Thread: 14th Amendment un-Constitutional!!!

The following is a treatise on the unconstitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment, based upon the most comprehensive research and documentation of every angle in the unlawful procedures involved in its purported adoption.

This work was done, and is offered with a realization that the federal courts are not ready to give consideration to the subject, because the U. S. Supreme Court and inferior courts have used the the 14th Amendment to enlarge upon their ungranted powers without limit or reserve.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html

Crocket, I'd really like to get your opinion of this.

There is no question whatsoever that Amendment XIV was not lawfully ratified. The problem is getting the Supreme Court to rule on the ratification. A similar effort proved beyond a shadow of doubt, based upon the archives of the states that existed at the time, that Amendment XVI was not ratified either, but the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, calling it a "political matter." When you have changes to the Constitution being enforced when they were not lawfully ratified by the electorate, that is tyranny. The question is what We the People are willing to do about it. It is difficult to elicit more than a yawn from the average American when attempting to bring these critical truths into the light. Until that changes, we are stuck with accepting whatever powers the runaway federal monster wishes to grant itself. A prime example of indifference to ever-expanding federal powers is the indifference even by some members of this site to the Real ID act, and by most Conservatives to the unconscionable PATRIOT Act.

The book "Free in the World" by Mark E. Brandon, J.D., Ph.D. makes the point that the XIVth amendment was never properly ratified.
Whatever ratification there was, was under duress, as the occupied former slave states were told to accept "or else."

The book is very expensive. I'll try to xerox the page of the book which makes the argument, then scan it, and then post it to the website. This will take a while, since I have to dig around to find the book.

Originally Posted by Hosay

The book "Free in the World" by Mark E. Brandon, J.D., Ph.D. makes the point that the XIVth amendment was never properly ratified.
Whatever ratification there was, was under duress, as the occupied former slave states were told to accept "or else."

The book is very expensive. I'll try to xerox the page of the book which makes the argument, then scan it, and then post it to the website. This will take a while, since I have to dig around to find the book.

Restoration of the right to vote was contingent upon the ratification of Amendments XIII and XIV. Now that is a problem. See, onlt actual states can vote to ratify an amendment. If the states wre states with the power to vote to ratify an amendment, then the rights of the citizens of those states to vote in national elections could not lawfully be disparaged. If, on the other hand, one were to take the legal stance that the former Confederate states were no longer states of the Union, then two separate legal issues arise. The first is that Lincoln's premise for declaring war on the Confederacy, which was that the states did not have the power to secede and so were merely rebellious states still under US authority, goes out the window. If the premise is accepted that the states had in fact left the Union and required readmittance, then they would not have had the authority to vote on amendments to a Constitution to which they were no longer bound. So either the Southern states were unlawfully forced to ratify the amendments under extreme duress (suspension of rights), the amendments they ratified are null and void. If a sufficient number of ratifying states were did not have legal status as states until after they ratified the amendments, then the amendments were not lawfully ratified because they were voted on by entities that had no constitutional authority to vote on them. There is no possible permutation of the law that would make the ratification of those amendments lawful, unless of course the government was and is no longer operating under constitutional grant of authority, but under some other grant (such as papal apotheosis). If that is the case, then we have an illegitimate government that is the result of a total usurpation of power from We the People.

I'm moving this to gen discussion as it's directly related with ILLEGAL anchor babies.

Putting everything else aside, be it valid or not, the more important issue imho, is the author's writings on the exact meaning of the 14th.

I keep going back to this and feel strongly that this is where the power lies in getting the anchor baby situation overturned.

Yep, Federal Troops were in control of the former Conferacy State Offices. So if you were an Elected Official, in the South, wouldn't you be intimidated by armed Blue Bellies directing what goes on.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

Putting everything else aside, be it valid or not, the more important issue imho, is the author's writings on the exact meaning of the 14th.

I keep going back to this and feel strongly that this is where the power lies in getting the anchor baby situation overturned.

There are other reasons to have Amendment XIV rolled back, but you are correct that getting the anchor baby issue settled according to the legislative intent of the authors of the amendment would be a huge step in the right direction on the immigration issue.

The 14th Ammendment, aside from being unConstitutional, makes no provisions for foreign people that are here at the time of child birth. The Ammendment in question, addressed only the citizens of the U.S. of A.

And only those with insideous and deceitful ideologies would bend and shape it to meet their ends.

So, if you are here from another country, and birth a child, that child is no more American, than you if you are not an American.