Even Congress members realize the evils of the 14th

www.pacinlaw.org...

Even Congress members realize the evils of the 14th.

Below is just a few small samples contained within this very important document.

In a joint action, the states of Georgia and Mississippi brought suit against the President and the Secretary of War. (6 Wall.50-78, 154 U.S. 554)
The Court said that:
The bill then sets forth that the intent and design of the Acts of Congress, as apparent on their face and by their terms, are to overthrow and annul this existing state government, and to erect another and different government in its place, unauthorized by the Constitution and in defiance of its guaranties; and that, in furtherance of this intent and design, the defendants, the Secretary of War, the General of the Army, and Major General Pope, acting under orders of the President, are about setting in motion a portion of the army to take military possession of the state, and threaten to subvert her government and subject her people to military rule; that the state is holding inadequate means to resist the power and force of the Executive Department of the United States; and she therefore insists that such protection can, and ought to be afforded by a decree or order of this court in the premises.


It is recorded that one of the Supreme Court Justices, Grier, protested against the action of the Court as follows:
This case was fully argued in the beginning of this month. It is a case which involves the liberty and rights, not only of the appellant, but of millions of our fellow citizens. The country and the parties had a right to expect that it would receive the immediate and solemn attention of the court. By the postponement of this case we shall subject ourselves, whether justly or unjustly, to the imputation that we have evaded the performance of a duty imposed on us by the Constitution, and waited for Legislative interposition to suppress our action, and relieve us from responsibility. I am not willing to be a partaker of the eulogy or opprobrium that may follow. I can only say... I am ashamed that such opprobrium should be cast upon the court and that it cannot be refuted.
The ten states were organized into Military Districts under the unconstitutional Reconstruction Acts, their lawfully constituted Legislatures were illegally removed by “military force,” and were replaced by rump, so-called Legislatures, seven of which carried out military orders and pretended to ratify the 14th Amendment as follows:

THE CONSTITUTION STRIKES THE 14th AMENDMENT WITH NULLITY
The defenders of the 14th Amendment contend that the U.S. Supreme Court has decided finally upon its validity. In what is considered the leading case, Coleman v. Miller, the U.S. Supreme Court did not uphold the validity of the 14th Amendment. In that case, the Court brushed aside constitutional questions as though they did not exist. For instance, the Court made the following statement:
The legislatures of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina had rejected the amendment in November and December, 1866. New governments were erected in those States (and in others) under the direction of Congress. The new legislatures ratified the amendment, that of North Carolina on July 4, 1868, that of South Carolina on July 9, 1868, and that of Georgia on July 21, 1868.(58)
The Court gave no consideration to the fact that Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina were three of the original states of the Union with valid and existing constitutions on an equal footing with the other original states and those later admitted into the Union. Congress certainly did not have the right to remove those state governments and their Legislatures under unlawful military power set up by the unconstitutional Reconstruction Acts, which had for their purpose the destruction and removal of legal state governments and the nullification of the Constitution.

In Hawke v. Smith, (1920), 253 U.S. 221, 40 S. Ct. 227, the U.S. Supreme Court unmistakably held:
The fifth article is a grant of authority by the people to Congress. The determination of the method of ratification is the exercise of a national power specifically granted by the Constitution; that power is conferred upon Congress, and is limited to two methods, by action of the Legislatures of three fourths of the states. Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331, 348, 15 L.Ed. 401. The framers of the Constitution might have adopted a different method. Ratification might have been left to a vote of the people, or to some authority of government other than that selected. The language of the article is plain, and admits of no doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of courts or legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method which the Constitution has fixed. (60)
We submit that in none of the cases in which the Court avoided the constitutional issues involved, did it pass upon the constitutionality of that Congress which purported to adopt the Joint Resolution for the 14th Amendment, with eighty Representatives and twenty-three Senators forcibly ejected or denied their seats and their votes on said Resolution, in order to pass the same by a two thirds vote, as pointed out in the New Jersey Legislature Resolution of March 27, 1868.


As Chief Justice Marshall pointed out for a unanimous Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison (1 Cranch 136 @ 179):
The framers of the constitution contemplated the instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature....
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government?...
If such be the real state of things, that is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime....
Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions.... that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The Federal courts actually refuse to hear argument on the invalidity of the 14th Amendment, even when the evidence above is presented squarely by the pleadings.
Only an aroused public sentiment in favor of preserving the Constitution and our institutions and freedoms under constitutional government, and the future security of our country, will break the political barrier which now prevents judicial consideration of the unconstitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment.

These are just a few of the highlights from this very important document please read it in its entirety and begin to take back our freedoms from this unlawful government of Democracy.

reply to post by drmeola


Sorry but get ready to be called a racist... Not that I agree with that sentiment at all but it seems that anybody that has a problem with the 14th is automatically called one.

News for those people... Do you not like corporate personhood? well you can blame the 14th for that. People are under the impression that the civil war was fought to free the slaves, the problem is factual history doesn't support that. The war was fought to turn independent States (State: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government) into vassals of the federal government. If that doesn't sound right to some, please take notice that no other country that held slavery as legal had to fight a war to end it. The united States didn't have to either, so why did we? hmmm.

I don't think there is much that can be done about it. Trying to reverse the mistakes, lies and corruption of the past within the corrupt system those mistakes, lies and corruption created is a recipe for failure. I think the best thing people can do to correct this is to push for a revolution. Peaceful or Violent... I am starting not to care either way. The second best thing that can be done short of that is to spread the knowledge and hope people will stop to actually examine the facts of history. S&F for that.

Wow, really? The 14th amendment created the citizenship clause that allowed african americans to be citizens, where they previously were not. Additionally, the 14th amendment was the basis of later de-segregation laws.

Speaking in legal jargon does not raise one above the fact that if one is against the 14th amendment, they are also against fair and equal treatment. Speaking against the fourteenth amendment is a thinly veiled racist attack, and is against the liberty of our countries citizens.

Furthermore, the fourteenth amendment is PART OF THE CONSTITUTION. All amendments to the constitution are the amended part of the document itself.

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by drmeola

 

Sorry but get ready to be called a racist...

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Liberty isn't a states rights issue - it's a human rights issue.

reply to post by pirhanna


Some people argue that the 14th did not make slaves free people but made free people slaves. Equal sure. One does not have to be racist to see flaws in the 14th, one only has to look at the history of the 14th with an open mind. I have no problem with all people being free but I do have a problem with the 14th.

Calling it veiled racism is a result of simply not bothering to look past the bullet points and give history a true examination. I do not support the 14th, yet I do support the freedom and equal natural rights of all people. The 14th turned rights into privileges. If you are going to defend the 14th, you should learn more than the bullet points.

Originally posted by pirhanna

Originally posted by sageofmonticello
reply to post by drmeola

 

Sorry but get ready to be called a racist...

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Liberty isn't a states rights issue - it's a human rights issue.

edit on 2-5-2012 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)

So I am a racist too? Do you even know what race I am? Funny how you can make such a snap judgement on people ignoring anything that they say.

Of course Liberty isn't a states rights issue? When did I say that it was? I said the war was fought over States rights. The revisionist history taught in school doesn't change that. Obviously no State has the right to make anyone a slave or serve involuntarily. News Flash - I am not a racist.

My problem is not with what the 14th claims to have done but rather what the 14th actually did. Can you not see the difference? Is the OP not allowed to be upset that the 14th was not ratified in a constitutional manner without being racist? Is it not possible discussion that equal rights could have been given in another manner that doesn't leave so much up for discussion, delusion and corruption?

Do you support corporate personhood? The 14th is where that comes from. Is it really not possible to question something without being labeled a racist? Please... Keep calling people you don't know or understand racist if you like but maybe you should ask yourself, does that not actually make you the bigot?

reply to post by drmeola


Maybe it would help if we begin with the ACTUAL 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 power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

This is one of my biggest pet peeves about poster on ATS, they assume to much without reading fully the information provided along with all links on a topic before commenting.

People have been so blinded by lies they can not recognize truth when staring them in the face, if one did read this link in full they would one discovery that the Union STILL operates under military rule ie Martial Law. Two that all judges are invalid and have zero authority to rule and past judgment on another.

And three the big one:

When the requisite twenty-seven votes were given in favor of that amendment, it was proclaimed to be a part of the Constitution of the United States, and slavery was declared no longer to exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction. If these seven States were not legal States of the Union, it follows as an inevitable consequence that in some of the States slavery yet exists. It does not exist in these seven States, for they have abolished it also in their State constitutions; but Kentucky not having done so, it would still remain in that State. But, in truth, if this assumption that these States have no legal State governments be true, then the abolition of slavery by these illegal governments binds no one, for Congress now denies to these States the power to abolish slavery by denying them the power to elect a legal State legislature, or to frame a constitution for any purpose, even for such a purpose as the abolition of slavery.

As you can see it did NOT abolish slavery for the whole of the Union, in fact New Jersey only about 20 years ago finally removed if from their laws, and as stated above Kentucky has yet to do so. For others that still like to pull race cards be advised one of the first slave owners in the Union was in fact a Blackman, slavery never had anything to do with color it has always been about wealth for it take money to own and care for property so drop your BS and wake up to truth. We might all just learn something.

The fact remains that the war between the states had nothing to do with slavery at all, it was an after thought in order to strengthen the northern army's as the French and British was about to join the South in the battle, the North used their navy to keep them from joining the fight by blocking off all ports to the Union.

Fact the war never official ended the South remains under military occupation with false representatives of a NEW government, this new government is our current Democracy (defacto) over the Republic (de jure) guarantee as written in the organic Constitution of our founders. The war simply moved to a silent war as the people of the Union is a conquered people, slave and subject to the will of TPTB.

Thank you all for your post and look forward to discussing this very serious issue holding all citizens as slaves.