Header Ads

Author of 14th Amendment Explains EXACTLY Who It Was Meant For

The author of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with President Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery.
Senator Howard also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
That says it all and hopefully President Trump can help restore some sanity to what has become an insane process.

9 comments:

  1. The courts ruled against the US Constitution, or they did not read it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It was never properly ratified e.g. 27 does not equal 28, never did and never will.
    See Dyett v. Turner for all the dirty historical details:
    http://supremelaw.org/cc/knudson/judnot09.htm#dyett

    ReplyDelete
  3. Furthermore, almost all Southern States rejected that amendment proposal.
    Congress retaliated by authorizing the President to re-invade those States
    and impose martial law upon them, until they changed their NO votes to YES votes.
    That was, easily, one of the most horrific voting rights violations ever
    recorded in American history. The Northern States voted YES initially,
    but changed their YES votes to NO votes after that re-invasion of the South.
    The Secretary of State counted the Northern States as voting YES,
    even though they had changed their YES votes to NO votes; and,
    the Secretary of State counted the Southern States as voting YES,
    even though they had been forced to change their NO votes to YES votes
    under threat and duress of permanent military occupation.
    See the ending in Dyett v. Turner: I fear the Feds have never
    really changed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey SupremeLaw! Yes, the 14th is the most egregiously "passed" amendment of all. That's saying something when you see the stiff competition offered by the 16th and 17th amendments!

      Delete
    2. Thanks! We've assembled several academic articles on the failed ratification here:

      http://supremelaw.org/ref/14amrec/

      It requires a bit of concentration, but a syntax analysis also leads to the conclusion that Section 1 is void for vagueness e.g. "jurisdiction thereof" is explained in a Regulation implementing the Internal Revenue Code. That Regulation refers to "its jurisdiction" i.e. the municipal jurisdiction of the Federal government. Cf. 26 CFR 1.1-1

      This is a defensible inference, because Section 1 of that failed amendment also clearly refers to the jurisdiction of each State.

      Therefore, there are obviously two disjoint jurisdictions being discussed: Federal jurisdiction and State jurisdiction!

      Moreover, we have even caught judges neglecting to include "subject to the jurisdiction" of the Federal government in their constructions of that key Section.

      Those judges want us to believe that anyone born or naturalized inside the 50 States is necessarily a federal citizen: THAT IS NOT A CORRECT CONSTRUCTION because "United States" in Section 1 clearly does NOT refer to the 50 States; it refers to the Federal government!

      And, quite sadly, a ratified Fourteenth amendment did NOT result in creating a single class of citizenship.

      On the contrary, in cases that were very difficult to find before the Internet became popular, the 1866 Civil Rights Act created a second class of "federal citizens" and, at best a ratified Fourteenth amendment was merely "declaratory of that existing law":

      http://www.supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm

      As such, Congress attempted a major fraud by confusing Citizens of the States united -- a requirement in the Qualifications Clause -- with citizens of the United States aka federal citizens.

      The only difference was the change from "C" to "c"!

      This essay on Citizenship has been very well received, both on and off the Internet:

      http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm

      Thanks for your support!

      Delete
  4. EDIT:
    a requirement in the Qualifications Clause
    SHOULD BE
    a requirement in the Qualifications Clauses

    ReplyDelete
  5. NOTE WELL how this Regulation clarifies the
    correct construction of "jurisdiction thereof":

    http://supremelaw.org/cfr/26/26cfr1.1-1.htm#c

    (c) Who is a citizen.
    Every person born or naturalized in the United States
    and subject to its jurisdiction is a citizen.

    "its jurisdiction" == obviously a singular pronoun
    which cannot grammatically refer to plural "States"

    ReplyDelete
  6. Not quite as clear as it could be.

    "Every person born within the limits of the United States, ... is ...a citizen of the United States."

    Clear enough. But

    "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States,"

    I think this means "persons who are born to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers", that is, a single class of persons. But at first glance it looked as though it meant three distinct classes: persons who are (a) foreigners or (b) aliens or (c) who are born to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

    But how can person born in the US (but not born to an ambassador or foreign minister) be a foreigner or an alien? What would make them foreign or alien?

    A slight rephrasing would have eliminated this confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's void for vagueness. "United States" has 3 different legal meanings (at least). See Hooven & Allison v. Evatt:

    http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/hooven/hooven.htm#united.states

    "United States" in Section 1 of that proposal means Federal government. It must mean that, because the jurisdiction of each State follows immediately in that same Section.

    The whole basis of this article is to put enormous faith in the words of a lying politician!

    The courts have ruled otherwise, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court immediately after the Civil War ended. A "citizen of the United States" is a citizen of the Federal government:

    http://supremelaw.org/rsrc/twoclass.htm

    Read the entire Section 1, all the way to the end:

    http://supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#14th-amend

    "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 laws."

    "its jurisdiction" i.e. the jurisdiction of each State

    And, why have a second privileges and immunities clause
    when the organic Constitution already had the first
    Privileges and Immunities Clause? Answer: because
    a second class of federal citizens was being contemplated!

    http://supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/whuscons.htm#4:2:1

    Another complex topic is the correct legal meaning of "person" (spelled with a lower-case "p"). The organic Constitution spells "Person" with an upper-case "P".) Because "Citizen" and "citizen" are being distinguished, it is also correct to distinguish "Person" and "person". But, this is a complex topic for another day.

    I'm honestly very amazed to witness so many people rush to the defense of a very bad "law". It's not Law: it's a FRAUD! Unconstitutionality dates from the moment of enactment, NOT from any decision so branding the act in question.

    ReplyDelete