The 14th Amendment

[mobes]

The US Constitution: 14th Amendment
US Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection
AMENDMENT XIV of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

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.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
History and Ratification

The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Thirty-ninth Congress, on June 13, 1866. It was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State dated July 28, 1868 to have been ratified by the legislatures of 28 of the 37 States. The dates of ratification were: Connecticut, June 25, 1866; New Hampshire, July 6, 1866; Tennessee, July 19, 1866; New Jersey, September 11, 1866 (subsequently the legislature rescinded its ratification, and on March 24, 1868, readopted its resolution of rescission over the Governor's veto, and on Nov. 12, 1980, expressed support for the amendment); Oregon, September 19, 1866 (and rescinded its ratification on October 15, 1868); Vermont, October 30, 1866; Ohio, January 4, 1867 (and rescinded its ratification on January 15, 1868); New York, January 10, 1867; Kansas, January 11, 1867; Illinois, January 15, 1867; West Virginia, January 16, 1867; Michigan, January 16, 1867; Minnesota, January 16, 1867; Maine, January 19, 1867; Nevada, January 22, 1867; Indiana, January 23, 1867; Missouri, January 25, 1867; Rhode Island, February 7, 1867; Wisconsin, February 7, 1867; Pennsylvania, February 12, 1867; Massachusetts, March 20, 1867; Nebraska, June 15, 1867; Iowa, March 16, 1868; Arkansas, April 6, 1868; Florida, June 9, 1868; North Carolina, July 4, 1868 (after having rejected it on December 14, 1866); Louisiana, July 9, 1868 (after having rejected it on February 6, 1867); South Carolina, July 9, 1868 (after having rejected it on December 20, 1866).

Ratification was completed on July 9, 1868.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Alabama, July 13, 1868; Georgia, July 21, 1868 (after having rejected it on November 9, 1866); Virginia, October 8, 1869 (after having rejected it on January 9, 1867); Mississippi, January 17, 1870; Texas, February 18, 1870 (after having rejected it on October 27, 1866); Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected it on February 8, 1867); Maryland, April 4, 1959 (after having rejected it on March 23, 1867); California, May 6, 1959; Kentucky, March 18, 1976 (after having rejected it on January 8, 1867).

Read between the lines.....everyone who is a CITIZEN of the United States, is not having their rights trampled on. Why? Because they don't have any.....the have privileges. Rights and privileges are not the same thing. Privileges can be taken away from you at any time the government sees fit. Rights cannot be taken away. When we sign certain forms, i.e. application, registration, submission...we are voluntarily giving up our rights for privileges. Anybody in their right mind would never do such a thing.....so clearly we are not in our right state of mind are we?

[Roy Hobs]

For those of us who live in the US, try a guy who goes by the name "eric whoru".

He has a show on http://www.talkshoe.com

Search -- Eric Whoru.

He believes, and supports with ample evidence, that the Constitution is nothing but a "con".  

However...........the Constitution, in the thirteeth ammendment, makes the way for anyone who does not want to be a "slave", just not participate in the ARTIFICIAL government that is the United States of America.  

INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE SHALL NOT EXIST.....

A person can not 'join' the US involuntarily.  

Any person living in the US should really listen to this guy and give him enough time to fully digest the things he says.  

The reason I don't more publically endorse this guy is that he is slightly off his rocker in other areas.  

He refuses to touch the "jewish" issue.  Refuses.  I have tried.  

He is also in his early 80's I believe.  

It is my observation that he is not an agent by any means, but just a hard headed individual.  

Give him a try.  

I will post a link to the podcast also in "must hear".......

[targa2]

If I were working on getting to the minds of people re: law,  I would avoid the Jewish issue as well.  Not because of a lack of courage, but because it muddies the water. In political issue I make them the centre piece, because they certainly are.  However, we could lock them all up on Alcatrazz Island tomorrow and nothing in the field of law would change.( Although the going price of lawyers would go up significantly with many of them incarcerated on an island)  The Jewish influence in the field of commercial law is significant but it really was nothing more than a modification to existing civil law of the Romans.

I have a freind who is Jewish and is as much of a conspiracy nut as I am.  He knows all about the banks and the Rothschilds. He gets in to shit from his Jewish acquaintances when he tries to tell them about the banker conspiracy.  The only thing we don't agree on is Isreal and the Holocaust.  He agrees that the settlers should get out of the West Bank and that they should make Jerusalem an International Religious neutral city for the good of all. I tell him all my Jewish jokes including the ones about Hitler and he laughs harder than anyone else I tell them too. I talk to HIM about the Jewish influence in law and he will look at anything I send him.  He is very objective and does not like lawyers much.  I talked to him about the Talmud and the Lubavitch.  He thought I was probably wrong, but he actually went to a local area library in the city and sourced out the passages I gave him.  He was so freaked out by what he read, he photocopied the passages and mailed them to me for comparison. It was an interesting conversation next time we talked, to say the least.

I point this out to illustrate that I have no fear of the topic , even with a Jew, but the law message is better left to facts, than conspiracy, even if the conspiracy is true.  The law is a self replicating entity that is thousands of years old.  They are a minor player in its entire context.

If you would like some info re; Jewish influence in law I can send you some, if you don't already know it.

[ShamanSaid]

Yea, you're right in a way - when you a legal fiction known as a citizen of the corporate US ("UNITED STATES OF AMERICA") you trade in your natural God given rights of a sovereign flesh and blood. BUT no one is forcing you to operate it. So technically you can just stop operating at any time you see fit and resume your enjoyment of God given rights. However, any slight mess up on your part providing evidence to the contrary "can and will be used against you" (Eg. Fed Res notes, drivers license etc).

Also note the nuance here:
"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. "

Another (hopefully clearer) way:
"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. "

Who says you are SUBJECT to the jurisdiction thereof? Ans. you do.. doh

This is a good example of a adhesion contract, most people are clueless of these things - George Mercier's "Invisible Contracts" is an excellent book on this subject and can be found here for free:
http://www.constitution.org/mercier/incon.htm

The other thing about the 14th amendment is that section 4. where we cannot "question" the validity of our debt but that it's null and void if it's illegal. That really does need to be changed, how on earth they ever got that passed is beyond imagination - we can't even question the debt we are required to pay. This way the JEWS/Rothschilds are safe from anyone nullifying the debt since they have surreptittiously engineered our debt for the purposes of insurrection of the United States by a foreign power, how can you get at determining that without "questioning the debt" or shall I say without out some JEW operative claiming you are and thus deflecting away all scrutiny.

[Anonymous]

as far as i am aware the US consitution only applies to the federal zone known as washington dc or david's capital as they like to say. but hey i could be wrong. there has been so many statutes passed. but if i remember the UNITED STATES of AMERICA is dc, puerto rico and something else

but it all depends, i suppose

http://supremelaw.org/fedzone11/htm/chapter4.htm

[ShamanSaid]

Haha, very good! I didn't mention about that yea actually DC is like a city state unto itself if you look carefully and those citizens born there are kind of in a league of their own (with the devil I might add).

The Federal Constitution really is intended to govern the states themselves which is why some people get shocked to find a judge telling them the constitution does not apply to them, they are not party to it.

However, that said the state constitutions do in fact apply and they are with few exceptions word-for-word copies of the Federal one so it still has bearing.

[Anonymous]

if you are a "person" - no doubt

[ShamanSaid]

Hehe, no but I have one. Anyone thinking they are a person needs their head examined.. =)

[targa2]

Acts 10: 34

"Then Peter opened his mouth and said. Of a truth I perceive that God is no RESPECTER OF PERSONS."

Hmmmmmmmm  !!!

[§N9sh2bj]

It's only a piece of paper, unless a flesh and blood man claims it. More than a double-edged sword, I think. Only public officials swear to the Constitution. They can be bound by it; a flesh-and-blood man operating in his capacity as only a man, doesn't need to be; though they are bound by common law, which is so simple, the phrase 'Ignorance is no defense' rightly comes to mind. The phrase has nothing to do with memorizing millions of Statutes and Acts - 'Walmart' Company regulations.

God is no respecter of persons, yeah. The living gospel is the one of the spirit inside, outside and all around, including nature and brotherhood, of the flesh and blood man. The person's gospel, the thousands of Statutes and Acts, is just a piece of paper - at least, until a man claims it.  Sounds like a leg trap. Some of you can quote chapter and verse; not I.  And I'm not about shaving my wife's head or owning slaves either.

[targa2]

I find it interesting that some bible snippets are so exact when applied in a law context.  Seems on purpose to me.

[ShamanSaid]

I find it interesting that some bible snippets are so exact when applied in a law context.  Seems on purpose to me.

Hehe, yea that's no accident. The Bible is indeed a law book - ecclesiastical law and if you ever wondered why lawyers are so hated by most (most are goy) it's because they are the Rabbi's of yesteryear.

Before the Jews wrote down the Talmud they had an "oral tradition" and this was their law. The Rabbi's were the only ones authorized to speak the law - hence LAWYER (speaker of the law).

The legal system is largely based on Judaic / Ecclesiastical precepts.

[mobes]

Haha, very good! I didn't mention about that yea actually DC is like a city state unto itself if you look carefully and those citizens born there are kind of in a league of their own (with the devil I might add).

True. Just like the Vatican. Isn't Buckingham Palace also like that too?

Acts 10: 34

"Then Peter opened his mouth and said. Of a truth I perceive that God is no RESPECTER OF PERSONS."

Hmmmmmmmm  !!!

That makes so much sense! Why didn't I see that?

Interestingly enough, I was watching an old episode of The Simpsons and Lionel Hutz (the lawyer) said - If anything, the world needs more lawyers. Can you imagine a world without lawyers?....And in his thought bubble it showed everyone around the world singing and holding hands.....very interesting I must say......

[targa2]

The reason you didn't see it is because when we threw away religion at the behest of our masters, we mistakenly threw away the book too.

The old " baby with the bathwater trick "

[ShamanSaid]

Here is an excerpt from George Merciers' Invisible Contracts book, chapter 2 regarding citizenship: http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mercier/incon007.htm

"For convenience  it has been found necessary to give a name
to this  membership.   The object  is to  designate by  title the
person and the relation he bears to the nation.  For this purpose
the words  "subject," "inhabitant"  and "citizen" have been used,
and the  choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the
form of  the Government.   Citizen is now more commonly employed,
however, and  as it  has been  considered better  suited  to  the
description of  one living  under a Republican Government, it was
adopted by  nearly all  of the  States upon their separation from
Great Britain,  and was  afterwards adopted  in the  ARTICLES  OF
CONFEDERATION and in the Constitution of the United States.  When
used in  this sense  it is  understood as  conveying the  idea of
membership of a nation, and nothing more."

     -    MINOR v. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 161, at 166 (1874).

Here in  MINOR, the  Supreme  Court  relates  Citizenship  to  an
association; while  I have  chosen COUNTRY CLUB due to the easier
relational image  created by  voluntarily joining  an institution
that offers  special and  unique benefits  available  to  members
only.   Some of those special benefits offered are very important
to some  members (I  have many  stories to tell of business deals
and business  introductions  made  on  golf  courses),  while  to
others, the Country Club is just a nice place to be for lunch.

============================================================[507]

The  procedure  for  entering  into  a  Country  Club  Membership
contract differs  quite a  bit from  the Citizenship Contract, in
the sense  that while  trying to  join a  Country Club, you first
have to  go to  the Management,  present  credentials,  and  then
request Membership;  whereas with  the King, everyone is presumed

                                                                    3


automatically to  be Members,  and so  now you have to argue your
Case that you are not a Member.  [508]

[508]============================================================

This shift  of burden  originates with  a slice of LEX the King's
Scribes once enacted:

     "The following shall be nationals and Citizens of the United
States at birth:

     1)   A person  born in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO ITS
JURISDICTION thereof;"

     -    Title    8,     Section    1401    ["Nationality    and
          Naturalization"]

Section 1401  then continues  on with  similar hooks planted into
American  Indians,  Eskimos,  persons  born  outside  the  United
States, persons of unknown parentage, etc.  Notice the phrase AND
SUBJECT TO  ITS JURISDICTION;   not  all individuals  born in the
United States  are automatically Citizens, so not all individuals
born in  the United  States fall  under the house jurisdiction of
the King  and his  adhesive tentacles of Equity Jurisdiction.  An
Attorney General once said that:

     "... our Constitution, in speaking of NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS,
uses  no  affirmative  language  to  make  them  such,  but  only
recognizes and  reaffirms the  universal Principle, common to all
nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in
a country  do constitute  the nation,  and, as  individuals,  are
NATURAL members of the body politic.

     "If this  be a  true Principle,  and I  do not  doubt it, it
follows that  every person  born in the Country is, at the moment
of birth,  PRIMA FACIE  a Citizen;  and he who would deny it must
take  upon   himself   the   burden   of   proving   some   great
disenfranchisement strong  enough to  override the "NATURAL-BORN"
right as  recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple
and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or
other accidental circumstance.

     "That NATIVITY  furnishes the  rule, both  of  duty  and  of
right, as  between  the  individual  and  the  Government,  is  a
historical and political truth so old and so universally accepted
that it is needless to prove it by authority ...

     "In every  civilized Country,  the  individual  is  BORN  to
duties and  rights, the  duty of  allegiance  and  the  right  to
protection; and  these are  correlative obligations,  the one the
price of  the other,  and they constitute the all-sufficient bond
of union  between individual  and his Country; and the Country he
is born  in is,  PRIMA FACIE, his Country.  In most countries the
old law  was broadly  laid  down  that  this  natural  connection

                                                                    4


between the  individual and  his native country was perpetual; at
least, that  the tie  was indissoluble  by the act of the subject
alone ...

     "But that law of the perpetuity of allegiance is now changed
..."   [meaning Americans can dissolve the tie whenever they feel
like it, a severance not possible under the old Britannic rule of
Kings.]

     -    Edward  Bates,   United  States  Attorney  General,  in
          ["Citizenship"], 10  Opinions of  the Attorney  General
          382 at 394, [W.H. & O. H. Morrison, Washington (1868)].

============================================================[508]

But once  we are  beyond that  initial point of entrance into the
contract, then  nothing whatsoever  changes  in  the  contractual
rights  or  duties  involved  when  we  transfer  ourselves  from
Membership  in   a  Country   Club  setting   over  to   American
Citizenship, as contracts govern both relationships.

Earlier, I  mentioned that  the 14th  Amendment offers  invisible
benefits that Citizens have been deemed by Federal Judges to have
accepted by  their silence  (since anything  but silence  is very
consistent with  a person's wanting Citizenship), and so the 14th
Amendment then  and there  creates a  Citizenship Contract.  Yes,
there are  special benefits  to be  had from  the 14th Amendment.
[509]

[509]============================================================

"Since the  14th Amendment makes one a Citizen of the state where
ever he  resides,  the  fact  of  residence  creates  universally
recognized reciprocal  duties of  protection by  the state and of
allegiance and  support by  the Citizen.   The  latter  obviously
includes a  duty to  pay taxes,  and their  nature and measure is
largely a political matter."

     -    MILLER BROTHERS  v. MARYLAND,  347 U.S.  340,  at  345
          (1954).

============================================================[509]

So although  the 14th  Amendment creates  benefits proprietary to
Citizenship, those are not the only Citizenship benefits that you
need to  concern yourself with.  Many Tax Protestors and Patriots
are aware  of the  14th Amendment  story, and accordingly counsel
their students  to file  NOTICES OF  BREACH OF  CONTRACT and  the
like, and  other hybrid  unilateral declarations of RECESSION, in
an attempt  to remove  themselves as persons attached to the 14th
Amendment.   Those students  are then  taught, quite erroneously,
that since  the United  States derives  its taxing power from the
14th Amendment,  therefore, once  an Individual  has severed  his
relationship from  the 14th Amendment, the student no longer need

                                                                    5


concern himself  with any  federal Income  Tax liability,  or any
state tax  liability.   These folks preach the theory that MILLER
BROTHERS v. MARYLAND, [510]

[510]============================================================

347 U.S. 340, at 345 (1954).

============================================================[510]

stands for  the proposition  that States  derive their taxing and
regulatory jurisdiction from the 14th Amendment -- a particularly
stupid conclusion  to arrive at since such a statement means that
prior to  the  14th  Amendment  there  were  no  State  taxes  or
regulatory jurisdictions; and that is a factually defective point
of beginning to commence any legal analysis.  [511]

[511]============================================================

For  example,  some  states  required  that  auctioneers  possess
licenses in the early 1800's, long before the 14th Amendment ever
made  its   appearance.    Joseph  Story  mentions  this  in  III
Commentaries on  the  Constitution,  at  page  483,  ["Powers  of
Congress -  Taxes"], (Cambridge,  1833).   This little regulatory
jurisdiction existed  long before  either the Civil War or any of
the so  called Reconstruction Amendments [the 13th, 14th and 15th
Amendments] made  their appearance;  and since the States did not
need the  14th Amendment  then to enact regulatory jurisdictions,
the States  do not  need the  14th Amendment  to enact regulatory
jurisdictions, and  your relational  status to the 14th Amendment
is  irrelevant  in  determining  your  attachment  to  regulatory
jurisdictions.

[targa2]

If you watch these Winston Shrout videos intermittently as you read Merciers book it really creates a focus on the issue.

Winston Shrout (Solutions in Commerce)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2308887999

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6057565378

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6183789561

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6388439461

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9513799959

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6364258595

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2301681095

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7526006308

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7680975207

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8534846061

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2945019667

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8913913745



http://www.winstonshroutsolutionsincommerce.com/

[ShamanSaid]

Yes, thanks for that post - Winston, imo, has the best actionable information out there on these topics that I know of. Glad to see his stuff finally up on a public venue so people can learn more and how to cope / deal with it if need be.

[targa2]

With regards to the Constitution applying only to the members of the legislature etc........ google   " John Harris ".  This guy from Britain proves quite conclusively the the Magna Carta was never intended to be speaking to the common people. Only Barons.   He proves this simply by comparing the legal definitions embedded in the document itself and placing them in an overall context.  He's right as far as I can see.

video 1 of 4                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HfIOYXA ... re=related

[ShamanSaid]

Hehe, you may be right I haven't looked at it but this touches on another interesting aspect of "the law". That is that which people believe to be true generally speaking becomes it. IOW - if everyone believes it to mean something... it does.

This falls into the contracts (adhesion / implied ones especially) which is how you nullify all of them - because a contract is valid only if there is a meeting of the minds and since the definitions are all twisted generally there isn't - hence all are null and void.

[mobes]

With regards to the Constitution applying only to the members of the legislature etc.

Listen to my latest show, I address how the constitution is 'applied' when dealing with police. I know because I had a real life experience  :oops: