A Dummies Guide to Understanding the Fourteenth Amendment (vital reading)

Does the Fourteenth Amendment make the entire Bill of Rights a restriction against the States? If so, which amendments or clauses? What did both "due process of the law" and "equal protection" mean to the Congress who produced the Amendment? Does the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee State paid education to aliens? [snip]

I hope everyone reads this because for me it was the most important reading of the year. One of the most wonderful discoveries you will find from reading is where equal protection of the laws came from and how it was defined to mean by the author of the 14th. Hint: It means just the opposite of the modern twisted view of it!! Enjoy and learn what the 14th really means by the man who wrote it!

Arguments against incorportation of the BOR always give me a chuckle. Really now, wouldn't you just love to live in a country where your state could forbid you to speak out about it's government, deny you a fair trial, search your home every day, deny you freedom of movement, prevent you from defending yourself, force you to practice a religion other than your own...shall I go on?

The BOR is nothing more than a worthless piece of paper if the concept of inalienable rights is only applicable on the federal level.

Awwww I just love these kind of arguements: Can you trust a law abiding citizen with a gun? Should gun possession only belong with the federal govt. because a private law abiding citizen might want to misuse a gun? Same thing with this lame state argument: States can't be trusted, only federal govt. can be with inalienable rights. Just what inalienable rights are found in the BOR's given to the individule? Answer: right to due process of law before their life, liberty or property can be taken....along with right to bear arms. All other inalienable rights belong to the citizens of the State to define, guard and protect.

Well, thanks at least for admitting you believe that any rights you possess are granted to you. That which can be given, can be taken away. Just ask any black person living in the south during Jim Crow.

The anti-incorporation stance just isn't well thought out. As we can see, you didn't even address my point that without PROTECTION of rights, state governments can do whatever they want. It would be a true democracy with the dumb mob deciding which rights they want the minority to exercise. You believe that rights are given by a benevolent government. I believe rights are PROTECTED by a government that is anything but benevolent. Those rights exist despite government, certainly not because of it.

we can see, you didn't even address my point that without PROTECTION of rights, state governments can do whatever they want.

That is by design, federal govt was never given powers over such concern of individule rights. Only protective powers given to the federal govt was to protect against foreign invasion, protect copyrights, inventions. James Madison: "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects, which concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people." How clear can it be? John Bingham believed the same thing and that is why he did not attempt to change the constituion otherwise.

From the article:

"Citizenship Clause

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.

The Citizenship Clause did not originate from John Bingham but was inserted while the bill was under consideration in the Senate by Sen. Jacob Howard. The clause itself is straightforward and came with ample documentary construction over how "subject to the jurisdiction" was to be construed. Sen. Howard introduced the clause this way:

This [Citizenship Clause] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Of course the only other class of persons left that can be considered is US Citizens. Sen. Howard later confirms just this when he said the Citizenship Clause "ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."

Essentially then, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" was not used in any sense of geographical location -- but in the full sense of allegiance.

Supreme Court rulings that followed after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment confirms the adopted understanding of the Citizenship Clause beginning with the Slaughterhouse Cases in 1873 where the court held that the Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens.

Jumping to 1884, the court in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical location. This is confirmed by the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment and the definition used by the Senate.

Everyone needs to read and comprehend the significance of this information.

Does anyone have a current list of email addresses?

Easy Does It

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.