Which Constitutional Amendments are Unfriendly to Liberty? [Archive]

View Full Version : Which Constitutional Amendments are Unfriendly to Liberty?

Galileo Galilei

04-17-2009, 01:17 PM

Poll: Which Constitutional Amendments are Unfriendly to Liberty?

Choices:

16th Amendment

18th Amendment

17th Amendment

12th Amendment

non-15 1/2th Amendment

Some other Amendment

Commentary:

* The 16th Amendment is the Income Tax Amendment

* The 18th Amendent is the Prohibition of Alcohol Amendment

* The 17th Amendment is the Direct Election of Senators

In my opnion, this is the worst of all amendments.

The direct election of Senators took the state legislatures out of the mix of checks and balances of powers.

Worse, the state legislatures no longer had representation in the federal government, so little is left to stop the advance of federal power.

Not only was the Senate weakened, but the Senate confirms all Supreme Court Justices, so eventually the Supreme Court was tainted by this amendment.

The state legislatures should have seen this coming. There was a rash of corruption in the federal Senate in the late 1800s.

The state legislatures should have changed the terms of Senators in the late 1800s by enacting a right of recall provision. For example, a state legislature should have been given the power to recall a Senator after, say, half their term was up, in other words, after three years. That is how the Venezuala Constitution is written for their president, he is elcted for a 6-year term, but can be recalled after 3 years. A major recall attempt was in fact tried against Chavez in 2003.

Also, a two-term limit for Senators would have been a good idea as well. Right of Recall and Term Limits would have headed off the mis-directed progressive movement that wanted direct election of Senators.

* The 12th Amendment concerns how the Electoral College elects the president and vice-president.

you can look at the text here:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

This is a little-discussed amendment that has been a disaster. The problem was that the original Constitution had a flawed voting sytem that needed to be fixed.

The 12th amendment had two bad consequences.

First of all, it allowed for a lesser person to become vice-president. The original Constitution only allowed for a person of very high regard to become VP, essentially the second most respected stateman in the nation. The first two VP's were Adams and Jefferson. After the 12th was ratified, most VP's were forgetable people.

Second, the 12th Amendment entrenched the party system, because the winning party got an automatic tag-along for VP.

What should have been done was this;

The Electoral College should have voted on a ballot where they simply named their presidential choice and VP choice. Whoever got the most presidential votes should have been named president. Then, presidential votes should have been re-allocated as VP votes, and whoever got the most VP votes won that office.

This assumes that the tie-breaking and non-majority procedures be retained.

The VP should have been granted a few more powers as well, since the VP didn't have much to do. Or a few presidential powers should have required VP approval.

In addition, I am in favor of the 2/3 rule for the president or VP in the Electoral College, or it gets thrown to the tie-breaking procedures, in a fashion similar to the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope.

* The non-15 1/2th Amendment is an Amendment that should have been passed in 1911, but wasn't.

In 1911, the federal congress limited the size of the U.S. House to 435. This is a basic violation of Constitutional principles, since this power is not granted to congress and is retained by the states.

The argument at the time was that the House was getting too big. But now, House districts are way too big, about 700,000 people per district, compared to the original 30,000 per district. House sizes of 700,000 do not adequately represent the people.

The state legislatures should have passed an amendment setting representation that allowed for House sizes to expand beyond 30,000, but also to allow the House to expand to to much greater than 435 members. A compromise was needed.

A good formula would be to take the square root of the US population, then divide by 20. This would reduce the House sizes to around 350,000 and basically double the House to around 870 members.

Dividing by 15 or even 10 might be even better.

If you think 870 is too many, remember that the New Hamphire State house has 4000 memebers.

* Some other Amendment - in case I missed one.

Danke

04-17-2009, 02:19 PM

you should include the 14th in your poll.

Mesogen

04-17-2009, 02:33 PM

Galileo Galilei

04-17-2009, 02:35 PM

you should include the 14th in your poll.

Why's that?

The 14th amendment was orginally endorsed in a different form by James Madison. It's one of the best amendments we have.

Without the 14th amendment, the bill-of-rights does not apply to the states.

sevin

04-17-2009, 02:37 PM

That is absolutely true about the 17th amendment. Most people don't talk about that anymore. Interestingly, it happened in 1913, the same year as the creation of the federal reserve.

Galileo Galilei

04-17-2009, 02:39 PM

Here's my list of amendments that are unfriendly to liberty:

4th - It says that any search and seizure is ok as long as it is deemed to be "reasonable."

5th - It says that the government can take your land as long as they give you "just" compensation.

16th - Probably the worst amendment still in effect.

the 4th defines "reasonable" as having specific probable cause. Without it, then unreasonable searches would be OK without probable cause.

the 5th refers to the ancient legal concept of eminent domain. It puts a limit on that. Without it, eminent domain would have no limits.

The concept of eminent domain precedes the Constitution.

nate895

04-17-2009, 02:40 PM

Why's that?

The 14th amendment was orginally endorsed in a different form by James Madison. It's one of the best amendments we have.

Without the 14th amendment, the bill-of-rights does not apply to the states.

The states already have their own bill of rights that are much more exhaustive than the Federal one. They are typically ignored in this day and age.

Galileo Galilei

04-17-2009, 02:47 PM

The states already have their own bill of rights that are much more exhaustive than the Federal one. They are typically ignored in this day and age.

Many states had Jim Crow laws and slavery. Many did not have a bill-of-rights or were missing a few federal rights, especially the 2nd amendment.

It is also good to have rights under both the feds and the states, because then you have two chances for a court to defend you.

You also have two sources to cite in the court of public opinion.

Having a bill-of-rights doesn't take away any state rights, it can only add to them, that's right in the 9th amendment.

Galileo Galilei

04-17-2009, 03:27 PM

you should include the 14th in your poll.

I should add to my other comments on this. The 14th amendment has received some criticism. But if you look at the facts, it is the 17th that is at fault.

Most major encroachments of the federal governemt over the states goes back to the 17th amendment.

If the Senate were still picked by State legislatures, the Senate would never be passing the laws they have been passing since the 1920s.

And the Supreme Court would still be protecting our rights.

The 17th is worse than the 16th, because the 17th drastically changed the fundamental structure of government.

nate895

04-17-2009, 03:28 PM

Many states had Jim Crow laws and slavery. Many did not have a bill-of-rights or were missing a few federal rights, especially the 2nd amendment.

It is also good to have rights under both the feds and the states, because then you have two chances for a court to defend you.

You also have two sources to cite in the court of public opinion.

Having a bill-of-rights doesn't take away any state rights, it can only add to them, that's right in the 9th amendment.

I would agree with you, but we are a union of sovereign republican states and it is important to keep it that way. There should be nothing that stands in the way of state sovereignty. If a state is severely offending liberty, they should be forced to leave the Union, not have its sovereignty taken away. That just causes problems.

BTW, I can't think of a state that doesn't protect gun rights in its Constitution. Many of them I do know go further and outline the reason why people should own guns to defend their liberty.

Kludge

04-17-2009, 03:38 PM

Galileo Galilei

04-17-2009, 03:40 PM

I would agree with you, but we are a union of sovereign republican states and it is important to keep it that way. There should be nothing that stands in the way of state sovereignty. If a state is severely offending liberty, they should be forced to leave the Union, not have its sovereignty taken away. That just causes problems.

BTW, I can't think of a state that doesn't protect gun rights in its Constitution. Many of them I do know go further and outline the reason why people should own guns to defend their liberty.

err, you know that most states had slavery when the Constitution was ratified?

Wisconsin only passed an amendment to protect the right to bear arms 10 years ago, and it is worded in a vague manner that means little to the courts and not much more in the court of public opinion.

The states do not and never had absolute sovereignty under the Constitution. They had divided sovereignty, which is the best way and the way it is supposed to be.

The states have the right to secede if they do not trample on the decisions of the ratifying conventions, and the principles of revolution (secession) declared by Jefferson, Madison, and John Locke are met.

In that case, the power to secede is a check on federal power.

The only reason the South lost the civil war, was because Stonewall Jackson got killed in a freak accident.

Galileo Galilei

04-17-2009, 03:49 PM

Idunno about your "liberty", but I believe the direct election of senators to be an increase of liberty. A Republic (relative to a pure democracy) merely restricts the abilities of citizens to make changes and have the government do as they desire because the Founders didn't trust them (obviously, they had utilitarian justification). I believe restricting citizens in such a way is merely a band-aid (as is being proven now as the Republic dissolves) over a much greater problem, which is the failure to convert people to "proper" ethical beliefs -- whether through God, Humanism, or some other constructive ethics. I also believe there has been a failure to teach people that government is merely an extension of people (so long as it truly represents people -- I don't believe ours does), and that when they vote for government to demand taxes (or, in a representative system such as ours, elect officials who will demand taxes from citizens), that they are stealing from others (and themselves) to accomplish their goals.

one major problem with the direct election of Senators is that elections involving millions of people are a total joke.

Most people voting have never even met the candidates.

Even worse, most do not even have personal acquaintances who know the candidates.

Senators were indirectly elected, the people elected the state legislature and the state legislature elected the Senators. This way, the people who make the decisions are reasonably well informed.

Direct election of Senators in not direct democracy anyway, the Senators still "represent" us when they vote on stuff.

Mesogen

04-17-2009, 03:51 PM

the 4th defines "reasonable" as having specific probable cause. Without it, then unreasonable searches would be OK without probable cause.

Not it doesn't.

It says that probable cause is required for a warrant, but it does not say that a warrant is required for a search.

Only until 1918 (or somewhere in that time period) did the courts decide that a warrant was required for evidence seized during a search to be admissible in court.

Warrants are for courts. Searches and seizures do not necessarily need to be done to collect evidence for court.

the 5th refers to the ancient legal concept of eminent domain. It puts a limit on that. Without it, eminent domain would have no limits.
Where in the constitution is eminent domain mentioned at all?

The power of eminent domain wasn't explicitly given to the government until the 5th amendment.

The concept of eminent domain precedes the Constitution.

So did a king and a royal court. But the constitution didn't have to say "Oh yeah, we don't have a king."

nate895

04-17-2009, 03:53 PM

err, you know that most states had slavery when the Constitution was ratified?

Wisconsin only passed an amendment to protect the right to bear arms 10 years ago, and it is worded in a vague manner that means little to the courts and not much more in the court of public opinion.

The states do not and never had absolute sovereignty under the Constitution. They had divided sovereignty, which is the best way and the way it is supposed to be.

The states have the right to secede if they do not trample on the decisions of the ratifying conventions, and the principles of revolution (secession) declared by Jefferson, Madison, and John Locke are met.

In that case, the power to secede is a check on federal power.

The only reason the South lost the civil war, was because Stonewall Jackson got killed in a freak accident.

The states had absolute sovereignty under the Articles of Confederation. Tell me where they gave it up in the Constitution, and I'll give it to you. Divided sovereignty isn't even possible because the word "sovereignty" means the absolute authority behind the government, you can't have two absolute authorities behind a government, that simply isn't possible.

As far as slavery goes, so? I never claimed the system to be perfect, but small republics in a confederation to protect themselves from foreigners and create a free trade zone is the best system we've got available. No state is going to have slavery or institutionalized racism in this day and age, but since the socialists and fascists seem to have locks on the voting population in many places, the best we can hope for at this point in the game is to be able to have most states be liberty-oriented and slowly capture socialist strongholds.

Mesogen

04-17-2009, 03:54 PM

I should add to my other comments on this. The 14th amendment has received some criticism. But if you look at the facts, it is the 17th that is at fault.

Most major encroachments of the federal governemt over the states goes back to the 17th amendment.

If the Senate were still picked by State legislatures, the Senate would never be passing the laws they have been passing since the 1920s.

And the Supreme Court would still be protecting our rights.

The 17th is worse than the 16th, because the 17th drastically changed the fundamental structure of government.

I think the 16th amendment gives the federal government all the encroachment. The power to tax is the most powerful tool the feds have. This direct unapportioned tax is the bridle on the people. The commerce clause (the misinterpretation of it) makes up the reins.

Danke

04-17-2009, 04:02 PM

Why's that?

The 14th amendment was orginally endorsed in a different form by James Madison. It's one of the best amendments we have.

Without the 14th amendment, the bill-of-rights does not apply to the states.

Well, you know many of the framers were leery of the "Bill of Rights" as they thought it would lead to the thinking government grants rights. Many of them considered those rights as self evident and redundant by adding them to the Constitution.

There have literally been books worth of information written regarding the 14th Amendment. I haven't looked into it for a long time, but it certainly doesn't seem like a clear issue within many Libertarian/Liberty groups. I know after reading up on it, I did not leave with a solid opinion, yea or nay.

Danke

04-17-2009, 04:06 PM

I think the 16th amendment gives the federal government all the encroachment. The power to tax is the most powerful tool the feds have. This direct unapportioned tax is the bridle on the people.

They had that "power to tax" before the 16A.

We still do not have "direct unapportioned tax."

Galileo Galilei

04-17-2009, 04:22 PM

Not it doesn't.

It says that probable cause is required for a warrant, but it does not say that a warrant is required for a search.

Only until 1918 (or somewhere in that time period) did the courts decide that a warrant was required for evidence seized during a search to be admissible in court.

Warrants are for courts. Searches and seizures do not necessarily need to be done to collect evidence for court.

Where in the constitution is eminent domain mentioned at all?

The power of eminent domain wasn't explicitly given to the government until the 5th amendment.

So did a king and a royal court. But the constitution didn't have to say "Oh yeah, we don't have a king."

If you can search without a warrant, how does it hurt to have the 4th amendment?

eminent domain is not in the Constitution. It is part of the ancient common law. The 5th amendment is a check against the power of common law.

There are lots of things the courts did not rule on until the 20th century. That's because in the 19th century, the Senate protected states and individual rights against the feds, and we did not have an aggressive police state running the executive branch.

If you look at the 19th century, there was a higher rate of cases where juries acquitted defendents and charges were thrown out in respect for the Constitution.

There was no FBI, BATF or DEA in the 19th century.

Mesogen

04-17-2009, 04:25 PM

They had that "power to tax" before the 16A.

We still do not have "direct unapportioned tax."

The federal government could not directly tax the incomes of people until the 16th amendment (unless under special circumstances).

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

replaced this restriction in Article I, Section 2:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by...

This is referring to the federal government taxing the states.

Well, maybe I'm looking at this all wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_taxes

In the United States, Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution requires that direct taxes imposed by the national government be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. After the 1895 Pollock ruling (essentially, that taxes on income from property should be treated as direct taxes) this provision made it difficult for Congress to impose a national income tax that applied to all forms of income until the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913. After the Sixteenth Amendment, no Federal income taxes are required to be apportioned, regardless of whether they are direct taxes (taxes on income from property) or indirect taxes (all other income taxes).[8]

Mesogen

04-17-2009, 04:33 PM

If you can search without a warrant, how does it hurt to have the 4th amendment?

Who said you could search my house before the 4th amendment?

eminent domain is not in the Constitution. It is part of the ancient common law. The 5th amendment is a check against the power of common law.
Good old common law. I never understood why so many people say that this is all we need.

So you are saying that the courts upheld property seizure after the ratification of the constitution and before the 5th amendment?

I never understood this.

We supposedly formed a new country and a new form of law, but all the case law remained the same. That's asinine.

There are lots of things the courts did not rule on until the 20th century. That's because in the 19th century, the Senate protected states and individual rights against the feds, and we did not have an aggressive police state running the executive branch.
Well, they protected the states anyway. The individual rights, not so much.

If you look at the 19th century, there was a higher rate of cases where juries acquitted defendents and charges were thrown out in respect for the Constitution.

There was no FBI, BATF or DEA in the 19th century.

They had their equivalents. (ok, not the DEA )

Danke

04-17-2009, 04:40 PM

The federal government could not directly tax the incomes of people until the 16th amendment (unless under special circumstances).

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

replaced this restriction in Article I, Section 2:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by...

This is referring to the federal government taxing the states.

Well, maybe I'm looking at this all wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_taxes

Common misunderstanding.

Was "Article I, Section 2" repealed? Or is it still in the Constitution?

Galileo Galilei

04-17-2009, 04:42 PM

The states had absolute sovereignty under the Articles of Confederation. Tell me where they gave it up in the Constitution, and I'll give it to you. Divided sovereignty isn't even possible because the word "sovereignty" means the absolute authority behind the government, you can't have two absolute authorities behind a government, that simply isn't possible.

As far as slavery goes, so? I never claimed the system to be perfect, but small republics in a confederation to protect themselves from foreigners and create a free trade zone is the best system we've got available. No state is going to have slavery or institutionalized racism in this day and age, but since the socialists and fascists seem to have locks on the voting population in many places, the best we can hope for at this point in the game is to be able to have most states be liberty-oriented and slowly capture socialist strongholds.

They gave up the powers delegated to the federal government, like the power to make war. Have you not head of the supremacy clause?

The Constitution set up a free trade zone, which did not exist prior to the Constitution when all the states were regulating each others commerce.

Mesogen

04-17-2009, 04:47 PM

Common misunderstanding.

Was "Article I, Section 2" repealed? Or is it still in the Constitution?

The part about direct taxes being apportioned is repealed.

Danke

04-17-2009, 04:49 PM

The part about direct taxes being apportioned is repealed.

Nope.

Mesogen

04-17-2009, 04:52 PM

Nope.

Well, it all depends on how you define an income tax. Is it a direct tax or an indirect tax.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by...

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

So ok.

I guess it wasn't until that court case where people decided that an income tax was a direct tax.

O well, the 16th amendment still sucks.

Danke

04-17-2009, 04:56 PM

Well, it all depends on how you define an income tax. Is it a direct tax or an indirect tax.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by...

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

So ok.

I guess it wasn't until that court case where people decided that an income tax was a direct tax.

O well, the 16th amendment still sucks.

The income tax is an indirect tax.

We currently do not have a federal direct tax, and haven't for a long time.

nate895

04-17-2009, 05:01 PM

They gave up the powers delegated to the federal government, like the power to make war. Have you not head of the supremacy clause?

The Constitution set up a free trade zone, which did not exist prior to the Constitution when all the states were regulating each others commerce.

They didn't give up the ultimate authority to do that. They have the ultimate authority to just say "no" to the Feds and tell the Feds to pack their bags because they are now a free country.

Galileo Galilei

04-17-2009, 05:01 PM

The income tax is an indirect tax.

We currently do not have a federal direct tax, and haven't for a long time.

I get taxed directly on my income. Just had to pay last week.

Danke

04-17-2009, 05:14 PM

I get taxed directly on my income. Just had to pay last week.

I don't know your circumstances, but chances are you may not have been liable for the tax you are paying.

The Income Tax is a "privilege tax" and is an indirect tax. Many Supreme Court cases about this.

It has to be to be in compliance with the Constitution. Especially the 4th and 5th Amendments.

O.K. here come the shills saying the IRS agents have all the guns, so we have to cough it up no matter what the law says.

Mesogen

04-17-2009, 05:20 PM

The income tax is an indirect tax.

That's not what that court case said. The court case was the reason we eventually got the 16th amendment.

Danke

04-17-2009, 05:50 PM

That's not what that court case said. The court case was the reason we eventually got the 16th amendment.

http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq79/aggreko07/awww.gif?t=1240013966

Discussed in length in the past here.

Mesogen

04-17-2009, 05:52 PM

Discussed in length in the past here.

Then educate me. Don't assume I read all the same threads you do.

Standing Like A Rock

04-17-2009, 08:43 PM

Poll: Which Constitutional Amendments are Unfriendly to Liberty?

* The non-15 1/2th Amendment is an Amendment that should have been passed in 1911, but wasn't.

In 1911, the federal congress limited the size of the U.S. House to 435. This is a basic violation of Constitutional principles, since this power is not granted to congress and is retained by the states.

The argument at the time was that the House was getting too big. But now, House districts are way too big, about 700,000 people per district, compared to the original 30,000 per district. House sizes of 700,000 do not adequately represent the people.

The state legislatures should have passed an amendment setting representation that allowed for House sizes to expand beyond 30,000, but also to allow the House to expand to to much greater than 435 members. A compromise was needed.

A good formula would be to take the square root of the US population, then divide by 20. This would reduce the House sizes to around 350,000 and basically double the House to around 870 members.

Dividing by 15 or even 10 might be even better.

If you think 870 is too many, remember that the New Hamphire State house has 4000 memebers.

* Some other Amendment - in case I missed one.

This is one of the twelve amendments passed by congress with the bill of rights (the other eleven of which have now been passed by the states).

"Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons."

In this system, we would have about 6000 representatives in the house.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment

nate895

04-17-2009, 09:10 PM

This is one of the twelve amendments passed by congress with the bill of rights (the other eleven of which have now been passed by the states).

"Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons."

In this system, we would have about 6000 representatives in the house.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment

How is that anti-liberty?

Galileo Galilei

04-18-2009, 11:58 AM

How is that anti-liberty?

That was a propsed amendment by James Madison that was never passed by the states.

What is anti-liberty about the House is that House dstricts are too larger, about 700,000 per district, to adequately represent the people.

If we had 6000 people in the House representing us, things would be a lot better for liberty.

The House districts would have 50,000 people and the voters would know their representitives better. The mass media wold be less poweful.

You can't win a House seat (except for maybe Ron Paul) without the mass media these days.

nate895

04-18-2009, 12:01 PM

That was a propsed amendment by James Madison that was never passed by the states.

What is anti-liberty about the House is that House dstricts are too larger, about 700,000 per district, to adequately represent the people.

If we had 6000 people in the House representing us, things would be a lot better for liberty.

The House districts would have 50,000 people and the voters would know their representitives better. The mass media wold be less poweful.

You can't win a House seat (except for maybe Ron Paul) without the mass media these days.

I thought that you thought it would have been anti-liberty to actually pass it.

Galileo Galilei

04-18-2009, 12:12 PM

I thought that you thought it would have been anti-liberty to actually pass it.

No, what I meant is that after the congress reset the House size in 1911, then an amendment like that one should have been passed.

Anyone know how many states have passed it so far?

Galileo Galilei

04-18-2009, 12:21 PM

sirgonzo420

04-18-2009, 12:43 PM

Why's that?

The 14th amendment was orginally endorsed in a different form by James Madison. It's one of the best amendments we have.

Without the 14th amendment, the bill-of-rights does not apply to the states.

Actually, the 14th Amendment is what gives government it's control over you.

It makes you a SLAVE.

Everyone here who really gives a damn about Liberty ought to educate themselves.

http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap6.html

SUMMARY

The 14th Amendment created a new class of citizenship, the United States citizen. This citizenship applies only to 'persons subject to the jurisdiction' of the federal government. All jurisdiction implies superiority of power. A 'person' is always an artificial corporate entity with it's name spelled in all caps.

YOU are "presumed" to be a U.S. citizen, unless and until you can prove otherwise.

A Sovereign/Citizen of the United States of America (American Citizen), lives in one of the 50 sovereign states, and has inalienable rights secured by state and national constitutions.

The artificial person, U.S. citizen, is a legal fiction that has been created by the federal government, via the social security application, and is a corporate employee of the United States by virtue of being a U.S. citizen. He is subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government and of the state government and subject to the corporate income tax.

The U.S. citizen is created property, created to raise revenue for the government, your employer. You have essentially contracted to be liable for the debts of your master, the federal government.

sirgonzo420

04-18-2009, 12:47 PM

That's not what that court case said. The court case was the reason we eventually got the 16th amendment.

The 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation....

The "income tax" is a tax on the use of the private credit of the federal reserve system (Federal Reserve Notes).

.

Galileo Galilei

04-18-2009, 12:59 PM

Actually, the 14th Amendment is what gives government it's control over you.

It makes you a SLAVE.

Everyone here who really gives a damn about Liberty ought to educate themselves.

http://usa-the-republic.com/revenue/true_history/Chap6.html

The 14th amendment protects you from states that deprive you of your life, liberty, or property.

Have you ever heard of Jim Crow laws?

You forget that in the 1800s, it was the states that were mor corrupt and tyranical than the federal government.

The rash of laws, amendments, and deceptions starting in 1898 is what shifted most tyranny to the feds:

1) sinking of the Maine MIHOP event in 1898

2) suspicious assasination of McKinley in 1901

3) congress reduces and fixes size of congress in 1911

4) sinking of Titanic manipulated by media and U.S. Senate

5) Charles beard publishes very influential book in 1913 that claims all the Founding Fathers were rich, white males only interested in themselves, not in the nations liberty.

6) The Fed is passed (1913)

7) The income tax (1913)

8) The war on drugs begins (1913)

9) Charles Beard publishes another influential book ripping on Jeffersonian and Madisonian democracy.

10) sinking of the Lusitania LIHOP event (1915)

11) Zimmerman telegram MIHOP event gets us into WWI in 1917

12) The alcohol prohibition amendment is passed (1919)

Most of this could have been stopped by state legislatures, but wasn't.

(i already mentioned the direct election of Senators before. Also, at this time, jury rights were being eroded everywhere.)

sirgonzo420

04-18-2009, 01:12 PM

The 14th amendment protects you from states that deprive you of your life, liberty, or property.

Have you ever heard of Jim Crow laws?

You forget that in the 1800s, it was the states that were mor corrupt and tyranical than the federal government.

The rash of laws, amendments, and deceptions starting in 1898 is what shifted most tyranny to the feds:

1) sinking of the Maine MIHOP event in 1898

2) suspicious assasination of McKinley in 1901

3) congress reduces and fixes size of congress in 1911

4) sinking of Titanic manipulated by media and U.S. Senate

5) Charles beard publishes very influential book in 1913 that claims all the Founding Fathers were rich, white males only interested in themselves, not in the nations liberty.

6) The Fed is passed (1913)

7) The income tax (1913)

8) The war on drugs begins (1913)

9) Charles Beard publishes another influential book ripping on Jeffersonian and Madisonian democracy.

10) sinking of the Lusitania LIHOP event (1915)

11) Zimmerman telegram MIHOP event gets us into WWI in 1917

12) The alcohol prohibition amendment is passed (1919)

Most of this could have been stopped by state legislatures, but wasn't.

I respect what you are saying, but I IMPLORE you to read more about the amendment of which you speak (and its effects):

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read this in its entirety:

The 14th Amendment

We have reached the point where we must bring in the whys and wherefores of the 14th Amendment for it is the key that has unlocked the destruction of the American economy and your individual liberty. Even so, our government is still bent on exporting its principles to the world as the "New World Order." In reality, the supposed "New World Order" is not new. It is nothing more than old world order of Roman civil law in a new disguise continually making and adjusting public policy.

The 14th Amendment [purportedly] became law - private Roman civil law that is - in 1868, but the stage was set years and in some ways decades before. Of the various factors in the history of the U.S. that built the momentum to bring in the 14th Amendment, probably one of the first was that the Constitution made it plain that every citizen had the right to contract away his personal and absolute rights. That is, anyone could literally bind themselves away from the absolute rights under the "Bill of Rights" any time they wanted to by private contract. They could operate outside the Constitution by contract if they desired, because the law was theirs. However, in the opposite vein, they could walk right back into their constitutional government anytime. This was called the right of expatriation (more on this a little later).

Another factor contributing to the bringing in of the 14th Amendment had to do with both slavery and the corporations before and during the Civil War. In fact, the Civil War figures very prominently in the 14th Amendment because it was used as a cover for control maneuvers going on in the corporate back rooms of our nation - especially in the north. On the other hand, the slave issue was used as a con before, during, and after the war.

In 1851, an Act was passed called the "Limited Liability Act." This Act provided protection for owners of ships whose cargo and/or ship was lost at sea. The ship owner and investors were required to purchase maritime insurance, so if a loss was encountered, it would be easier to deal with if the loss was spread around. From this, the inland corporations saw an opportunity to advance if, some way, they too could have the benefits of maritime limited liability operating in their behalf. They saw limited liability as a way to take more risk to advance their profits making the corporation King. Keep in mind during that time of our nation's history, the north had become the industrial center while the south had remained the agricultural center dependent on slaves as the basis of labor. Because the social issues of slavery had been making more noise, what better time to turn the problem of physical slavery into a tolerated economic slavery by bringing in the law of the sea over the land. And if a war results from the slave issue, what better way to help strengthen industry in the north than to use the stimulus of war.

By pushing the problem of slavery, the real issue of economic control by private corporate structure could be advanced unnoticed - the first phase of a "bait and switch" tactic. So with the culmination of the Civil War and the northern industrial base primed, the slaves were now free of being chattel property. At this point, corporate big brother made a calculated move. Since the freed slaves, as well as the rest of the citizenry, were ignorant of how their freedoms were maintained, it was a perfect time to activate the second part of the bait and switch maneuver. That was to set a law into motion with a lot of Congressional fanfare that appeared to assure the freed slaves that they had all the civil rights of everyone else. Thus came about the "Civil Rights Act" of 1866, which was private or non-positive law. The basic problem with the Act was that it had no jurisdiction over the slave at all, but the lawmakers sure made it look that way. You see, it was private law that only affected those who were in contractual relations with the private corporate structure of the United States government. None of the freed slaves had any type of license with the United States government so it did nothing other than play on their ignorance and made them think that it did something. It also affected few of the rest of the population for the same reason. All it ended up to be was a law that had few citizens in its jurisdiction. However, the Act had more indirect affect on the future freedoms of everyone as we look back. For those it did affect - those holding licenses or under contract (including federal employees) with the United States government - it did two primary things. First, it took away absolute property rights (in personam)./34 Second, it replaced them with personal property rights (in rem)/35 regardless of race. That is, the "Civil Rights Act" of 1866 moved anyone in its jurisdiction away from real property law and established them in personal property law outside the protection of the general common law and the Constitution with its separation of powers.

The only problem with the "Civil Rights Act" of 1866 was that it did not have enough jurisdiction over the majority of the population. Therefore Congress began another maneuver under the influence of private corporate special interest. It began to make the Pubic think the Act was not permanent enough, that there was the potential that another Congress could be impressed to remove the civil rights. Therefore, the only way to assure permanent civil rights was to make an Amendment to the Constitution.

The same Congress, shortly afterwards, evidently thinking it unwise [and perhaps unsafe] to leave so important a Declaration of Rights to depend upon an ordinary Act of legislation, which might be repealed by any subsequent congress, framed the 14th Amendment .../36

What an assumed noble reason. Assure civil rights by adding an Amendment to the Constitution. Who would be against civil rights? After all, isn't that what this country was all about? So we now have the 14th Amendment. It is extremely unfortunate that as we look back at the racial cover that was used to get the Amendment into law, we continue to see, even today, the same use of racial issues to cover an undercurrent of corporate private law being used in the public sector for exploiting the population.

It [the 14th Amendment] is a set-back to proper government. This operation of the 14th Amendment runs counter to the ideals expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution itself. It does any thing but promote domestic tranquility. They [the Republican Party] knew what they intended by the vague terms of section one of the Amendment. They knew that it could be interpreted so as to extend far beyond the negro race question. They desired to nationalize all civil rights; to make the Federal power supreme; and to bring the private life of every citizen directly under the eye of Congress ... . This result was to be obtained by disenfranchising the whites and enfranchising the blacks ... . It meant the death knell of the doctrine of State's rights - the ultimate nationalization of all civil rights and the consequent abolition of State control over the private rights and duties of the individual. It meant the passing over of the police power of the State, into the police power of the national government, thereby giving Congress undefined and unlimited powers whereby it would be enabled to enter fields of legislation from which hitherto it had been barred ... . The States of this Union were never sovereign. Neither is the Federal Government sovereign. Sovereignty is now and has always been inherent in the American people ... . This would be a different matter if the Fourteenth Amendment presented to the courts only questions of law, but this is not the case. As a rule, when the Supreme Court declares a State law unconstitutional under the Amendment, what it really does is not to decide a question of law, but a question of governmental policy. ... the primary purpose of the adoption of the 14th Amendment was to elevate the negro to a plane of equality with the white people and to protect him in his newly given rights. In its attempt to carry out this ideal, Congress was effectually restrained by the Supreme Court. Consequently, as related to the negro race, the Amendment is negative and non-automatic. It has failed of its purpose because there is no Federal power to enforce it, and because the negroes have not been qualified to gain for themselves the ideals which it seeks to enforce. When they do become so qualified, they will have no need of the 14th Amendment. On of the immediate purposes of the adoption of the 14th Amendment was to assist in destroying the power of the Democratic Party in the South and in its place to build up Republicans. This result was to be obtained by disenfranchising the whites and enfranchising the blacks ... . It was a nationalization of all civil rights./37

So, in 1868 Congress passed the 14th Amendment which accomplished primarily two things:

First, it made each individual primarily a federal citizen of the municipal corporation of the District of Columbia.

Second, it combined the Senate and the House in their function so they are now operating for the benefit of private commercial law. Until the 14th Amendment, the House functioned for private commercial benefit and the Senate functioned for non-commercial public municipal law benefit - the benefit of the individual under republican law.

Third, it made each person responsible for the public debt by making them beneficiaries of the "public trust" the 14th Amendment established.

The 14th Amendment was also private non-positive law (local law) because it was enacted to set up a voluntary trust relationship that any citizen of the states could participate in if desired. Thus, the Amendment was instrumental in shifting citizenship of each American from being primarily a state citizen to being a citizen of the private corporation of government. However, this Amendment was a sleeper, so to speak. That is, it could still only exercise jurisdiction of those who chose voluntarily to participate.

Interestingly, Congress knew that it was making an Amendment that was based on private non-positive law and was therefore conditional. That is, the people had to have a choice whether they wanted to participate or not in what the 14th Amendment was offering, otherwise it would have been totally and completely unconstitutional. Therefore, one day before the 14th Amendment was passed, Congress passed 15 Stat. 249-250. This Statute provided for a person to remove him or herself from the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment public trust if they so desired.

The 14th Amendment set in motion a process of taking private corporate law of a few, namely big business, and moving it into the public sector to control the masses for their assumed benefit. The actual benefit was for the corporations. The assumed benefit lay with being a member of the public trust and, therefore being able to receive benefits from the trust, benefits in the form of whatever care the national government would come up with to provide for you from cradle to grave. Those benefits have come at a severe price since 1868. That price is the loss of our absolute liberty under the Constitution and the general common law. In exchange, we have only received back relative rights with assumed economic benefits. In reality, the benefits have been curses!

When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, it was far simpler to enumerate the few powers that were to be given to the national government than to try and list all the powers the individual citizen would keep. So it was that when the Bill of Rights (the first ten Amendments) was completed, Amendments nine and ten distinctly stated what powers "one people" would reserve.

Amendment IX - "The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people."

Amendment X - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, it was that among all the powers "retained by the people," one of the most important was the power to contract for services or trades with another person or persons without interference from anyone - in or out of the government (see Article I, Section 10) and not have the government interfere in any way. As discussed previously, contracts are also referred to as "private law." This right to contract (use private law) meant that two people could come to a meeting of their minds and agree between themselves for virtually anything they would both settle on and the government could not interfere. For example, let's suppose that person "A" has developed a skill through special professional education or on-the-job training. As a non-14th Amendment citizen, he or she has the liberty to offer their services for sale without the interference of civil licensing authority. In other words, the licensing authority and their policing powers have no jurisdiction over a person who is not a citizen of the 14th Amendment public municipal trust. Here is the secret of the true liberty of choice - as in medicine for example. With this true liberty of the laws of the Republic, therapies that are only available outside the United States could be an option in each state. Remember, you are dealing with a political choice. Making your choice to function in the law of the Republic means the government cannot compel you to be regulated by private law of the democracy.

Yet, there is one very important facet of the power to contract or use private law under the Constitution. That is, if contract/private laws come into dispute in the courts, the contract will be ruled on outside the Constitution. You read correctly! Contracts, or private agreements, will always overrule the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In other words, specific private agreements (called contracts) governing individual circumstances between two or more persons will always overrule broad general clauses found in the Constitution. This is because it is illogical to allow someone to take a clause out of the Constitution, that was not a part of their original agreement, and use it to weasel, twist and squirm his way out of the contractual provisions while retaining the financial gain the private contract may have given him in the first place. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, "Equity is brutal, but we are merely enforcing agreements." What he means is that when you go to court to dispute a contract or private law agreement that you had with someone else, the courts are there to enforce the contracts, as brutal as that may be, apart and separate from the Constitution.

With the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, the stage was set for private law to be used outside the Constitution to financially enslave the masses and destroy the republican union. The stage was also set to move Roman civil law into operation within the boundaries of the [u]nited States of America contrary to what our founding fathers ever intended. Note the words of concern in George Washington's "Farewell Address" to the American People.

"The unity of government which constitutes you one people ... is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize. ... it is easy to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity, watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now like together the various parts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations (14th Amendment) which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown." [Bracket information added]/38

So now we are seeing the results of "Constitution alterations" in 1868. Alterations that have "covertly and insidiously" removed the "national union", known as the U.S. of A. the Republic, and substituted economic slavery of compelled performance.

Yet the beauty of the our Republic and the constitutional government our forefathers set up can be demonstrated from the way President James Madison responded to a bill that he vetoed on February 21, 1811. It shows how forces of private religious conscience were always trying to force their private law on the public.

"Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which Governments are limited, by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates, in particular, the article of the Constitution of the United States, which declares, that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." The bill enacts into, and establishes by law, sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same; so that no change could be made therein by the particular society, or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law - a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its Constitution and administration ... as the injunctions and prohibitions, contained in the Regulations, would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to a violation of them according to the local law. Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church ... would be a precedent for giving to religious societies, as such, a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty."/39

So it was not until the [purported] passage of the 14th Amendment that the continual push of private law into the public sector won out. At that point, private conscience law of the Roman church became the national conscience by way of the 14th Amendment trust of the District of Columbia.

Now notice this: In Wheaton's Elements Of International Law, 6th edition, page 304, the existing rule as to freedom of religious worship is thus laid down:

"A minister resident in a foreign country is entitled to the privilege of religious worship in his own private chapel, according to the particular forms of his national faith, although it may not be generally tolerated by the laws of the state where he resides."

"The laws of Rome do not tolerate any other form of public religious worship than such as conforms to the teachings of the Roman Catholic church; but the right of any foreign minister at the papal court to hold religious services under his own roof, and in accordance with the forms of his national or individual faith, has never been questioned or interfered with. This the Russian, the Prussian, the American, and other representatives of foreign powers in Rome, have always exercised [and still enjoy unmolested] the freedom of religious worship in the several chapels connected with their respective legations. These chapels, of course, are open to all compatriots of the different ministers desirous of joining in their religious services."/40

The national faith, referred to, applies to the 14th Amendment citizenship. It is a citizenship based on the unilateral charitable social security trust of conscience (religion) of the District of Columbia. Because it is based on a unilateral charitable contract, it cannot be tolerated in the laws of the state where one resides - meaning the laws of the Republic of the [u]nited States of America. The Laws of the Republic and its separation of powers is not governed by the law of conscience or religion. That is, the Constitution mandates that the Republic will not recognize the establishment of a religion, the conscious beliefs of one or a thousand individuals, as a basis for Public Law. Here is the prescribed separation of power. It is governed by the public municipal law of the Constitution of the [u]nited States of America. Religious beliefs are a private matter within each person and are not intended to be enforced on anyone else in the Republic. This has been the very downfall of every civilization. Somebody wants to enforce their conscience - religion - upon everyone else - democracy: the exact cause of the American Revolution of 1776 and the mess of the nation today.

The "Statute of Charitable Uses" (charitable trusts) was enforced in the 13 original colonies by courts of the Star Chamber/41 enforcing "Writs of Assistance"/42 (such as demands of the conscience of the IRS) and was the cause of the American Revolution. This is because the Statute was based on the parliamentary democracy which received its law based on the king's conscience - divine right of kings. The "Statute of Charitable Uses" (trusts) never had any force in the (u)nited States until the coming of the 14th Amendment to re-institute the courts of the Star Chamber enforcing "Writs of Assistance."

For an example of the private conscience law of the church being moved into public policy, look at this:

CKQUOTE> "The Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, also known as the National Cathedral, seeks to serve the entire nation as a house of prayer for all people. The concept of such a cathedral dates back to 1791 when Pierre L.' Enfant specified "a great church for national purposes" in his plan for the city."/43

So let's take a look at the exact test of the 14th Amendment so we can see what is taking place.

Amendment XIV (1868) Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."

Section 2. "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

Section 3. "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as member of any State Legislature, or an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote to two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

Section 4. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellions against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

Section 5. "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

First, let's notice the italicized part of Section 1. Two important facts are derived from this part. One - this Amendment deals with trust law. The phrase "and subject to"/44 is language that is used for trusts which are nothing more than private contractual arrangements.

Two - Section 1 states that your are now to be firstly and primarily a citizen of the United States and secondly a citizen of the State, while outside the 14th Amendment, and under the full rights of the Constitution, it is just the opposite.

Next, notice the italicized part of Section 4. According to this, the "validity of the public debt" and all its facets "shall not be questioned." Whether Amendments to the Federal Constitution have been properly ratified is (usually) a political question./45 A political question means that it is voluntary. The court will never question your choice, but will enforce that choice. This is why Section 4 of the 14th Amendment says "the public debt shall not be questioned." When one is a beneficiary of the public debt when you have volunteered (politically) for it. It is like suing yourself, it is impossible. Another U.S. Supreme Court decision also verifies that you can reject the benefits of a trust (the public debt) if you realize you are not the beneficiary./46 In other words, is it your will to be a part of the economic benefit of the legislature? If not, then what evidence do you have to show that you have declined to be a beneficiary? This is where your "Declaration of Independence" comes in.

The 14th Amendment is private unilateral contract law being used in the public sector to dictate public policy. Everyone born since 1868 has, by accident of birth, become subject to the 14th Amendment. "Subject to" is accomplished through the constructive trust created under the Roman civil law offer and acceptance principles and all its ramifications, including being citizens primarily of the United States government and not of the state in which you live. Plus, you also have the additional benefit of being part of and responsible for the public debt of the trust. The 14th Amendment does not say that all persons are subject to, it says "and subject to" which is the first clue to revealing that each citizen does have a choice as to whether or not they want to be "subject to."

The 14th Amendment citizenship is one which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it and which, once acquired, cannot be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the states, or any other governmental unit.

Allegiance in this country is not due to Congress, but to the people, with whom the sovereign power is found ...

"It was subsequently acknowledged by several members of this Court that a central purpose of the Citizenship Clause was to create an independent basis of federal citizenship, and thus to overturn the doctrine of primary state citizenship."/47

from 1bad1.com

Galileo Galilei

04-18-2009, 01:40 PM

I respect what you are saying, but I IMPLORE you to read more about the amendment of which you speak (and its effects):

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE read this in its entirety:

from 1bad1.com

This analysis is misguided.

For one, the debts of the Southern States were repudiated and never paid, thanks to the 14th amendment. Imagine how bad things would have been in the South if all the states had to pay back their war debts?

Also, considering that the South was under a military occupation, they got off pretty easy with the 14th amendment.

Can you name another nation that was defeated in battle that got it so easy?

The reality is, the Souther state legislatures still got to appoint two Senators each to the Senate. The Senate still had to confirm Supreme Court appointments and ratify treaties.

The state legislatures gave away their power to the federal government with the 17th amendment.

None of the stuff in the essay was bad without the 17th amendment.

You fail to see the balance between individual rights and state rights.

For some reason, you seem to argue that states are more important than people.

One good point is that the 14th amendment was used more often to defend corporations than to defend black people.

This was an unintended and unexpected consequence, as ratification debates show.

Once this problem arose, the states should have passed a new amendment to rectify the problem.

Another problem with those who over emphasize states rights, is you forget that if the South had figured out a way to set up fair representation in their legisaltures, they would not have been left behind by the Industrial Revolution.

At the time of the civil war, there were about 5 million whites in the South and 4 million blacks.

But only about 350,000 owned slaves, and about 1/4 of these owned only one slave.

So basically, about 260,000 slave-owning whites were holding 9 million people hostage.

Have you ever looked at the state legislatures in the South? They were totally F***ed up.

Have you ever read about the Virginia Constitutional convention of 1829? James Madison was at this one too.

You pro-South states-righters need to learn about the legislatures of the South.

In 1829, the Virginia legislature was totally dominated by a small number of eastern slave owners. Not even James Madison could do much, and he was by far the most respected man in the enitre nation.

You need to look deeper at the true structure of power. At the root, is representation.

sirgonzo420

04-18-2009, 01:43 PM

This analysis is misguided.

For one, the debts of the Southern States were repudiated and never paid, thanks to the 14th amendment. Imagine how bad things would have been in the South if all the states had to pay back their war debts?

Also, considering that the South was under a military occupation, they got off pretty easy with the 14th amendment.

Can you name another nation that was defeated in battle that got it so easy?

The reality is, the Souther state legislatures still got to appoint two Senators each to the Senate. The Senate still had to confirm Supreme Court appointments and ratify treaties.

The state legislatures gave away their power to the federal government with the 17th amendment.

None of the stuff in the essay was bad without the 17th amendment.

You fail to see the balance between individual rights and state rights.

For some reason, you seem to argue that states are more important than people.

One good point is that the 14th amendment was used more often to defend corporations than to defend black people.

This was an unintended and unexpected consequence, as ratification debates show.

Once this problem arose, the states should have passed a new amendment to rectify the problem.

Another problem with those who over emphasize states rights, is you forget that if the South had figured out a way to set up fair representation in their legisaltures, they would not have been left behind by the Industrial Revolution.

At the time of the civil war, there were about 5 million whites in the South and 4 million blacks.

But only about 350,000 owned slaves, and about 1/4 of these onwed only one slave.

So basically, about 260,000 slave-owning whites were holding 9 million people hostage.

Ahve you ever looked at the state legislatures in the South? They were totally F***ed up.

Have you ever read about the Virginai Constitutional convention of 1829? James Madison was at this one too.

You pro-South states-righters need to learn about the legislatures of the South.

In 1829, the Virginia legislature was totally dominated by a small number of eastern slave owners. Not even James Madison could do much, and he was by far the most respected man in the enitre nation.

You need to look deeper at the true structure of power. At the root, is representation.

No, what I am saying is that the 14th amendment creates a presumption that you are a "US citizen" (a federal citizen, subject to the whims of congress).

I am not talking about states rights, I am talking about the rights of man.

The 14th amendments brings you under federal control, and subjects you to their jurisdiction. You are now liable for the national debt.

The 14th amendment is NOT good.

.

Liberty Star

04-18-2009, 02:43 PM

* The 18th Amendent is the Prohibition of Alcohol Amendment

So that's why beer is not sold before noon on Sunday.

For real serious response, need to read more about all these amends.

Galileo Galilei

04-18-2009, 02:52 PM

No, what I am saying is that the 14th amendment creates a presumption that you are a "US citizen" (a federal citizen, subject to the whims of congress).

I am not talking about states rights, I am talking about the rights of man.

The 14th amendments brings you under federal control, and subjects you to their jurisdiction. You are now liable for the national debt.

The 14th amendment is NOT good.

.

What's wrong with being a citizen? The amendment itself states that everyone has dual citizenship, which is the way it should be.

The 14th gives the federal government the power to defend the life, liberty and property of its citizens. It does not grant the federal governent any new power to tax or regulate you.

Section two gets rid of the 3/5 rule for representation, thereby boosting the effective population of the South by 22%, since blacks count as a whole person.

If the South had gotten rid of slavery, like almost every other civilized nation did in the first half of the 1800s, then the problems you complain about never would have happened.

The Enlightenment passed the South by.

sirgonzo420

04-18-2009, 03:20 PM

What's wrong with being a citizen? The amendment itself states that everyone has dual citizenship, which is the way it should be.

The 14th gives the federal government the power to defend the life, liberty and property of its citizens. It does not grant the federal governent any new power to tax or regulate you.

Section two gets rid of the 3/5 rule for representation, thereby boosting the effective population of the South by 22%, since blacks count as a whole person.

If the South had gotten rid of slavery, like almost every other civilized nation did in the first half of the 1800s, then the problems you complain about never would have happened.

The Enlightenment passed the South by.

There's nothing wrong with being "citizen" if you are unopposed to being controlled by the UNITED STATES. "US citizens" do NOT have the unalienable rights that the "people" have. I have a copy of a congressional report which detail which rights (civil, that is, vs. God-given) "US citizens" have out of the bill of rights.

The 14th Amendment makes you a SLAVE, unless you rebut the presumptions of the government. But if you are happy being a 14th amendment "citizen", by all means, continue to be one.

Here is the definition of "citizen" from my copy of Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed):

Citizen: ...."Citizens" are members of a political community who, in the associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government...

When you claim to be a "US citizen" and use a Social Security number, you consent to being a chattel of the UNITED STATES, INC.

I suggest you check out this thread at GIM, called "14th Amendment Slave"

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=125000

.

Galileo Galilei

04-18-2009, 03:31 PM

There's nothing wrong with being "citizen" if you are unopposed to being controlled by the UNITED STATES. "US citizens" do NOT have the unalienable rights that the "people" have. I have a copy of a congressional report which detail which rights (civil, that is, vs. God-given) "US citizens" have out of the bill of rights.

The 14th Amendment makes you a SLAVE, unless you rebut the presumptions of the government. But if you are happy being a 14th amendment "citizen", by all means, continue to be one.

Here is the definition of "citizen" from my copy of Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed):

When you claim to be a "US citizen" and use a Social Security number, you consent to being a chattel of the UNITED STATES, INC.

I suggest you check out this thread at GIM, called "14th Amendment Slave"

http://goldismoney.info/forums/showthread.php?t=125000

.

you have a double standard. You think its good to be a *slave* of a state, but not a *slave* of the federal government.

If you were consistent, then you would advocate that people not be citizens of the states either.

The fact is, the language of the 14th amendment does not make you a slave, nor does it grant the federal government any new power to tax or regulate.

All it does is give people another court to turn to turn to defend their rights.

Have you ever read about why James Madison at first opposed the bill-of-rights?

He opposed what he called "parchment rights" because he said putting rights down on a piece of paper never did any good. The goverment would still take your rights anyway, if they wanted.

At the time, Madison was right. There had never been an enforced bill-of-rights in history.

The 14th amendment is similar to what James Madison proposed at the Constitutional Convention and later for the Bill-of-rights.

He wanted to put some teeth into the bill-of-rights, if we were going to have one.

Are you aware that hardly any court before the civil war defended any of the bill-of-rights in court?

Only with the 14th amendment did that change.

Danke

04-18-2009, 03:40 PM

Well, you know many of the framers were leery of the "Bill of Rights" as they thought it would lead to the thinking government grants rights. Many of them considered those rights as self evident and redundant by adding them to the Constitution.

There have literally been books worth of information written regarding the 14th Amendment. I haven't looked into it for a long time, but it certainly doesn't seem like a clear issue within many Libertarian/Liberty groups. I know after reading up on it, I did not leave with a solid opinion, yea or nay.

See, was I right or was I right? :)

Anyway, thought you all might be interested in this POV:

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

Galileo Galilei

04-18-2009, 03:41 PM

sirgonzo420

04-18-2009, 03:42 PM

you have a double standard. You think its good to be a *slave* of a state, but not a *slave* of the federal government.

NO, I am NOT advocating STATE government either... I am a sovereign, and thus cannot be a citizen. I don't favor ANY type of citizenship, be it from a State or a Federal Gov't.

If you were consistent, then you would advocate that people not be citizens of the states either.

The fact is, the language of the 14th amendment does not make you a slave, nor does it grant the federal government any new power to tax or regulate.

All it does is give people another court to turn to turn to defend their rights.

Have you ever read about why James Madison at first opposed the bill-of-rights?

He opposed what he called "parchment rights" because he said putting rights down on a piece of paper never did any good. The goverment would still take your rights anyway, if they wanted.

At the time, Madison was right. There had never been an enforced bill-of-rights in history.

The 14th amendment is similar to what James Madison proposed at the Constitutional Convention and later for the Bill-of-rights.

He wanted to put some teeth into the bill-of-rights, if we were going to have one.

Are you aware that hardly any court before the civil war defended any of the bill-of-rights in court?

Only with the 14th amendment did that change.

:sigh:

YouTube - 14th Amendment Citizenship: Citizen or citizen? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4xV4MTnCdc)

Are you a "PERSON" or a man on the land?

.

Danke

04-18-2009, 03:43 PM

Nor is the social security system constitutional.

What makes you think that?

FDR had to revise his plan after the original one was struck down.

sirgonzo420

04-18-2009, 03:45 PM

What makes you think that?

FDR had to revise his plan after the original one was struck down.

That's right.... the CONSTITUTION allows for the way "government" currently operates.

It is all PRIVATE!

US CITIZENS CONSENT!

Stop consenting and come back to the Republic.... we miss you :(

.

Galileo Galilei

04-18-2009, 04:21 PM

:sigh:

YouTube - 14th Amendment Citizenship: Citizen or citizen? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4xV4MTnCdc)

Are you a "PERSON" or a man on the land?

.

this video makes the claim that being a citizen of a state is good, but being a citizen of the united staes is bad.

But the individual states have plenary power. That means the state assumes all power, except what it decides to grant you at any given time.

The united states does not have any plenary power at all, only delegated powers.

So under your logic, the real slaves live under states that have plenary power.

Galileo Galilei

04-18-2009, 04:23 PM

What makes you think that?

FDR had to revise his plan after the original one was struck down.

I don't mean what the Supreme court said, I mean what the Constitution says.

The power to set up a social security program is not granted in the U.S. Constitution.

sirgonzo420

04-18-2009, 05:28 PM

Galileo Galilei

04-18-2009, 08:47 PM

Look, I am not taking the position that any citizen status (subject) is good, be it State or Federal... even though that video seems to take the position that State citizenship is good. I am sorry if the video confused you, but the idea I was trying to get across is that 14th Amendment citizenship enslaves the people, and ALLOWS Social Security and the IRS, et al to be constitutional.

If you are a US citizen, then you give up your birthright of freedom for privileges and "civil rights" instead of God-given rights.

You have unlimited capacity to contract, which means you can contract your freedom away unintentionally, as is the case with the acceptance of the presumption of 14th Amendment federal citizenship.

The government CREATED the 14th Amendment citizen, and so the 14th Amendment US citizen is property of the government.

The 14th Amendment created a 2nd class citizen, which we are now born into unless we rebut the presumption.

.

You fail to understand that the growth of the federal government has more to do with power relationships than questions about what is constitutional.

The SS sytem was enacted after the 17th amendment had sunk in. Almost all the old Senators from before 1913 were gone, and most of the Supreme Court had been confirmed by Senators not selected by state legislators.

On top of that, FDR was stacking the court and we were stuck in a long depression.

Another important factor not mentioned before was the rise on centralized communications systems (radio) that was controlled by the federal government.

The FCC of the early 1920s was totally uncontitutional.

The real "problem" with the 14th amendment was that when the federal government stepped in to defend the rights of people wronged by state governments, it made the feds look better than the states, which lead to more federal power.

But that's because the South retained extreme racism and Jim Crow laws for 100 years after the civil war.

The worst blow to states rights was not the 14th amendment, but the death of Stonewall Jackson in May of 1863.

Jackson is one of the greatest military leaders of all time, right up there with Napolean. Jackson never lost a battle.

He was the hero of 1st Bull Run in 1861, a stunning upset and an amazing performance that earned him the name STONEWALL.

"Look! There's Jackson, standing like stone wall!"

Then in the first half of 1862, Jackson matched Napolean in Italy by winning a half dozen battles in the Shenandoah valley (with a small force 1/3 the size of the feds), while the South was losing everywhere else.

Then in mid-1863, Jackson teamed up with Robert E. Lee, another great general.

They won the 2nd Bull Run. Antetiem was a draw, but Jackson won his part of the battle and slaughtered thousands. Then Friedricksberg, another slaughter.

Finally, in the spring of 1863, another brilliant performance by Stonewall, when he outflanked the north at Chancellorvillle, a mercy killing.

Then Jackson died.

'Jackson has lost his left arm, but I have lost my right."

Lee blew it at Gettyburg. He would have won if Jackson were there and the tyrant Lincoln would have gone down in flames, and France would have backed the South.

Lee hardly won sh** after Jackson died.

"We will cross the river, and rest under the shade of the trees."

Had Jackson lived, Jackson and Lee would have have become political leaders, probably presidents, VPs or Senators or Governors, defended the Constitution and whipped the South into shape, got rid of slavery, and we would still have a real republic.

Jackson was born in 1824. He would have been a political force (and a potential miliary leader well into the 1870s, 1880s, and possibly until 1900.

Mesogen

04-25-2009, 07:28 PM

The 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation....

The "income tax" is a tax on the use of the private credit of the federal reserve system (Federal Reserve Notes).

.

I've seen the thing where some judge made a non-binding comment somewhere that said the 16th amendment created no new power of taxation, but then why go through all the trouble to pass a constitutional amendment? What changed?

Mesogen

04-25-2009, 07:36 PM

:sigh:

YouTube - 14th Amendment Citizenship: Citizen or citizen? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4xV4MTnCdc)

Are you a "PERSON" or a man on the land?

.

This video says that the 13th amendment bans slavery, and I suppose that means all kinds of slavery. But, then the video says that the 14th amendment instituted a system of slavery. But if slavery is banned in the 13th, the 14th couldn't possibly institute it.

So this video is dumb.

sirgonzo420

04-26-2009, 01:14 PM

This video says that the 13th amendment bans slavery, and I suppose that means all kinds of slavery. But, then the video says that the 14th amendment instituted a system of slavery. But if slavery is banned in the 13th, the 14th couldn't possibly institute it.

So this video is dumb.

The 13th amendment bans INVOLUNTARY servitude, but not VOLUNTARY servitude...

Ergo, you can VOLUNTEER to be a slave aka 14th amendment US citizen.

Your silence is your consent.

.

Danke

04-26-2009, 01:34 PM

I've seen the thing where some judge made a non-binding comment somewhere that said the 16th amendment created no new power of taxation, but then why go through all the trouble to pass a constitutional amendment? What changed?

Federal Income Tax In a Nutshell (http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter/NutshellLargePamphlet.pdf)

Old Ducker

04-26-2009, 04:11 PM

Galileo Galilei

04-27-2009, 08:53 AM

Wrong. The 14th amendment replaces State citizenship with US citizenship.

No, under the 14th amendment, you have duel citizenship, which is what we still have today.

For example, I live in Wisconsin. If you go to the University of Wisconsin, you get greatly reduced tuition if you are a WISCONSIN citizen. If you are not a WISCONSIN citizen, you must pay the full cost of your education.

(There is a deal with Minnesota, where you get the deal if you are a MINNESTOA citizen as well).

You are blaming the wrong enemy.

The 14th amendment was put in place to protect minorities. Many states were depriving minorities of their liberty.

Have you ever read about the corruption in the southern legislatures?

They were rigged to give power to slave owners.

Only about 350,000 whites owned slaves, out of 5 millions whites.

Only about 260,000 whites owned more than one slave, these are the people who controlled the legislatures. There were also 4 million blacks.

Basically, 260,000 white people controlled all the legislatures that "represented" 9 million people, even thought they should have been outvoted by a 35 to 1 ratio. Even among whites, they were outvoted 20 to 1.

Here is some analysis on Virginia's legislature:

Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1829/30
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/79733

ArrestPoliticians

04-27-2009, 10:29 AM

I'm not so sure about the 17th amendment being bad. While it would be nice if Senators actually represented their state, think about how easy it would be to just buy off the state legislature!!!

Galileo Galilei

04-27-2009, 10:50 AM

I'm not so sure about the 17th amendment being bad. While it would be nice if Senators actually represented their state, think about how easy it would be to just buy off the state legislature!!!

The issue here is state legislature representation in the federal government. The people are directly represented by the House.

People in the state legislature are more informed regarding many issues than the ignorant sheeple, including the constitutional powers delegated by the constitution.

weslinder

04-27-2009, 01:02 PM

I would say that the 17th Amendment, has eroded sovereignty more than any other action by the Federal Government by far, and thus has led to more erosion of liberty than any other amendment.

I would say though, that reading the history of the Progressive movement, regardless of what you think of the ideology or the people executing it, those people knew what they were doing. The actions set forth by the Progressive movement to centralize power in New York and Washington were very well-thought-out, and very well executed. They hid them behind cloaks of stability and increasing democracy, and did a great job at it. I'd say that their foresight and planning for their ideology has only been matched in history by the Founders foresight and planning for liberty.

muzzled dogg

01-04-2013, 08:19 PM

bump good thread

Danke

01-04-2013, 09:49 PM

Wrong. The 14th amendment replaces State citizenship with US citizenship.

poor Ducker, he was right.