The 14th Amendment created an alternate government?

[LittleLightShining]

I got an email the other day with a link to a guy talking about the 14th amendment and how it created a corporation that now runs the country. He shows documentation and is quite convincing inasmuch as he believes it to be true. I've heard people talk about this before but I don't know that I've seen this discussion here. So what do you think?

Here's the link: http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/

Also, there is some audio of a man talking about expatriation. That's interesting, too. If this is true, why don't I hear more people talking about it?

[Danke]

There are different of definitions of "United States"


I believe one is a municipal corporation to run the 10 square miles of Washington D.C. Created in 1871?

Anyway, I think all (or at least most) levels of government have incorporated.

Title 28 USC §3002 (15)(A) states that the United States is “a Federal Corporation”

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00003002----000-.html

[jmag]

This is a good read on it over in the Constitution forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2082619&postcount=5

In this thread.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=189150

[LittleLightShining]

This is a good read on it over in the Constitution forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2082619&postcount=5

In this thread.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=189150

Thank you!

[shocker315]

http://www.freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=US_corporation&refpage=issues


snip-


SO WHAT?

Let’s take the first question: what would be the practical significance of a corporate government versus a constitutional government? In one case, the charter is a corporate charter. In the other case it is a constitution. Both are written documents and both outline the purpose, function, and limitations of the entity they create. The primary difference is that a corporation always is the creation of government, which makes government a higher source with powers assumed to be derived from the people themselves. In the case of the United States, however, this distinction is blurred, because the federal constitution was created by representatives of the colonial governments. That means the United States was created by other governments just as it would have been if created as a corporation.

The structure of government is important but not as important as the power of government. That is also true of corporations. Governments and corporations are neither good nor evil by themselves. They can serve man well or be a huge disservice depending entirely on the terms of their charters and the character of those who direct them. Private entrepreneurs, partnerships, and associations have exactly the same capacity for good or evil. Corporations become evil when they acquire political favoritism giving them unfair advantages over competitors and legal immunity from crimes – but exactly the same thing happens with politically connected individuals, partnerships, and associations.

A similar contrast between good and evil is found within governments, whether they are corporations or not. There is little difference between corporations and governments except ownership of stock. Too much is made over the structure of government and too little over the principles of government. Which would we choose: a corporate government with a charter that limits its powers and with functioning mechanisms to choose our leaders – or a constitutional government in which the constitution is subverted and the electoral system is in the hands of a ruling elite?

Guns do not commit crimes but people using guns do. Likewise, organizational structures are not the problem, it's the people who control those structures and the principles they embrace. Evil men can subvert any social structure. There are no set of rules that can prevent it if the public becomes indifferent, which is why Wendell Phillips reminded us that "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

We should be thankful that America started off as a constitutional republic, but that was long ago. Today we live under a democratic oligarchy in which the masses are hypnotized into believing they control their political destiny because they are allowed to elect their own dictators. This conversion did not happen because of how government was chartered but because collectivists took control of political parties, media centers, educational institutions, and all other power centers of society. As long as collectivists remain in control, and as long as most people don't even know what the word collectivism means, it makes no difference if government has a constitutional or a corporate charter. Freedom is lost either way.

WHAT CAN BE DONE?
The important question is what can be done? Even if it were true that the United States was secretly converted to a corporation in 1871, what can be done about it today? If we don’t have an answer to that question, we are wasting out time. The enemies of freedom must be happy to see us chasing phantom issues because, as long as we do, we are out of the battle. The solution to the loss of our constitutional republic is, not to endlessly debate the meaning of an obscure event in 1871, but to take action today to recapture our government from the collectivists who have subverted it and then set about to restore the republic! That is the mission of Freedom Force.

[Matt Collins]

Remember though, the 14th Amendment was never ratified.

[10thAmendment]

I got an email the other day with a link to a guy talking about the 14th amendment and how it created a corporation that now runs the country. He shows documentation and is quite convincing inasmuch as he believes it to be true. I've heard people talk about this before but I don't know that I've seen this discussion here. So what do you think?

Here's the link: http://www.dirtyunclesam.com/

Also, there is some audio of a man talking about expatriation. That's interesting, too. If this is true, why don't I hear more people talking about it?
I struggled with the information about the 14th A. presented in both the above video and this thread and here's my two cents.

First, the original Constitution collapsed as a consequence of the Civil War, in my opinion; war is hell. I'd like to think that such an observation is common sense, but it is evidently not. And the only reason that we still have what is regarded as the "original" Constitution with amendments, what I privately refer to as the Constitution II, is because the North put the pieces of the Constitution back together after the Civil War.

And I accept the North's "unconstitutional" amendments to the post Civil War Constitution II, one of them being the infamous 14th A., for the following reason. Given that the Constitution was intended in part to insure domestic tranquility (yeah, right), the Founders never addressed amending the Constitution for remedies concerning a civil war. Consequently, the losing South arguably had Article V control of the Constitution II after the war which doesn't make sense. (As a side note, Southerners necessarily have to ignore that the Constitution collapsed in order to try to make their arguments about ratification problems concerning the 14th A. hold water. Again, war is hell.)

Getting back to the 14th A., what gets me upset about 14th A. discussions in particular is the following. People don't seem to understand that the USSC's later interpretation of the 14th A., using the 14th A. to stifle state power to culivate religious expression for example, is not what the post-Civil War 39th Congress had intended concerning the 14th A. The problem is the following...

First, going back to the original scope of the Bill of Rights, historical writings about Jefferson, Madison, Chief Justice Marshall, and John Bingham all indicate that the Founders had decided that the states were not obligated to respect the privileges and immunities protected by the federal Bill of Rights; it's no wonder that state-supported slavery for example, arguably a reasonable exercise of 10th A. protected state sovereignty, helped to precipitate the Civil War.

So the constitutionally baseless idea of absolute free speech, for example, where states cannot prohibit pornography, for instance, is not what the Founders had intended and is pure Hollywood. In fact, where 1st A.-related church and state separation issues are concerned, Jefferson, Mr. "wall of separation" himself, has been misrepresented by special-interest, anti-religious expression justices as evidenced by Jefferson's acknowledgement of the states to regulate religion. See for yourselves.

"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed; (emphasis added) and thus also they guarded against all abridgement by the US. of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, & retained to themselves the right of protecting the same, as this state, by a law passed on the general demand of it’s citizens, had already protected them, from all human restraint or interference: ..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozoo

The problem is that special-interest justices who were enemies of state power to regulate / cultivate religious expression had evidently been looking for a way to argue that the idea of separation of church and state, reasonably implied by the 1st A. with respect to the federal government, also applied to the states. Sadly, the "inconvenient truth" (aka the politically correct "truth") about the 14th A. ultimately gave corrupt justices the foothold that they needed to politically extend the scope of the 1st A. prohibition of certain federal government powers to the states.

The bottom line is that the 14th A. was not intended to take away state powers to regulate / prohibit pornography, for example, or prohibit praying in schools, despite what renegade justices want us to think. Evidence of the Court's folly concerning the purpose of the 14th A. begins by examining the following excerpt from the Cantwell v. Connecticut opinion. Justice Owen Roberts' statement is regarded in some legal circles as the Court's most blatant usurping of legislative powers.

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940. http://tinyurl.com/38a87c

The BIG problem with Justice Roberts' politically correct statement about the 1st and 14th A. is the following. John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., had clarified before the House of Representatives that the ratified 14th A. was not intended to take away any state powers. See for yourselves.

"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5d

"No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired..." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy

"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

With the official intention that the 14th A. was not to take away any state powers in mind, note that the USSC's scandalous twist of the intentions of 14th A. lawmakers is to argue the following. The USSC argues that the 14th A. applied the Bill of Rights in its entirety to the states, including the 1st A.'s prohibition on certain powers of the federal government, as opposed to applying only the Constitution's privileges and immunities, most of which are enumerated in the BoR, but are only a part of the BoR. (My statement is based on John Bingham's official words about the 14th A. in the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional Record.)

So when people run around naked in the name of their 1st A. protected freedom of speech, they get away with doing so for the following reason. Anti-constitution indoctrinated lawmakers and judges, both federal and state, don't understand that the 14th A. only limits the extent to which state lawmakers can prohibit such forms of expression, as opposed to the PC idea that the 14th A. prohibits state lawmakers from regulating such forms of expression entirely as the 1st A. does with the federal government. Justice Reed put it this way.

"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942. http://tinyurl.com/yvtqoy (http://tinyurl.com/yvtqoy)

Getting back to the Cantwell excerpt, not only did Justice Roberts wrongly usurp legislative powers, but he and his colleagues on the bench usurped state legislative powers, wrongly compromising the Founder's division of federal and state powers as evidenced by the 10th Amendment; special-interest justices have a "state sovereignty be damned" attitude.

I must emphasize that when Justice Roberts scandalously broadened the scope of the 1st A.'s prohibition on the federal government's power to regulate religion to include the states, clearly contradicting Bingham's statements that the 14th A. did no such thing, that the 1st A.'s prohibition on other powers of the feds, speech for example, later followed. Again, people use their "constitutional" free speech license to run around naked only because lawmakers and judges, federal and state alike, evidently don't understand that the 14th A. didn't take away state powers to regulate such things as a consequence of the USSC's perversion of that amendment.

What a mess! =^(

[LittleLightShining]

Thanks, 10th A. This is a lot to absorb.

[10thAmendment]

Thanks, 10th A. This is a lot to absorb.
Yes, it is a lot to absorb. That's why last line is "What a mess!"