Bio not provided
Preamble to the Bill of Rights (this was not made part of the ratified BoR)
"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to PREVENT MISCONSTRUCTION OR ABUSE OF ITS POWERS, that further DECLARATORY AND RESTRICTIVE CLAUSES should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution." (emphasis mine)
The Bill of Rights grants no rights but states SOME of the rights already held by "We the People".
Unfortunately, "We the People", or “the People referred to in the 2nd Amendment, no longer exist; they were deceived into choosing to become "citizens of the United States" under the14th Amendment.
These 14th Amendment federal citizens only have privileges given them by Congress (per the SCOTUS).
We, Americans, no longer enjoy God-given rights but, by being deceived, we have traded them in for man-granted privileges. All nice and legal, but not LAWFUL, according to the SCOTUS.
Why do you think the government can take your property away and give it to anyone it chooses? You think slaves really owned anything?
You think you have the right to get married? If you are exercising a God-given right, why do you have to pay the government for permission?
You think you have God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? The SCOTUS has stated the PART of Liberty is the RIGHT to travel. Now, if you have the God-given right to travel, why do you have to pay the government for permission to use your automobile on your streets?
Get the point? The SCOTUS stated "the power to tax is the power to destroy" and that a right therefore can not be taxed. They also stated that whatever it is called, if the purpose is to raise revenue, think license, permit, registration, etc., it is a TAX.
Please note that just because a decision does not sound “constitutional”, you must look at it from the view that it is. You then must look for HOW the decision could be constitutional. Previous SCOTUS decisions show how we Americans have been betrayed by our leaders.
Congress is using Article 1 Section 8: "To exercise EXCLUSIVE Legislation in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.."
"Privileges and immunities clause of Fourteenth Amendment protects only those rights peculiar to being citizen of federal government; it does not protect those rights which relate to state citizenship."
Jones v. Temmer, Federal Supplement, Vol. 829, Page 1227 (1993)
"We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government. They were decided subsequently to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment..."
Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)
PLEASE NOTE: The term "citizens of the United States" as used here can NOT be the same "citizens of the United States" used in the Original Constitution since those "citizens of the United States" did " include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government." Or else for whom were the "Bill of Rights" written to protect?
If you want to learn how we got here so you can focus your energies on solutions, if it is not too late, read "A Patriot's Thoughts" (now at bottom of the posts) at “cfhabeck.blogspot”
1 year, 11 months ago on State Supremacy vs the Supremacy Clause
@egbegb @thebasketcase @CFrancisHabeck
I did forget the Federalist Papers.
Some of the "conflicts" in reading the Court's dicisions is the dual nature of citizenship.
The Court is not obligated to explain which Citizen/United States is being addressed.
You are correct the FDR really corrupted the SCOTUS starting with their approval of the farm bill which essentially nationalized all farm in the country.
Note, I stated "presumed" as you can find the truth in almost any decision with less truth in newer decisions. The essential decision are the older ones since the separation of State and federal citizen was more pronounced. There are no State Citizens left as we have all been converted into federal ones. My paper does explain this but some confusion does exist. We are supposed to have a federal NOT a national government as it pertains to Citizenship; that's why the territories were so determined to become States. One other example of the change in definition of "state" is the fact that all post War Betwen the States constitutions contain a phrase about the U.S. Constitution being the supreme law. Pre WBtS Constitutions did not refer to the U.S. Constitution since it was only the "Supreme Law" in those areas designated to it.
5-4 decisions are often political ones but they do offer insights into how our justices have allowed themselves to be swayed by popularity, politics, and emotion. These decisions can also be viewed as simply following the Constitution where it declares that Congress can make pretty much whatever laws it wants for DC and the territories and possessions of the U.S.
My paper is not meant to be all inclusive but a primer. There are many examples of the two meanings of "United States" found in our laws.
Pleas look at the actual text of our laws; you will find a definition section. These will usually state the definitions of United States and States. They will often be something like this:
United States : the States, the Dictrict of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin islands.
States : the Dictrict of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin islands.
Please note that when referencing the 50 united States under the Constitution the term used is "the several States". That term is usually not found in the definitions. Most of you, I hope, know about substituting like terms. So substitute the definitions of "States" with the term "States" in the definition of United States. Do you see any reference to the several states?
In the IRS code you will find several interesting paragraphs such as:
"When used geographically, the term "United States" MEANS the several States."
No confusion there but elsewhere you wil see:
"The term "United States" INCLUDES the states, the District of Columbia. etc."
Most of us would naturally ASSUME that it includes the several states but that is not what it says.
For an excellent paper on the IRS Code, read at least the first four chapters of "The Fedral Zone".
It's early and I may be rambling, so I will stop here.
2 years, 4 months ago on Dangerous Dicta
@WilliamSchooler @thebasketcase @egbegb @hotmail
Trying another site to post "A Patriot's Thoughts 1"
In my opinion, "sensible gun control" has to start with sensible sentencing for those who misuse a firearm. Misusing a firearm should carry a severe sentence.
Statistics on gun "abuse" that include the possession of a firearm when it is not shown during the crime or alluded to are used to infer a greater misuse than there actually is. While reports of firearms being used to prevent crime are ignored by most of the media.
@WilliamSchooler @thebasketcase @egbegb
Regarding my "Your handle"thebasketcase" says it all."
I apologize for that and am sorry for the comment.
"..Congress intended with the language of the 13th that it apply not only to the United States as a whole, but within the several States of the United States as well.."
Then why did they not say so? Your SCOTUS reference clearly states that the term may be one of the meanings but not two or more.
This is one reason people have no clue as to why we are in trouble as a country. You ASSUME the meaning of terms. The language must mean what it says or it is meaningless.
"And Congress has ALWAYS had the power to naturalize ANYONE as a citizen of the United States. That power is granted directly in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution."
Do not read into the Constitution what is not there. Don't we have enough problems with that?
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;.."
Note that the Congress can only ESTABLISH an uniform Rule of Naturalization; it was definitely NOT granted the power to naturalize.
The reason was that only the States had the authority to naturalize; that is why people were referred to a a Citizen of New York or Virginia. The 14th Amendment was written to confer that power to the feds since the Congress knew that their 1866 Civil Rights Act was going to be found unconstitutonal by the SCOTUS. Read it and you will see the same wording. Now if the feds had the power to naturaliz, why did they try to assert it through an Act and then push through (unconstitutionally) the 14th Amendment?
And yes, the 14th was never properly ratified since the Northern Congressmen refused to seat the Southern ones, after they had voted on the 13th, and then passed the Reconstruction Acts which allowed for the military takeover of those States and the appointment of their supposed representatives.
"Despite some criticisms, the 17th Amendment was targeting that very creep into the U.S. Senate."
You do realize that the 17th Amendment is itself unconstitutional, right?
Does anyone here know why we have two houses of Congress?
Why do all spending bills have to originate in the House?
Why do all treaties have to be ratified by the Senate?
The House is elected by the people and as such is supposed to be responsible to them. This is because only people actually pay taxes and hence have to pay for the spending.
Treaties are binding on the states so the Senators are supposed to be protecting the states from encroachment of their sovereignty. That is one reason why Senators were originally appointed by their respective state legislatures.
The 17th Amendment changed the way senators were placed into Congress. It allowed for a popular vote which also change the Senators’ roles and remove one of the checks and balances put into the Constitution. It was championed by the Progressives.
The Congress, …., shall propose amendments to this constitution, or, on the application of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, … when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, …; Provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate. (emphasis mine)
Please note that AFTER the amending provisions certain restrictions are put into place.
The emphasized one guaranteed that a State’s right to vote, that is cannot be taken away without its consent.
Now, the 17th Amendment would have to have been passed unanimously in order for it to be Constitutional since any state voting against the amendment had its right to suffrage taken away.
One concern I have is you say you have read the decisions and followed the Court's reasoning. There is your problem. Try reading them with an understanding of how this a country was set up. Since we have been lied to, why use the liars' reasoning?
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." The phrase "United States" in this context is referencing "United States" as a singular unit - a single nation - the usage of the singular term in that context."
Nice try but wrong!
If that was the case, it would have been the same for the 13th Amendment. Since the 13th specifies a plural United States, the 14th could have also.
Or do you think the people who wrote them did not know what they were referring to?
Try reading this people: http://patriot1789.blogdrive.com/
On eof the problems here is highlighed by the following:
"..The article also explained that the definition of US citizen changed, as an unintended result of the 14th amendment.
As you mentioned, it's most likely out of ignorance.."
Your assumptions seem to be that laws and especially amendments to the Constitution are written by people who do not know the English language well enough to express themselves in ways that do not have an "unintended result" or they are interpreted "out of ignorance".
This is why we are in trouble, we do not want to look at the overall effect of laws over time. The SCOTUS has made a distinction between a State "citizen of the United States" and a federal "citizen of the United States".
A federal citizens has no rights or privileges except those granted TO them by Congress (SCOTUS)
"By metaphysical refinement, in examining our form of government, it might be correctly said that there is no such thing as a citizen of the United States. But constant usage -arising from convenience, and perhaps necessity, and dating from the formation of the Confederacy - has given substantial existence to the idea which the term conveys. A citizen of any one of the States of the Union, is held to be, and called a citizen of the United States, although technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen of some one of the states, is totally foreign to the idea, and inconsistent with the proper construction and common understanding of the expression as used in the constitution, which must be deduced from its various other provisions. The object then to be obtained, by the exercise of the power of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective states."
Ex parte Knowles, 5 Ca. 300, 302 (1855)
"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several states. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other."
U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state."
Crosse v. Bd. of Supvr,s of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431 (1966)
From the referenced article;
"..The federal bill of rights, and specifically the Second Amendment, did not confer anything to the people in terms of individual rights and freedoms for the simple reason they already possessed such rights through their own sovereignty under their own constitutions..."
Your handle"thebasketcase" says it all.
You accept that the SCOTUS is the authority when their rulings support your concepts but deny that authority when the ruling plainly states otherwise.
"The Constitution was mostly created to regulate governments (state and Federal) and trade - but not citizens."
The People of the States, through their State representatives, created the Constitution. Their purpose was to amend the Articles of Confederation which had an extremely weak federal gevernment.
The Original Constitution has very little restrictions on the States. The States' Constitutons are supposed to be the controlling authority within the States. The federal Constitution granted no control over a State's Citizens. There were concerns that the federal government would attempt to exert control over the State's Citizens which was the reason for the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, as some of the Founder's feared, the people now seem to think that their rights come out of the document.
" The most recent is the one where gun rights were extended to the state level.."
Those rights were not "extended" to the States, but affirmed the fact that the citizenry held those rights independent of the Constitution. Unless the citizens amended their State Constitution's to allow for control of gun rights, the States are not allowed to ban firearms.
Your problem seems to be a refusal to accept that these United States of America are supposed to be individual Free States who have granted to a federal government SOME of their authority in order to deal with certain affairs that must be ubniform throughout the country.
As I stated before, the SCOTUS has stated that the term "United States" can have several meanings. One is the federal governemnt and one is the several States. These definitions are used in all laws. If you do not realize this, you assume that all laws pertain to you.
Email me for a copy of "A Patriot's Thoughts". It is a primer on reality.
If you read the preamble to the BOR, which coincidentaly was not part of the final vote, the entire BOR is declaratory in nature. It was supposed to be a statement of the existing reality.
Your State's Constitution does say what the State can do. The federal government had little or no power over a State's Citizens. The feds do have complete control over its citizens, 14th Amendment.
Since you have not read "A Patriot's Thoughts" on my Facebook, here is a short partial summary.
The SCOTUS has stated that the term "United States" can have several meanings. One is the federa governemnt and one is the several States. how do you know which one is being referenced? With a little help you can be pretty sure.
The term "United States" is used in the 13th and 14th Amendments. The 13th abolished involuntary servitude in the "United States" ans all places subject to THEIR jurisdiction. This must reference the several States, multiple jurisdictions.
The 14th states "subject to THEJURISDICTION thereof". This is singular; if it meant the States it would have been their jurisdictions or the jurisdictionS.
This is not some conspiracy theory, this is what is said.
Also consider that in English you can explicitly ban one thing while implicitly allowing others. The writers of the amendments know this so any vagueness is deliberate. Why is this important? Well, if the term "United States" can have multiple definitions, then banning involuntary servitude in one allows it in the other. Note that it does allow for voluntary servitude.
All for now, just got back from a 4-day trip. Email me for a copy of my article and then we can talk.
Nice comment but what does it have to do with what I wrote?
"Learn to live your life."
I do live my life. The fact is that our Constitution has been bastardized to allow the federal government to free itself from the Constitution's restrictions. War and depressons are a great time to enslave the People since they are desperate for help.
"..Probably our best SCOTUS was the first - it put the people before the government.."
And why is that??? Could it be because they rules before the later amendments.
thebasketcase;"And I've seen some horrible crap come out of the Supreme Court BECAUSE they ignored precedent and ignored plain language."Here you have one of the biggest problems. You ASSUME that the Supreme Court made a "bad decision". You need to assume that they made a CORRECT decision and then look into how that decision can be correct.
All court decisions must be presumed to follow the law unless overwhelming proof is given to the contrary. This is necessary because to do otherwise will lead us chase phantoms and get us off the track of the root cause of our problems
When people testify in a courtroom, they swear to: tell the truth, tell the whole truth, and tell nothing but the truth. What is stated must be the truth, the truth with nothing withheld, and the truth with nothing added to it. This is a foundation of our judicial system. However please note that the judges, lawyers and prosecutors do not swear to this. While this does not mean necessarily that all they say are lies, it does mean that they do not have to tell the whole truth. They can bend or omit part of the truth to make a point.
Again, read "A Patriot's Thoughts" from patiot1789@hotmail.
“Re-read the 14th Amendment please.”
Take your own advice. Read “A Patriot’s Thoughts” and then comment.
“..it's why we have the protections we have now from the Bill of Rights at the STATE level!..”
You do realize that a Citizen’s protections in a State are supposed to come from their State Constitutions!!! Federal protections can only be granted to federal citizens; the U.S. Constitution limited the federal government from intervening into a State’s jurisdiction until the alleged 14th Amendment was ruled by the SCOTUS as allowing it.
“..And not just the first eight Amendments..”
The SCOTUS says otherwise.
“..But kill the flaky stuff please…”
“..Words in a law ALWAYS have a precise meaning..”
So that’s why the Courts routinely change their meanings?
“..Get some legal training and quit trying to fit very old case law without proper understanding or context into your conspiracy theories…”
By “legal training” are you referring to the outcome-based education the law schools give? Where if you do not parrot their teachings, you fail?
Are you saying that “very old case law” is irrelevant? How about our even older U.S. Constitution? How old does “case law” have to be to be ignored?
“Conspiracy theories”!!! Right! And the SCOTUS did not rule that the government can take a citizens property and give it to another? It was the SCOTUS who stated the restrictions of the BoR’s protections on federal citizens. I guess they are in on the flaky conspiracy theories.
Read the paper I referenced and then talk. All of you, please do not comment from a position of ignorance. Research.
Please read this and THINK!!!! English can be a precise or vague language. This attribute is being used against us. We all ASSUME the meanings of words we hear and read but that meaning is not necessarily correct.
We, the people (NOT We the People), have been converted into chattel of the federal government. This occurred due to the so-called 14th amendment. This created a federal citizen that has only those privileges that Congress ALLOWS. The Constitution does grant the power to do whatever it wants with its property. If you do not believe this, read “A Patriot’s Thoughts” on my face book or mail me at patriot1789 at hot mail; for a copy. Most of you will not because you simply love to complain but do not want to know the truth.
Interested in reading further or content to live in ignorance? Mail patriot1789 at hot mail for a copy of “A Patriot’s Thoughts” to gain insight into the real problem. Most of you won’t, you just like to complain and joust at windmills.