Saturday, December 02, 2006

Are We Citizens or Subjects?

It has been some time since I articulated the argument(s) that the (1)14th Amendment was never properly ratified; (2) it so fundamentally disagrees with the basic intent of the Constitution that it must be unconstitutional; and (3) if we accept the amendment as Constitutional and valid as interpreted, that fact alone presents such a usurpation of States' Rights as to justify secession, without any other cause provided or required.

In Secessionist Paper No. 5, I argue that the manner in which this amendment was enacted, rather than ratified, combined with the sweeping power it steals from states and gives to the Federal Government (contrary to the intent of the original compact), creates a situation in which the Federal Government exists de facto rather than de jure. I stand by that.

Once the Federal Government was able to declare me and everyone else their citizen, rather than citizens of our home states, all of the ingredients for future tyranny were in place. We are subjects to a far away and distant regime; not participants in a republican democracy small enough to hear our voices on issues that really matter to us. 

Don't argue with me that during the time that the 14th Amendment was "expanded" so broadly it was most necessary- to correct social ills.  It is never right to do a little wrong for a greater good. 

If anything at all of lasting good has come from the 14th Amendment, it is the legal precedent that states can indeed leave the union - as it was necessary for Congress to expel the southern states in order to ratify enact this amendment.  

(from the June 13, 1967 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE, Page 15641)

Mr. RARICK. Mr. Speaker, arrogantly ignoring clearcut expressions in the Constitution of the United States, the declared intent of its drafters notwithstanding, our unelected Federal judges read out prohibitions of the Constitution of the United States by adopting the fuzzy haze of the 14th amendment to legislate their personal ideas, prejudices, theories, guilt complexes, aims, and whims.

Through the cooperation of intellectual educators, we have subjected ourselves to accept destructive use and meaning of words and phrases. We blindly accept new meanings and changed values to alter our traditional thoughts.

We have tolerantly permitted the habitual misuse of words to serve as a vehicle to abandon our foundations and goals. Thus, the present use and expansion of the 14th amendment is a sham—serving as a crutch and hoodwink to precipitate a quasi-legal approach for overthrow of the tender balances and protections of limitation found in the Constitution.

But interestingly enough, the 14th amendment—whether ratified or not—was but the expression of emotional outpouring of public sentiment following the War Between the States.

Its obvious purpose and intent was but to free human beings from ownership as a chattel by other humans. Its aim was no more than to free the slaves.

As our politically appointed Federal judiciary proceeds down their chosen path of chaotic departure from the peoples’ government by substituting their personal law rationalized under the 14th amendment, their actions and verbiage brand them and their team as secessionists—rebels with pens instead, of guns—seeking to divide our Union.

They must be stopped. Public opinion must be aroused. The Union must and shall be preserved Mr. Speaker, I ask to include in the RECORD, following my remarks, House Concurrent Resolution 208 of the Louisiana Legislature urging this Congress to declare the 14th amendment illegal. Also, I include in the RECORD an informative and well-annotated treatise on the illegality of the 14th amendment—the play toy of our secessionist judges—which has been prepared by Judge Leander H. Perez, of Louisiana.

A summary the argument

THE 14th AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

By Judge Leander H. Perez

The purported Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is and should be held to be ineffective, invalid, null, void, and unconstitutional for the following reasons:

1. The Joint Resolution proposing said Amendment was not submitted to or adopted by a Constitutional Congress as required by Article I, Section 3, and Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

2. The Joint Resolution was not submitted to the President for his approval as required by Article 1, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

3. The proposed Fourteenth Amendment was rejected by more than one fourth of all the states in the Union, and it was never ratified by three fourths of all the states in the Union as required by Article V, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

read the rest...

No comments:

Post a Comment