- The 14 amendmentMost people living in the United States had almost no jurisdiction of government 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, but we won’t permit you to apply that law to our citizens (freed slaves) 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.For many people today they believe that the 14th amendment granted these powers to the federal government to enforce its will in laws pertaining to all citizens.Lets have a look at the amendment."By that portion of the fourteenth amendment by which no State may make orenforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of theUnited States, or take life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it hasnow become the fundamental law of this country that life, liberty, and property(which include 'the pursuit of happiness') are sacred rights, which the Constitutionof the United States guarantees to its humblest citizen against oppressivelegislation, whether national or local, so that he cannot be deprived of them withoutdue process of law.”Now what does this meanIt is important to understand that during the “Pre-bellum”( the period before the civil war) the black slaves were not considered a whole person.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”In the 14th amendment recently freed slaves were referred to as”. “the humblest citizen.” 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).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.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 inevery State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, giveevidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for thesecurity of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall besubject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of everykind, 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.From our analyze of the 14th amendment the conclusion is that it applied only to newly freed slaves and should be repelled as it no longer applies and has been superseded by civil rights legislation.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Makes our little efforts seem worth while, one mind at a time one citizen at at a time until the Republic is restored - may the creator provide us all with the strength and the heart to continue no matter the personal or family cost - as Franklin said: Better to hang together for individually we will hang for sure.
- Permalink Reply by on
- I appreciate those posts TJE.As a side note to you: I have noticed the difference in the subject matter here at TPP since this time last year (near July 4th). And the posts have a different tenor.It seems as if there are a lot less 'Patriots' who celebrate our history and achivements than those who yield to bashing the Country, pointing fingers and placing blame. A stark difference to those of us on this site a year ago. Food for thought.
- Permalink Reply by on
- some may find these distracting, hope not. But to what you speak, I'm trying to bring myself back into balance.but just can't let a couple of em not be challenged in their motives.. trying to inhibit their momentum before it builds - even if alone. Like you on some topics, somebody has to do it otherwise their opinions are the only ones expressed.I'm going through my HOPE thread listening to some good music trying to bring myself back into a balance. Some of my very favorites are no longer available - but there's plenty still there- that are on topic to this thread actually. Y'all should scroll through and listen to some quality patriotic music.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Here I will throw out the first bait to debate why we must vote with a purpose
OK let us have a serious conservation, some level of government now employs or gives a monthly check to about 25% of the population. The government union jobs pay about 20% more than comparable private companies. The so called stimulus bill was mostly spend to bailout cities, counties and state union jobs and pension plans that is why we did not see any job creations from $ 900 billion dollars.
Next - do you think it is permitted in the Constitution for the government to TAKE more from you and me so that they can give it to them? Call it medicaid, welfare, food stamps, education grants for college, trains and buses, minority assistance, free housing or hundreds of other programs. Is this fair right or just, or is it just a bribe for votes of those in power to stay in power and reward thier friend with your and my money?
Remember - if it sounds to good to be true it is probably is. There is no such thing as a middle ground in government - would that be they only steal half as much from each of us to give to their friend and minorities that make up their power block. How can anything be half correct? How can anything be half incorrect? That is why our Forefathers wrote the Constitution to bind the hands of those that would take from you and give to them. However the trisection government gave each other powers that none or even all of them collectively possessed - they have broken the rule of law and conspire to continue with courts acting outside their Constitutional powers and the Legislative and Executive branch refuse to sanction them.
WE will suffer the misuse of power until we elect enough Constitutional Conservatives that they can force the return to the original intent and meaning of the Founders Constitution. It the trisection government wants to alter or change parts of the Constitution then by all that is holy - submit an amendment as is required under the laws of the land.
SO VOTE WISELY THE FUTURE OF YOUR NATION IS ON THE LINE - TO BE FREE OR NOT TO BE FREE THAT IS THE QUESTION.
- Permalink Reply by on
- We must all keep trying to share the lessons of the Founders and the RULE - by - LAW concepts so our fellow citizens can learn and share with others. This is going to be a person by person, faction by faction effort which will take maybe a decade to reach full bloom and Restoring the Freedoms of the Republican form of our Constitution.This will be done because it is the only means that selfish citizens can protect their own property and future. There is no way back, we can only go forward toward selfish freedoms for all.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Equality is equality; if one man can be exempt from paying Federal Taxes then all men should be free of taxes. If one man can get free healthcare from the government then all men should get free healthcare from the government after all equal is equal. We have the 14th amendment and it is being used to force the states to provide for and give a redistribution of our property to others what is given to one should be given to all. Equal is equal am I not right?Under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution every citizen of the United States is protected from laws that do not apply equally to all citizens of their state of residence. The amendment was established to protect the minority from being unfairly burdened by laws imposed by the majority. Because of the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal" This law restricting state laws needs to be extended to the Federal Government to protect citizens from the current class warfare being instigated by congressional members and the President of the United States.Federal tax law exclude some citizens from income taxes and impact middle to high income earners with a progressive tax system that impose ever higher levels of taxes. Anything other then equal taxation is a violation of Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment; taxpayers are unfairly being burdened by those who do not participate in financing their government at all. This inequality provides incentives to protect this policy by using their voting rights to elect those who would further burden us through the taking of more and more of our property while protecting the non-taxation of a growing numbers of voters. ²Today 15% of the population is providing 95% of the taxes, 40% pay no taxes at all. This taking of property is clearly a violation of citizen rights that prompted the framers of the amendment to establish the “Equal Protection Clause“of the Fourteenth Amendment which protects the rights and property of the citizens from their state government, and forbids any law that excludes some from laws that is imposed on others. When this law was written its framers were concerned about States imposing laws on its citizens that imposed on equality of men granted by the Bill of Rights. Today it’s the Federal Government that is imposing laws that are imposing on this protection.There seems to be a misconception among many citizens and members of congress that there is infinite amount money available to the federal government to meet the demand for ever increasing social services. Today the cost of interest on the national debt is larger then most line items in the national budget (500 billion dollars annually) causing government to borrow to pay this interest on the debt, creating an ever increasing national debt (fourteen trillion dollars to date).This is forcing our government to go beyond our national boundaries to sell treasury notes to those that could threaten national security and solvency. (a trillion now owed to the Peoples Republic of China)If it is equality that the government seeks then lets have equality.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Texan Congressman puts bill forward to counter Obama's executive order end around on immigration? Like the 13th and 14th define a citizen how can the President award citizenship to illegals by executive mandate?USURPATION THAT IS HOW
- Permalink Reply by on
- the farewell address of our first President, George Washington,
who, in reference to our constitution, warned,
"Let there be no change [in the Constitution] by usurpation.
For though this, in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary
weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
- Permalink Reply by on
- Some further thoughts on 'can we take it back':
Montesquieu- The Spirit of Laws, Book III,3. Of the Principle of Democracy."There is no great share of probity necessary to support a monarchical or despotic government. The force of laws in one, and the prince's arm in the other, are sufficient to direct and maintain the whole. But in a popular state, one spring more is necessary, namely, virtue.What I have here advanced is confirmed by the unanimous testimony of historians, and is extremely agreeable to the nature of things. For it is clear that in a monarchy, where he who commands the execution of the laws generally thinks himself above them, there is less need of virtue than in a popular government, where the person entrusted with the execution of the laws is sensible of his being subject to their direction.Clear is it also that a monarch who, through bad advice or indolence, ceases to enforce the execution of the laws, may easily repair the evil; he has only to follow other advice; or to shake off this indolence. But when, in a popular government, there is a suspension of the laws, as this can proceed only from the corruption of the republic, the state is certainly undone.A very droll spectacle it was in the last century to behold the impotent efforts of the English towards the establishment of democracy. As they who had a share in the direction of public affairs were void of virtue; as their ambition was inflamed by the success of the most daring of their members; as the prevailing parties were successively animated by the spirit of faction, the government was continually changing: the people, amazed at so many revolutions, in vain attempted to erect a commonwealth. At length, when the country had undergone the most violent shocks, they were obliged to have recourse to the very government which they had so wantonly proscribed.When Sylla thought of restoring Rome to her liberty, this unhappy city was incapable of receiving that blessing. She had only the feeble remains of virtue, which were continually diminishing. Instead of being roused from her lethargy by Cæsar, Tiberius, Caius Claudius, Nero, and Domitian, she riveted every day her chains; if she struck some blows, her aim was at the tyrant, not at the tyranny.The politic Greeks, who lived under a popular government, knew no other support than virtue. The modern inhabitants of that country are entirely taken up with manufacture, commerce, finances, opulence, and luxury.When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community. The objects of their desires are changed; what they were fond of before has become indifferent; they were free while under the restraint of laws, but they would fain now be free to act against law; and as each citizen is like a slave who has run away from his master, that which was a maxim of equity he calls rigour; that which was a rule of action he styles constraint; and to precaution he gives the name of fear. Frugality, and not the thirst of gain, now passes for avarice. Formerly the wealth of individuals constituted the public treasure; but now this has become the patrimony of private persons. The members of the commonwealth riot on the public spoils, and its strength is only the power of a few, and the licence of many.Athens was possessed of the same number of forces when she triumphed so gloriously as when with such infamy she was enslaved. She had twenty thousand citizens when she defended the Greeks against the Persians, when she contended for empire with Sparta, and invaded Sicily. She had twenty thousand when Demetrius Phalereus numbered them as slaves are told by the head in a market-place. When Philip attempted to lord it over Greece, and appeared at the gates of Athens she had even then lost nothing but time. We may see in Demosthenes how difficult it was to awaken her; she dreaded Philip, not as the enemy of her liberty, but of her pleasures. This famous city, which had withstood so many defeats, and having been so often destroyed had as often risen out of her ashes, was overthrown at Chæronea, and at one blow deprived of all hopes of resource. What does it avail her that Philip sends back her prisoners, if he does not return her men? It was ever after as easy to triumph over the forces of Athens as it had been difficult to subdue her virtue.How was it possible for Carthage to maintain her ground? When Hannibal, upon his being made prætor, endeavoured to hinder the magistrates from plundering the republic, did not they complain of him to the Romans? Wretches, who would fain be citizens without a city, and be beholden for their riches to their very destroyers! Rome soon insisted upon having three hundred of their principal citizens as hostages; she obliged them next to surrender their arms and ships; and then she declared war. From the desperate efforts of this defenceless city, one may judge of what she might have performed in her full vigour, and assisted by virtue."------------------------------------------------------------------
So, if 'virtue' is indeed a requirement for orderly and just govt, will we be able to 'take back' our govt? Or if we did, would it be a replay of the English example: 'At length, when the country had undergone the most violent shocks, they were obliged to have recourse to the very government which they had so wantonly proscribed.'? Is it possible to 'take back' our govt when the quality of virtue is lacking in the body politic?My apologies if I am being vague or taking the discussion in an unwarranted direction.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Nathan I certainly appreciate this post. I’ve not read this or many of the works others have referenced. I think everyone is doing a service when they extract these really cool portions of major works. It helps me decide what to read in the little time I have to do so.Concerning virtue, who is to say when we collectively no longer have enough to take back our government? Where is that point of no return? I for one do not know so I will forge ahead in the absence of metric by which to judge the question.Having said that, the belief that a Republics success depends on a virtuous people is pretty well documented. Here is a similar excerpt concerning virtue from NOVANGLUS ANDMASSACHUSETTENSIS, (John Adams) February 6, 1775.“License of the press is no proof of liberty. When a people are corrupted, the press may be made an engine to complete their ruin: and it is now notorious, that the ministry, are daily employing it to increase and establish corruption, and to pluck up virtue by the roots. Liberty can no more exist without virtue and independence, than the body can live and move without a soul. When these are gone, and the popular branch of the constitution is become dependent on the minister, as it is in England, or cut off as it in America, all other forms of the constitution may remain; but if you look for liberty, you will grope in vain, and the freedom of the press, instead of promoting the cause of liberty, will but hasten its destruction…”
- Permalink Reply by on
- Jon,
I always appreciate your posts. You state:
Concerning virtue, who is to say when we collectively no longer have enough to take back our government? Where is that point of no return?
Ahh...that is the question. I am not suggesting anyone give up nor do I say that our Republic is 'irretrievable'. My questions were more of a rhetorical nature. In answer to my own question I would say if virtue is lacking in a significant portion of the populace then no, it is not.
That's not to say an attempt to 'take it back' should not be made or that I, or anyone else, could make a definitive pronouncement as to whether there is enough collective virtue remaining to allow a restoration or not. I would say to even have a chance to find a definitive answer one would have to make the attempt.
Perhaps I'm engaging in a bit of mental preparation for a possible outcome of the attempt?
Just sharing ideas with others whose opinions and feedback I respect.
No comments:
Post a Comment