Content on the Daily Paul is the opinion of the original poster, not necessarily of the Daily Paul, its owner, moderators or Ron Paul.

Update! A Constitutional Flub? Or evidence of two constitutions?

Submitted by juliusbragg on Wed, 01/13/2010 - 19:13

Daily Paul Liberty Forum

UPDATE####
I have found a copy of the "American Constitution" on the Fed Gov website...PROOF OF 2 VERSIONS?!!!!!

(NOTE The comma placement in the 2nd amendment, AND NOTE the 'tile' as "Constitution" upper and lower case letters)
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt2.html

NOW THE "FEDERAL CONSTITUTION"
(note...the very top has "the Constitution" written correctly, then, when the text actually starts it reiterates with:
THE CONSTITUTION

of the United States

with Index and
The Declaration of Independence

THE CONSTITUTION

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=11...

WHY THE CHANGE?? Coincidence? maybe, but there are a lot of differences between the "Constitution" and the "CONSTITUTION"...

Scroll down and look at the second amendment here.

With the commas this way, it is the "Militia" that is the right.
Just as in the sentence:
My car, with 4 bald tires, a rusty hood, and two broken seat belts, needs to be replaced.

it is the CAR that needs to be replaced, not the additional information.

Lastly the Senate notes showing how it is to be written:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=00...

quotes implying that it is the "militia" that is the right:

purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to
maintain formal, organized militia units.

rather than the right of the states to form armed militias,

In its 1939 decision in the case of U.S. v. Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment applied only to rights having "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia." Not since U.S. v. Miller has the Supreme Court issued a definitive ruling otherwise interpreting the Second Amendment. "

It has always been my contention that the Supreme Court ONLY rules on the argument made. In other words, if you go to court and argue that "driving is a right", you will lose. Although the courts (and especially the Supreme Court) should say something like "when you say driving, do you mean travelling, or do you mean 'driving' as defined as commercial activity?", of course they wont....this is the same as if you show up to argue the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and show up citing the "2nd AMENDMENT to the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION" which is drastically different than the organic bill of rights, then you will lose.

Of course I understand that a few of you will have a field day with this, and you will dismiss this with your opinions, but please just take this for what it is worth. Do the math:
1) why are the commas in there?
2) why is the title in all caps?
3) is it a coincidence that there are HUNDREDS of case law opinions, some that say "the constitution only applies to the states", and others that say "the constitution doesnt apply to the states"
4) are these opinions that the 2nd amendment allow for the right of a Militia coincidence.
5) is our government above this tactic of implementing a 2nd constitution, then they can still take an oath to uphold the CONSTITUTION, they have CONSTITUTIONAL authority, and so on....remember this is the same government, whos lawyers said "That depends on what the definition of "IS" is.

This 'theory' would explain a lot of previously unexplainable actions, such as gun rights, gold and silver as legal tender, undeclared wars, and so on.

Think about it. Again, it will be very hard, if not impossible to find the "PROOF" of this that some are looking for, but connect the dots and keep this in mind.

###################################

and it's NOT just the 2nd that has changes:

federal:
"Amendment IV.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Original:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported
by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

##################
2nd Amendment is shown in all presentations until after the time of the Civil War and Reconstruction, without the extra commas after the words "Militia" and "Arms"

Article [II.]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[notice: comma after Militia, Comma after Arms,]

then:
http://www.amendment-13.org/tona/mil_law-4.jpg

By writing it this way, it makes "a well regulated Militia" as the right that cant be infringed.

Good to read this thread again.

Submitted by Qwerk on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 17:19. Permalink

In Liberty.

Three "Constitutions" + New Deal + Reagan Revolution + what now?

Submitted by The Oracle on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 18:03. Permalink

There are three "Constitutions". The first is the Constitution for the united States of America (1789).
Then there is another name for it after the Bill of Rights was added. I forget the exact title.

Then there is the 1871 CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES which is internal to Washington D.C. Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands and Marrianes Islands. That was put together to stand in for the fallen Republic after the Civil War. The servants took over, declared themselves their own country (THE UNITED STATES , singular) and are just taking care of things for us until we sober up from our coma and come back to take our seats in the halls of power.

Then there is the entity called U.S. Government which contracts out for citizenships beyond D.C.
You are not supposed to sign up for that if you want to remain a State Citizen with State Constitutional protections. This was the the New Deal scam, give up all your rights in exchange for communist privileges.

Then The Matrix was changed again in 1980 because people didn't like paying the Crown taxes or
paying in inflation. The 1980 Matrix shifts tax collection to the courts through new Charges against the private Social Security Trust accounts(which you don't know you have, the number on the back of S.S. Card is your private account at the FED!) for new political crimes like drug possession, child support, no vehicle insurance.".

There have been five prior Matrixes like it says in the movie of same name.

The 1789 Constitution was "edited" to create the 1871 Constitution. The British Crown did not like
the second amendment at all so they added the extra comma to make it sound like the right was a
collective right not an individual right. They also hid the thirteenth Article of Amendment which says
if you take payment from a foreign power you are no longer protected by the Constitution and the American people can try you under the common law for treason.
That way the Bank of England FED which was set up in 1871 could pay the Crown's new government. America is still a British colony. We lost our republic when our Congress walked out in
March 1861 and Never returned.

That is not "our" government in D.C.

Some places you can look for clues to how they changed the form of government so many times right under our noses are:
Thomas Jefferson's original imprint of The Bill of Rights (he was Secretary of State at the time, so his imprint is the official record and the final Word)
The Journal of the Senate contains the varoius Constitutions and specifies which privileges and immunities apply to each class of citizenship.
Incoming congressional representatives are given a publication which explains the various
deals/citizenships (Matrixes).which it manages.

Links to original documents and an explanation of what happened can be found at:
ATG press.com
Civil-liberties.com
TONA Research

Of course the U.S. Government has all this in their records, we were just elaborately distractied and too trusting or lazy to check it out.

The Oracle

Citizenship cases

Submitted by loriduan on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 14:20. Permalink

I just wanted to share these with you Julius.

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, which are protected by the 14th Amendment, against abridgment by the states, are those which arise out of the essential nature and characteristics of the national government, the federal Constitution, treaties, or acts of Congress,as distinguished from those belonging to the Citizens of a state;. . . . " Gardner v. Ray, 157 S. W. 1147, 1150; Hammer v. State, 89 N. E. 850, 851, 173 Ind. 199, 24 L. R. A., N. S., 795, 140 Am. St. Rep. 248, 21 Ann. Cas. 1034

"No white person. . . owes the status of citizenship to the recent amendments to the Federal Constitution."
Van Valkenbrg v. Brown (1872), 43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 43, 47

There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state”.
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)

“The rights and privileges, and immunities which the fourteenth constitutional amendment and Rev. St. section 1979 [U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1262], for its enforcement, were designated to protect, are such as belonging to citizens of the United States as such, and not as citizens of a state”.
Wadleigh v. Newhall 136 F. 941 (1905)
“There is a difference between privileges and immunities belonging to the citizens of the United States as such, and those belonging to the citizens of each state as such”.
Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41 (1900)

There is definitely 2 classes of citizens in this country.

The IRS plays games by saying things like, "the 14th amendment did not create a second class of citizen in the "United States". This is of course absolutely true. It did however create the first class of citizen in the "United States". Then we have American Citizens.

For the Person who said the Expatriation Act was passed "before" the 14th I wish to provide this. The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868. The Expatriation Act was passed 3 weeks later on July 27, 1868. Now consider that fact "Naturalization" has been around since the Constitution. So why did Congress wait from June 21, 1788 until July 27,1968 to pass an "act" like this? Plain and simply it is because it is the saving clause of the 14th. Below is the current codification of the Act at 15 stat 249.

CODIFICATION
R.S. Sec. 2000 derived from Act July 27, 1868, ch. 249, Sec. 2,
15 Stat. 224.
Section was formerly classified to section 903a of Title 8,
Aliens and Nationality.

-MISC1-
EQUITABLE TREATMENT BY UNITED STATES OF ITS CITIZENS LIVING ABROAD
Pub. L. 95-426, title VI, Sec. 611, Oct. 7, 1978, 92 Stat. 989,
as amended by Pub. L. 96-60, title IV, Sec. 407, Aug. 15, 1979, 93
Stat. 405; Pub. L. 97-241, title V, Sec. 505(a)(2), (b)(1), Aug.
24, 1982, 96 Stat. 299, provided that:

"The Congress finds that -
"(1) United States citizens living abroad should be provided
fair and equitable treatment by the United States Government with
regard to taxation, citizenship of progeny, veterans' benefits,
voting rights, Social Security benefits, and other obligations,
rights, and benefits; and
"(2) United States statutes and regulations should be designed
so as not to create competitive disadvantage for individual
American citizens living abroad? or working in international
markets."

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/22C23.txt

Notice the displayed difference between "US citizen", and "American Citizen" which is the ONLY reference you will find to Americans until after the 14th was declared passed by Congress.

Lastly there is no need for a Constitution in DC. They are a Democratic dictatorship. Article I section 8 clause 17-18 and Article IV section 3 clause 2.

American citizens= republic State.
US citizen= Democratic subject.

The "s" and "S" thing has long been known. All legislation written by the sovereign authority of the area in question uses "S" to denote domestic and "s" to denote non domestic.

100% correct I would add,

Submitted by juliusbragg on Fri, 02/18/2011 - 16:54. Permalink

100% correct

I would add, that even though it is true that there is no need for a Constitution in D.C. it helps promote their trick. This is because, as you know, D.C. is known as "The United States" so the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES which would refer to D.C., (and would also be different see below) would be used to obfuscate.

For example, if you go to a district court (or probably any court) and bring up the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, they, having jurisdiction over D.C. and Federal subjects, can presume that you are referring to the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, as opposed to the Constitution of/for the united States, and that you are referring to the SECOND AMENDMENT therein:

See the second Amendment

Here it is on the GPO.GOV website as the "Constitution of the United States" NOTE the ONE comma!!

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt2.html

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Then on the GPO.GOV website as the "CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES"

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/007.pdf

Notice the added commas???

These commas COMPLETELY CHANGE the meaning of the Amendment, they make the "militia" the "RIGHT" that is not to be infringed. This is EXACTLY how many courts have determined the 2nd Amendment to read.

2 Constitutions??

Who knows, but there is NO DOUBT that there are two versions of it on the GPO.GOV site.

http://www.dailypaul.com/121488/update-a-constitutional-flub...

Amendment II, for DC

Submitted by POW on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 17:01. Permalink

If you remove the words between commas you have the jist of its meaning. Which meaning is totally different from the Origional Second Amendment. Commas denote an interjection, that is not realy important or secondary to the main issue.

YES, they are a sly bunch.
BUT like "THEY" say; it's just a living document. LOL

Amendment II, for DC

Submitted by HumanCarol on Sat, 10/22/2011 - 13:47. Permalink

With regard to the commas in the Second Amendment, if you refer to the original, hand-written document of Amendments, wherein the Militia is mentioned, it was proposed as Article the Fourth, and TWO COMMAS appear there. That suggests to me this comma conspiracy is unwarranted.

first bravo for doing your

Submitted by juliusbragg on Sun, 10/23/2011 - 16:32. Permalink

first bravo for doing your own research! However, the handwritten version was the "proposed language", the "adopted version in print is binding.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=00...

see the other differences in the original and adopted
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Bill_of_R...

also, dont dismiss the governments own print
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt2.html

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=00...

the heller case was PARTLY right
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html

How does a mere comma do that? According to the court, the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one “prefatory” and the other “operative.” On this reading, the bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don’t really get down to business until they start talking about “the right of the people ... shall not be infringed.”

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=00...

It is STILL my Contention that there are TWO very similar Constitutions of the United States, One a CONSTITUTION for Federal citizens living in D.C., Territories, and in the States as "residents" (temporary), and the other, ORIGINAL, for Article 2, Sec. 1, Cl. 5 "natural born Citizens" (with an uppercase C)...

You should note that "citizen" in the 14th Amendment is lower case for the first time.

California Courts recognize that the 14th Amendment was ONLY for freed slaves to become a TYPE of citizen, but NOT a Citizen...otherwise, the freed slaves would be allowed to vote, marry whites, etc., but they could NOT until later amendments.

http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/V...

This implies two versions

Submitted by Echelon on Sun, 02/28/2010 - 20:24. Permalink

But there are actually three, and The U.S. Supreme Court has identified the three in 'Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt'.

More information here (scroll down to the latter part of the post).

This is great information for the blind, julius. Thanks for posting it!

just to clarify, the 3

Submitted by juliusbragg on Sun, 02/28/2010 - 20:42. Permalink

just to clarify, the 3 definitions dont necessarily mean there are three "United States",
because the supreme court could define "United States" as the body representing the country in the Olympics,... this would not mean there is a 4th United States,
or they could say "United States" can mean the airspace within the territorial limits of the country, this wouldnt mean a new United States appeared...
Again, just to clarify.

HUGE HUGE HUGE California Proof of 2 United States

Submitted by juliusbragg on Sun, 02/28/2010 - 20:55. Permalink

THIS JUST IN!!!!

note the capitalization of "state", and see for yourselves.
http://law.onecle.com/california/taxation/60017.html

California Revenue And Taxation Code Section 60017
"In this state" or "in the state" means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States.

http://law.onecle.com/california/taxation/6017.html

California Revenue And Taxation Code Section 6017
"In this State" or "in the State" means within the exterior limits of the State of California and includes all territory within these limits owned by or ceded to the United States of America.

NOTE THE CHANGE!
lower case "s" says United States."
upper case "S" says United States of America."

examples where it's used...

in this State,

California Revenue And Taxation Code Section 35002
A subscription television corporation shall have authority to engage in the subscription television business in this State and within all or part of any local...

California Revenue And Taxation Code Section 32211
It shall be presumed that all distilled spirits acquired by any taxpayer have been sold in this State by him unless one of the following...

compared to:

in this state

California Revenue And Taxation Code Section 32201
An excise tax is imposed upon all distilled spirits sold in this state or pursuant to Section
23384 of the Business and Professions Code by...

California Revenue And Taxation Code Section 30453
Every distributor and every person dealing in, transporting, or storing cigarettes or tobacco products in this state shall keep such records, receipts, invoices, and other...

I think even the statute numbers being 6017 and 60017 are intentional!

The Statutes at Large

Submitted by TxRedneck on Sun, 02/28/2010 - 19:55. Permalink

There are 2 Statutes at Large. One of maintained by the Law Library of Cogress, and then in 1874 the printing of the Statutes was turned over to the Government Printing Office.

If we go to the Government Printing Office Statutes at Large,
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/statutes/index.html
we read:
"The United States Statutes at Large, typically referred to as the Statutes at Large, is the permanent collection of all laws and resolutions enacted during each session of Congress. The Statutes at Large is prepared and published by the Office of the Federal Register (OFR), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Every public and private law passed by Congress is published in the Statutes at Large, in order of the date it was enacted into law".

If we go to the Law Library of Congress Statutes at Large,
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsl.html
we read:
"The United States Statutes at Large, commonly referred to as the Statutes at Large, is the official source for the laws and resolutions passed by Congress. Publication began in 1845 by the private firm of Little, Brown and Company under authority granted by a joint resolution of Congress. In 1874, Congress transferred the authority to publish the Statutes at Large to the Government Printing Office, which has been responsible for producing the set since that time.

Every law, public and private, ever enacted by the Congress is published in the Statutes at Large in order of the date of its passage. Until 1948, all treaties and international agreements approved by the Senate were also published in the set. In addition, the Statutes at Large includes the text of the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, amendments to the Constitution, treaties with Indians and foreign nations, and presidential proclamations."

Notice that the Statutes in the Law Library of Congress includes "Every law, public and private, ever enacted", but the Statutes at large at the Government Printing office only includes "Every public and private law passed by Congress", and makes no mention of time frame such as "EVER enacted". And indeed, go to the GPO Statutes at Large and search for the Constituion or the Articles of Confederation, which we are TOLD are the Supreme Law of the Land. See if you can find them there, I couldn't. I was able to find the Constitution at the GPO's website, but not WITHIN the Statutes at Large.

It seems that the Statutes at Large since 1874 are missing many things, namely the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Constitution...

—

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Great Thread

Submitted by PaStoneman on Fri, 02/19/2010 - 00:41. Permalink

Keep up the good work posters. This is a great introductory thread to entice others to learn of their lost liberties. Thanks for the exceptional posts.

People and Posterity are

Submitted by freedomnyms on Thu, 02/18/2010 - 13:13. Permalink

People and Posterity are capitalized. why? Because it may not have been written for you. however, even it that is the case, we can use the rules on the ground, and act as if it is. A judge said it was irrelevant since it wasn't signed by the average citizen, and the average citizen isn't the posterity of the bloodline.

http://tinyurl.com/y8lt47v

Nothing to add...

Submitted by UserAccount on Thu, 02/18/2010 - 01:48. Permalink

...but I wanted to mention that I've enjoyed reading this thread immensely!

+1

Submitted by HVACTech on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 17:58. Permalink

—

The primary function of the design engineer is to make things difficult for the fabricator and impossible for the serviceman.

Well, the comas in the 2nd can be interpreted like this....

Submitted by Mildot on Wed, 02/17/2010 - 12:45. Permalink

A 9 person group shall be needed to form a baseball team, while a 5 person group shall make up a hockey team, and all of these people are engaged in a different sport....

I'm no English professor, but the above sentence works in Word 2007 without needed correction.

Anyway, Hologram of Liberty - Boston T. Party; is a good read on this subject...

I dont understand your

Submitted by juliusbragg on Wed, 02/17/2010 - 20:54. Permalink

I dont understand your comparison...but either way, we have gotten off track.

The founders wanted to keep the federal government, or any government, from disarming the nation, as they had done in every other country.

They also wanted militias with the same weaponry to contend with the federal government, in the event that the federal government tried to force its power onto the states, as had happened in every other country.

To talk about the intent in ANY OTHER way, is avoiding the true intent. NOW, this brings us to the comma placement.
The commas have been added to every federal issue of the constitution for some reason, AND the courts and the governments try to imply that owning guns is not a right, and rather the "well regulated militia" is the right,[Which is how the 2 added commas make the 2nd amendment read from a legal, and grammatical standpoint], and I believe this is NOT by coincidence.

you do the math.

My point isnt even about the commas, but about why there isnt a true. 100% accurate version of the Bill of Rights [AS ADOPTED in the Statute at Large] available for public viewing...even the state govt. are sporting the wrong version.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/2amend.php

I wrote to Jon Roland, Constitutional scholar asking for

Submitted by Anisha on Wed, 02/17/2010 - 12:17. Permalink

his comment regarding this thread (which I showed him) and here is his response to this thread:

There is only one Constitution, although of course amendments do change it when they are adopted -- if they really are adopted.

There is a lot of nonsense written on the subject of the 14th Amendment. Including nonsense written by lawyers and judges.

The simplest way to try to understand the 14th Amendment is to summarize the problems it was an attempt to solve:

1. Some states (not just Southern ones) were providing official support to the oppression of minorities (not just Blacks, but also newly arrived Whites from the North), using the legal theory (from Dred Scott v. Sanford) that attached rights to citizenship rather than persons, and holding that the minorities they wanted to oppress were not citizens.

2. Relying, to do so, on the denial by the Supreme Court (in Barron v. Baltimore) of the jurisdiction of federal courts to decide cases between a citizen and his state over a violation by the state of his rights recognized in the U.S. Constitution, despite the “federal question” jurisdiction of Art. III, and the adoption of the Bill of Rights after the main Constitution.

3. A realization that it would not be sufficient to extend federal court jurisdiction, because most of the victims couldn’t get relief if they had to carry an appeal all the way to federal courts. There was a need to pro-actively legislate against such abuses, to protect ordinary people of limited means, and prevent abuses rather than just react to them.

Now read the 14th Amendment with the above in mind. For further discussion see “Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights”. http://constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

what about this? is this

Submitted by freedomnyms on Thu, 02/18/2010 - 15:09. Permalink

what about this? is this true?

People and Posterity are
Submitted by freedomnyms on Thu, 02/18/2010 - 13:13.

http://tinyurl.com/y8lt47v

The Northerners also feared

Submitted by TxRedneck on Wed, 02/17/2010 - 23:50. Permalink

The Northerners also feared the power they would lose to the Southern States. The number of representatives that each state was entitled to in the US Congress was determined by population, and each slave counted as 3/5 of a whole person in the census. Once the 13th amendment was passed the slaves were no longer slaves, they would count as a whole person and the Southern States as result of this would now have a strong enough advantage in Congress to allow them to dictate over the Northern States. The Radical Republicans of the North were not about to let this happen. Although a lot of nice sounding rhetoric may have bounced around during the time of Reconstuction, if we study the men's characters who were espousing all the rhetoric, its pretty obvious they were politicians making something sound like something other than what it was.

—

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

What I would ask your friend

Submitted by juliusbragg on Wed, 02/17/2010 - 21:46. Permalink

What I would ask your friend is this.

Why does the 13th Amendment say:
"neither slavery nor involuntary servitude will be allowed in the United States and the territories"

and what is the difference between the two?
there has to be a difference, otherwise the word "nor" would not be needed.

THEN, I would ask "what is the opposite of slavery?" THE ANSWER is Freedom,

So, What is the opposite of Involuntary Servitude?" THE ANSWER is "VOLUNTARY Servitude"

The 13th Amendment created the ability to Volunteer yourself into servitude.

THE 13th opened the door for the 14th which says:
[pay attention]
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/14th_Amen...

The Constitution has ALWAYS REFERRED to "citizens" as "Citizens" with a capital "C", for the first time the term "Citizen" has been reduced to a lower case "c", which usually signifies something of less importance or formal. [you'll note that they continued to capitalize all of the other words, ie. Legislature, Constitution, Congress, etc.]

Because the states at the time had SO MUCH power; that if the Federal Government tried to force the states to end slavery, the states could simply refuse. BUT ONE PLACE THE FEDERAL POWER was Supreme, was over Federal property.

I believe the Lawyers working for Lincoln knew this, and just as lawyers have always done, I believe they told the Lincoln administration "If we make the slaves federal property the states cant ignore our demands"

NOTICE in the 13th Amendment, that it says "United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction"
NoT it's Jurisdiction [see the Code of Federal regulations]

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

"its jurisdiction" means the jurisdiction of ONE thing, in this case "The Federal Corporation titled United States"
see: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/3002.html

THEN the 14th says born or naturalized in the "United States" AND "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" Why the change in language? Why not "subject to their jurisdiction?

I call shenanigans.

I believe, the 14th Amendment created a "Second" and "different " class of citizen. Where before, the people were simply "Citizens of their state", there was all of a sudden a "Federal Citizen"

All of this ties in nicely with the current situation; the taxing, licensing, permitting, and so on.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Taxes/Citizenship/NotACitize...

But we all have our opinions.

Juliusbragg !

Submitted by ATruepatriot on Wed, 02/17/2010 - 21:53. Permalink

You did good here!Just so you know.

—

"They used to come get you and lock you up because you were insane, Now they come get you and lock you up because you are sane"

Thanks, I found some case law

Submitted by juliusbragg on Wed, 02/17/2010 - 22:13. Permalink

Thanks,
I found some case law to support this!

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

"One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v. Carter,
48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507;
In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443."
[McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323]
[(1883) underlines added]

"A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a
citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a
person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen
of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to
the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, -- the right
to declare who are its citizens."

[State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380]
[6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]

"The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made negroes citizens of the United States**, and citizens of the State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and the other of the state."

[Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327]
[(1874) headnote 8, emphasis added]

"We have in our political system a Government of the United States** and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own ...."
[U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542]
[(1875) emphasis added]

"I found some case law to

Submitted by TxRedneck on Thu, 02/18/2010 - 18:16. Permalink

"I found some case law to support this!"

Does case law necessarily support the truth?

Can debt incurred by Government be eliminated simply by decree? If the answer is yes, then can't the US currently eliminate all of its current debt simply by decreeing it void? Certainly the Government could decree that all FUTURE debt is null and void, and the Creditor who was foolish enough to lend under such decree would Lawfully be out of his funds. But to decree after the fact is not lawful. But if the answer is No, the Government cannot decree debt incurred in the past as null and void, then...

Certainly the Conqueror does not owe the debt of the Conquered. But eliminating the Debt incurred by the Southern States would not have been done through Amendment, it would have been done through a Legislated decree stating such. A Constitutional Amendment LIVES ON into the Future.

Let's look at Section 4 of the 14th Amendment:

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

A constitutional amendment lives on into the future, but does it have any validity on the Past, can it decree debt incurred before its ratification as null and void? Is this Section actually referring to debt incurred into the future?

"including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion"

Let's look at two definitions in this clause, "Suppress" and "insurrection".

suppress 1 : to put down by authority or force
this is the definition that we think of when we read the 14th Amendment, but there is also another valid definition,
2 : to keep from public knowledge: as a : to keep secret b : to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of

Insurrection : an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
(insurrgent1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government)
revolt 1 : to renounce allegiance or subjection

So could these judges be insurgents, renouncing allegiance to the States and thereby overthrowing the established Governments thereof, and being paid a bounty to keep it all secret from public knowledge?

Let's insert definition in place of the actual words and see how it reads:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in keeping from public knowledge the revolt against the States or renouncing allegiance to the States, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

Could this actually be read as "no debts that derive from overthrowing the States, their Constitutions, and the Organic Constitution of the united States of America, shall be questioned. But NO debts will be paid for overthrowing this new insurgent United States that is in the process of overthrowing the Established Government"?

In changing Citizenship from the State to the Federal Citizenship, the people of the States were/are rebelling against the Constitutionally established Government. The people thereby become insurgents AGAINST the States, and AGAINST the Organic Constitution. The Federal Citizenship was left as a Choice, the choice to consent what government governs them. And the Judges are also insurgents, and are paid a bounty to "Suppress", keep secret from public knowledge, that there is an insurrection and rebellion ONGOING.

If you are a US Citizen, then you are a party to Insurrection and treason. You are handing over the Citizenship defined by the Organic Constitution, State Citizenship, to the Federal Government. In renouncing your State Citizenship, you are revolting against your State, you are in rebellion against your State.

And this is all a crime of Treason against the States. And per the 13th Amendment:

"1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, EXCEPT AS PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

The 14th Amendment was not lawfully ratified, and the Supreme Court was forbidden from ruling on its Constitutionality. Could it be that US Citizenship is not actually a Lawful Citizenship, and that in taking this unlawful Citizenship, WE are overthrowing our State Governments and committing the Crime of Treason? And that these so called Justices are actually Insurgents possing as Justices being paid a bounty and pensions to keep this all from public knowledge?

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

Have we already acted on the above statement found in the Declaration of Independence? Have we already abolished the Constitutional Government created in 1789 by giving our Allegiance to the Federal Government per the 14th Amendment instead of the State Governments as provided in the Organic Constitution?

—

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

The conclusion

Submitted by loken1 on Wed, 02/17/2010 - 23:11. Permalink

that I draw from the evidence so far on this thread is there is two kinds of citizenship. There is only one Constitution and the State citizenship if you have it trumps federal citizenship if you have it.
I appreciate the fervor of both sides of this discussion from a purist standpoint. In practice it seems to me to be nothing more than an academic exercise full of sound and fury and signifying nothing and a grand distraction to the one Constitution I have taken an oath to uphold, preserve,protect and defend.

I think we can all agree the fourteenth amendment has been used, manipulated and twisted by many to suit their own design.

—

KLucier

not to argue, but if there

Submitted by juliusbragg on Wed, 02/17/2010 - 23:52. Permalink

not to argue, but if there are two citizenship's, then there HAS to be two constitutions.

Reason: the organic constitution applies to the states, and protects the states from government intervention. The organic constitution doesnt protect federal territories, enclaves, or the District of Columbia.
And since Article 1, sec 8, [which gives Congress complete authority of Federal Territories] was never repealed, then the "Constitution" that 'applies' to the District of Columbia, by act of congress, must be something different.

Because congress has COMPLETE control of the district of columbia, and ALL federal property, in other words they can prevent military men from freedom of speech, or freedom of religion [believe it or not],
So instead of the constitution and inalienable rights 'applying' to the District of Columbia, instead the Congress 'gives' the "citizens" of the the District of Columbia, their rights. these are called "Civil Rights" and they are NOT the same as god given rights.

If your boss comes to you tomorrow and says, "Im gonna treat you like the boss this week", that doesnt mean youre the boss!

So when Congress said the "Constitution applies to the District of Columbia" as it did in the District of Columbia Organic act of 1871, it either meant:
1) A different Constitution [which SHOULDNT surprise anyone here]
2) Or Congress completely lied, in PRINT, which is rare.

[take note that "United States" is defined as "The District of Columbia", hence a "citizen of the United States" is a citizen of the District of Columbia:
see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sec_26_000077...

citizen or resident of the United States

shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia

Ill let you do the math here: We ALL need to remove our mental understanding of the word "State" as meaning one of the 50 states of the union.

States

“State”

construed to include the District of Columbia,

construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

Here is WHY we ALL need to remove our mental understanding of the word "State" as meaning one of the 50 states of the union.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode29/usc_sec_29_000006...

(i) The term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Wake Island, the Canal Zone, and Outer Continental Shelf lands defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act [43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.].

Are any of those "states" as we know it?

"When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition, even if it varies from the term's ordinary meaning." Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)

There is no longer a State

Submitted by TxRedneck on Wed, 02/17/2010 - 23:24. Permalink

There is no longer a State Citizenship.

The Definition of "State" as defined at the time the Constitution was ratified:

13. The principal persons in a government.
14. The bodies that constitute the legislature of a country; as the states general.
Websters 1828

A Citizen owes allegiance to the Government of which he is a Citizen of.

The State is the GOVERNMENT of a Nation.

The States, the Governments of the Several Nations of the united States of America, have been occupied by Citizens of the United States. It has been put into the Constitutions of all 50 States that all Public Officers MUST be US Citizens.

Surely it is clear that if Mexico passed Legislation that ONLY Canadian Citizens can hold office in the Mexican Government, that Mexico would be in fact a province, a Distict, of Canada.

The States are Disticts of the US Government because all the State Officials have a first allegiance to the United States Government, not the State Government.

—

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

It seems

Submitted by loken1 on Thu, 02/18/2010 - 00:14. Permalink

200 years of American jurisprudence and 307 million people must be wrong and defer to you. I'm sorry but your opinion is just that. I and most others do not share it. The burden of proof is on you. It ought to be at least clear and convincing. WE are the jury make your best case that there is no such thing as a state citizen in any of these 50 states.If that is true I suppose we do not need any Governors or state legislators and we could save a lot of money. If I took your argument/opinion to the State SUpreme Court that I did not have to pay state taxes as I am not a citizen, no doubt they would agree with you. LOL

—

KLucier

yeah, youre probably right.

Submitted by juliusbragg on Thu, 02/18/2010 - 15:57. Permalink

yeah, youre probably right. Im sure government lawyers wouldnt try to trick us; and what we have today is probably what the founders intended.;)

There were Governors and

Submitted by TxRedneck on Thu, 02/18/2010 - 09:16. Permalink

There were Governors and colonial government set up in the Colonies before the Declaration of Independence, yet these governments were UNDER the King, and the people in the Colonies were British Subjects. The only distintion between a Subject and a Citizen is that a Citizen is a member of the Body Politic. A Subject is "subject" to the Statutes of the King, a Citizen is subject to the Statutes of the Government, and by way of a Vote is also a member of the Body Politic.

A State Citizen does not vote for other State Citizens for his State's public offices, he votes for US Citizens for his State's public offices.

You are not paying State Income tax because you are a State Citizen, you are paying State Income tax because you are a Resident in your State.

Your Governor is under the Authority of the Federal, therefore he is an extension of the Federal, and the State is NOT a State by the definition of what a State is at the time the Constitution was written. Integration is one example that has proven this beyond doubt. US Troops were used to enforce US Statute, when a State desired to nullify US Statute. The US had authority to do so because it was enforcing Civil Rights FOR ITS citizens.

"The first section of the Constitutional Amendment which includes these invaluable provisions is in the fact a new charter of liberty to the citizens of the United States; is the utter distruction of the pestilent heresy of States-rights...and is the formal bestowment of Nationality upon the wise Federal system which was the outgrowth of our successful Revolution against Great Britain." James Blaine, a party to the Congressional Committee for the 14th Amendment

How did Section 1 of the 14th Amendment destroy the "pestilent heresy of States-rights". It did so by destroying State Citizenship and creating National Citizens.

A King with no subjects is King of Nothing, a Kingdom with no subjects is no Kingdom. The States are no States. The State is Washington DC.

"Augustus Caesar was sensible that mankind is governed by names; nor was he deceived in his expectation, that the senate and people would submit to slavery, provided they were respectfully assured that they still enjoyed their ancient freedom."
Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Chapter 3

—

----------------------------------------------------------
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence