-14 votes

The NDAA technically is not unconstitutional

First you must understand there is a difference between People of the United States and Citizens of the United States.

The People of the United States created the United States of America with the Constitution, therefor the United States of America is subject to the jurisdiction of the People of the United States. The United States of America created Citizens of the United States with the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment even stipulates that in order to be a Citizen of the United States the citizen must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America. This is not my interpretation, this interpretation comes from the book 'http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/index.html see Senate Document 103-6 and 108-17 p. 1006, 1007, footnote 37. This is the interpretation of the U.S. Senate.

The 14th amendment uses the wording 'privileges' instead of rights. Let there be no question that Citizens of the United States have no rights but only those privileges that the United States of America affords them. The 14th amendment specifically protects those privileges of life, liberty, and property of being violated without due process of law by the several states. There is no mention of any privileges being protect from the United States of America. The federal government is implicitly allowed to deprive Citizens of the United States of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.

Although, to identify someone as a Citizen of the United States is an accusation by itself. While the NDAA's provisions of indefinite detention of Citizens of the United States is not unconstitutional, the statute is unenforceable unless the person contractually agrees to be a citizen in the instance this statute is to be enforced. You would have to agree to be abducted voluntarily or unwittingly. Otherwise the execution of this statute would be a violation of the 5th amendment, which pertains to rights and guarantees the protection of life, liberty, and property exempted by due process of law to the People of the United States.

So please people stop calling yourselves citizens. Your ignorance dooms us all.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

So...

If I understand you correctly unalienable rights cannot be alienated but they can be infringed, and if you infringe on others rights yours can be infringed upon freely in a controlled environment say a court of law?

If that is the case what is the point of the 14th amendment? It is obsolete and misused. Furthermore if that be the case, why was slavery tolerated in the first case? Would slavery not be abolished immediately after the establishment of this government?

Here's my

Here's my understanding...

The primary focus of the 14th amendment was to protect freed slaves. Although it is a foreign concept to us today, slave owners of those times viewed slaves as property, not people with rights. Unfortunately, the 14th amendment didnt really serve its purpose... it was used to defend freed slaves very infrequently. Instead, it was much more actively used in cases of corporate personhood, where companies professed to be people who aught to have rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Slavery wouldn't have been tolerated in the first place if they were recognized as people and not property. Unfortunately this presented a major problem for those founders who secretly despised slavery. They were afraid it would divide the country (which proved to be true with the civil war). If the country was divided at the height of the revolutionary war, we might all be british today.

Even Thomas Jefferson who was a slave owner wanted to see equal rights among men. He changed the words life liberty and property to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness because he was afraid it would be used later on to defend the practice of slavery.

- Grow Mushrooms at Home
http://subfarms.com

I wouldn't say "freely"

but yes, they are "infringed upon" by the Nation as punishment for crimes against others. That's the nature of life.

You act like the men who created these documents were supposed to be saints and that everything in that system is perfect.

All things are tolerated because men/women tolerate them. Even some of the Founding Fathers fell short of reaching it but that doesn't mean we all shouldn't try.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

You don't understand what you're talking about.

The idea of the Founding documents is larger than pieces of paper.. You forget I suppose this line?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That is the ultimate law. You cannot strip away or muddy that fact.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

How can you belittle my argument?

Clearly you do not understand. While life, liberty, and property may be unalienable rights you could be tricked into voluntarily alienating them. That is what my article illustrates, the government uses a specific interpretation of the 14th amendment to exchange your rights with privileges that they can withhold from you, all they need is your consent. Why would government do such a thing? Because those in positions of government want more power. Government expands and liberty yields, just as predicted.

Maybe you could be tricked.. I'm not confused about anything.

You adhere to that line from the Declaration of Independence and you'll be okay.. Once you realize that everything was written with that idea in mind, no amount of unconstitutional amendments and laws thereafter will matter.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

I whole heartly agree

I must of offended with the last line of the article, I apologize if I offended.

You didn't, why would you think so?

.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Yeah, you could not identify

Yeah, you could not identify as a citizen of the District of Columbia. I'd love to.... and then be harrased by worthless nazi facist thug cops who are too dense and brainless to understand that they suppress their fellow neighbors and family.

Thank you

Thank you for the response and read. I was beginning to think my thoughts and concerns were meaningless. I am not familiar with any portion of the Constitution that addresses or defines a 'citizen of the District of Columbia'. Could you please enlighten me?

Letter from Rep. Gosar

Dear Ms. No,

Thank you for contacting me about detention policies in the "National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)," for fiscal year 2012. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue, and please know that I share your concerns.

The "National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)" is a key federal law by which the Congress of the United States fulfills its primary constitutional responsibilities, pursuant to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution; to "provide for the common defense." The legislation, passed annually, authorizes the agencies responsible for defense and sets the policies under which the defense budget is ultimately spent.

The NDAA has historically been bipartisan and largely uncontroversial. Unfortunately, this year's legislation did not follow this precedent. The United States Senate included a controversial provision regarding our nation's terrorist detention, interrogation, and prosecution policies within their version of the legislation. Specifically, the legislation authorizes the President to detain persons who "substantially supported" forces "associated" with al-Qaeda or the Taliban that "are engaged in hostilities" against the U.S. or its "coalition partners." The language was written so broadly that it suggests that American citizens—if suspected to be actors against the state—could be detained indefinitely and would not be afforded the same rights as an American that had committed any other crime.

The House of Representatives passed its version of NDAA, without this specific provision, on May 26, 2011. The Senate passed their version of the NDAA, containing the aforementioned detainee language on December 1, 2011, by a vote of 93 to 7. Given that the two bills were vastly different, they had to be brought to a conference committee between the House and Senate. The differences had to be resolved and agreed to by both chambers.

While the two versions of the legislation were being reconciled, I, alongside Members of Congress from both political parties, expressed grave concerns about the provisions included in the Senate version of the bill that would strip the rights of due process for American citizens. We were not alone in these concerns. I heard from hundreds of my constituents who wrote and called to express their fears about the constitutionality of this particular language. All of our fears fell on deaf ears and the controversial provisions were included in the final conference report of the bill.

The national security of the United States is of utmost importance to me, but I voted against the conference report of the NDAA because it had the potential to strip the rights of due process for American citizens. The United States Constitution does not permit the federal government to detain American citizens indefinitely without charge or trial. Despite my opposition, the legislation ultimately passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 283 to 136. It was later passed the Senate by a vote of 86 to 13, and was sent to President Obama.

Even though the controversial provision has become law, I remain committed to fixing this unconstitutional policy. On December 15, 2011, Congressman Jeff Landry (R-LA), Congressman Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), and I introduced legislation, H.R. 3676, to amend the detainee provisions of the 2012 NDAA to protect every American from unlawful indefinite detainment. There should be no doubt whatsoever that American citizens' rights to their constitutional protections remain intact under this law. The legislation has been referred to House Armed Services and House Foreign Affairs Committees.

No person, not even the president of the United States, has the authority to strip an American citizen's rights of due process afforded in the Bill of Rights. As your representative from Arizona's First Congressional District, I will continue to ensure that the federal government acts within the laws provided for in the Constitution.

Again, I appreciate your thoughts and concerns. It is an honor to serve as your United States Congressman. Your suggestions are always welcome, and if ever I may be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. To receive the latest legislative updates and news you can sign up for my e-newsletter by visiting my website at www.gosar.house.gov.

Thank you

Thank you for the response and read. I wrote this article to illustrate the real threat to our liberty is the 14th amendment either directly or through its most frequent interpretation. While the new provisions in the NDAA are immediate threats to our freedoms, we will not be truly secure in our rights until the 14th amendment is itself amended. The notion that we are to be subjects of the federal and state governments is the opposite of what a republic is. A republic is that form of government in which the sovereignty is vested in the people and exercised by the people directly. A democracy is that form of government in which the sovereignty is vested in the whole body of free citizens and exercised by representatives who are elected by that body of citizens. Republic > Democracy