HOW GOVERNMENT WORKS.
5 Historic Presidential Campaign Collapses; http://people.howstuffworks.com/5-presidential-campaign-collapses.htm
10 Things You Didn't Know About The Constitution; http://people.howstuffworks.com/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-us-constitution.htm
http://www.westernjournalism.com/who-has-control-over-the-governments-budget/?utm_campaign=54ebe14371e7fc692400399a&utm_source=BoomTrain&utm_medium=email&utm_content=recommended&bt_alias=eyJ1c2VySWQiOiI5OTk2YzU5NC1mZGFiLTRhOWItYjc4Yi1hZWMzM2IyNzIyMGIifQ%3D%3D
It is a interesting take on the budget issue.
It is a interesting take on the budget issue.
Some thoughts.
What about Indentured servants, Chinese workers, the American Indian. (Who can lay better claim to being naturalized (born) in American than the American Indian)? The opinion of the day is that they were not people but 'savages'. Slaves Black, Chinese were sub-humans. Indentured servants-a servant until they had worked off their contract.
Was The issue of the day really slavery, or was it societal opinion that favored the European mindset of class destination. Simply put...some were better than others, some were not considered 'people'?
Should the reconstructionist congress have addressed instead 'personhood'. Human definition. No class distinction?
Then would not every concept of the original Constitution and the BOR apply equally, without prejudice to the human beings/citizens, of American. Citizenship process/defined.
An argument can be made that the 14th furthered prejudice by defining boundaries of future contention.
The 14th usurps the 10th, certainly in the first clause 'no state shall'.
Usurps the original articles, clauses, and BOR in the 5th clause. 'Congress shall have power'.
6 words of the 14th, completely reversed our perfect form of republican representative government as originally designed, WE THE PEOPLE-THE STATES- the federal, has become THE FEDERAL-The States-and the people. (Capitalization intended) over the many decades, has brought us to the state of affairs we see today.
Together with the power to tax, federal over-reach (the 16th) and the federalization-centralization of our state representation (with the 17th) , (having successfully undermined the power of the states and the 10th -the 14th) ...its been a complete socialization-federalization of our government. Did the de-constructionist amendments do exactly what they were intended to do.
The original Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers were gone, the country had been divided and states had been in competition for national power in congress (North vs. South) States determining their own sovereignty was a sour societal opinion (South succession)...what a turbulent time...what a setting for the vulnerability of future American government.
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.
Research for background and summary if you would like to use. The debates and thinking of the time give context. Researching the 14th is an enlightening journey. It was for me. Good luck to you Friends.
In context of originalism as the metric.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/Colby%204.4.13.pdf
Background.
http://14thamendment.harpweek.com/HubPages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary=03Passage
Usurpation of the 10th amendment
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/03/12/the-14th-amendment-and-the-bill-of-rights/
Was the 14th constitutionally adopted? Good question.
http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/was-the-fourteenth-amendment-constitutionally-adopted/
http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/13th.htm
What about Indentured servants, Chinese workers, the American Indian. (Who can lay better claim to being naturalized (born) in American than the American Indian)? The opinion of the day is that they were not people but 'savages'. Slaves Black, Chinese were sub-humans. Indentured servants-a servant until they had worked off their contract.
Was The issue of the day really slavery, or was it societal opinion that favored the European mindset of class destination. Simply put...some were better than others, some were not considered 'people'?
Should the reconstructionist congress have addressed instead 'personhood'. Human definition. No class distinction?
Then would not every concept of the original Constitution and the BOR apply equally, without prejudice to the human beings/citizens, of American. Citizenship process/defined.
An argument can be made that the 14th furthered prejudice by defining boundaries of future contention.
The 14th usurps the 10th, certainly in the first clause 'no state shall'.
Usurps the original articles, clauses, and BOR in the 5th clause. 'Congress shall have power'.
6 words of the 14th, completely reversed our perfect form of republican representative government as originally designed, WE THE PEOPLE-THE STATES- the federal, has become THE FEDERAL-The States-and the people. (Capitalization intended) over the many decades, has brought us to the state of affairs we see today.
Together with the power to tax, federal over-reach (the 16th) and the federalization-centralization of our state representation (with the 17th) , (having successfully undermined the power of the states and the 10th -the 14th) ...its been a complete socialization-federalization of our government. Did the de-constructionist amendments do exactly what they were intended to do.
The original Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers were gone, the country had been divided and states had been in competition for national power in congress (North vs. South) States determining their own sovereignty was a sour societal opinion (South succession)...what a turbulent time...what a setting for the vulnerability of future American government.
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.
Research for background and summary if you would like to use. The debates and thinking of the time give context. Researching the 14th is an enlightening journey. It was for me. Good luck to you Friends.
In context of originalism as the metric.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/Colby%204.4.13.pdf
Background.
http://14thamendment.harpweek.com/HubPages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary=03Passage
Usurpation of the 10th amendment
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/03/12/the-14th-amendment-and-the-bill-of-rights/
Was the 14th constitutionally adopted? Good question.
http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/was-the-fourteenth-amendment-constitutionally-adopted/
http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/13th.htm
Why do the current opinions direct this clause to refer to slaves to the exclusion of Bound whites brought by the thousands to the north? Seems to be a small issue or intentional exclusion?
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 9 - Limits on Congress<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Notes for this section:
FAQ: What can't Congress do?
FAQ: What is habeas corpus?
16th Amendment
“A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. When the people once surrender their share of the legislature, and their right of defending the limitations upon the government, and of resisting every encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.”
— John Adams (1797-1801) Second President of the United States and Patriot
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 9 - Limits on Congress<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Notes for this section:
FAQ: What can't Congress do?
FAQ: What is habeas corpus?
16th Amendment
“A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. When the people once surrender their share of the legislature, and their right of defending the limitations upon the government, and of resisting every encroachment upon them, they can never regain it.”
— John Adams (1797-1801) Second President of the United States and Patriot
Here are some more thoughts on how the Progressives with the active collusion of the Supreme Court legislating from the bench, have changed the intent of the Constitution through 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.
The key here especially in the case of Illegal Immigrants is clearly stated. Illegals are not citizens. That designation was set forth for "Anchor Babies by a deliberate mis-interpretation granting automatic citizenship for anyone actually born in the United States under the 1965 Immigration Act."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."
Taken in context with the time period it was written spells out the intent to NOT give citizenship haphazardly to children born of mothers subject to Foreign Jurisdictions; Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14thAmendment 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 fact the intent was spelled out at the time it was created; In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14thAmendment 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."
The Key Phrase Being "Subject to their Jurisdiction" Delineated the difference between children born of parents who were not American Citizens, a distinction the Supreme Court Ignored when it ruled on "Anchor Babies.
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 concept of birthright citizenship has been rehashed from the beginning and: 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.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.
This was reaffirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court properly interpreting Constitution not only once but twice;
1. "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]
2. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case; "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child.
source; http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
(http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html) Passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments is the constitutional legacy of Reconstruction"Source; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era
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.
However there were Indians that had by definition of treaty became United States Citizens and could vote and pay taxes; In 1817 the Cherokee became the first Native Americans recognized as U.S. citizens. Under Article 8 of the 1817 Cherokee treaty.
Source; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_civil_rights
Clearly when the Congress passed the act which gave American Indians blanket citizenship, it was intended solely for indigent peoples already living in the United States and it's Territories but not Foreigners. 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 8USCSß1401, 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.
Source; http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
In the case of women being given the right to vote, it took the State Ratified 19th amendment to overcome the 14th and not simply a law passed by Congress and signed by the President,
Source; http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=63
So why was a simple law, the 1965 Immigration Act Allowed to overcome an amendment that heretofore was inviolable except by the amendment process itself? Seems the Supreme Court wanted to have it both ways and ignored Precedent and Administrative Law as well as Constitutional law to hold the act was Constitutional.
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.
This section was the one used basically to blackmail the Southern states into ratifying the 14th before they were allowed to have their Constitutionally guaranteed representation in Congress ((http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/A_Great_Compromise.htmhttp://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/A_Great_Compromise.htm )).
It also adds to the reason why the Original Ratified 13th Amendment was mysteriously expunged without being repealed, from the history books. See; http://www.barefootsworld.net/real13th.html andhttp://www.amendment-13.org/ for the complete information on the Original 13th and how it would have prevented members of Congress who were Lawyers when elected, and they being DeFacto Officers of the United States Justice Department from serving in Congress
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 power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
This passage is just as nefarious as the "No State Shall" since by dint of the 14th Amendment it technically gave Congress to usurp the Constitution by simply enacting a law on the matter/s concerning what the 14th Amendment covered. i.e. It was used to nullify the 10th Amendment without repealing it.
http://www.14thamendment.us/amendment/14th_amendment.html
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.
The key here especially in the case of Illegal Immigrants is clearly stated. Illegals are not citizens. That designation was set forth for "Anchor Babies by a deliberate mis-interpretation granting automatic citizenship for anyone actually born in the United States under the 1965 Immigration Act."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."
Taken in context with the time period it was written spells out the intent to NOT give citizenship haphazardly to children born of mothers subject to Foreign Jurisdictions; Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14thAmendment 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 fact the intent was spelled out at the time it was created; In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14thAmendment 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."
The Key Phrase Being "Subject to their Jurisdiction" Delineated the difference between children born of parents who were not American Citizens, a distinction the Supreme Court Ignored when it ruled on "Anchor Babies.
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 concept of birthright citizenship has been rehashed from the beginning and: 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.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.
This was reaffirmed by the decision of the Supreme Court properly interpreting Constitution not only once but twice;
1. "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]
2. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case; "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child.
source; http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
(http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html) Passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments is the constitutional legacy of Reconstruction"Source; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era
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.
However there were Indians that had by definition of treaty became United States Citizens and could vote and pay taxes; In 1817 the Cherokee became the first Native Americans recognized as U.S. citizens. Under Article 8 of the 1817 Cherokee treaty.
Source; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_civil_rights
Clearly when the Congress passed the act which gave American Indians blanket citizenship, it was intended solely for indigent peoples already living in the United States and it's Territories but not Foreigners. 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 8USCSß1401, 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.
Source; http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
In the case of women being given the right to vote, it took the State Ratified 19th amendment to overcome the 14th and not simply a law passed by Congress and signed by the President,
Source; http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=63
So why was a simple law, the 1965 Immigration Act Allowed to overcome an amendment that heretofore was inviolable except by the amendment process itself? Seems the Supreme Court wanted to have it both ways and ignored Precedent and Administrative Law as well as Constitutional law to hold the act was Constitutional.
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.
This section was the one used basically to blackmail the Southern states into ratifying the 14th before they were allowed to have their Constitutionally guaranteed representation in Congress ((http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/A_Great_Compromise.htmhttp://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/A_Great_Compromise.htm )).
It also adds to the reason why the Original Ratified 13th Amendment was mysteriously expunged without being repealed, from the history books. See; http://www.barefootsworld.net/real13th.html andhttp://www.amendment-13.org/ for the complete information on the Original 13th and how it would have prevented members of Congress who were Lawyers when elected, and they being DeFacto Officers of the United States Justice Department from serving in Congress
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 power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
This passage is just as nefarious as the "No State Shall" since by dint of the 14th Amendment it technically gave Congress to usurp the Constitution by simply enacting a law on the matter/s concerning what the 14th Amendment covered. i.e. It was used to nullify the 10th Amendment without repealing it.
http://www.14thamendment.us/amendment/14th_amendment.html