4 votes

Questioning the Constitution?

Questioning the Constitution

This is one part of the constitution that I question, but in that very same constitutional wording, I am told I am not supposed to question:

AMENDMENT XIV http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...
Section 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.

Did you catch those words “SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED.” Those words are found in AMENDMENT XIV Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. So in 1868 it was determined that validity of the public debt of the United States shall not be questioned.

I am reminded of the First Amendment of the Constitution http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_tra...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How is one supposed to exercise natural right in the First Amendment - Those of freedom of speech and the right to assemble and petition for redress if one is forbidden to question the validity of the debt of the United States of America?

We are how many trillions of dollars in debt?

To question or not to question. That is the question.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Thank you!

That was an interesting clip!

I find the words that the Judge said to the effect that the southern states had to accept the 13, 14 and 15 amendments in order to get back into the union.

I am not up on history, but I thought the southern states were forced back into the union.

That was what

the war was about. Several Southern states declared secession from the Union (or "the North").

The war was fought and they lost so they had to again be a part of the Union or continue fighting the war, but there were conditions on re-joining the Union which included accepting the 13, 14, 15th amendments.


thank you, the war would have continued if the south had not agreed to the those amendments.

Part of the "peace treaty" I suppose. Thanks for your help :)

Black's Law Dictionary (6th

Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed.) defines the 14th Amendment this way:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, creates or at least recognizes for the first time a citizenship of the United States, as distinct from that of the states;...

Note the vagueness in the definition - "...creates or at least recognizes for the first time...". This vagueness is because Congressional intent purported to embrace only the recently freed slaves, but at the same time, the bare language of the Amendment, (without consideration of Congressional intent) seems to merely recognize the long standing principle that the federal government has its own citizens, who are not state Citizens; a legal reality that existed long before the 14th Amendment.



"The Poor Stepchild

"The Poor Stepchild 'citizen'"
If the Citizens of the states of the Union have their "unalienable rights", what then do "citizens of the United States" have? Frankly, not much of value. For the balance of this section, we will use the term "federal citizen" to denote a "citizen of the United States".

A federal citizen has only those rights that have been granted to him by Congress by way of the numerous and various civil rights acts, and such rights as may have been invested in him by an activist US Supreme Court that felt it could legislate from the bench."

Interesting information on the links you provided!

I'm sorry your honor

I no longer recognize the Federal Reserve Note as the legal currency of the United States. I would site Article One Section 10, "No State Shall....Make any thing but Gold and Silver coin legal tender in payment of debts" How can a debt be valid when it is not denominated in Silver or Gold?


mmmm...it isn't really debt since the debt is not denominated in gold and silver...

Good point, and made without even questioning!

The 14th Amendment...

has always been contentious, starting with the question of whether it was ever really ratified. At any rate, it is widely viewed that the 14th amendment was mainly about keeping the Southern states in line after the Civil War.

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

So was keeping the Southern States in Line

to be done by limiting freedom of speech in the form of questioning debt?

I find it interesting that a commandment in the vein of

Thou shalt not lie

is directed at the citizens of the United States as in

Thou shalt not question.

Says who? Am I now on the wrong side of the law because I am asking a question?

Tyranny is a biotch...

Basically what that section says is:

1) The Southern States owed the US Govt money to pay for the Civil War


2) Anybody who helped the South during the Civil War isn't going to get a penny so bug off and stop bothering us.


~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

"so bug off and stop bothering us."

Seems to be the general attitude these days when I write letters...there is always an explanation of how NDAA really does not include US Citizens...

or how about...we will have to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it...

or shall not be infringed...is being infringed...

I suppose that has been a long lived attitude.


Yeah, if there aren't enough of us complaining to them about an issue they could care less. :p

~wobbles but doesn't fall down~