Second Amendment Incorporation Into Fourteenth Amendment – Open Discussion

27 Responses to “Second Amendment Incorporation Into Fourteenth Amendment – Open Discussion”

1. Greg Farber on July 8th, 2009 9:14 am

   Their using plenty of suedo ” legality ” to change those first 10 Amendments from Individual Rights to Collectivist granted Privilege..This then can be taken from the Individual based on any excuse they can invent…Myself for example..Your insane Mr. Farber, you write things which are dangerous, we are removing your guns from you to keep the “public” safe, which in legal double speak is them. Not the general public, they are not concerned with the general public’s safety at all, and their actions prove it..

   Just think about it, The writers of those first 10 Amendment’s were inspired by God, ever since that time human legal minds have tried to destroy it…Over two hundred years have past and they can’t, so they have resorted to legal double speak, and they have implemented a Society over time which does not understand what goes on around them..Especially with this English language.

   Americans are the least intellectual, educated, people in the world, I can prove it to, they have been severely dumbed down..They have learned to rely on free corn, and pay no heed to the fence around them and the gate slowly closing…The World watches, they know…

   I say and write strange things, I don’t particularly care for most of it myself, But the thing is you must read things you do not enjoy, You can not be lazy, You decipher legal documents, you can unravel their legal bullshit, I do it every day, just to expose them.. These people are taking this world to a very dark place, we are supposed to stand against it.. Together..

   Now I must go work out again, to be in shape for the coming battle..I will never surrender to them, I will never bow my knee to to THEIR Lucifer..

   Liberty and Individuality, OR DEATH….

2. jes on July 8th, 2009 11:37 am

   In my understanding of using the 14th amendment to apply the 2nd amendment, we are simply guaranteeing the rights of a citizen to bear arms in any state….which is the same amendment any court would use to say, in effect, that no one state has the right to circumvent the rights and laws that apply to any and all citizens of the United States…

   Even in The District of Columbia, in which the Heller case was concerned, the law applies as well….but lawyers have wanted to question whether or not this decision applies to the states as well….Of course it does, but only after they make another attempt at our liberties, by trying yet another court case where they can make another attempt at taking away another piece of the 2nd amendment….and using the 14th amendment is simply another way of saying that any ruling on our rights that applies to the citizens of the United States, applies to ALL.

3. Leif Rakur on July 8th, 2009 2:14 pm

   Incorporating the Second Amendment to apply it against the states would be to invert the amendment’s original purpose. That purpose was to prevent federal elimination of the militia, which the states had created to meet their own security needs:

   “It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.” (District of Columbia v. Heller, Opinion of the Court, p. 26)

   Far from supporting the original purpose, incorporation proposes a new and contradictory one – to prevent the states from passing firearm legislation they deem necessary for public security.

   The Second Amendment would become the Bill of Rights’ first flip-flop amendment .

4. Brian on July 9th, 2009 9:11 am

   The way I understand it is that the Constitution and its associated amendments (which by very definition of “amendment” become the constitution itself after ratification…) is the *Supreme Law of the Land* giving a uniform basis for the states to build from.

   The fact that there is discussion about “does the 2nd amendment apply to the states” is completely unnecessary. It applied before the 14th as part of the core law of the land, and if you must use the 14th, it applies through it as well, as the 14th amendment does not itself pick and choose which rights to “incorporate.”

   If the Constitution only applies to the Fed, why bother? And if it does actually apply to the fed, APPLY IT. No more “Interstate Commerce Clause” “wiggling around” to bypass “inconvenient” other constitutional clauses and amendments. The rights guaranteed by our amendments are written in absolute language — apply them absolutely.

   Either enforce them all through the 14th if you must, or enforce them based on their own validity.

5. Greg Farber on July 9th, 2009 10:22 am

   The problem with the Fourteenth non-ratified Red Communist Amendment is it gives all authority via civil roman law to the usurper of the states sovereignty…The federal government…We have 12 original Amendments, a hidden 13th which was ratified and a new 13th which was ratified and technically does what the fourteenth was claimed to be need for-WHICH FREED THE BLACKS..The fourteenth Amendment did not free the blacks, it included us all into a federal plantation, and individual sovereignty was gone then, especially later during the 1913-1945 era, via to many court cases for me to list now, We can trace this debacle clear back to the dred scott case, and beyond…The Founders allowed Natural God Given Rights- The fourteenth takes them away via false protection of civil rights…If they convince the country to include the second into the fourteenth it becomes a privilege and not a right and then they can individually discredit anyone they want and bar them gun owner ship..You see the Civil War, which in fact is still going on today, was not just about slavery of one race, it was about enslaving every man woman and child of this nation under the usurper…Which is where we find ourselves today…The Fourteenth was not ratified, No southern congressmen were allowed to vote on that amendment..The Red Republicans shoved it through, those states of that time new what it meant…It was forced upon the nation..the fought over it before the war and after the war…It was a Roman Coup de Ta on freedom…The Sixteenth amendment also was never ratified, The 17th amendment also was never ratified-I have copies of all these ratification documents here in my collection..The 16th allowed them to steal our wealth we create with our two hands. The 17th is how the president can make unconstitutional treaties with foreign nations via the senate…That is why the UN has a foothold in this nation and are stealing our resources for the world bank..foreign owned..Their using their trojan horse known as environmentalism to protect that collateral…They must and will disarm us…A fight is coming, and you fellers better damn well get ready for it…Their orchestrating this economical collapse right now, and it is going to get far worse…Ask yourself why would the world bank wish to own our waterways, even our aquifer under the entire nation..and Canada, Mexico..Maurice Strong and T Boone Pickens are the purchasers for the United Nations…Well who owns the United Nations, the world bank, and who owns the world bank, your same enemy your founders fought, your same enemy who fomented the civil war from both sides and implemented that Red Amendment….Your not just losing the second, your losing the first ten…

6. Tom Remington on July 9th, 2009 2:59 pm

   “.If they convince the country to include the second into the fourteenth it becomes a privilege and not a right and then they can individually discredit anyone they want and bar them gun owner ship.”

   That’s how I see it. That’s why I have said this appears like a big win for gun rights but it is a two-edged sword that will cut both ways.

   I think Brian’s idea that the Second Amendment should stand alone……Apply it!

7. Brian on July 9th, 2009 3:41 pm

   Uncle Ted for president then?

   I do see the argument that the 14th is maybe not as great as it seems at face value. Technically speaking with the way I thought the Constitution works(ed) it’s unnecessary and superlative. Like making murder with a gun “more” illegal than murder already is. Except ostensibly in this case they’re making our rights “more” protected (as if the BOR doesn’t already cover that?)

   Seriously, if the Amendments (and by extension, the Constitution) don’t apply to the individual states, what good are they? In that situation, any state is free to stomp all over our freedoms (on paper anyway).

   Beyond those protections guaranteed by the Constitution, I do agree that state governments should otherwise have the right to govern as their constituents desire. The subtle differences between states are part of what make America diverse and interesting yeah?

8. jes on July 10th, 2009 7:21 am

   “.If they convince the country to include the second into the fourteenth it becomes a privilege and not a right and then they can individually discredit anyone they want and bar them gun owner ship.”

   Don’t “they” already do just that?

   Haven’t lawyers already “used” the 14th amendment to “apply” rights and “privileges” to other constitutional issues?

   Nothing new in the use of the 14th amendment….unless it’s in “our” interest for a change, instead of those who would limit our rights AND privileges…

   The gradual erosion of gun rights is the last hurdle for those who would have “us” as their slaves….It is foreseeable in the near future, when personal liberty becomes “anarchy” to those who hold the purse strings and the power….and the last vestige of “revolutionary” change becomes impossible due to the increased power and technology of governmental “order” in our lives…..

   A two edged sword, indeed it is!

9. George on July 10th, 2009 10:08 am

   Right on Jes, Have a look at this and tell me I’m not being paranoid. Is this a back door attempt at compiling a Potential List of Gun Owners??

   On June 15, the Pennsylvania Automated License System (PALS) will be activated fully for the sale of 2009 hunting licenses. This new automated licensing system is a joint project with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and our contractor, Automated Licensing Systems, a subsidiary of Active Outdoors.

   Beginning this year, all hunting licenses will be issued through PALS. Pre-printed, paper licenses no longer will be used. The new automated system provides licensing options that hunters have not had previously. A summary of the basic changes follows. This years requirements in Pennsylvania. I applied On Line last year so I was already in the system. My 13 yo had to supply his SSN to get his license.

   · Customer Identification Number (CID): If you already have purchased a hunting or fishing license through PALS, you were assigned a CID number which was printed on your license. Please use this number when applying for a license through PALS since this will identify you in the database and speed the license issuance process. If you have never purchased a license through PALS, you will need to provide your social security number when applying. This is a one-time only requirement, and will not be needed again unless you don’t have or can’t remember your CID.

   This year I went to an issuing agent I gave him my SSN and his MAGIC BOX printed out all my information and hunting permit. Sad to say now my Grandson is ON RECORD as a gun handler. This is not GOOD!!

   ANYWAY WHAT CONSTITUTION ?

10. George on July 10th, 2009 10:25 am

    Corporate controlled conspiracy ??

    http://www.activenetwork.com/about/corporate-overview.htm

11. jes on July 10th, 2009 11:23 am

    George, there’s no way of turning back the clock, unless we have a collapse of civilization as we know it…and every one of us would be hurting as if we tried to survive in a third world country…Most of us would not make it. Even myself, who is capable of hunting, fishing and gardening, and living off the land, could not survive without help from many others who have other diverse talents.
    I bought a computer myself, only less than 2 years ago, when I knew that in order to get a hunting license, I had to go online….and now, all of the services are over the internet, period. And I thought I could exist without computers…until then!
    There is no going back unless we have a collapse of the system, and that would take us back to the same third world status, in a proverbial heartbeat…
    I don’t want to go there….even though it may happen.

12. Greg Farber on July 10th, 2009 11:30 am

    “Liberty” would be the Thirteenth Amendment. “Equality”
    would be the Fourteenth Amendment. “Fraternity” would be the Fifteenth
    Amendment. We now will examine the forced ratification of the Fourteenth
    Amendment with all its tyranny and usurpation, as it was the coup d’etat.

    On July 28, 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment was declared to be “ratified” by
    the Radicals in Washington. Since 1866 the Southern States had been under martial
    law and divided into five military districts. The districts were governed by five Union
    Generals beholden to the Jesuits, including General Benjamin F. Butler known as
    “Butler the Beast.” The wicked, bigoted Thaddeus Stevens with his
    “Reconstruction Act” of 1866 had implemented martial law. And why? Because the
    Southern State governments, having ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, refused to
    ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. So the solution of the Radicals, to the disgrace of
    the Protestant ministers and people of the North, was to suspend the lawful State
    governments and impose martial law (absolutism). The only way the Southern States
    could be re-admitted into this new “Union of North American Socialist Republics,”
    thereby ending martial law, was to “ratify” this new amendment. That is called
    “consent at the point of a bayonet” or rather, “forced conversion of heretics.”
    Why was the Fourteenth Amendment, forced on the South by the Radical,
    Communist, Red Republican Jacobins of the North, so important to the Jesuits and
    their despots of Europe, including apostate Protestant Queen Victoria of England
    whose policies were dictated by her Jesuit-controlled Prime Ministers, Lord John
    Russell and Viscount Palmerston? Section 1 of the Amendment reads:
    “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
    [which “privileges and immunities” do not include ancient common law
    rights or the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights]; 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.” {15}
    The coup d’etat is in the first sentence. It made all persons born in the
    United States (excluding the Indian nations) citizens of the United States first and
    citizens of a State secondly. This reversed the original American citizenship.
    Senator James G. Blaine, one of the Order’s Temporal Coadjutors (according to 1883
    author Edwin A. Sherman) and Radical Red Republicans of the day, explained:
    “In the first place, we ask that they will agree to certain changes in the
    Constitution of the United States; and, to begin with, we want them to unite
    with us in broadening the citizenship of the Republic. The slaves recently
    emancipated by proclamation, and subsequently by Constitutional
    Amendment, have no civil status. They should be made citizens, and in
    making this extension of citizenship, we are not confining the breadth and
    scope of our efforts to the negro. It is for the white man as well. We intend
    to make citizenship National. Heretofore, a man has been a citizen of the

    United States because he was a citizen of some one of the States: Now, we
    propose to reverse that, and make him a citizen of any State where he
    chooses to reside, by defining in advance his National citizenship—and
    our Amendment declares that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United
    States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
    States [first] and [secondly] of the States [State] wherein they reside.’ ” {16}
    [Emphasis added]
    Years later our Jesuit-controlled Supreme Court, in describing the effect of the
    Fourteenth Amendment, would say the same as its radical authors.
    “ ‘In reviewing the subject,’ [“Jesuitical”] Chief Justice White [according
    to our hero Jeremiah Crowley] said in the Selective Draft Law Cases, 245
    US 366, 377, 388-389, ‘ . . . it broadened the national scope of the
    Government under the Constitution by causing citizenship of the United
    States to be paramount and dominant instead of being subordinate and
    derivative, and therefore, operating as it does upon all the powers conferred
    by the Constitution.’ ” {17} [Emphasis added]
    Simply put, by reversing American citizenship and making it “National,” all
    the powers of the government, specifically granted by the Constitution, were greatly
    increased. A new citizenship created a new government. All the executive, legislative
    and judicial powers in Washington were “broadened.” So the radicals, pretending to
    do good to the Black freedman, used these freedmen to centralize and increase
    Rome’s power in Washington with the Fourteenth Amendment.
    (This is exactly what happened as a result of the Civil Rights movement during the
    1960s. In seeking to concentrate more power in Washington under the guise of
    ending segregation in the South, the Jesuits using Freemasonry fomented the Civil
    Rights Agitation with their Black communist, Martin Luther (Lucifer) King. Once
    again, the using of deliberately agitated American Negroes conferred more power in
    Washington with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, enacted through a perversion of “The
    Commerce Clause” and written by one of Rome’s most powerful priests in America
    with over one hundred earned and honorary degrees, CFR member Theodore M.
    Hesburgh. Race-mixing in the South would gradually become a reality accelerating
    the destruction of another White Protestant and Baptist “heretic” nation!)
    Many Southern statesmen knew the true purpose of the Fourteenth
    Amendment. The former Vice-President of the Confederacy, Freemason Alexander
    Stephens, was one of them. He wrote:
    “These monstrous Reconstruction Measures, with all their enormities and
    fatal tendencies towards ultimate complete Centralism and Empire, are

    still based upon the assumption that the States, as separate integral parts,
    constitute members of what is still, in words, at least, acknowledged to be a
    Federal Union! All these bold usurpations of power are, upon their face,
    nothing but resorts to induce, or to compel, under duress, the Peoples of the
    several Southern States to go through the forms of adopting the Fourteenth
    Amendment . . .” {18} [Emphasis added]
    Honest Freemason Alexander H. Stephens knew that the forced ratification of
    the Fourteenth Amendment would create a centralized Empire out of a federation of
    sovereign States. The President would exercise powers of a Monarch, the Congress
    would exercise powers of a Parliament and the Supreme Court would exercise powers
    of a King’s Bench, having its jurisdiction extended to include anything and everything
    under the guise of the new “Federal Question Jurisdiction.”
    Federal Question Jurisdiction is an alien and foreign jurisdiction to the
    original Constitution. It created “judicial supremacy” in the Supreme Court,
    broadening its power of review to overturn laws and decisions of the several States.
    There are virtually no judicial decisions, state or federal, that cannot be appealed to
    the Supreme Court with a “Writ of Certiorari.” With this all-encompassing
    jurisdiction and the thousands of appeals filed annually, the Jesuits at Georgetown
    University influence the Supreme Court as to which cases to hear. The ensuing
    decisions further the purpose of the Order in destroying White, Protestant American
    culture along with its popular self-government or “liberalism,” as the Jesuits call it.
    Remembering previous chapters, the Jesuits have avowed to destroy both
    Protestantism and Liberalism pursuant to their Jesuit Oath and Council of Trent.
    In looking back, we Americans can see the evil decisions made possible by the
    Jesuits’ “Federal Question Jurisdiction.” Among others, it enabled the Supreme
    Court to force the religion of evolution down our throats, to force the integration of
    public schools when neither the Whites nor the Blacks wanted it; to legalize abortion
    and prohibit capital punishment overthrowing laws of the States to the contrary, and
    to outlaw Bible-reading and prayer in the “accursed public schools.” For in
    prohibiting Bible-reading and prayer in the public schools, Protestant civilization is
    destroyed, and with it, popular self-government—to the delight of the Jesuit Order!!!
    The Jesuits are absolutists. Therefore, the pagan governments they control
    must exercise absolute powers. Since rights limit powers, the rights of the citizens
    can be no more than privileges granted from absolute governments of nations past
    such as Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome. Ancient English liberties and commonlaw
    rights cannot be included. Such is the case with every socialist-communist
    government of today, be it the monarchy of Queen Elizabeth II, the military
    dictatorship of Castro or the democracy of Presidents William J. Clinton or George
    W. Bush, alias “King George II,” a descendant of England’s Stuart Dynasty.

    Therefore, one more nail had to be driven into America’s coffin. The Jesuits
    would not allow the powers newly given to Washington to be absolutely limited by
    the rights of its newly created national citizens, both White and Black. The
    “privileges and immunities” of this new Fourteenth Amendment citizenship had to
    be defined by the Supreme Court so as not to include fundamental or common-law
    rights. This happened on April 14, 1873 (the anniversary of the assassination of
    President Lincoln in the Ford’s Theater “Slaughterhouse”) with the decision given
    in the Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 US 36, 80 (1873). The decision truly slaughtered our
    rights. The court held:
    “We are of the opinion that the rights claimed by these plaintiffs in error
    [fundamental, common-law rights] if they have any existence [What
    arrogance!!!] are not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United
    States within the meaning of the clause of the fourteenth amendment under
    consideration.” {19}
    The Freemason, Justice Stephen J. Field, another hero and nearly assassinated by
    one of his California judicial brethren, strongly dissented. He declared:
    “The fundamental rights, privileges, and immunities which belong to him as
    a free man and a free citizen, now belong to him as a citizen of the United
    States, and are not dependent upon his citizenship of any State. . . . The
    Amendment does not attempt to confer any new privileges or immunities
    upon citizens, or to enumerate or define those already existing. It assumes
    that there are such privileges and immunities, which belong of right to
    citizens as such, and ordains that they shall not be abridged by state
    legislation. If this inhibition has no reference to privileges and immunities
    of this character, but only refers, as held by the majority of the court in their
    opinion, to such privileges and immunities as were, before its adoption,
    specially designated in the Constitution, or necessarily implied as belonging
    to citizens of the United States, it was a vain and idle enactment, which
    accomplished nothing, and most unnecessarily excited Congress and the
    people on its passage. . . . But, if the Amendment refers to the natural and
    inalienable rights which belong to all citizens, the inhibition has a profound
    significance and consequence.” {20} [Emphasis added]
    Field was correct but the radical Black Republicans prevailed. Slaughterhouse
    would be the precedent with which every following decision must agree. The Bill of
    Rights would not be considered as “privileges and immunities” of Fourteenth
    Amendment U.S. citizenship. But the two great dissenters through the years (both
    being Freemasons according to House Undivided by Allen Roberts (1961)) would be
    our heroes, Justice Stephen Field and Justice John Marshall Harlan from
    Kentucky. Harlan’s great dissent in Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 597, 607, 610, 611
    (1899), given just before the turn of the Black Pope’s “American Century” reads:
    Vatican Assassins

    “It seems to me that the privileges and immunities enumerated in these [ten]
    amendments [Bill of Rights] belong to every citizen of the United States.
    They were universally so regarded prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth
    Amendment. . . . I take it no one doubts that the great men who laid the
    foundations of our government regarded the preservation of the privileges
    and immunities specified in the first ten Amendments as vital to the
    personal security of American citizens . . .
    But, if I do not wholly misapprehend the scope and legal effect of the
    present decision, the Constitution of the United States does not stand in the
    way of any state [or the new National Government in Washington, D.C.]
    striking down guaranties of life and liberty that English-speaking people
    have for centuries regarded as vital to personal security, and which the men
    of the revolutionary period universally claimed as the birthright of
    [American] freemen.” {21} [Emphasis added]
    This same question was again before the Court in 1908. In Twining v. New
    Jersey, 211 US 97, 105, 106 (1908), the majority opinion sealed forever the holding
    of the Slaughterhouse Cases. Proceeding as if it were England’s King’s Bench or
    the Pope’s Sacred Rota, it arrogantly declared:
    “This view is based upon the contention which must now be examined, that
    the safeguards of personal rights which are enumerated in the first eight
    articles of amendment to the Federal Constitution, sometimes called the
    Federal Bill of Rights though they were by those Amendments originally
    secured only against national action, are among the privileges and
    immunities of citizens of the United States, which this clause of the 14th
    Amendment protects against state action. This view has been, at different
    times, expressed by justices of this court . . . (Mr. Justice Field . . . and
    Mr. Justice Harlan . . .), and was undoubtedly that entertained by some of
    those who framed the Amendment.
    [The Court then gives its Jesuitical, absolutist, tyrannical decree, opening the door for
    the Empire’s future fascist Roman Catholic, military dictatorship.]

    It is, however, not profitable to examine the weighty arguments in its favor,
    for the question is no longer open in the court. The right of trial by jury in
    civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment . . . and the right to bear arms,
    guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, have been distinctly held not to be
    privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, guaranteed by
    the 14th Amendment . . . the same decision was made in respect of the
    guaranty against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury,
    contained in the 5th Amendment . . . and in respect of the right to be
    confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment . . . In Maxwell

    v. Dow, supra, where the plaintiff in error had been convicted in a state
    court of a felony upon an information, and by a jury of eight persons, it was
    held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and the
    trial by jury, guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and
    immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the
    14th Amendment. The discussion in that case ought not to be repeated. All
    the arguments for the other view were considered and answered . . . the
    decision rested upon the ground that this clause of the 14th Amendment did
    not forbid the states to abridge the personal rights enumerated in the first
    eight Amendments, because those rights were not within the meaning of the
    clause ‘privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.’ ” [And
    if the states are not forbidden to abridge the personal rights enumerated in
    the first eight Amendments, then, logically, neither is the National
    government forbidden to do likewise!

    What a sly accomplishment was this
    deceptive coup d’etat of the Black Pope!] {22} [Emphasis added]
    Dear truth-seeker, the rights of the people limit the powers of the government.
    If the people have no absolute rights of citizenship, the rulers have absolute powers of
    government. This is precisely what the Radical Red Republican Supreme Court
    accomplished for the Jesuit Order when it overthrew the absolute rights of American
    citizens, secured by the pen and sword of Protestant Calvinist freemen.
    The Slaughterhouse Cases reduced each one of us to the status of a feudal,
    Roman Catholic serf to whom, upon birth and baptism, is granted privileges and
    immunities of citizenship from the all-powerful National Government and Church of
    Rome. The government is ruled by its Commander-in-Chief (now overseen by a
    Papal Nuncio) and the Church is ruled by its “infallible” Papal Caesar of Rome, both
    of which are mere puppets of the General of the Jesuits, the Black Pope.
    Summing it up, by 1868 the Jesuits, with their radical Republicans Thaddeus
    Stevens and Charles Sumner, had forced the Fourteenth Amendment on the
    peoples of the States, North and South. According to Federal Colonel Edwin Allen
    Sherman, author The Engineer Corps of Hell (1883), the Jesuits had worked through
    another Republican, James G. Blaine (“the liar from the State of Maine”), for the
    “ruination of the Republic.” They had created a new nation as a result of creating a
    new citizenship. By 1873 the Jesuits, with their radicals on the Supreme Court, had
    made the powers of both the Federal (now National) and State governments absolute,
    limited only by decisions of their respective King’s Benches—the Federal (now
    National) and State Supreme Courts. The transition from a Presbyterian form of
    government to a Roman Catholic form of government had been accomplished. And
    how did they do that? By declaring that the Bill of Rights were not privileges and
    immunities of Fourteenth Amendment citizenship, thereby overthrowing the ancient
    liberties of White, English-speaking, Protestant and Baptist-Calvinist freemen.
    Vatican Assassins

13. jes on July 10th, 2009 11:35 am

    In regard to the 14th amendment, from Wikipedia:

    “However, by the latter half of the twentieth century, nearly all of the rights in the Bill of Rights had been applied to the states, under what is known as the incorporation doctrine.[34] As a result, the Fourteenth Amendment not only empowered the federal courts to intervene in this area to enforce the guarantee of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, but also to import the substantive rights of free speech, freedom of religion, protection from unreasonable searches and cruel and unusual punishment, and other limitations on governmental power.[35] At the present, the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause incorporates all of the substantive protections of the First, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments and all of the Fifth Amendment other than the requirement that any criminal prosecution must follow a grand jury indictment, but none of the provisions of the Seventh Amendment relating to civil trials.[35]

    So, we would deny our use of the 14th amendment in order to deny our rights to bear arms, but not deny the use of the 14th amendment to protect all our other rights? (except matters relating to civil trials)?

14. Greg Farber on July 10th, 2009 11:49 am

    I would advise keeping the Original 13 Amendments which protect all our rights and always did, which were inspired by our Heavenly Father and Creator, based on Biblical principles, and telling the Satanic Roman puppet of the Devil himself to stick his Red Amendment of Socialist Communism up his Red hot Ass…Besides the Real Thirteenth remains hidden and the existing Thirteenth is the real Fourteenth…The Hidden Thirteenth Amendment is the Nobility Clause Amendment, all the rest are un ratified frauds…Of course we know every thing the Devil and his minion slaves do is fraudulent…

15. Brian on July 10th, 2009 12:06 pm

    Greg:
    Um, Wow, I don’t even know where to begin. Very little of any of that makes much sense based on my current understanding of how things are written.

    It is difficult to parse out any actual information or arguments between your vituperation of the jesuits and “Red Radical Republicans.”

    I’m not arguing one way or the other if either group is at fault (though most major screwups are honestly a combination effort, not just the responsibility of one group).

    I wonder if the 14th falls under “Road to hell paved with [apparent] good intentions” just like a lot of other government-growing programs.

    When I read the 14th, it mainly *seems* like a way to make doubly-sure that citizen’s rights are guaranteed, but somehow “learned” people in power decided which rights/priviliges/immunities are covered in a piecemeal fashion, even after all those aforementioned things were covered by something older in the first place.

    I don’t have all the answers, but [apparent] conspiracy-theory and vindictive rhetoric certainly won’t win the day.
    However, I do now have some things to look for and try to independently verify.

16. jes on July 10th, 2009 12:21 pm

    Greg’s like that….food for thought…and references, too!

17. jes on July 10th, 2009 12:27 pm

    Brian, you probably hit the nail on the head…..the Constitution is something like the Good Book….if you don’t know the truth, or have the Spirit of Truth to guide you, you aren’t going to be able to understand it or “interpret” it….And with a SCOTUS to interpret, you are going to get 50-40 or 40-50, depending who has the truth in their soul or not.
    I think that some of their decisions are going to have to be based on just how much they think we, the people are going to put up with……

18. George on July 10th, 2009 12:38 pm

    Yep that’s for sure. He’s gotten me to rethink some of my positions. I’m not much on conspiracy theory. But I also do not underestimate the evil human tendency to promote self. Some people will get what they want (CHANGE) no matter the cost. The cohesiveness of a long range plan such as the outline of the (Defunct) Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion do seem a bit far fetched (to me) But a continuing cosmic battle over the souls of man and the truths explaining what will be (as stated in scripture) do not seem as far fetched. (to me)

19. Greg Farber on July 10th, 2009 1:46 pm

    Is the Devil not conspiring to rule the earth and man…and ultimately to betray man and lead man to his destruction ? Well some humans on this earth are doing a mighty fine job of doing just that… The conspiracy theory always jumps up and bites the truth right on the ass, who invented that nonsense ? THEY DID, to cast doubt towards the truth, a moments reflection on the events of history and today’s events leads us all to a cross roads of conscience, we must choose between two paths, either we conclude that Americans have lost control of their government, or we reject this information as a mere distortion of history. In the first case, we become advocates of the conspiratorial view of history, in the latter we endorse the accidental view. It is a difficult choice because we have been conditioned to laugh and deny the conspiratorial view, and few people will risk public ridicule by advocating them, On the other hand, to endorse the accidental view is absurd. Almost all of history is an unbroken trail of one conspiracy after another, and several writers over the last 500 years alone prove it..Conspiracies are the norm not the exception..And the real truths and facts supported by documents are very ugly indeed…I like to call truth a fat old hag..

    That above quote on the 14th (comment 12) is excerpted from 1836 pages, chapter 27, page 606..History which has been hidden from 1530 to 2007…The book comes with 4000 resource pages, basically books from those centuries, by people pointing to the very same conspiracy..Keep in mind your government attempted to conceal all this information prior to 1960 by having all of it removed from Library’s across America, and if you do some research into who owns all publishing companies Nation Wide, that should raise up a red flag.. And ask your self why can this man who put this together not get it published or put into the book stores for your consumption…Money is not in issue, I would spend $250,000 myself to see it done..

    The Learned Elders of Zion is a Jesuit document..So is the Iron Mountain Report and Agenda 21…United Nations Charter for the 21st Century..Sustainable Development and Liberty can not and will never co-exist…Gun ownership is non sustainable, neither is hunting…

    The idea of a World Government is how old fellas…Satan used humans to conspire together under the flag of false Christianity to lead us over centuries to this point, and all good men who rose to fight against this eventually lost…We are witnessing the Jesuit orchestrated ANTI-REFORMATION taking place for well over 800 years now, is that not a conspiracy..?

    We can use the Bible itself to prove the Conspiracy is real.. Like I have said many times, VATICAN ASSASSINS – Wounded In The House Of My Friends – is well worth your time…The author uses hundreds of Biblical quotes through out the book, and those 4000 resource pages which are 13 books from the last few centuries supports his case…

    Now I’m going to conspire with my new dirt bike to tear up some trail for the rest of the day…

20. ar on July 10th, 2009 2:00 pm

    Go get ‘em, greg.

21. Greg Farber on July 10th, 2009 2:14 pm

    The Red Amendment is an Article on the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution. It provides an in law look at the true purpose of the fourteenth amendment’s stealthy sections; and also, it gives a brief history of their progressive usage the past 100 years. They can no longer hide fella’s….Why do you think their after the guns… Now I’m riding…

    http://www.redamendment.net/home.php

    http://www.apfn.org/APFN/14th.htm

    http://www.apfn.org/pdf/14th.pdf

    The Fourteenth Amendment has been used by the U.S. Supreme court for several years as a club to beat the states into submission. There is unassailable evidence that the amendment was not lawfully ratified. This evidence was presented by Justice Ellett in Dyett v. Turner and on the floor of the House of Representatives. For citizens of the state of Tennessee evidence that the amendment was not ratified by the Tennessee General Assembly is found in Tennessee: A Short History. Corlew reported that Representatives Williams (Carter County) and Martin (Jackson County) refused to participate and although absent were “recorded as being present but having ‘failed and refused’ to vote.”

    http://pages.preferred.com/~tpardue/fourteen.html

    June 13, 1967 H7161
    THE 14TH AMENDMENT -
    EQUAL PROTECTION LAW OR TOOL OF USURPATION
    (Mr. Rarick (at the request of Mr. Pryor) was granted permission to extend his remarks at this
    point in the Record and to include extraneous matter.)
    Mr. RARICK. Mr. Speaker, arrogantly ignoring clear-cut expressions in the Constitution of the
    United States, the declared intent of its drafters notwithstanding, our unelected Federal judges read
    out prohibitions of the Constitution of the United States by adopting the fuzzy haze of the 14th
    Amendment to legislate their personal ideas, prejudices, theories, guilt complexes, aims, and
    whims. Through the cooperation of intellectual educators, we have subjected ourselves to accept
    destructive use and meaning of words and phrases. We blindly accept new meanings and changed
    values to alter our traditional thoughts. We have tolerantly permitted the habitual misuse of words
    to serve as a vehicle to abandon our foundations and goals. Thus, the present use and expansion of
    the 14th Amendment is a sham–{H7162} serving as a crutch and hoodwink to precipitate a
    quasi-legal approach for overthrow of the tender balances and protections of limitation found in the
    Constitution.

    But, interestingly enough, the 14th Amendment–whether ratified or not–was but the expression of
    emotional outpouring of public sentiment following the War Between Our States. Its obvious
    purpose and intent was but to free human beings from ownership as a chattel by other humans. Its
    aim was no more than to free the slaves.
    As our politically appointed Federal judiciary proceeds down their chosen path of chaotic departure
    from the peoples’ government by substituting their personal law rationalized under the 14th
    Amendment, their actions and verbiage brand them and their team as secessionists–rebels with
    pens instead of guns–seeking to destroy our Union.
    They must be stopped. Public opinion must be aroused. The Union must and shall be preserved.
    Mr. Speaker, I ask to include in the Record, following my remarks, House Concurrent Resolution
    208 of the Louisiana Legislature urging this Congress to declare the 14th Amendment illegal. Also,
    I include in the Record an informative and well-annotated treatise on the illegality of the 14th
    Amendment–the play toy of our secessionist judges–which has been prepared by Judge Lander H.
    Perez, of Louisiana.
    The material referred to follows:
    H. Con. Res. 208
    A concurrent resolution to expose the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment to the
    Constitution of the United States; to interpose the sovereignty of the State of Louisiana against the
    execution of said amendment in this State; to memorialize the Congress of the United States to
    repeal its joint resolution of July 28, 1868, declaring that said amendment had been ratified; and to
    provide for the distribution of certified copies of this resolution.
    Whereas the purported 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was never lawfully
    adopted in accordance with the requirements of the United States Constitution because eleven states
    of the Union were deprived of their equal suffrage in the Senate in violation of Article V, when
    eleven southern states, including Louisiana, were excluded from deliberation and decision in the
    adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing said 14th Amendment; said Resolution was not presented to
    the President of the United States in order that the same should take effect, as required
    by Article I, Section 7; the proposed Amendment was not ratified by three fourths of the states, but
    to the contrary fifteen states of the then thirty seven states of the Union rejected the proposed 14th
    Amendment between the dates of its submission to the states by the Secretary of State on June 16,
    1866, and March 24, 1868, thereby nullifying said Resolution and making it impossible for
    ratification by the constitutionally required three fourths of such states; said souther which were
    denied their equal suffrage in the Senate had been recognized by proclamations of the President of
    the United States to have duly constituted governments with all the powers which belong to free
    states of the Union, and the Legislatures of seven of said southern states had ratified the 13th
    Amendment which would have failed of ratification but for the ratification of said seven southern
    states; and,
    Whereas the Reconstruction Acts of Congress unlawfully overthrew their existing governments,
    removed their lawfully constituted legislatures by military force and replaced them with rump
    legislatures which carried out military orders and pretended to ratify the 14th Amendment; and,
    Whereas in spite of the fact that the Secretary of State in his first proclamation, of July 20, 1868,
    expressed doubt as to whether three fourths of the required states had ratified the 14th Amendment,
    Congress nevertheless adopted a resolution on July 28, 1868, unlawfully declaring that three
    fourths of the states had ratified the 14th Amendment and directed the Secretary of State to so
    proclaim, said Joint Resolution of Congress and the resulting proclamation of the Secretary of State
    included the purported ratifications of the military enforced rump legislatures of ten southern states
    whose lawful legislatures had previously rejected the said 14th Amendment, and also included
    purported ratifications by the legislatures of the States of Ohio, and New Jersey although they had
    withdrawn their legislative ratifications several months previously, all of which proves absolutely
    that said 14th Amendment was not adopted in accordance with the mandatory constitutional
    requirements set forth in Article V of the Constitution and therefore the Constitution strikes with
    nullity the purported 14th Amendment.
    Now therefore be it resolved by the Legislature of Louisiana, the House of Representatives and the
    Senate concurring:
    (1) That the Legislature go on record as exposing the unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment,
    and interposes the sovereignty of the State of Louisiana against the execution of said 14th
    Amendment against the State of Louisiana and its people;
    (2) That the Legislature of Louisiana opposes the use of the invalid 14th Amendment by the Federal
    courts to impose further unlawful edicts and hardships on its people;
    (3) That the Congress of the United States be memorialized by this Legislature to repeal its
    unlawful Joint Resolution of July 28, 1868, declaring that three fourths of the states had ratified
    the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
    (4) That the Legislatures of the other states of the Union be memorialized to give serious study and
    consideration to take similar action against the validity of the 14th Amendment and to uphold and
    support the Constitution of the United States which strikes said 14th Amendment with nullity;
    (5) That copies of this Resolution, duly certified, together with a copy of the treatise on “The
    Unconstitutionality of the 14th Amendment” by Judge L. H. Perez, be forwarded to the Governors
    and Secretaries of State of each state in the Union, and to the Secretaries of the United States
    Senate and House of Congress, and to the Louisiana Congressional Delegation, a copy hereof to be
    published in the Congressional Record.
    Vail M. Delony,
    Speaker of the House of Representatives.
    C. C. Aycock,
    Lieutenant Governor and President of the Senate.
    The 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional The purported 14th Amendment to the United States is
    and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void and unconstitutional for the following
    reasons:
    1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a
    Constitutional Congress. Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
    2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval. Article I, Section 7.
    3. The proposed 14th Amendment was rejected by more than one fourth of all the states then in the
    Union, and it was never ratified by three fourths of all the States in the Union. Article V. I. The
    Unconstitutional Congress The U.S. Constitution provides:
    Article I, Section 3, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from
    each State …”
    Article V provides: “No State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the
    Senate.”
    The fact that 23 Senators had been unlawfully excluded from the U. S. Senate, in order to secure a
    two thirds vote for the adoption of the Joint Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment is shown
    by Resolutions of protest adopted by the following State Legislatures:
    The New Jersey Legislature by Resolution of March 27, 1868, protested as follows:
    “The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent of the three fourths of the states,
    which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw
    its assent is undeniable …”

    “That it being necessary by the Constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed
    by two thirds of both houses of Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of
    securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two
    houses eighty representatives from eleven states of the union, upon the pretense that there were no
    such states in the Union; but, finding that two thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not
    be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of
    mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other
    than the possession of the power, without the right, and in the palpable violation of the
    constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically
    denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of
    two thirds of the said houses.”
    1. The Alabama Legislature protested against being deprived of representation in the Senate of the
    U.S. Congress.
    2 The Texas Legislature by Resolution on October 15, 1866, protested as follows:
    “The Amendment to the Constitution proposed by this joint resolution as Article XIV is presented
    to the Legislature of Texas for its action thereon, under Article V of that Constitution. This Article
    V, providing the mode of making amendments to that instrument, contemplates the participation by
    all the States through their representatives in Congress, in proposing amendments. As
    representatives from nearly one third of the States were excluded from the Congress proposing the
    amendments, the constitutional requirement was not complied with; it was violated in letter and in
    spirit; and the proposing of these amendments to States which were excluded from all participation
    in their initiation in Congress, is a nullity.”
    3 The Arkansas Legislature, by Resolution on December 17, 1866, protested as follows:
    ‘The Constitution authorized two thirds of both houses of Congress to propose amendments; and,
    as eleven States were excluded from deliberation and decision upon the one now submitted, the
    conclusion is inevitable that it is not proposed by legal authority, but in palpable violation of the
    Constitution.”
    4 {H7163} The Georgia Legislature, by Resolution on November 9, 1866, protested as follows:
    “Since the reorganization of the State government, Georgia has elected Senators and
    Representatives. So has every other State. They have been arbitrarily refused admission to their
    seats, not on the ground that the qualifications of the members elected did not conform to the fourth
    paragraph, second section, first Article of the Constitution, but because their right of representation
    was denied by a portion of the States having equal but not greater rights than themselves. They
    have in fact been forcibly excluded; and, inasmuch as all legislative power granted by the States to
    the Congress is defined, and this power of exclusion is not among the powers expressly or by
    implication, the assemblage, at the capitol, of representatives from a portion of the States, to the
    exclusion of the representatives of another portion, cannot be a constitutional Congress, when the
    representation of each State forms an integral part of the whole.
    “This amendment is tendered to Georgia for ratification, under that power in the Constitution
    which authorizes two thirds of the Congress to propose amendments. We have endeavored to
    establish that Georgia had a right, in the first place, as a part of the Congress, to act upon the
    question, `Shall these amendments be proposed?’ Every other excluded State had the same right.
    “The first constitutional privilege has been arbitrarily denied. Had these amendments been
    submitted to a constitutional Congress, they would never have been proposed to the States. Two
    thirds of the whole Congress never would have proposed to eleven States voluntarily to reduce
    their political power in the Union, and at the same time, disfranchise the larger portion of the
    intellect, integrity, and patriotism of eleven co- equal States”.
    5. The Florida Legislature, by Resolution of December 5, 1866, protested as follows:
    “Let this alteration be made in the organic system and some new and more startling demands may
    or may not be required by the predominant party previous to allowing the ten States now
    unlawfully and unconstitutionally deprived of their right of representation is guaranteed by the
    Constitution of this country and there is no act, not even that of rebellion, can deprive them.
    6. The South Carolina Legislature by Resolution of November 27, 1866, protested as follows:
    “Eleven of the Southern States, including South Carolina, are deprived of their representation in
    Congress. Although their Senators and Representatives have been duly elected and have presented
    themselves for the purpose of taking their seats, their credentials have, in most instances, been
    laid upon the table without being read, or have been referred to a committee, who have failed to
    makeany report on the subject. In short, Congress has refused to exercise its Constitutional
    functions, and decide either upon the election, the return, or the qualification of these selected
    by the States and people to represent us. Some of the Senators and Representatives from the
    Southern States were prepared to take the test oath, but even these have been persistently ignored,
    and kept out of the seats to which they were entitled under the Constitution and laws.
    “Hence this amendment has not been proposed by `two thirds of both Houses’ of a legally
    constituted Congress, and is not, Constitutionally or legitimately, before a single Legislature for
    ratification.”
    7 The North Carolina Legislature protested by Resolution of December 6, 1866, as follows:
    “The Federal Constitution declares, in substance, that Congress shall consist of a House of
    Representative, composed of members apportioned among the respective States in the ratio of their
    population and of a Senate, composed of two members from each State. And in the Article which
    concerns Amendments, it is expressly provided that `no State, without its consent, shall be
    deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.’ The Contemplated Amendment was not proposed to
    the States by a Congress thus constituted. At the time of its adoption, the eleven seceding States
    were deprived of representation both in the Senate and House, although they all, except the State
    of Texas, had Senators and Representatives duly elected and claiming their privileges under the
    Constitution. In consequence of this, these States had no voice on the important question of
    proposing the Amendment. Had they been allowed to give their votes, the proposition would
    doubtless have failed to command the required two thirds majority.
    …
    If the votes of these States are necessary to a valid ratification of the Amendment, they were equally
    necessary on the question of proposing it to the States; for it would be difficult, in the opinion of
    the Committee, to show by what process in logic, men of intelligence, could arrive at a different
    conclusion.”
    8 II. Joint Resolution Ineffective
    Article I, Section 7 provides that not only every bill which have been passed by the House of
    Representatives and the Senate of the United States Congress, but that:
    “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 repassed 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 9 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. 10
    Therefore the Joint Resolution did not take effect.
    III. Proposed Amendment never Ratified by Three Fourths of the States
    1. Pretermitting the ineffectiveness of said resolution, as above, fifteen (15) States out of the then
    thirty seven (37) States of the Union rejected the proposed 14th Amendment between the date of its
    submission to the States by the Secretary of State on June 16, 1866, and March 24, 1868, thereby
    further nullifying said resolution and making it impossible for its ratification by the constitutionally
    required three fourths of such States, as shown by the rejections thereof by the Legislatures of the
    following States:
    Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on October 27, 1866. 11
    Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on November 9, 1866. 12
    Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on December 6, 1866. 13
    Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on December 7, 1866. 14
    Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866. 15
    North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866. 16
    South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 20, 1866. 17
    Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on January 8, 1867. 18
    Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on January 9, 1867. 19
    Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867. 20
    Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on February 7, 1867. 21
    Maryland rejected the 14th Amendment on March 23, 1867. 22
    Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on January 31, 1867. 23
    Ohio rejected the 14th Amendment on January 15, 1868. 24
    New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on March 24, 1868. 25
    There was no question that all of the Southern states which rejected the 14th Amendment had
    legally constituted governments, were fully recognized by the federal government, and were
    functioning as member states of the Union at the time of their rejection. President Andrew Johnson
    in his Veto message of March 2, 1867, 26 pointed out that:
    “It is not denied that the States in question have each of them an actual government with all the
    powers, executive, judicial, and legislative, which properly belong to a free State. They are
    organized like the other States of the Union, and, like them, they make, administer, and execute the
    laws which concern their domestic affairs.”
    If further proof were needed that these States were operating under legally constituted governments
    as member States in the Union, the ratification of the 13th Amendment by December 8, 1865
    undoubtedly supplies this official proof. If the Southern States were not member States of the
    Union, the 13th Amendment would not have been submitted to their Legislatures for ratification.
    2. The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution was proposed by Joint Resolution of
    Congress 27 and was approved February 1, 1865 by President Abraham Lincoln, as required by
    Article I, Section 7 of the United States Constitution. The President’s signature is affixed to the
    Resolution. The 13th Amendment was ratified by 27 states of the then 36 states of the Union,
    including the Southern States of Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama, North
    Carolina, and Georgia. This is shown by the Proclamation of the Secretary {H7164} of State
    December 18, 1865. 28 Without the votes of these 7 Southern State Legislatures the 13th
    Amendment would have failed. There can be no doubt but that the ratification by these 7 Southern
    States of the 13th Amendment again established the fact that their Legislatures and State
    governments were duly and lawfully constituted and functioning as such under their State
    Constitutions.
    3. Furthermore, on April 2, 1866, President Andrew Johnson issued a proclamation that, “the
    insurrection which heretofore existed in the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North
    Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida is at an end, and is
    henceforth to be so regarded.” 29 On August 20, 1866, President Andrew Johnson issued another
    proclamation 30 pointing out the fact that the House of Representatives and Senate had adopted
    identical Resolutions on July 22nd31 and July 25th, 1861,33 that the Civil War forced
    bydisunionists of the Southern States, was not waged for the purpose of conquest or to overthrow
    the rights and established institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of
    the Constitution and to preserve the Union with all the equality and rights of the several states
    unimpaired, and that as soon as these objects are accomplished, the war ought to cease. The
    President’s proclamation on April 2, 1866,34 declared the insurrection in the other southern States,
    except Texas, no longer existed. On August 20, 1866,35 the President proclaimed that the
    insurrection in the State of Texas had been completely ended; and his proclamation continued: “the
    insurrection which heretofore existed in the State of Texas is at an end, and is to be henceforth
    so regarded in that State, as in the other States before named in which the said insurrection was
    proclaimed to be at an end by the aforesaid proclamation of the second day of April, one thousand,
    eight hundred and sixty six.
    “And I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at an end, and that peace, order,
    tranquillity, and civil authority now exist, in and throughout the whole of the United States of
    America.”
    4. When the State of Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 6, 1867, making the
    10th state to have rejected the same, or more than one fourth of the total number of 36 states of the
    Union as of that date, thus leaving less than three fourths of the states possibly to ratify the same,
    the Amendment failed of ratification in fact and in law, and it could not have been revived except by
    a new Joint Resolution of the Senate and House of Representatives in accordance with
    Constitutional requirement.
    5. Faced with the positive failure of ratification of the 14th Amendment, both Houses of Congress
    passed over the veto of the President three Acts known as the Reconstruction Acts, between the
    dates of March 2 and July 19, 1867, especially the third of said Acts, 15 Stat. p. 14 etc., designed
    illegally to remove with “Military force” the lawfully constituted State Legislatures of the 10
    Southern States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama,
    Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas. In President Andrew Johnson’s Veto message on the
    Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867,36 he pointed out these unconstitutionality’s:
    “If ever the American citizen should be left to the free exercise of his own judgment, it is when he
    is engaged in the work of forming the fundamental law under which he is to live. That work is his
    work, and it cannot be properly taken out of his hands. All this legislation proceeds upon the
    contrary Assumption that the people of these States shall have no constitution, except such as may
    be arbitrarily dictated by Congress, and formed under the restraint of military rule. A plain
    statement of facts makes this evident.”
    “In all these States there are existing constitutions, framed in the accustomed way by the people.
    Congress, however, declares that these constitutions are not `loyal and republican’ and requires the
    people to form them anew. What, then, in the opinion of Congress, is necessary to make the
    constitution of a State `loyal and republican?’ The original act answers this question: `It is universal
    negro suffrage, a question which the federal Constitution leaves exclusively to the States
    themselves. All this legislative machinery of martial law, military coercion, and political
    disfranchisement is avowedly for that purpose and none other. The existing constitutions of the ten
    States, conform to the acknowledged standards of loyalty and republicanism. Indeed, if there are
    degrees in republican forms of government, their constitutions are more republican now, than
    when these States–four of which were members of the original thirteen–first became members of
    the Union.”
    In President Andrew Johnson’s Veto message on the Reconstruction Act on July 19, 1867, he
    pointed out various unconstitutionality’s as follows:
    “The veto of the original bill of the 2d of March was based on two distinct grounds, the
    interference of Congress in matters strictly appertaining to the reserved powers of the States, and
    the establishment of military tribunals for the trial of citizens in time of peace.
    …
    “A singular contradiction is apparent here. Congress declares these local State governments to be
    illegal governments, and then provides that these illegal governments shall be carried on by federal
    officers, who are to perform the very duties on its own officers by this illegal State authority. It
    certainly would be a novel spectacle if Congress should attempt to carry on a legal State
    government by the agency of its own officers. It is yet more strange that Congress attempts to
    sustain and carry on an illegal State government by the same federal agency.
    …
    “It is now too late to say that these ten political communities are not States of this Union.
    Declarations to the contrary made in these three acts are contradicted again and again by repeated
    acts of legislation enacted by Congress from the year 1861 to the year 1867.
    “During that period, while these States were in actual rebellion, and after that rebellion was
    brought to a close, they have been again and again recognized as States of the Union.
    Representation has been apportioned to them as States. They have been divided into judicial
    districts for the holding of district and circuit courts of the United States, as States of the Union
    only can be districted. The last act on this subject was passed July 23, 1866, by which every one
    of these ten States was arranged into districts and circuits.
    “They have been called upon by Congress to act through their legislatures upon at least tow
    amendments to the Constitution of the United States. As States they have ratified one amendment,
    which required the vote of twenty seven States of the thirty six then composing the Union. When
    the requisite twenty seven votes were given in favor of that amendment–seven of which votes were
    given by seven of these ten States–it was proclaimed to 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 to 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 to the other constitutional amendment having reference to suffrage, it happens that these States
    have not accepted it. The consequence is, that it has never been proclaimed or understood, even by
    Congress, to be a part of the Constitution of the United States. The Senate of the United States has
    repeatedly given its sanction to the appointment of judges, district attorneys, and marshals for every
    one of these States; yet, if they are not legal States, not one of these judges is authorized to hold
    a court. So, too, both houses of Congress have passed appropriation bills to pay all these judges,
    attorneys, and officers of the United States for exercising their functions in these States. Again,
    in the machinery of the internal revenue laws, all these States are districted, not as
    `Territories,’ but as `States.’
    “So much for continuous legislative recognition. The instances cited, however, fall far short of all
    that might be enumerated. Executive recognition, as is well known, has been frequent and
    unwavering. The same may be said as to judicial recognition through the Supreme Court of the
    United States.
    ,,,
    “To me these considerations are conclusive of the unconstitutionality of this part of the bill before
    me, and I earnestly commend their consideration to the deliberate judgment of Congress. [And now
    to the Court.]
    “Within a period less than a year the legislation of Congress has attempted to strip the executive
    department of the government of its essential powers. The Constitution, and the oath provided in it,
    devolve upon the President the power and duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed. The
    Constitution, in order to carry out this power, gives him the choice of the agents, and makes them
    subject to his control and supervision. But in the execution of these laws the constitutional
    obligation upon the President remains, but the powers to exercise that constitutional duty is
    effectually taken away. The military commander is, as to the power of appointment, made to take
    the place of its President, and the General of the Army the place of the Senate; and any attempt on
    the part of the President to assert his own constitutional power may, under pretense of law, be met
    by official insubordination. It is to feared that these military officers, looking to the authority given
    by these laws rather than to the letter of the Constitution, will recognize no authority but {H7165}
    the commander of the district and the General of the Army.
    “If there were no other objection than this to this proposed legislation, it would be sufficient.” No
    one can contend that the Reconstruction Acts were ever upheld as being valid and constitutional.
    They were brought into question, but the Courts either avoided decision or were prevented by
    Congress from finally adjudicating upon their unconstitutionality.

    In Mississippi v. President Andrew Johnson (4 Wall. 475-502), where the suit sought to enjoin the
    President of the United States from enforcing provisions of the Reconstruction Acts, the U.S.
    Supreme Court held that the President cannot be enjoined because for the Judicial Department of
    the government to attempt to enforce the performance of the duties by the President might be justly
    characterized, in the language of Chief Justice Marshall, as
    “an absurd and excessive extravagance.” The Court further said that if the Court granted the
    injunction against the enforcement of the Reconstruction Acts, and if the President refused
    obedience, it isneedless to observe that the Court is without power to enforce its process.
    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.”

    The applications for injunction by these two states to prohibit the Executive Department from
    carrying out the provisions of the Reconstruction Acts directed to the overthrow of their
    government, including this dissolution of their state legislatures, were denied on the grounds that
    the organization of the government into three great departments, the executive, legislative, and
    judicial, carried limitations of the powers of each by the Constitution. This case when the same
    way as the previous case of Mississippi against President Johnson and was dismissed without
    adjudicating upon the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts.
    In another case, ex parte William H. McCardle (7 Wall. 506-515), a petition for the writ of habeas
    corpus for unlawful restraint by military force of a citizen not in the military service of the United
    States was before the United States Supreme Court. After the case was argued and taken under
    advisement, and before conference in regard to the decision to be made, Congress passed an
    emergency Act, (Act March 27, 1868, 15 Stat. at L. 44), vetoed by the President and repassed over
    his veto, repealing the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court in such case. Accordingly, the
    Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without passing upon the constitutionality of the
    Reconstruction Acts, under which the non-military without benefit of writ of habeas corpus, in
    violation of Section 9, Article I of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits the suspension of the writ
    of habeas corpus. That Act of Congress placed the Reconstruction Acts beyond judicial recourse and
    avoided tests of constitutionality.

    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 supersede 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 Legislature illegally were removed by “military force,” and they
    were replaced by rump, so called Legislatures, seven of which carried out military orders and
    pretended to ratify the 14th Amendment, as follows:
    Arkansas on April 6, 1868.38
    North Carolina on July 2, 1868.39
    Florida on June 9, 1868.40
    Louisiana on july 9, 1868.41
    South Carolina on July 9, 1868.42
    Alabama on July 13, 1868;43 and
    Georgia on July 21, 1868.44
    6. Of the above 7 States whose Legislatures were removed and replaced by rump, so-called
    Legislatures, six (6) Legislatures of the States of Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama,
    North Carolina, and Georgia had ratified the 13th Amendment as shown by the Secretary of State’s
    Proclamation of December 18, 1865, without which 6 States’ ratifications, the 13th Amendment
    could not and would not have been ratified because said 6 States mad a total of 27 out of 36 States
    or exactly three fourths of the number required by Article V of the Constitution for ratification.
    Furthermore, governments of the States of Louisiana and Arkansas had been re-established under a
    Proclamation issued by President Abraham Lincoln on December 8, 1863.45
    The government of North Carolina had been re-established under a Proclamation issued by
    President Andrew Johnson dated May 29, 1865.46
    The government of Georgia had been re-established under a Proclamation issued by President
    Andrew Johnson dated June 17, 1865.47
    The government of Alabama had been re-established under a Proclamation issued by President
    Andrew Johnson dated June 21, 1865.48
    The government of South Carolina had been re-established under a Proclamation issued by
    President Andrew Johnson dated June 30, 1865.49
    These three “Reconstruction Acts”50 under which the above State Legislatures were illegally
    removed and unlawful rump or puppet so- called Legislatures were substituted in a mock effort to
    ratify the 14th Amendment, were unconstitutional, null and void, ab initio, and all acts done
    thereunder were also null and void, including the purported ratification of the 14th Amendment by
    said 6 Southern puppet Legislatures of Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina,
    Alabama, and Georgia.

    Those Reconstruction Acts of Congress and all acts and thing unlawfully done thereunder were in
    violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, which required the United
    States to guarantee a republican form of government. They violated Article I, Section 3, and Article
    V of the Constitution, which entitled every State in the Union to two Senators, because under
    provisions of these unlawful Acts of Congress, 10 States were deprived of having two Senators,
    or equal suffrage in the Senate.
    7. The Secretary of State expressed doubt as to whether three fourths of the required states had
    ratified the 14th Amendment, as shown by his Proclamation of July 20, 1868.51 Promptly on July
    21, 1868, a Joint Resolution 52 was adopted by the Senate and House of Representatives declaring
    that three fourths of the several States of the Union had ratified the 14th Amendment. That
    resolution, however, included the purported ratifications by the unlawful puppet Legislatures of 5
    States, Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama, which had previously
    rejected the 14th Amendment by action of their lawfully constituted Legislatures, as above shown.
    This Joint Resolution assumed to perform the function of the Secretary of State in whom
    Congress, by Act of April 20, 1818, had vested the function of issuing such proclamation
    declaring the ratification of Constitutional Amendments.

    The Secretary of State bowed to the action of Congress and issued his Proclamation of July 28,
    1868,53 in which he stated that he was acting under authority of the Act of April 20, 1818, but
    pursuant to said Resolution of July 21, 1868. He listed three fourths or so of the then 37 states as
    having ratified the 14th Amendment, including the purported ratification of the unlawful puppet
    Legislatures of the States of Arkansas, North Carolina, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Alabama.
    Without said 5 unlawful purported ratifications there would have been only 25 states left to ratify
    out of 37 when a minimum of 28 states was required by three fourths of the States of the Union.
    The Joint Resolution of Congress and the resulting Proclamation of the Secretary of State also
    included purported ratifications by the States of Ohio and New Jersey, although the Proclamation
    recognized the fact the Legislatures of said states, several months previously, had withdrawn their
    ratifications and effectively rejected the 14th Amendment in January, 1868, and April, 1868.
    Therefore, deducting these two states from the purported ratifications of the 14th Amendment, only
    23 State ratifications at most could be claimed; whereas the ratifications of 28 States, or three
    fourths of 37 {H7166} States in the Union, were required to ratify the 14th Amendment.
    From all of the above documented historic facts, it is inescapable that the 14th Amendment never
    was validly adopted as an article of the Constitution, that it has no legal effect, and it should be
    declared by the Courts to be unconstitutional, and therefore, null, void and of no effect. The
    Constitution Strikes the 14th Amendment with Nullity The defenders of the 14th Amendment
    contend that the U.S. Supreme Court has finally upon its validity. Such is not the case. In what is
    considered the leading case, Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 448, 59 S.Ct. 972, 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 statement that:
    “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.”
    And 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. What constitutional
    right did Congress have 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 these legal state governments and the nullification of the
    Constitutions?

    The fact that these three states and seven other Southern States had existing Constitutions, were
    recognized as states of the Union, again and again; had been divided into judicial districts for
    holding their district and circuit courts of the United States; had been called by Congress to act
    through their legislatures upon two Amendments, the 13th and 14th, and by their ratifications had
    actually made possible the adoption of the 13th Amendment; as well as their state governments
    having been re-established under Presidential Proclamations, as shown by President Andrew
    Johnson’s Veto message and proclamations, were all brushed aside by the Court in Coleman by the
    statement: “New governments were erected in those States (and in others) under the direction of
    Congress,” and that these new legislatures ratified the Amendment.

    The U.S. Supreme Court overlooked that it previously had held that at no time were these Southern
    States out of the Union. White v. Hart (1871), 13 Wall. 646, 654. In Coleman, the Court did not
    adjudicate upon the invalidity of the Acts of Congress which set aside those state Constitutions and
    abolished their state legislatures,–the Court simply referred to the fact that their legally constituted
    legislatures had rejected the 14th Amendment and that the “new legislatures” had ratified the
    Amendment. The Court overlooked the fact, too, that the State of Virginia was also one of the
    original states with its Constitution and Legislature in full operation under its civil government at
    the time.

    The Court also ignored the fact that the other six Southern States, which were given the same
    treatment by Congress under the unconstitutional “Reconstruction Acts”, all had legal
    constitutions and a republican form of government in each state, as was recognized by Congress by
    its admission of those states into the Union. The Court certainly must take judicial cognizance of
    the fact that before a new state is admitted by Congress into the Union, Congress enacts an
    Enabling Act to enable the inhabitants of the territory to adopt a Constitution to set up a republican
    form of government as a condition precedent to the admission of the state into the Union, and upon
    approval of such Constitution, Congress then passes the Act of Admission of such state. All this
    was ignored and brushed aside by the Court in the Coleman case. However, in Coleman the Court
    inadvertently said this:
    “Whenever official notice is received at the Department of State that any amendment proposed to
    the Constitution of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of the
    Constitution, the Secretary of State shall forthwith cause the amendment to be published, with his
    certificate, specifying the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same has
    become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.”
    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, 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
    courts or legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method which the Constitution has fixed.”
    We submit that in none of the cases, in which the court avoided the constitutional issues involved
    in the composition of the Congress which adopted the Joint Resolution for the 14th Amendment,
    did the Court pass upon the constitutionality of the Congress which purported to adopt the Joint
    Resolution for the 14th Amendment, with 80 Representatives and 23 Senators, in effect, forcibly
    ejected or denied their seats and their votes on the Joint Resolution proposing the Amendment, in
    order to pass the same by a two thirds vote, as pointed out in the New Jersey Legislature
    Resolution on March 27, 1868.

    The constitutional requirements set forth in Article V of the Constitution permit the Congress to
    propose amendments only whenever two thirds of both houses as then constituted without forcible
    ejections.
    Such a fragmentary Congress also violated the constitutional requirements of Article V that no
    state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. There is no such
    thing as giving life to an amendment illegally proposed or never legally ratified by three fourths of
    the states. There is no such thing as amendment by laches; no such thing as amendment by waiver;
    no such thing as amendment by acquiescence; and no such thing as amendment by any other means whatsoever
    except the means specified in Article V of the Constitution itself. It does not suffice to say that
    there have been hundreds of cases decided under the 14th Amendment to supply the constitutional
    deficiencies in its proposal or ratification as required by Article V. If hundreds of
    litigants did not question the validity of the 14th Amendment, or questioned the same perfunctorily
    without submitting documentary proof of the facts of record which made its purported adoption
    unconstitutional, their failure cannot change the Constitution for the millions in America.
    The same thing is true of laches; the same thing is true of acquiescence; the same thing is true of ill
    considered court decisions. To ascribe constitutional life to an alleged amendment which never
    came into being according to specific methods laid down in Article V cannot be done without doing
    violence to Article V itself. This is true, because the only question open to the courts is whether the
    alleged 14th Amendment became a part of the Constitution through a method required by Article V.
    Anything beyond that which a court is called upon to hold in order to validate an amendment,
    would be equivalent to writing into Article V another mode of the amendment which has never been
    authorized by the people of the United States.

    On this point, therefore, the question is, was the 14th Amendment proposed and ratified in
    accordance with Article V? In answering this question, it is of no real moment that decisions have
    been rendered in which the parties did not contest or submit proper evidence, or the Court assumed
    that there was a 14th Amendment. If a statute never in fact passed by Congress, through some
    error of administration and printing got in the published reports of the statutes, and if under such
    supposed statute courts had levied punishment upon a number of persons charged under it, and if
    the error in the published volume was discovered and the fact became known that no such statute
    had ever passed in Congress, it is unthinkable that the Courts would continue administer
    punishment in similar cases, on a nonexistent statute because prior decisions had done so. If that
    be true as to a statute we need only realize the greater truth when the principle is applied to the
    solemn question of the contents of the Constitution. While the defects in the method of proposing and
    the subsequent method of computing “ratification” is briefed elsewhere, it should be noted that the
    failure to comply with Article V began with the first action by Congress. The very Congress which
    proposed the alleged 14th Amendment under the first part of the Article V was itself, at that very
    time, violating the last part as well as the first part of Article V of the Constitution. We shall see
    how this was done.
    There is one, and only one, provision of the Constitution of the United States which is forever
    immutable–which can never be changed or expunged. The Courts cannot alter it; the executives
    cannot change it; the Congress cannot change it; the States themselves–even all the States in perfect
    concert–cannot amend it in any manner whatsoever, whether they act through conventions called for the
    purpose or through their legislatures. Not even the unanimous vote of every voter in the United States
    could amend this provision. It is a perpetual fixture in the Constitution, so perpetual and so fixed
    that if the people of the United States desired to change or exclude it, they would be compelled to
    abolish the Constitution and start afresh.

    The unalterable provision is this: “that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal
    suffrage in the Senate.” A state, by its own consent, may waive this right of equal suffrage, but
    that is the only legal method by which a failure to accord this immutable right of equal suffrage in
    the Senate can be justified. Certainly not by forcible ejection and denial by a majority in Congress,
    as was done for the adoption of the Joint Resolution for the 14th Amendment. {H7167}Statements
    by the Court in the Coleman case that Congress was left in complete control of the mandatory
    process, and therefore it was a political affair for Congress to decide if an amendment had been
    ratified, does not square with Article V of the Constitution which shows no intention to leave
    Congress in charge of deciding whether there has been a ratification. Even a constitutionally
    recognized Congress is given but one volition in Article V, that is, to vote whether to propose and
    Amendment on its own initiative. The remaining steps by Congress are mandatory. Congress shall
    propose amendments; if the Legislatures of two- thirds of the States make application, Congress
    shall call a convention. For the Court to give Congress any power beyond that to be found in
    Article V is to write the new material into Article V. It would be inconceivable that the Congress of
    the United States could propose, compel submission to, and then give life to an invalid amendment
    by resolving that its effort had succeeded– regardless of compliance with the positive provisions of
    Article V. It should need no further citations to sustain the proposition that neither the Joint
    Resolution proposing the 14th Amendment nor its ratification by the required three-fourths of the
    States in the Union were in compliance with the requirements of Article V of the Constitution.
    When the mandatory provisions of the Constitution are violated, the Constitution itself strikes with
    nullity the Act that did violence to its provisions. Thus, the Constitution strikes with nullity the
    purported 14th Amendment.

    The Courts, bound by oath to support the Constitution, should review all of the evidence herein
    submitted and measure the facts proving violations of the mandatory provisions of the Constitution
    with Article V, and finally render judgment declaring said purported Amendment never to have
    been adopted as required by the Constitution.
    The Constitution makes it the sworn duty of the judges to uphold the Constitution which strikes
    with nullity the 14th Amendment. And, as Chief Justice Marshall pointed out for a unanimous
    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 … 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 issue is presented squarely by the pleadings and the evidence as above. 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 14th Amendment.
    Bibliography and Footnotes
    1. New Jersey Acts, March 27, 1868.
    2. Alabama House Journal 1866, pp. 210-213.
    3. Texas House Journal 1866, p. 577.
    4. Arkansas House Journal, 1866, p. 287.
    5. Georgia House Journal, November 9, 1866, pp. 66-67.
    6. Florida House Journal, 1866, p. 76.
    7. South Carolina House Journal, 1866, pp. 33 & 34.
    8. North Carolina Senate Journal, 1866-67, pp. 92 & 93.
    9. 14 Stat. 358 etc.
    10. Senate Journal, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 563, and House
    Journal 1866, p. 889.
    11. House Journal 1866, pp. 578-584–Senate Journal 1866, p. 471.
    12. House Journal 1866, 9. 68–Senate Journal 1866, p. 72.
    13. House Journal 1866, p. 76–Senate Journal 1866, p. 8.
    14. House Journal 1866, pp. 210-213–Senate Journal 1866, p. 183.
    15. House Journal 1866-67, p. 183–Senate Journal 1866-67, p. 138.
    16. House Journal 1866, pp. 288-291–Senate Journal 1866, p. 262.
    17. House Journal 1866, p. 284–Senate Journal 1866, p. 230.
    18. House Journal 1867, p. 60–Senate Journal 1867, p. 62.
    19. House Journal 1866-67, p. 108–Senate Journal 1866-67, p. 101.
    20. McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194; Annual Encyclopedia, p. 452.
    21. House Journal 1867, p. 223–Senate Journal 1867, p. 176.
    22. House Journal 1867, p. 1141–Senate Journal 1867, p. 808.
    23. McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 194.
    24. House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50–Senate Journal 1868, pp. 22-38.
    25. Minutes of the Assembly 1868, p. 743–Senate Journal 1868, p.
    356.
    26. House Journal, 39th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 563.
    27. 13 Stat. p. 567.
    28. 13 Stat. p. 774.
    29. Presidential Proclamation No. 153 General Records of the United
    States, G.S.A. National Archives and Records Service.
    30. 14 Stat. p. 814.
    31. House Journal, 37th Congress, 1st Session, p. 123.
    32. Senate Journal, 37th Congress, 1st Session, p. 91, etc.
    33. 13 Stat. 763.
    34. 14 Stat. p. 811.
    35. 14 Stat. 814.
    36. House Journal, 39th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 563, etc.
    37. 40th Congress, 1st Session House Journal, p. 232, etc.
    38. McPherson, Reconstruction, p. 53.
    39. House Journal 1868, p. 15, Senate Journal 1868, p. 15.
    40. House Journal 1868, p. 9, Senate Journal 1868, p. 8.
    41. Senate Journal 1868, p. 21.
    42. House Journal 1868, p. 50, Senate Journal 1868, p. 12.
    43. Senate Journal, 40th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 725.
    44. House Journal 1868, p. 50.
    45. Vol. I, pp. 288-306; Vol. II, pp. 1429-1448–“The Federal and
    State Constitutions,” etc., compiled under Act of Congress on June
    30, 1906, Francis Newton Thorpe, Washington Government Printing
    Office (1906).
    46. Same, Thorpe, Vol. V, pp. 2799-2800.
    47. Same, Thorpe, Vol. II, pp. 809-822.
    48. Same, Thorpe, Vol. I, pp. 116-132.
    49. Same, Thorpe, Vol. VI, pp. 3269-3281.
    50. 14 Stat. p. 428, etc., 15 Stat. p. 14, etc.
    51. 15 Stat. p. 706.
    52. House Journal, 40th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 1126.
    53. 15 Stat. p. 708.

    .

22. Lee on July 10th, 2009 6:18 pm

    Greg,
    Have you been to that “crater lake” in the Idaho “Frank Church Wilderness ” recently? Sounds like a cirque vs volcanic lake to me.

23. Greg Farber on July 10th, 2009 7:47 pm

    I walked halfway in there and back out Monday, eight miles total..round trip, I was attacked by thousands of blood thirsty wolf skeeeters…But I survived..

    What do I look for to determine if this was a blast out type of pressure release versus a collapse type event ? I have seen rocks that look like some one stuck them together with mortar..

    Whatever went on there it happened a long time ago.. in 75 my Forest Service pal told me they landed a helicopter on the lake and dropped a thousand foot of cable and touched nothing but water… I only have his word for that..

    So no, I have not made it there yet, soon though… Might have done it but I was side tracked to long following Cranes with their young, in Crane Meadows…Very few elk/deer tracks compared to other times in, over the last 30 years, and no wolf prints this time..The ground is hard like clay right now from all the rains, no dust, at all, and the fresh flowers and roots were wonderful for lunch…

24. AER on July 12th, 2009 4:27 am

    You show a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Second and Fourteenth amendments work.

    The amendments of the bill of rights apply ONLY to Federal laws, unless the courts hold that they apply to State laws as well via the 14th Amendment. So, for example, Freedom Of Religion originally would not have applied to a Massachusetts law mandating that everyone must be an athiest. They could have done that, and no one would be able to say anything (assuming it wasn’t barred by the Massachusetts constitution). However, the Supreme Court held that freedom of religion applies to the states, so now Massachusetts can not mandate what religion its residents must have.

    MOST of the amendments have been incorporated, with several notable exceptions. For example, the Fifth amendment right that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury” has NOT been incorporated, so states can still initiate prosecutions via information, not indictment. Similarly, gun rights have not been incorporated, so states can still flatly ban all guns, if such action is not barred by the state constitution.

    Incorporation via the 14th is a GOOD thing, no matter how you slice it. Without incorporation, there is no Second Amendment gun right as applied to the states.

25. Jesse on July 17th, 2009 1:49 am

    For the record, the Supremacy Clause, found in Article 6, paragraph 2, of the 1787 Constitution, asserts the primacy of national law over that of State law, in matters on which the two conflict. So any worry that application of the 2nd Amendment to the states through the Incorporation Doctrine laid out in the 14th is a bit late to say the least. According to the new line of reasoning found in the Heller decision, the right to own guns will now be accorded the same protection from state governments, by the federal government, as the 1st, 4th, most of the 5th, 6th, and the cruel and unusual punishment part of the 8th. Hence the use of the phrase “fundamental right.”

    Restricting a state’s authority to prohibit lawful ownership of firearms falls under the same legal category as preventing a state from, say, discriminating against black people or from restricting out-of-state missionaries from proselytizing in their jurisdiction. It does not, however, place any restrictions on individuals heckling the Mormons on their mountain bikes. As a gun-owning, liberal college student, I must admit I am highly entertained by the hand-wringing and paranoia about Obama taking away guns. He is, mercifully, prohibited by recent interpretation of the Constitution, and the 14th Amendment, from doing so.

    This entire argument seems to me to have been resolved. Even if the now solidly Democratic Senate were to ratify the CIFTA treaty, which Bill Clinton signed, in obvious ignorance of the prohibition against signing treaties which conflict with US law, seems highly unlikely if not impossible, it would immediately be ruled un-constiutional by the Supreme Court, probably in a 9-0 decision. There is no way in legal hell that anything, short of a new Constitutional amendment ot complete reconsideration of the Heller ruling, will do anything but further entrench the fundamental and inalienable right of Americans to possess more power than they are intellectually capable or responsible enough to control. Myself included. This is a good thing, as AER points out.

    The Right of Revolution is explicitly written into the Declaration of Independence, but is only hinted at, in the form of the 2nd Amendment, in the Bill of Rights. The Framers were smart enough, or negligent enough, depending on your point of view and prejudices, to use such vague and unspecific language so as to allow the Constitution to be interpreted in whatever manner was appropriate to the time. Call it enlightened flexibility or a cruel joke, it does not change the facts or their subjective interpretation.

26. U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Chicago Gun Ban Case : Black Bear Blog on September 30th, 2009 3:54 pm

    [...] it’s not even that simple. Recently the Ninth Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment therefore giving the Federal [...]

27. U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Chicago Gun Ban Case : Conservative Zone on September 30th, 2009 4:01 pm

    [...] it’s not even that simple. Recently the Ninth Federal Court of Appeals ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment therefore giving the Federal [...]

Got something to say?