867)
 "Michigan" (January 16, 1867)
 "Minnesota"  (January 16, 1867)
 "Maine" (January 19, 1867)
 "Nevada" (January 22, 1867)
 "Indiana"  (January 23, 1867)
 "Missouri"  (January 25, 1867)
 "Rhode Island"  (February 7, 1867)
 "Wisconsin" (February 7, 1867)
 "Pennsylvania"  (February 12, 1867)
 "Massachusetts" (March 20, 1867)
 "Nebraska"  (June 15, 1867)
 "Iowa" (March 16, 1868)
 "Arkansas"  (April 6, 1868, after having rejected it on December 17, 1866)
 "Florida"  (June 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 6, 1866)
 "North Carolina"  (July 4, 1868, after having rejected it on December 14, 1866)
 "Louisiana"  (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on February 6, 1867)
 "South Carolina"  (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)

Ohio passed a resolution that purported to withdraw its ratification on January 15, 1868. The New Jersey legislature also tried to rescind its ratification on February 20, 1868, citing procedural problems with the amendment's congressional passage, including that specific states were unlawfully denied representation in the House and the Senate at the time.The New Jersey governor had vetoed his state's withdrawal on March 5, and the legislature overrode the veto on March 24.

On July 20, 1868, "United States Secretary of State", "William H. Seward"  certified that the amendment had become part of the Constitution if the rescissions were ineffective, and presuming also that the later ratifications by states whose governments had been reconstituted superseded the initial rejection of the prior state legislatures.

The Congress responded on the following day, declaring that the amendment was part of the Constitution and ordering Seward to ,"Promulgation" , promulgate the amendment.

Meanwhile, two additional states had ratified the amendment:
"Alabama"  (July 13, 1868, the date the ratification was "approved" by the governor)
"Georgia" (July 21, 1868, after having rejected it on November 9, 1866)

Thus, on July 28, Seward was able to certify unconditionally that the amendment was part of the Constitution without having to endorse the Congress's assertion that the withdrawals were ineffective.

There were additional ratifications and rescissions; by 2003, the amendment had been ratified by all of the 37 states that were in the Union in 1868:

"Virginia" (October 8, 1869, after having rejected it on January 9, 1867)
"Mississippi"  (January 17, 1870, after having rejected it on January 31, 1868)
 "Texas"  (February 18, 1870, after having rejected it on October 27, 1866)
 "Delaware"  (February 12, 1901, after having rejected it on February 7, 1867)
 "Maryland"  (April 4, 1959, after having rejected it on March 23, 1867)
 "California"  (March 18, 1959)
 "Oregon"  (1973, after withdrawing it on October 15, 1868)
 "Kentucky"  (May 6, 1976, after having rejected it on January 8, 1867)
 "New Jersey"  (2003, after having rescinded on February 20, 1868)
"Ohio" (2003, after having rescinded on January 15, 1868)

Chronology of :  Supreme Court cases:

Citizenship
"Elk v. Wilkins"
"United States v. Wong Kim Ark" (1967)
"Afroyim v. Rusk" (1980)
"Vance v. Terrazas" (1982)
"Plyler v. Doe" Corporate personhood (1886)
"Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad" (2010)
"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission" Privileges or immunities(1868)
"Crandall v. Nevada" (1873)
"Slaughter-House Cases" (1908)
"Twining v. New Jersey" (1920)
"United States v. Wheeler" (1948)
"Oyama v. California" (1999)
"Saenz v. Roe" Procedural due process/Incorporation (1833)
"Barron v. Baltimore" (1873)
"Slaughter-House Cases" (1883)
"Civil Rights Cases" (1884)
"Hurtado v. California" (1897)
"Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago (1900)
"Maxwell v. Dow (1908)
"Twining v. New Jersey" (1925)
"Gitlow v. New York" (1932)
"Powell v. Alabama" (1934)
"Snyder v. Massachusetts (1937)
"Palko v. Connecticut" (1947)
"Adamson v. California" (1952)
"Rochin v. California" (1961)
"Mapp v. Ohio" (1962)
"Robinson v. California" (1963)
"Gideon v. Wainwright" (1964)
"Malloy v. Hogan" (1966)
"Miranda v. Arizona"(1967)
"Reitman v. Mulkey" (1968)
"Duncan v. Louisiana"(1969)
"Benton v. Maryland"(1970)
"Goldberg v. Kelly"(1972)
"Furman v. Georgia"(1974)
"Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. (1974)
"Goss v. Lopez"(1975)
"O'Connor v. Donaldson"(1976)
"Gregg v. Georgia" (2010)
"McDonald v. Chicago" -Substantive due process (1876)
"Munn v. Illinois" (1887)
"Mugler v. Kansas" (1897)
"Allgeyer v. Louisiana"(1905)
"Lochner v. New York"(1908)
"Muller v. Oregon" (1923)
"Adkins v. Children's Hospital" (1923)
"Meyer v. Nebraska" (1925)
"Pierce v. Society of Sisters" (1934)
"Nebbia v. New York" (1937)
"West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish" (1965)
"Griswold v. Connecticut"(1973)
"Roe v. Wade" (1992)
"Planned Parenthood v. Casey" (1996)
"BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore" (2003)
"State Farm v. Campbell" (2003)
"Lawrence v. Texas" -Equal protection-(1880)
"Strauder v. West Virginia" (1886)
"Yick Wo v. Hopkins" (1896)
"Plessy v. Ferguson" (1908)
"Berea College v. Kentucky" (1917)
"Buchanan v. Warley" (1942)
"Skinner v. Oklahoma" (1944)
"Korematsu v. United States" (1948)
"Shelley v. Kraemer" (1954)
"Hernandez v. Texas" (1954)
"Brown v. Board of Education" (1962)
"Baker v. Carr" (1967)
"Loving v. Virginia" (1971)
"Reed v. Reed" (1973)
"San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez" (1976)
"Examining Board v. Flores de Otero" (1978)
"Regents of the University of California v. Bakke" (1982)
"Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan"(1986)
"Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico" (1996)
"United States v. Virginia" (1996)
"Romer v. Evans" (2000)
"Bush v. Gore". Apportionment of Representatives (1974)
"Richardson v. Ramirez". Power of enforcement (1883)
"Civil Rights Cases" (1966)
"Katzenbach v. Morgan" (1997)
"City of Boerne v. Flores" (1999
"Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank" (2000): "United States v. Morrison" (2000)
"Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents" (2001)
"Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett" (2003)
"Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs" (2004)
"Tennessee v. Lane"
"McDonald v. Chicago", 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3060 (2010) ("This [clause] unambiguously overruled this Court's contrary holding in Dred Scott.")

ADDITIONAL ARGUMENT OF THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
Part 3

SHORT AND SWEET!

This is WHY

OUR PROPOSAL

Propose a Twenty-eighth Amendment*

1.    The fourteenth, the sixteenth, and the
seventeenth articles of amendment to the
Constitution of the United States are hereby
repealed.
2.    The articles shall be inoperative unless
it shall have been ratified as an amendment to
the Constitution by the conventions in several
states, as provided in the Constitution, within
seven years from the date of submission hereof,
to the States by the Congress.

So simple and it's done!

*We seek to have the Item 1 above which is 20 words of
the 28th amendment voted on in each of  the 50 States'
legislatures.

* We seek to have all States legislative members educated
to our SO SIMPLE AMENDMENT That RESTORE STATES'
RIGHTS AND POWERS.

*We believe that THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS BROKEN
AND IN DEBT - 125 years OF ELECTIONS HAVE NOT
CHANGED the GROWTH OF POWERS IN WASHINGTON.

 *We believe that... WE THE PEOPLE... HAVE LOST CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT - 77% OF THE POPULATION ACCORDING TO GALLOP (today) BELIEVE THAT DC- CANNOT - AND WILL NOT - CHANGE.

Like Us on FB!