The Dirty Little Secret about the Fourteenth Amendment
A. THE TEXT OF SECTION 1 OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads as follows:
“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.”
B. “NO STATE SHALL” IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE UNITED STATES?
In the second sentence of Section 1 in the Fourteenth Amendment the “United States” is omitted from the prohibitive declaration “No State Shall.”
1. The Fourteenth Amendment is a tool for usurpation by the United States.
"Because the U.S. Constitution is a social compact, (a contract), between three parties, and the United States is omitted in the prohibitive declaration in the second sentence of Section 1 to the Fourteenth Amendment that second sentence is the classic example of a parent telling the child “Don’t do as I do! Do as I say!”
To illustrate that example and to expose the unconstitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment I will take the strict literal meaning of the second sentence and flip its logical meaning in reverse in order to explicitly include all three parties of the Constitution. That portion of the Fourteenth Amendment then rewritten as follows:
“The United States shall make and enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and shall deprive any person of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law and deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; but the States shall not.”
That sentence conveys the true meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment in its original grammatical meaining as ratified. To take that reverse logic further, the Petitioner alleges that the Fourteenth Amendment is the authorization for the U.S. Congress, the President, and any damn federal judge to do whatever they want and to Hell with the Constitution as the President himself has said that the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper.[FN108] Perhaps the President can even go around assassinating political dissidents! Why not? The question of whether the President can order the assassination of terrorist on U.S. soil is already being floating for public comment. It is that “slippery slope” theory of politics that is transforming our country into another third world military regime unless our Second Amendment rights are restore to their original state of constitutional, legal and social norms!
This establishes grounds proving that President Bush has a clear duty to act.
[FN 108] Chuck Baldwin, pasper, Did President Bush Really Say That?, NewsWithViews.com, December 13, 2005 http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin271.htm
Geoff Metcalf, More than a ‘Piece of Paper’! NewsWithViews.com, December 13, 2005 http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf163.htm
Doug Thompson, Bush on the Constitution: “It’s Just a Goddamned Piece of Paper” Capitol Hill Blue, December 9, 2005, http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
It has become understood that this also binds other government bodies. I may not like it, but to claim that these parts of the Constituion fail to cover parts of the government is not likely to be a winning argument.
So you believe Doug Thompson when he states that President Bush blasphemed the name of God in favor of the Patriot Act?
"“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.”
B. “NO STATE SHALL” IN THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE UNITED STATES?
In the second sentence of Section 1 in the Fourteenth Amendment the “United States” is omitted from the prohibitive declaration “No State Shall.” "
The XIVth is also the basis of the modern American corporation.
The Bill of Rights guarantees certain rights to all citizens of the United States, and constrains the federal government from denying those rights. Essentially, the 14th Amentment says that the Bill of Rights applies not only at the federal level, but with the states as well. That is the meaning of the 2nd sentence you so woefully do not understand.
The answer is because one of the purposes of the 14th Amendment was to extend the limits on the power of the Federal Gov't you find in the Bill of Rights to state govts. The fifth amendment, for example, already prevented the federal gov't from depriving anyone of life, liberty or property w/o due process.
Because the 14th Amendment was specifically enacted because it was then recognized that the Southern States had abridged the Privileges and Immunities, and deprived the lives, liberty, and property, of certain citizens - specifically black slaves.
The US was already forbidden from doing that stuff in the body of the Constitution or the 5th Amendment.
Finally, your Constitutional Law sources are absolutely horrific. Get a copy of any Constitutional Law textbook from Amazon - not "News with Views."
Prior to enactment of the 14th Amendment, it was commonly accepted that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government. The 14th Amendment clarified that "rights" cannot be usurped by the states. It did not remove the original intent or meaning of the BOR. The commonly accepted intent of the BOR of course was wrong. A "right" cannot exist with respect to one level of government, but not another. Otherwise it is a privelege or power, but certainly not a right.
The 14th Amendment did not create or take away any rights, but certainly did diminish perceived powers of the various states, and has been tremendously important in civil rights cases.
Go ahead.
Read it.
In its entirety.
Then post it to this thread.
...
Oh.
Never Mind ...
1) I hope this is just sarcasm.
2) An Amenment cannot be unconstitutional-- it is part of the Constitution.
3) Where is the 'United States'? -- In the 5th amendment. This clause of the 14th amendment is almost the exact same as that as the due process clause of the 5th amendment-- except the 5th deals with the federal government (the 'United States')(the fourteenth amendment is based on the 5th, but with "no STATE" added to extend it to the states)
If you're quoting Douggie Thompson, one can figure that your Constitutional arguments are as bogus as Douggie's sources.
the amendment was ratified on July 28, 1868. Southern states were required to ratify it in order to be readmitted into the Union .
Source: http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/USA/14Ammend.html
Hope this helps.
Because XIV was passed to empower the United States against individual States, so that a State could not pass a Black Code which would impair rights granted either by the Constitution or otherwise at the Federal level.
placeholder
"Incorporation" is the process by which rights applied against the federal government in the various Amendments constituting Bill of Rights are additionally applied against the States via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Our poster doth protest what had been called "reverse incorporation," - which is usually associated with the 1954 decision Bolling v. Sharpe - which applies the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause (and, by the same reasoning, other 14th Amendment liberties liberties) against the Federal Government.
At this point, I'm guess I'm should say that any lover of liberty is pretty happy about of the 14th Amendment, which codified the liberties for which so many died in the Civil War. The Constitution would be deficient without it.
Madison and Hamilton both argued in the Federalist Papers against a BoR, stating that it was unnecessary as the federal government only possesed the enumerated powers. The Supreme Court held in Barron v. Mayor & City Of Baltimore that the BoR did NOT apply to the states.
That is a simple question to answer. It was directed at the racist terrorists attacking Freedmen in the South in order to deprive them of the rights of citizens.
If you are unaware of the realities of the time you had best educate yourself before wasting our time with this crap.