Many blame the enactment of the 14th Amendment as the beginning of the slippery slope taking us into Statism default dependence on government and away from our States’ of residence self-reliance or independence. There are many documents that may need review since the research is extensive and reading it is almost like an Agatha Christy mystery novel. It’s hard to identify the writers for most of the information is like a shared effort between individuals from all walks of life who have contributed to it. This article here is another contribution by Joyce Rosenwald so those interested in learning more about the many twist and turns of the 14th Amendment could have it available for discussion or legal research. I must admit that I am not an expert in this area and the reason I am posting is that there is ongoing concerns with how this amendment affected our form of government and its impact on our ability to retain liberty. The public has a right to know about the 14th Amendment and have some information for further reseach and as always please do secondary research.
Joyce’s information follows below:
DESTROYED FROM WITHIN?
Allegiance to federal government must take priority over allegiance to God.
U.S. v. MACINTOSH, 283 U.S. 605 (1931)
Since 1946 we are at a place where the Humanist-infected Court believes that God is dead, and is looking for a paradigm or metaphor that can be used to purge this dead religion from American life and institutions.
All the states’ laws were taken over and were being written by the Private BAR by 1946. COINCIDENCE?
Model State Administrative Procedure Acts (1946) (National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, 9C U.L.A. 179 (1957), Id 1961, 14 U.L.A.
357 (1980), Id 1981, 14 U.L.A. 73 (Supp. 1985).
It appears the attempt to destroy the nation from within is not a conspiracy….
IT IS FACT!
The bar encourages upholding and using the 14th amendment to socially engineer the people to go to a place they do not wish to go, which is into a socialist state where God is dead and government is viewed as God.
What is the 14th amendment?
Is it a social contract?
Is it a gift, as was the Trojan Horse?
United States v. Celestine, 215 U.S. 278, 30 S.Ct. 93, 54 L.Ed. 195 (1909)
U.S. citizenship was refered to as “a gift.”
Whatever it is, it appears to be a mechanism of law that can enslave by
forced legislation to take your G-D given rights and replace them with privileges from government.
As a 14th amendment citizen you receive compelled benefits. As a result, the court will tell you they will not rule on the constitutionally of an act for anyone who receives a benefit from government.
THIS ONE COURT RULE, known as ASHWANDER RULE #6,
appears to have made your constitutions null and void.
Of course, the Ashwander rules were also written by Judges.
YOU ARE NOW IN A CATCH 22 POSITION.
YOU HAVE LOST THE ABILITY TO CHALLENGE AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT BY CONGRESS!
SO, what do you get as a 14th amendment citizen?
Here’s what the court said:
“The only absolute and unqualified right of a United States citizen is to have a residence within the territorial boundaries of the United States”
US vs. Valentine 288 F. Supp. 957
OH…..there’s one more important right you have as a 14th amendment citizen. . You get to pay the federal debt without the right to challenge it!
Government calls this a gift?
CAN YOU GIVE IT BACK?
NOTICE, 14TH amendment citizens only have 2 rights. All other gifts from government are privileges, and privileges can be removed by the courts.
It appears the lawyers have the system under their thumb.
No private judiciary you say? How about if I prove the constitutional judiciary was destroyed by President Lincoln, who also gave you the 14th amendment, and he replaced it with the DOJ under direct control of the executive.
“Congressional Globe”. The following are excerpts from the April 20th through 29th, 1870 “Congressional Globe” concerning H.R. 1328 which established the Department of Justice to CONTINUE TO CARRY OUT MARTIAL LAW
RULE nearly five years after the end of the Civil War:
“The following bureaus shall be established in this department [the Department of Justice]: a Bureau of International Law,[international law was introduced into law for the american people in 1865, under Lincoln, who gave you the 14th amendment] a Bureau of Revenue Law, a Bureau of Military and Naval Law, a Bureau of Postal Law, a Bureau of Land Management Law.”
Congressman Lawrence then said in the record:
“This Bill, however, does transfer to the Law Department, or the Department of Justice as it is now called, the cognizance of all subjects of martial law, and the cognizance of all subjects of military and naval law, except that portion of the administration of military justice which relates to military court martial, their proceedings, and the supervision of records.
“If a question of martial law is to be determined by the law officers of government, it will now belong to the Attorney General, or to this Department of Justice. It will not belong to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. He will not be called upon for any opinion relating to martial law or military law except as to that portion of the administration of military law which relates to military justice. ” [you got provisional military courts which you still live under]
“In other words, the Judge Advocate General, instead of giving legal opinions to the Secretary of War relating to the status of the states of the union, their right to call upon the government for military protection, or military aid, and other grave Constitutional questions, will be limited. The Judge Advocate General will perform duties administrative in their character and almost exclusively so.
“But I will state to the House why, in my judgment, no transfer of the Judge Advocate General or of his duties to the Department of Justice has been proposed in this Bill. If this had been done, the Bill would have encountered the opposition of some of the officers of the Bureau of Military Justice and their friends, and so great is the power of men in office, so difficult is it to abolish an office, that we were compelled in the consideration of this subject to leave officers in this Bureau untouched in their official tenure in order that this Bill might get through Congress.
“But so far as the Solicitor and Naval Judge Advocate General is concerned, he is transferred with all his supervisory power over naval court partials and the records and proceedings of such courts, so that to that extent, this Bill accomplishes the great purpose which it has in view of bringing into one department the whole legal service of the government. It is misfortunate that there should be different constructions of the laws of the United States by different law officers of the United States.”
WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT:
These traitors knew they would have encountered opposition from the military with the provisions of H.R. 1328, so they decided to leave the military officers untouched during their tenure, and transfer them to supervisory positions over court partials. This appeased the military leaders, who didn’t have the foggiest idea as to what was really going on.
Had the traitors fleeced the military of all their powers during their tenure in office, the military would have realized and possibly taken some military action. But as nothing was happening at the hen house, they slept through this entire situation which resulted in an overthrow of the Constitution — an overthrow under which government pretended to operate in 1933, and under which it continues to pretend to operate today.
The traitors were now faced with a very serious problem, namely, what to do with the powers of the Office of the Judge Advocate General when their tenure in office expired. And they solved this dilemma by adding the following amendments, detailed in that same “Congressional Globe”:
Congressman Jenks: “I move to amend Section 3 by inserting the word “naval” before the words “Judge Advocate General”.
The amendment was agreed to and later Congressman Finkelburg stated:
“I would suggest the propriety of amending the third section of this Bill by inserting after the words “the Naval Solicitor and Naval Judge Advocate General” the words “who shall hereafter be known as Naval Solicitor”.
Mr. Jenks: I have no objection to that amendment.
This amendment was also agreed to, and the Office of the Judge Advocate General became known as the Naval Solicitor. Thus, when the existing tenure was over, the new office would have a different set of rules and regulations so that the Bill accomplished the great purpose which it had in view of bringing into one department the whole legal service of the government without the power of the Office of the Judge Advocate General getting in their way.
THIS WAS A NECESSARY STEP TO BRING THE PRESIDENT INTO THE POSITION OF DICTATOR OVER AMERICA.
But they had one other problem facing them, namely, DIRECT ACCESS to the Treasury for the Department of Justice without interference. They accomplished this by the following three sections of the Bill:
“…The Eighth Section provides that the Attorney General is hereby empowered to make all necessary rules and regulations for the government….
“…The Eleventh Section provides that all monies hereafter drawn out of the Treasury upon requisition of the Attorney General shall be dispersed by such one of the clerks herein provided for the Attorney General as he may designate, and so much of the First Section of the Act, making appropriations, past March 3rd, 1859, as provides that money drawn out of the Treasury upon requisition of the Attorney General shall be dispersed by such dispersing officer as the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby repealed….
“…The Fifteenth Section provides that the supervisory powers now exercised by the Secretary of the Interior over the accounts of the district attorneys, marshals, clerks, and other officers of the courts of the United States, shall be exercised by the Attorney General….”
It is important here to remember that under the Trading with the Enemy Act, the District Courts of the United States are:
“…hereby given jurisdiction to make and enter all such rules as to notice and otherwise and all such orders and decrees and to issue such process as may be necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the provisions of this Act.”
It is here that we find out that the district attorneys, marshals, clerks and other officers of the courts are under the Department of Justice. That seems an obvious statement, given the state of the nation today. But the REAL PROBLEM — given the broad scope of powers granted the District Courts under the Trading with the Enemy Act — is that the Department of Justice is *NOT* a part of the Judicial Branch of Government! The judicial branch is now an agency under the executive!
According to Section 101 of Title 5 of the United States Code, the Department of State, the Department of Treasury, the Department of Defense, the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Energy, the Department of
Education, and the Department of the Veteran Affairs are *ALL* federal agencies under the Executive Branch of Government.
Compare what’s above with what’s below:
If we went to the library today and picked up a copy of Title 12 USC and went to Section 95 (b) we will find a law which states:
“The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1.)”.
No need to read bills before they are voted on. They’ve been confirmed as passed since 1933.
Not only that, but the Secretary of the Treasury gets any bill he wants passed, confirmed as passed. We get 2 presidents for the price of 1!
Below are more wonderful things the court is doing for us:
EVERSON v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) – “The Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion …. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the “wall of separation” that was constitutionalized in Everson. Wm.Rehnquist
MCCOLLUM v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) – “We are all agreed that the First and the Fourteenth Amendments have a secular reach far more penetrating in the conduct of Government than merely to forbid an ‘established church.'” Justice Felix Frankfurter
TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) – The day after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, every state in the union believed that an oath was an appeal to God. Since atheists did not believe in God, they could not take an oath, and so atheists were not permitted to hold public office or testify in courts. The First Amendment was designed to keep the federal government from interfering in the way states understood their duties to God. “Congress shall make no law . . . .”
All of that changed in 1961 when the Supreme Court determined that the 14th Amendment gave the court the power to amend a state constitution where that constitution dealt with religion.
ENGEL v. VITALE, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) – Every session of Congress begins with prayer. Do Christians in schools have the same rights? Because of the 14th Amendment and this case, No; they’re not even allowed to read the prayers from Capitol Hill (State Brd. of Educ v. Netcong, 262 A.2d 21 (1970).
ABINGTON SCHOOL DIST. v. SCHEMPP, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) – 14th Amendment used to remove voluntary Bible reading from government schools
WALZ v. TAX COMMISSION OF CITY OF NEW YORK , 397 U.S. 664 (1970) – Churches could be destroyed under the 14th Amendment, but Court says they serve the secular purpose of making America look “pluralistic.”
LEMON v. KURTZMAN, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) – Based on the Walz case and the 14th Amendment, the Court invents the “Lemon Test”: Every legislation must have for its purpose a goal which is acceptable to Secular Humanists, its primary effect must not be to advance the interests of those who oppose Secular Humanism, and it must not bring the government “under God” in an “excessive” way. Is there any wonder that Secularism has advanced so?
STONE v. GRAHAM, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) – 14th Amendment allows federal courts to reach into local school classrooms and rip any copy of the Ten Commandments off the wall because they might “induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps to venerate and obey, the Commandments.” Horrors! Thanks be to the 14th Amendment!
WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985) – An Alabama law authorized a one-minute period of silence for students. In striking down the law, the appeals court and the Supreme Court agreed: “It is not the activity itself that concerns us; it is the purpose of the activity that we shall scrutinize.” After the bill became law, one legislator admitted he hoped school children might use the moment of silence to pray. That secret intention and the 14th Amendment gave the Court the power to strike down the moment of silence.
EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) – 14th Amendment empowers court to prohibit teaching evidence against Darwinism in government schools.
ALLEGHENY COUNTY v. GREATER PITTSBURGH ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) – 14th Amendment empowers Court to order Pennsylvania county to remove nativity scene from public view.
LEE v. WEISMAN, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) – 14th Amendment allows Court to order local school not to permit a Jewish Rabbi from uttering a non-sectarian prayer in front of graduation ceremony.
In 1994 California passed a ballot initiative, Proposition 187, which would have denied “free” (that is, taxpayer-funded) social services to illegal aliens. Californians, under the delusion that they had the right to govern themselves, defied fashionable opinion—liberal and “conservative” alike—in passing the initiative. But they found out who really governed them when the federal courts prevented the implementation of 187, in the name of the Fourteenth Amendment. What does forcing a state to bankrupt itself by giving away “free” services to people who are in the country illegally have to do with the Fourteenth Amendment? Who knows. But this is why many people opposed it in the first place: Language in the amendment that meant something specific and finite when taken in its proper context became a recipe for federal domination of the states when torn from that context. Thomas E. Woods
Forced Welfare Payments
Thanks to California’s relatively high welfare payments, the Golden State attracts a large number of people who want to collect welfare. This has resulted in serious and persistent economic difficulties for the state. To cope with the strain, California adopted a policy in which new settlers, for the first year of their residence in California, were limited in the welfare benefits they could receive to what they would have had in their state of origin. In Saenz v. Roe (1999), however, the Supreme Court found—surprise!— that California’s law violated the Fourteenth Amendment. This time it was the “privileges or immunities” clause that was cited. California, by limiting the amount of welfare money it paid out to settlers in the first year, apparently violated the “right to travel.” By forcing California to increase its welfare payments to new residents, the Court had in effect raised taxes on Californians without their consent. (Wasn’t there a revolution fought over that somewhere?) Thomas E. Woods
Forced Busing, Tax Increases
In North Carolina Board of Education v. Swann, the Court struck down a state statute providing that no student would be compelled to attend any school for the purpose of improving racial balance in the schools. In Washington v. Seattle School District, the Court did the same with a statewide voter initiative preventing mandatory busing for purposes of integration. In U.S. v. Yonkers, a federal judge held the Yonkers city government in contempt, ordering it to integrate its schools by building scattersite public housing in predominantly white areas. This line of cases reached its coercive nadir in Missouri v. Jenkins, when the Supreme Court held that, to further integration, a federal judge could order a local government to increase property taxes, even though the increase was barred by the state constitution. Gene Healy
Using the 14th Amendment to give the federal government authority over every law in every state that relates to life, liberty or property is a prescription for a totalitarian dictatorship of unimaginable horror.
SO, what do you think? Is it time to return this gift to the federal government ?
If we do, we can bring GOD back into our lives and maybe a few more GOD given rights we lost.
I believe the courts only adjudicate for the federal 14th amendment citizens. They were created by federal statute and have to live under the federal statutes.
I believe GOD created living breathing people and they live under GOD’S law.
CAN IT BE THIS SIMPLE?
THIS IS WHAT ENSLAVES US AS 14th AMENDMENT CITIZENS
The Insurrection Act (enacted in 1807) delegates authority to the President to federalize and deploy the National Guard domestically during an insurrection or civil disturbance (10 U.S.C. Sections 331-335). Section 331 authorizes the President to use federal military forces to suppress an insurrection at the request of a state government. Section 332 authorizes the President to use armed forces in such manner as he deems necessary to enforce the laws or suppress a rebellion. Section 333 authorizes the President to use federal military forces to protect individuals from unlawful actions that obstruct the execution of federal laws or which impede the course of justice under federal laws.
Section 333 was enacted to implement the Fourteenth Amendment and does not require the request or consent of the governor of the affected state.