Thread: Non ratification of the 14th Amendment

I went to a class/meeting that in a nutshell was helping to expose some things that I and a lot of others do not know pertaining to Sovereignty. I was not prepared as far as taking notes as I should have been but this may be a good start to getting this country exposed and back on track.
This may help explain somewhat of what the meeting/discussing was about better than I could......
We've been deceived through the years. The frog in the frying pan concept.
www.DirtyUncleSam.com

Interesting isn't it Partwerks? Another one you should look up is the Congressional Act of 1871. It points out the distinction between the "Corporate Constitution of the UNITED STATES", as opposed to the "organic Constitution for the united States". The difference is like that of night and day. One is for a tyrannical overlord, the other is for a Republic.

The orator should redo his film, though and settle down a bit. Get his info in a proper order, even if he uses a podium and written references.

But I have never cared for the 14th Ammendment just the reasons sited. Although you will be told that it bestowed "Civil Rights" on the citizens, when all it did through slight of hand (wordplay) put the Federal Corproate Government as sovereign over the citizens. And even that doesn't make sense, as it says you are a citizen of the state where you reside, and a citizen of the United States. That is rediiculous if you look at the issue of jurisdiction. The Federal Government has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, military installations that are related to the national services, and any "U.S. Territories". But what is U.S. Territory? The 50 states are not U.S. Territory. They are sovereign states. U.S. Territory is places like Guam, Peurto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, oh, and American Samoa. Outside of the District of Columbia, and the above mentioned "territories". After that, the states could actually tell the Fed to go stuff it. Reguardless of the defacto legislation the Congress recognises.

Now if a 14th Ammendment was needed to back up the 13th Ammendment, why make it so darn complicated with doublespeak? All it would have to say is something along the lines of,

Those who were held in bondage in the states they inhabited, are now free and independent citizens, and share the same unalienable Rights that every citizen possesses.

It doesn't have to be that complicated. Unless you have nefarious ideas fomenting.